Hi, guys.
The nice folks at the Leuthold Group share a copy of Perception for the Professional, their research publication for paying clients, with me each month. About 60 pages of data analyses and reports. Jun Zhu this month wrote "Dividend Paying Strategies -- Which is Best?" and the findings are interesting.
Zhu notes that dividend-oriented strategies have been exceedingly popular, though many now fret that those stocks have been badly bid up. There's also a fear that dividend paying stocks lag when interest rates are rising. That turns out to be true, but not an investable insight: rate rising cycles tend to be triggered with little warning and last an average of nine months.
Even allowing for a lag during the 20% of months in which rates have risen, the strategy works well over time. Zhu writes "In the falling rate and neutral months, dividend paying stocks outperformed non-dividend paying stocks by a large margin. Regardless of interest rate changes, from 1927 to 2013, dividend paying stocks were the winner."
Zhu argues that there are at least four distinct dividend oriented (or dividend-oriented? Drmoran notes that I over-hyphenate. Overhyphenate? Over hyphenate?) strategies that manifest themselves in funds and ETFs. They are:
1. broad focus on dividend-paying stocks, which typically imposes simple size and liquidity requirements, then invests in dividend paying stocks.
2. high dividend-yield, which targets the highest-yielding stocks.
3. dividend growth, which requires consistent increases in payouts over 5-10 years.
4. quality dividends, which adds screens for the quality of the firm's financial strength and management. Those might include debt load, return on equity, earnings stability and dividend coverage ratios.
Leuthold tested those strategies by looking at the performance of dividend oriented ETFs from 1989 - 2014. They admit that few of the ETFs represent pure instances on one strategy of another, but most are strongly aligned with one of them.
They found (1) the dividend strategies as a group substantially outperformed the S&P500 (12.2% annually versus 9.0%) with lower volatility (4.2% S.D. versus 4.3%), (2) that "companies which have raised dividends for 10 consecutive years are actualy the worst performers" and (3) the quality dividend strategy blew away the competition on returns without incurring heightened volatility.
Quality dividend ETFs returned 14% annually with 4.1% S.D. The other three strategies clustered between 10.9% - 12.2% returns with S.D.s of 4.0 - 4.5%.
Charles might be the one to ponder about the mutual fund implications of the research, since fund managers add the overlap of relative value and absolute value orientations. As I think about the funds we've profiled, Guinness Atkinson Inflation Managed Dividend (GAINX) strikes me as a quality dividend / relative value bunch while Beck, Mack and Oliver Partners (BMPEX) would qualify as quality dividend / absolute value.
Leuthold's list of "quality" ETFs includes:
Schwab US Dividend Equity (SCHD)
iShares High Dividend Equity (HDV)
FlexShares Quality Dividend Index (QDF)
First Trust Value Line Dividend (FVD)
WisdomTree US Dividend Growth (DGRW)
FlexShares Quality Dividend Dynamic Index (QDYN, with the note this is a higher beta product)
FlexShares Quality Dividend Defensive Index (QDEF, lower beta).
For what interest it holds,
David

Quoting: "Isn't Ukraine a risky bet, even for you?
This isn't much different than others. During the financial crisis, Lithuania ran into short-term solvency challenges because it couldn't access capital markets. We were the largest investors providing them short-term liquidity. Now, Lithuania is issuing debt with very low yields, and no one even talks about it. That took about four years. Hungary also took about two to three years to pay off. We may need to be patient. It may be three years before some of these factors can move in a positive direction in Ukraine."
.....I note that my PREMX still holds debt from The Ukraine among its top 5 positions--- but just 1.51% of total AUM. (Fund Manager is Michael Cornelius.) And the last time there was a change to the portfolio reported, PREMX had reduced its Ukrainian position.
http://portfolios.morningstar.com/fund/holdings?t=PREMX&region=usa&culture=en-US
(More from the Hassenstab thing:) "Everyone is focused on the shortage of capital globally as the Fed tapers. But they are ignoring what the BOJ is doing, which will more than offset that. They're getting the call wrong by being bearish on all emerging markets.
What does that extra money mean for emerging markets?
In 2013, the divergence in performance between the best and worst emerging market was more than 40 percentage points. We have always carefully picked countries with strong fundamentals and where we felt appropriate policy decisions were being made. Even though everyone has turned bullish recently, we would be cautious on more vulnerable places like Turkey."

FYI: Copy & Paste 6/7/14: Beverly Goodman; Barron's
Regards,
Ted
Last week, Brian Rogers, the longtime and highly successful manager of T. Rowe Price Equity Income (ticker: PRFDX), announced that he'll be stepping down in October 2015, on his 30th anniversary. He'll remain the firm's chairman and chief investment officer.
Just to reiterate: He'll relinquish his money management duties only, 16 months from now. "About half the people I've spoken to thought I just got fired, and about 30% thought I was leaving this fall," Rogers says with a chuckle.
But really, that kind of notice is what we should expect, especially on such high-profile funds as the $30 billion Equity Income, which gained 11.3% annualized from its 1985 inception through May, according to Morningstar, narrowly besting the S&P 500 and the Russell 1000 Value, but with much less volatility. "It reassures investors when there's a good succession plan in place," says Morningstar analyst Katie Reichart.
Rogers is reducing his responsibilities for personal reasons. "Around the holidays, I was reflecting on the fact that in 2015 I'll have been managing the fund for 30 years, and that I'd also be turning 60," Rogers says. "And in the very back of my mind was Jack Laporte." Laporte had been with the firm since 1976 and managed T. Rowe Price New Horizons (PRNHX), the small-company growth fund that quintupled in size under his 22 years of management. He retired at the end of 2012, and died in August 2013. He was 68.
John Linehan, 49, will replace Rogers on Equity Income -- but not just yet. "The next 12 months will look a lot like the last 12 months," Rogers says. Linehan, who ran T. Rowe Price Value (TRVLX) from 2003 to 2009 with much success, has been on the advisory council for Equity Income since 1999, and co-manages a separate account with Rogers. The two already talk daily, Rogers says, and the fund won't look very different under his management. In the meantime, Linehan will "spend a fair amount of time getting to know our [institutional] clients," Rogers says.
MANAGER CHANGES AREN'T necessarily good or bad, but they do need to be handled thoughtfully and transparently. It wasn't much of a surprise when legendary investor Bill Miller announced he was scaling back in the midst of a disastrous performance in 2010, after more than 15 years of outstanding returns. Sam Peters was named co-manager of what was then Legg Mason Value Trust; it has since been rebranded as ClearBridge Value (LMVTX). "Bill started talking to me at least a year before," Peters says. "When I was named co-manager, it was a real 'co-'; we both had veto power right away." The fund was in need of a breath of fresh air (assets had fallen to $4 billion from a peak of $21 billion in 2007), and Peters helped make some pretty big changes, such as opting for bigger companies and fewer names in the portfolio, and increasing allocation to the health-care sector and decreasing its stake in financial companies. The fund's active share, a measure of how much a manager deviates from the benchmark, rose from 60% to 80%. "We were very deliberate in not surprising people," Peters says. "A lot of our clients already knew me, and I got to know the others." He also had to field questions as to how he'd differ from the legendary Miller—some wanted big changes, others didn't. "We wanted people to know there would definitely be some change, but nothing dramatic." Peters became sole manager in May 2012; in 2013 the fund beat 92% of its peers.
NOT ALL HIGH-PROFILE FUNDS telegraph their changes so effectively. Fidelity Magellan (FMAGX) still seems to be reeling from Peter Lynch's departure in 1990. Lynch's successor, Morris Smith, lasted just two years. Bob Stansky, whose nine-year tenure is the longest since Lynch, presided over the fund's rise to peak assets of more than $100 billion in the late '90s, and its fall to $52 billion by the time he left in 2005. Harry Lange also struggled with performance and outflows. Current manager Jeff Feingold has improved performance in his less than three years on the job; Magellan now has $16 billion in assets. "If someone's not performing, Fidelity isn't shy about removing them," Reichart says.
Brian Hogan, president of Fidelity's equity group, which oversees $750 billion, points to the planning around the firm's most impressive funds: Will Danoff's $108 billion Fidelity Contrafund (FCNTX) and Joel Tillinghast's $47 billion Fidelity Low-Priced Stock (FLPSX). "We have surrounded Joel and Will with like-minded individuals," Hogan says. Danoff just hand-picked John Roth, manager of Fidelity New Millenium (FMILX) to co-manage Danoff's smaller fund, the $27 billion Fidelity Advisor New Insights (FNIAX); Roth is widely thought to be Danoff's eventual successor on Contra. Tillinghast took a three-month sabbatical in 2011, and the team created to manage in his absence then is still in place. Neither is likely to leave soon.
The average tenure of a T. Rowe manager is 10 years, compared to the industry average of five, but the firm has lost some impressive talent recently, including Kris Jenner, who took others from his team at T. Rowe Price Health Sciences (PRHSX) to start a hedge fund in 2013. Two other top managers -- Joe Milano and Rob Bartolo -- left the company, and the mutual fund business, soon after. "There were a handful of departures we weren't happy with," Rogers acknowledges. "But if you're going to do what they did, doing it in your 40s makes sense."

What does this mean for bond investors?
It changes the countries and sectors that benefit from China's growth. In the past, countries like Australia benefitted from selling iron ore and coal to China. Increasingly, countries like Korea, selling cars and cellphones, or Malaysia, selling palm oil for food products, will benefit. That's good news for these countries' economies. Korea is our second-biggest country allocation in the global bond fund. Korea's economy is benefiting as companies are competing on the quality of their products, not price. For example, companies like Samsung and Hyundai have been able to grab market share with their products, so the strength of their currency versus competing companies in countries like Japan matters less. The economy will likely grow at 3.5% to 4%.
So people will buy "made in Korea" products because they're good, not because they're cheap. How else does Korea differ from some other emerging markets?
While some emerging markets have been hit by the Fed tapering and a possible shortage of global liquidity that could make it harder for them to finance deficits, Korea has never relied on that global liquidity. It has a record current-account surplus, which means it is exporting more than it imports. It also has very little government debt.
What attracted you to Ukraine?
It is actually a very rich country with an educated population, incredible agricultural wealth, and a manufacturing base that, with investment, could improve. There is long-term potential. The good news is it started this crisis with very solvent debt conditions—only 40% debt to GDP. That's important because it indicates a country's ability to pay back debt. [The European Union average debt/GDP was 87%.] It's been a question of accessing global capital and liquidity.
How is Ukraine handling the crisis?
A crisis is a horrible thing to waste, and Ukraine didn't waste it. The urgency let a long list of structural reforms pass that had previously run into opposition. They signed a good package with the International Monetary Fund, which unlocked other potential international assistance; now they have ample liquidity. It is also moving toward a flexible exchange rate rather than one that is pegged. That should weaken the currency, making exports more competitive, which will help its balance of what it imports versus exports. Ukraine is also freezing public wages and hiring to cut costs and reforming the way it awards government contracts to tackle corruption.
What about the political crisis?
Hopefully it can engineer changes that move Ukraine away from the tug of war—like moving away from NATO membership and giving some of its Russian-speaking states more autonomy in a decentralized, federalist system. The economy is highly integrated with those of Europe and Russia, so it's in Ukraine's best interest to deepen both relationships and, therefore, decide against joining NATO. That would allow Russia to move away from intervention, and Ukraine can then live up to its full economic potential. The high voter turnout for Petro Poroshenko [voted president-elect last month] gives him a solid mandate.
Isn't Ukraine a risky bet, even for you?
This isn't much different than others. During the financial crisis, Lithuania ran into short-term solvency challenges because it couldn't access capital markets. We were the largest investors providing them short-term liquidity. Now, Lithuania is issuing debt with very low yields, and no one even talks about it. That took about four years. Hungary also took about two to three years to pay off. We may need to be patient. It may be three years before some of these factors can move in a positive direction in Ukraine.
Let's talk about currencies. What's attractive?
We've been adding the Mexican peso. There's a lot of fear that if U.S. growth improves and interest rates go up, it's bad for Mexico. But our argument is that it's great, because Mexico has taken over the world in terms of manufacturing. Remittance flow is also highly tied to the U.S. economy.
While the Federal Reserve is finishing up its bond-buying, Japan is just beginning. What is your view of Prime Minister Shinzo Abe's reform stimulus efforts, or Abenomics?
Quantitative easing is a core part of Abenomics. It is easier to execute and the only part that has really taken hold. As long as Abe is popular, he'll rely on QE heavily. Japan has high debt levels—200% debt to GDP and an 8% fiscal deficit. In the past, Japan could fund its deficits domestically from the savings of the private sector. Now, that is no longer enough, and the government has to borrow more money from the central bank, which is printing money.
What does that mean for investors?
The yen will continue to weaken because of the BOJ money-printing, which is why we are long dollars and short yen. Capital will continue to flow abroad—anecdotally, it is already moving from Japan into Southeast Asia and Latin America.
Will the BOJ's bond-buying mitigate the effect of the Fed's tapering?
Everyone is focused on the shortage of capital globally as the Fed tapers. But they are ignoring what the BOJ is doing, which will more than offset that. They're getting the call wrong by being bearish on all emerging markets.
What does that extra money mean for emerging markets?
In 2013, the divergence in performance between the best and worst emerging market was more than 40 percentage points. We have always carefully picked countries with strong fundamentals and where we felt appropriate policy decisions were being made. Even though everyone has turned bullish recently, we would be cautious on more vulnerable places like Turkey.
What gives you the comfort to pull the trigger on an investment?
It's the feeling in the pit of your stomach when you are questioning yourself and everyone else thinks you are wrong. If we are confident in the fundamentals and the team has ripped it apart, that's usually a good check that we are doing the right thing. If it's really easy and everyone is in agreement, it's probably not.

FYI: Cope & Paste 6/7/14: Reshma Kcpadia
Regards,
Ted
It has been a confusing year for bond investors. The one thing everyone agreed on—that bond prices would fall as investors moved into stocks—turned out to be not, in fact, what happened. Concerns about China's economic slowdown, and the strength of the U.S. recovery, along with geopolitical tension between Russia and Ukraine, have caused investors to flock to the security of U.S. government bonds.
But Michael Hasenstab, who oversees $185 billion as chief investment officer for Franklin Templeton's global bond team, isn't much for knee-jerk security. In the funds he helps run—including the $71 billion Templeton Global Bond (ticker: TPINX), focused on sovereign debt; the $8.6 billion Templeton Global Total Return (TGTRX), which can invest in all kinds of bonds; and the $1 billion closed-end Templeton Global Income Common (GIM)—he has eschewed U.S. government debt for five years.
Hasenstab, 40, has been part of Templeton's bond team since 1995 (except for a short break to finish his doctorate and dissertation on China's financial markets at Australian National University), and took the helm at Global Bond in 2001. He's a true contrarian, buying bonds that most investors are fleeing. Case in point: Hasenstab has become one of the largest holders of Ukraine's debt, though it makes up less than 5% of Templeton's global bond funds' assets.
"Slivers of [China's] banking system are toxic...but it's unlikely we'll see a systemic collapse." -- Michael Hasenstab Photo: Jordan Hollender for Barron's
Over the past decade, Global Bond has returned an average of 9% a year, topping Morningstar's world bond category. But this year has been trickier, and the fund is at the bottom of its category. Hasenstab expects bond-market volatility to rise as central-bank policies around the world part ways after years of being largely in sync. Just this week, the European Central Bank moved into new territory, pushing interest rates below zero to ward off ultralow inflation and protect its fragile economy. That runs counter to the Federal Reserve, which has been winding down its bond-buying, and is expected to raise rates next year. The emerging markets, too, face widely disparate growth prospects—and policies.
Despite all this, Hasenstab warns against being too cautious, saying that bond investors need to invest globally, especially as rates rise over the long term. But he picks his spots carefully—in terms of geography and type of investment. Barron's caught up with Hasenstab by phone at his San Mateo, Calif., office, in between overseas trips.
Barron's: What is the outlook for the bond market?
Hasenstab: We are not expecting a blowup, but yields will rise as the Fed stops buying bonds. Higher yields are also more consistent with economic growth of 3% and inflation of 2% over the medium term. That means core U.S. bond yields will produce negative returns. That's why it's necessary to go global, and be unconstrained by a benchmark.
Where are the biggest opportunities?
Asia outside Japan looks reasonably strong, including Malaysia and Korea. In Europe, Poland and Hungary are benefiting from improving German exports [for which they provide services]. Credit has remained favorable, given their low levels of debt and stronger growth rates, and many have higher short-term rates and undervalued currencies.
What does the European Central Bank's interest-rate cut last week mean for the bond market?
It's in line with our view that global liquidity will remain abundant as the ECB and Bank of Japan continue to print money, even as the Fed tapers. As a result, periodic panic in markets surrounding Fed policy is overstated.
Global Total Return invests in more than sovereign debt. What else do you own in that fund?
With default rates low, companies refinancing, and U.S. growth improving, high-yield U.S. corporate debt is in the sweet spot. It's not as cheap as a couple years ago, but you can get a higher yield, and fundamentals are still good.
Where is the biggest disconnect between your view on the ground and what the market expects?
China. There is an investment slowdown, but it's part of an intentional reform agenda by the government. What's not being talked about is the good investment China is making as it moves tens of millions [of people] from rural areas to cities, requiring large investments in subways, schools, and sewage systems. Investment will be half of what it was in the past, but better quality. That, plus increased consumption, paint a reasonable picture for China's economy. But the market is looking at economic indicators like industrial-production data that have been falling.
China's banking system also worries some investors, especially its "shadow banks," which provide financing outside the regular system, with limited oversight.
Slivers of the banking system are toxic. We'll see some headlines that aren't great, but it's unlikely we'll see a systemic collapse of the Chinese banking system. Some of the wealth-management products that are speculative and unregulated were ill-conceived and should probably go bust. Bigger banks should absorb some third-tier banks.
That all sounds pretty bad.
Shadow banking is small, compared with the whole system. For example, the Bank for International Settlements [a clearinghouse for central banks] estimated shadow banking to be 5% of gross domestic product, compared with 150% in the European Union. China has $4 trillion in reserves and is growing at 7%. They can absorb nonperforming loans. It's when your economy is not growing that you run into problems.
How sustainable is that 7% growth?
It's attainable in the next one to two years because of the Chinese consumer—they are earning more and spending more. Wage costs have been on a double-digit growth path. Bike, car, and TV sales have gone up, and that spending anchors economic growth. Of that 7% economic growth, five percentage points could come from consumption.

"....also be a perception that MFO seems to be primarily a site for "insiders"?"
OJ

Great post and I agree with all of it.
In terms of the above, I was thinking the other day that this discussion forum seems like a "club". As nice as that is, I think the reality is that it takes effort and cost to maintain. That effort and cost for what is effectively a "little club" - it becomes whether or not David wants to continue it. I don't want to put words in David's mouth, but I think this website could just be David's writings and it would be cheaper and easier to maintain. The fact that the forum is here is a really nice thing that David has chosen to continue.
I'm disappointed that some people who have posted here consistently seem to have gone, both a while ago and more recently (Max hasn't posted lately as an example.) The unfortunate thing is that I know some people have left, but I think reading this thread, I really started to realize how many former regulars haven't posted in a while. I'm not going to go into a whole thing about the links, but, lets think about it in a different way: if you took away the links in recent months, how many posts are left?
I do think that if the forum were to expand (new regulars and hopefully some of the old regulars returning), it would potentially benefit MFO as a whole. The board could be a pretty remarkable discussion forum that could attract more in the way of professionals in the industry. But, for that to happen, I really think that the issues that you mention have to be addressed and probably have to be reasonably soon.
Thank you for your compliments (steppinrazor. too.) I like sharing my thoughts on the board and people are welcome to take them as they may. There's a lot of posters who I come here to get information from, as well - such as BobC and fundalarm, given their perspective from being in the financial industry - and others, too.

Checking Accounts
Checking accounts often offer the least bang for your buck.
At the end of March, depositors held $1.1 trillion in checking accounts that paid no interest, up 17% from a year earlier, according to Moebs. Yields also are declining on many checking accounts that do pay interest.
In addition, depositors are paying higher fees on checking accounts. This year, 41% of financial institutions, including banks and credit unions, don't offer free checking without imposing conditions, the highest proportion since 2002, according to a Moebs survey.
Many institutions charge monthly service fees, which typically range from $3 to $15 and can quickly eat into any interest on the account.
But there are some banks that offer checking accounts that pay relatively high yields and don't charge a monthly fee.
As with savings accounts, consider looking online. First National Bank of Omaha, in Nebraska, has an online unit, fnbodirect.com, that pays 0.65% annually on its checking account on balances up to $1 million. This is among the highest-yielding checking accounts available nationwide that doesn't charge a monthly fee or require savers to meet restrictive conditions, according to DepositAccounts.com.
Ally Bank, a unit of Detroit-based Ally Financial, ALLY +0.38% offers 0.60% if you maintain a balance of at least $15,000. There is no monthly fee.
Even checking accounts that carry no monthly service fee can cost a bundle in other charges, such as for overdrawing or withdrawing funds from automated teller machines outside the bank's network. Most institutions include a list of checking-account fees on their sites.
Many community banks and credit unions offer higher-yielding checking accounts, but they often come with catches. Account holders may need to arrange for a regular direct deposit of funds or use a debit card linked to an account a certain number of times each month.
In most cases, consumers also must live or work in the area the institution serves.
For example, Lake Michigan Credit Union, based in Grand Rapids, Mich., offers one of the highest-yielding checking accounts in the country, at 3% on up to $15,000. But the yield is only available to members, who generally must live, work, study or worship in Michigan's Lower Peninsula, and their families. People who don't meet the criteria can become members if they donate to a local charity.
Certificates of Deposit
Banks are trying to make certificates of deposit a better deal. They aren't always succeeding.
Traditional CDs have rigid terms, paying a fixed yield to depositors who agree to lock up their money for a certain term, and charging for early withdrawal.
The problem is that fewer depositors are willing to strike that deal with interest rates at historic lows, for fear the Federal Reserve could push rates higher and leave them stuck with the lower yield, says Mr. Geller of Market Rates Insight.
Longer-term CDs in particular have fallen out of favor, he says. The amount of money socked away in CDs with maturities of more than three years fell to $157 billion by the end of March, down 8% from a year prior, according to Market Rates Insight.
Some banks are offering CDs with yields that can change before maturity. Ally Bank and CIT Bank, for example, offer CDs with yields that rise if the banks start offering a higher interest rate.
Such deals may sound appealing, but savers should be cautious. If a bank doesn't increase its interest rate, or if the interest-rate index an account is pegged to doesn't rise, savers are stuck. If interest rates decline, however, the yield won't.
In some cases, you can get more favorable terms with a traditional CD.
Minneapolis-based U.S. Bancorp, USB +0.92% for example, pays 0.40% on a 30-month CD whose yield can rise before maturity. But savers can earn more with a one-year plain-vanilla CD from GE Capital Bank, another GE unit, which pays 1.10%, a two-year CD from Salem Five Direct that pays 1.25% or a three-year CD that pays 1.45% from SLM Corp. SLM +1.02% , the Newark, Del.-based student lender known as Sallie Mae, which also offers bank accounts.
You also could get a better deal from a traditional long-term CD that charges a relatively low penalty for early withdrawal, says Richard Barrington, senior financial analyst at MoneyRates.com, which compares bank-account terms.
Consider this example: A saver who deposited $100,000 into a one-year CD with a 1.1% yield—the highest available nationally for deposits of that size, according to DepositAccounts.com—would collect $1,100 in interest at maturity. Both Synchrony Bank and EverBank offer that yield.
By comparison, CIT Bank and Synchrony Bank offer five-year CDs with 2.3% annual yields. If you deposited $100,000 into Synchrony's CD and kept it there for 13 months before withdrawing the money, you would collect $1,156 in interest, even after paying a penalty of six months' interest.
Prepaid Cards
Many consumers associate prepaid cards with spending. But they also can help you earn more money on your cash, if you have the time to find a good deal and use the cards wisely.
Prepaid cards offer consumers the convenience of loading funds onto a card that they later can use to get cash from an ATM or to pay for goods at a store.
Several prepaid cards also come with a perk: Cardholders can earn upwards of 5% on cash stored on the cards.
For example, Mango Financial, a prepaid-card issuer and subsidiary of Rêv Worldwide, based in Austin, Texas, offers a 6% yield to cardholders on up to $5,000. Prepaid cards provided by NetSpend, a unit of Total System Services, TSS +1.17% a card-processing company based in Columbus, Ga., can be linked to savings accounts that pay 5% on balances up to the same limit.
These companies aren't banks, but funds loaded onto the cards are covered by FDIC insurance, like most regular bank accounts.
Use caution: Many prepaid cards charge monthly service fees, which typically range from $5 to $10 a month and which can quickly erode the benefit of higher interest payments.
But it is possible to avoid fees in some cases, which can make the yields on prepaid cards appealing, says Odysseas Papadimitriou, chief executive at WalletHub.com, a bank-account comparison site.
NetSpend offers one prepaid card that has no monthly fee but charges cardholders for most transactions. However, cardholders can avoid the fee by not shopping with the card.
In most cases, cardholders must pay a separate fee to access the funds through an ATM, often at least $2 to $2.50 per withdrawal.
Some firms also impose other conditions. Mango Financial, for example, requires a direct deposit into the savings account each month or the yield drops to 2%. The company also charges $3 a month, which can't be waived.
Still, the deals can be worthwhile. Assuming one ATM fee to withdraw the entire amount, account holders who add $500 to their card each month for 10 months and don't spend it can collect $106.07 in interest on a Mango account.
By contrast, the interest on that same amount held in a savings account yielding the average 0.08% would be $1.84.

The biggest of all!
(Reuters) - As Alibaba prepares for what could be the biggest tech company IPO to date, the Chinese e-commerce giant has been counseling employees on how to deal with the roughly $41 billion they could unlock through a New York listing.
While some staffers have inquired if premium brand BMW (BMWG.DE) sells cars in Alibaba's corporate orange, others may invest windfall stock gains in property in North America or channel funds back into start-up ventures in China, hoping to build future Alibabas, bankers and financial planners say.
Current and former Alibaba employees hold 26.7 percent of the company, having built up their holdings through stock options and other incentives awarded since 1999, according to securities filings, though these didn't detail the number of employee shareholders.
The IPO windfall - Alibaba could be worth $152 billion, according to the average from a Reuters survey of 25 analysts - will be larger than anything China has seen because of the depth of the group's employee ownership and the size of the company.
HOW TO SPEND IT
As happened after Facebook Inc's (FB.O) IPO in 2012, the new Alibaba millionaires are seen driving up demand for luxury cars and apartments, giving a boost to the economy of China's eastern city of Hangzhou, where the company is based.
But the Chinese government's austerity campaign is likely to keep a lid on too much ostentatious spending, and because the stock listing will be in the United States most of the money employees receive from eventual stake sales would likely be kept offshore rather than flow back to Alibaba's Chinese base.
"Check real estate in Vancouver, not so much Ferraris and real estate in China," said a person closely involved with the IPO who was not authorized to speak publicly on the issue.
Hangzhou is in a part of China already known as a hotbed for entrepreneurship. As of last year, the city had more than 560 multi-millionaires and in a decade is expected to rival Los Angeles in the number of so-called ultra high net worth individuals, according to property consultant Knight Frank.
Alibaba's biggest single shareholder, with a 34.4 percent stake, is Japanese telecoms firm SoftBank Corp (9984.T), followed by U.S. internet group Yahoo Inc (YHOO.O), with 22.6 percent. Other large shareholders include Silver Lake, DST Global and Singapore state investor Temasek [TEM.UL].
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/06/05/us-alibaba-group-millionaires-idUSKBN0EF29W20140605?feedType=RSS&feedName=businessNews
Other China News
Environmental Initiatives Continue in China
China’s Middle Class Develops a Greater Taste for Foreign Goods
UGHHH ?
China Internet Fosters Free Speech In an open recognition of free speech, China news agency Xinhua has
cited a government report that China’s internet has become a forum
for free speech in the country.
Baidu Expands in Google’s Backyard
http://kraneshares.com/resources/kraneshares_capitalvue_may27.pdf?utm_source=KraneShares+Weekly+-+General&utm_campaign=83e990e7f5-KraneShares_Weekly_Email10_17_2013&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_6d32ba24ce-83e990e7f5-27509461
Winners and Losers in the U.S.-China Solar-panel War
June 4, 2014, 1:15 PM ET by Claudia Assis ,Energy Ticker
The U.S. government’s decision to impose new, steep anti-subsidy tariffs on Chinese solar panels roiled solar stocks on Wednesday — and it will have wide-ranging implications for consumers and companies just as cheap and plentiful solar products from China have fueled the boom in rooftop solar-power systems.
For a start, there’s no denying that solar modules will become more expensive, and in fairly short order. Who will pay for that increase, however, is unclear. The solar-panel makers affected could absorb some of the costs, or move some of their production out of China. Buyers could switch manufacturers, seeking those not affected by the ruling.
The Solar Energy Industries Association called the tariffs “damaging” for U.S. consumers, and said they will slow the adoption of solar power in the U.S.
The U.S. imposed duties of up to 36% on Chinese solar products in 2012 after concluding the companies had received unfair subsidies from the Chinese government and sold products in the U.S. market below cost, but the duties didn’t include solar panels made with solar cells assembled in other countries.
The Commerce Department set up preliminary duties between 18.56% to $35.21% late Tuesday, but don’t let “preliminary” fool you — tariffs will be collected right away.
China’s Ministry of Commerce said it is “strongly dissatisfied” with Tuesday’s decision. The move “is an abuse of trade remedies, has an obvious hint of trade protectionism and will inevitably lead to the escalation of trade disputes between China and the U.S.,” the ministry said in a statement on its website, according to The Wall Street Journal.
http://blogs.marketwatch.com/energy-ticker/2014/06/04/winners-and-losers-in-the-u-s-china-solar-panel-war/?mod=WSJBlog
Either Sunshine Or Thunderstorms
For investors, solar stocks seem to whipsaw on any bit of good or bad news. TSL jumped 31% of its earnings beat, only to fall by the wayside over the next few days. Given just how quickly they move from profits to losses, quarter-to-quarter doesn’t necessarily place them firmly in the “investment” camp.
To that end, the best way to play solar stocks is still the previously mentioned TAN ETF or its rival Market Vectors Solar Energy ETF (KWT[12]). Both offer a broad way to play the entire solar spectrum. And given just how varied the earnings and guidance reports have been, that’s probably the best choice for investors at this point. The good should even out the bad.
The bottom line: Don’t get too excited over the recent gains in solar stock world; there still could be plenty of clouds ahead. A variety of factors will continue to pull the sector in both directions.
http://investorplace.com/2014/06/solar-stocks-fslr-tsl-tan/print

Seems there is a cman financial that does post on facebook ...
Check it out ... as I have linked it below.
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Cman-Investments/156859291015222
Now, I womder if his compliance department, if there is one, told him he had to quit posting on MFO?
Old_Skeet

Howdy, MJG
Yes, I’m still breathing well, thank you very much, and I’m glad to
hear that you’re doing the same.
“So I have moved-on; apparently you did not. You have nursed this
sour milk for a long time. You should have expressed your displeasure
with my postings at the time. They could have been resolved. Doing so now,
smacks from piling-on.”
Boy, you do love the straw dog approach/attack… as you did with cman
when you inferred that he might be “a salesman of financial services”.
Boy, we all hate those folks… and he just might be one of them!
Until I read your Character Assassination post, I had forgotten about
our discussions. But your post brought it back.
“If someone on MFO claimed to have long-term, double digit annual
excess (Alpha) compound returns, I would likely challenge that declaration.
Under those unlikely and unusual circumstances, I just might ask for some
verifiable evidence. I surely don’t remember if those were the circumstances
at the time of our disagreement.”
Actually, Charles researched my LT market strategy and provided this -
http://www.mutualfundobserver.com/2013/06/timing-method-performance-over-ten-decades/
I remember that you read this because you responded to him questioning
one or more of his metrics. But I found interesting that you did not comment
on the results of his study; namely the market beating returns.
Additionally, selling short during major market downturns has augmented
my LT returns. And I never claimed to have double digit ANNUAL returns.
There have been several years during downturns when I had less than
double digit results.
I know that you and I have much in common. Our market returns are no match
for our desire to give investment guidance where we can. We have both given
of our time and energy to aid other investors and we’ll continue to do so.
Truly Best Wishes,
AKAFlack

It's a Mutual Fund board. Mutual Funds. What's at stake here? Information, guidance, help with financial decision-making....
I am less than happy with the responses I get regarding money and ethics when I can't help but to mention it, or I join a conversation ("thread") in which it has been mentioned. In fact, maybe I'm the ONLY one to mention it. Mostly, in response, I get: "don't go mixing those two--- money and ethics." It makes me wonder what color the sky is on those planets where everyone else comes from.
But in the end, at the start, and in the middle, this is a Mutual fund board. We're here to help each other with that. Not many of us have met in person. I myself trust that we are all trustworthy and with good intentions, despite never having met in person.
I have "friends" on Facebook. There are all manner of remarks and bullshit that I see there, too. I can choose to simply flip the switch and turn them off, if their input is too distasteful and ridiculous.
I do not believe that any of us are going to change each others' convictions or approach to Reality (or even Mutual Funds.) Such deep-seated changes, I am convinced, are a very rare occurrence. Something remarkable and surprising must come along, to cause such transformations. Getting rid of our biases and assumptions is of course good and necessary, but very difficult to do--- whether re: mutual funds or religion.
Through thick and thicker, I can choose to tune-out anyone's input here. Ignore it. Forget it deliberately. Give it no attention, if that's what I want to do.
I always thought cman was interesting and with thoughts worth my attention---at least. I think MJG is interesting, too. Sometimes just plain too wordy. But that doesn't make him wrong, or a fool. Or anything else.
I do not wish to get into a triangle here, involving cman and MJG. I'd like to hear more from them both. Let's leave it at that. MUTUAL FUNDS.

Hi Guys,
I feel that I am a victim of character assassination on MFO.
I was far too generous in my initial response. I regret that. The gloves are coming off now.
I had to control my anger when I initially read Cman’s character assassination directed at me. That anger has not really subsided, especially, since in retrospect, many of you did not rally to decry his character assassination ploy. I do thank the few MFOers who did respond to this dastardly and cowardly act.
It’s somewhat disappointing that many MFOers failed to recognize that Cman brushed you guys off as not being capable of contributing to his market education, or perhaps to his financial welfare.
He said: "it wasn't a good fit". You guys were not responding differentially enough to his offered wisdom. He discharged you! You were not demonstrating enough respect.
He must have been greatly disappointed with your lack of enthusiasm for his recommendation to consider a Japanese investment as measured by exactly only 5 readers. That must have hurt more than any comments I made. To document my claim, here is the internal link to his Japan posting:
http://www.mutualfundobserver.com:80/discuss/discussion/13807/japan-improving-technicalshttp://www.mutualfundobserver.com:80/discuss/discussion/13807/japan-improving-technicals
Note that I provided a Link to establish the credibility of my statement. How many Links and references did Cman provide to support his advice? My answer is “nearly zero”, and it was constantly near zero.
Cman asserted almost everything he posted. He rarely documented those assertions with data or references. Truth be told, I agreed with almost everything he said; but not everything. I never doubted nor challenged that he is an intelligent, experienced investor.
However, many of his submittals were internally inconsistent; earlier statements were contradicted by later statements. He was definitely the two-handed economist. His attack on my character serves to illustrate this proclivity. It pains me, but I will here reproduce his charges of my “mindless drivel” for fairness and completeness.
Near the middle of Cman’s closing rant he said: “if analysis like this results in people like @MJG making recommendations not to consider the family unless one were a fool, such a write up may not be libelous in legal sense but is definitely irresponsible.” That’s his opinion. He is free to express it.
Near the end of Cman’s rant he said: “But if this site wants to be taken seriously in the industry and be responsible about it, it has to be much more diligent in not leaving it open for broad and mindless inferences like the one from @MJG above. I don't think he really understands science or academic endeavors based on what he shows with his understanding of what he comments on rather than what he keeps claiming and painting himself with regarding academics and science. Like those false patriots that keep doing dumb things while wrapping themselves in the flag.”
This is a plea for censorship; a curtailment of the freedom of opinion, especially if it runs counter to his opinion. I suppose we should make him the kingmaker.
He never challenges my positions by offering evidence that I distorted or misinterpreted data or commentary.
He claims I don’t understand science, yet I graduated in the top-most tier of all my many college studies, won a National scholarship, married a scientist, contributed in the engineering and scientific community my entire work cycle that includes my military period, and finally advanced to the engineering management field where I directed research projects with heavy National implications.
What are the specific facts to backstop Cman’s claims? Again, they are wild, undocumented assertions. What is in his mysterious background that qualifies him to judge my scientific competency based on a few of my admittedly amateur investing comments?
Finally, I must address the most fundamental charge implying that I am a “false patriot”. I served in both the regular and the reserve US Army. I resolutely stand by our flag and will proudly fly it a few days from now, June 6, our Longest Day. I will shed tears that day.
Do you trust a man who makes such unsupported and uninformed allegations? He’ll resort to even attacking your patriotism. I don’t. What an overreach! You get to decide for yourself.
You guys know quite a lot about both Charles and my background, so, for brevity, I will not repeat it here. By way of contrast, what do you know about Cman? Could he be a salesman of financial services? Is that why “it wasn't a good fit"? Maybe. Perhaps it’s a coincidence, but there is a Cman Investments operation in Chandler, AZ.
All this is pure speculation, but it is faintly possible. It is something to think about, just very briefly, since it “macht nichts” in the long run. Hell it doesn’t matter in the short run either.
Thank you for reading my defense against this character assassination attempt. I’m relieved to get this off my chest. Thanks for your tolerance. I’m a happy warrior once again.
Best Regards.

Hi Guys,
Yes, a few days ago I was surprised and delighted to learn that Warren Buffett has incorporated many references in his writings that pair investment and sex comparisons.
I always knew that Buffett is a multi-dimensional expert; a true renaissance man.
But I never suspected that he is also a dirty old-man (not to be taken too seriously). I was not aware of this inclination until I read the Motley Fool’s Morgan Housel. Housel has painstakingly researched past Buffett publications and has found numerous quotations with the investment-sex coupling.
Here is the Link to Housel’s article:
http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2014/06/02/warren-buffett-on-sex.aspx
It’s fun stuff with a lot of embedded investment wisdom. Enjoy.
It’s interesting to note that this same article was first issued in 2009. Here is the Link to that original piece:
http://www.fool.com/investing/value/2009/07/13/warren-buffett-on-sex.aspx
Just like investment advice, there is a lot of recycling everywhere. I assume Housel was paid twice. That’s never happened to me.
Buffett is likely the most quoted financial wizard ever. That’s an earned accolade given his humor and his market wisdom. I was completely unfamiliar with the witticisms that Housel uncovered.
I was only familiar with his more conventional sayings like: “Be fearful when others are greedy and greedy when others are fearful”.
My knowledge horizons have again been elevated by Morgan Housel’s stimulating, funny, and often off-center articles. I thank him for that, and I thank you for reading my post.
Best Regards.

FYI: Copy & Paste 5/3/14 Grace L. Williams: Barron's
Regards,
Ted
While many investors think U.S. stocks are fully valued, Bill Nygren of Oakmark Funds sees plenty of opportunity, particularly among financials. Moreover, Nygren says many of America's best companies can be bought at a market multiple.
The self-described "very frustrated Chicago Cubs fan" has hardly frustrated investors, delivering breathtaking long-term returns. Over the past five-, 10-, and 15-year periods, Oakmark Select (ticker: OAKLX ) has generated annual returns of 21.99%, 8.4% and 9.18% easily outpacing the S&P 500 at 18.17%, 7.7% and 4.2%. Year-to-date, the fund has returned 7.59%, compared to the index at 4.2%.
Name: William Nygren
Age: 55
Title: Co-portfolio manager
Education: B.S. in accounting, University of Minnesota; M.S. in finance, University of Wisconsin
Hobbies: Chicago Blackhawks and Cubs sports fan
Nygren, who has run the fund since 1996, can also nimbly navigate down markets. In 2001, his fund surged 26%, outpacing the S&P by a staggering 38 percentage points. Morningstar rightly named Nygren its Domestic Stock Fund Manager of the Year. Today, Morningstar rates the fund four stars and assigns it a gold rating.
As a concentrated fund, Oakmark Select may not be for the faint of heart. Its top five holdings comprise roughly 30% of the portfolio, and the fund holds just 20 stocks. Nygren's enviable track record should assuage concerns, however. His secret sauce? Nygren looks for names trading at a large discount to their intrinsic business value; a business value that grows over time; and management that is economically aligned with outside shareholders.
Barrons.com recently spoke with Nygren about his long-term outperformance and where he sees value today.
Barrons.com: What has contributed to your long-term success?
Bill Nygren: We bring a private-equity perspective to public-equity investing. By that, I mean we take the very long-term time horizon that private equity firms typically take, and try to anticipate how investors might view a company differently five years from now. We are very, very long-term investors and being able to buy a great business at an average price is just as much value investing as buying an average business at a great price.
Q: There's a guy from Nebraska who takes a similar approach. Looking at sectors, your fund is overweight in financials. Let's talk about that.
A: First up is Bank of America ( BAC ), which sells at about two-thirds of book value. We believe that within a couple of years, they should be earning at least 10% on that book value. If they do that, then the stock is selling today at about seven times earnings. Even if they can't grow organically because of the high quality of their balance sheet, (they basically are at Basel III standards already) all of the earnings can be returned to shareholders through dividends and share repurchase. So, even if you don't believe that long growth provides great opportunity for the banks, a stock like this is very cheap.
Fund Facts
(as of May 20, 2014)
Oakmark Select Fund (OAKLX)
Assets: $5.1 billion
Expense Ratio: 1.01%
Front Load: None
Annual Portfolio Turnover: 24%
Yield: 0.09%
Source: Morningstar
Q: Tell us about some other financial names.
A: I used Bank of America as an example, but really, the story for any of the financial names in our portfolio would be similar. American International Group ( AIG ) is selling at about 70% of book value, JPMorgan Chase ( JPM ) sells at a significant discount-to-book value. Capital One Financial ( COF ) is at a small discount-to-book value, but it doesn't have as many legacy-housing-cost issues as JPMorgan and Bank of America have, so it's at a little lower current P/E, but not at quite as much recovery potential as the other two have. The P/E distribution in the market today has become extremely narrow, so most stocks sell pretty close to the market multiple if you look at just a couple of years.
Q: Another financial name you own is MasterCard ( MA ).
A: MasterCard has a tremendous tailwind because of the global conversion of cash transactions to plastic. They will have an above-average-growth rate for as far into the future as we can see, adjusted for the quality of their balance-sheet forecasting out just a couple of years. The market isn't demanding investors pay much of a premium at all for MasterCard. So rather than saying because everything is priced the same, there's nothing to do, we are taking the opportunity to buy higher-quality businesses.
Q: Your top holding is TRW Automotive ( TRW ). What's the story there?
A: If you look across the auto parts industry today, most companies are selling at about 15 times earnings. At $80, TRW is selling at about 11 times. One of the reasons is they have made large investments in plants in China. We anticipate that within about two years, the plants will become highly profitable and TRW in two to three years could be making $10 a share and selling at the same 15 times earnings which the average auto parts company is selling at.
Q: Moving to the energy space, I see you own Apache ( APA ). Tell us about your conviction here.
A: In the oil and gas industry, it's rare to find management teams that are as good at capital allocation as in the rest of the market. Most oil and gas executives reinvest all of the cash flow they generate because they are focused mostly on top-line growth. Apache is a little bit different in that they are willing to grow per-share value through shrinking the number of shares outstanding. Most analysis looking through asset by asset would suggest that Apache is at a much larger discount-to-value than the average oil and gas stock. Management has been active in selling assets that they can get 90 cents on the dollar for and using those proceeds to buy back their own stock at 60 cents on the dollar. When we find management teams that are as excited about growth through a shrinking share base, as they are through a top-line growth, we find that those companies tend to perform much better over the long term.
Top 10 Holdings
(as of March 31, 2014)
TRW Automotive Holdings (TRW)
TE Connectivity (TEL)
Bank of America (BAC)
Capital One Financial (COF)
Apache (APA)
Medtronic (MDT)
DirecTV (DTV)
American International Group (AIG)
MasterCard (MA)
JPMorgan Chase (JPM)
Source: Morningstar
Q: Two of your holdings, DirecTV ( DTV ) and Comcast ( CMCSK ), are making headlines right now on acquisition news. What do you like about the companies and where do you see them headed?
A: One of the things we've most admired about DirecTV's management team is their willingness to commit all of their excess capital to repurchasing stock when they thought it was the most value-added acquisition they could make. Over the course of the last five years, Direct TV has reduced their shares outstanding by over 50%. The recent $95 per-share deal with AT&T (T) would have been something much smaller than that had management not so aggressively reduced the number of shares outstanding.
Q: And Comcast?
A: One of the reasons we own Comcast is the management team there has also done a very good job of capital allocation, largely adding value through share repurchases. We believe the Time Warner Cable ( TWC ) acquisition will get done at a price that was even less than Comcast's own stock was selling for after we consider synergies. It's likely that the transaction gets approved by the Justice Department. They don't operate in the same communities, so it is not reducing choice for customers, in fact, approval of a deal like Comcast Time Warner is actually pro-consumer because it gives the cable supplier more ammunition in the fight against higher-programming fees.
Q: Thank you for your time.
M* Snapshot Of OAKLX: http://quotes.morningstar.com/fund/oaklx/f?t=oaklx
Fund Is Ranked # 36 In The (LCB) Category By U.S. news & World Report:
http://money.usnews.com/funds/mutual-funds/large-blend/oakmark-select-fund/oaklx

Thanks to David and Charles and anyone else involved. Excellent commentary as usual.
I have found myself over the years watching less and less financial television. All the networks are the same now. Cheerleaders and blowhards. Very little of it is actually intelligent or useful. I still have it on in the morning but rarely listen, only watching for any tidbits. It was very enlightening to read David's comments regarding the same.
Once again, thanks.

And thanks to you all, Ted most especially, for your patience and exemplary good spirits. We posted at 23:23:30, server time, on June 1st. It only looked like June 2nd to insomniacs in the Central and Eastern time zones. We might yet add a story or two. Ed had been working on a piece but, even in retirement, his life is vastly more complex than mine.
And, with luck, I'll never have another month like the last one.
Some highlights:
we lead with a story on investor skittishness and the incoherence of financial journalism: by "incoherence," I'm thinking of it in the physics sense of coherent and incoherent waves. "Waves having no stable definite or stable phase relation," rather than mere babbling. Journalists face the tyranny of having a clear explanation now of phenomena for which there is, I suspect, no clear explanation. Every transitory twitch and wriggle becomes Something Significant. I tried to illustrate that by looking at the flood of competing risk-on/risk-off stories in the past month, some of them occurring in the same publication, on the same day and in the same section. Ted's recent link to the Business Week, "Small Investors Show No Fear," story is another link in that chain.
The story ends with a discussion of a recent call, by the Reformed Broker and Abnormal Returns folks, for investors to exercise more care and discipline in their use of the media. I'd planned on adding my two cents' worth but was tired and ended up contributing just over the penny.
My general sense of things is that folks are, rather thoughtlessly, moving toward riskier assets at a time when the market is its least stable. Leuthold made a worrisome observation in the May Perception for the Professional report, that there are two enduring, stable and overlapping calendar patterns in the investing world: the four-year presidential election cycle and the seasonal summer/winter one. They note that, in general and based on data since 1926, the summer in the second year of a presidential cycle are frequently disastrous for the market. "May 1st," they write "marked the beginning of the statistically weakest six-month stock market period for the entire four-year pattern." The market as a whole books an average gain of 1.1% during those six months. The effect is amplified for small-cap stocks: they, on average across time, would typically decline 10.4% in value over these next six months. Happily, the succeeding six months are (with those same caveats) the strongest period in the market's four-year cycle. I didn't include much of that in the cover essay because the last thing I want to do is encourage market timing on the part of folks who are apt to get it really wrong. Still, I'm not sure that "risk on" is a brilliant move.
My general sense of things, too, is that we'd be a lot better off with far more extensive media filters. The problem with our media scanning is what I think of as "the bright, shiny object problem." (Hmmm. BOS Problem? BOSP?) You walk down the beach, not noticing the million bits of stone beneath your feet but then you see and latch onto the one bright, shiny object in the sand. Likely behavioral finance folks would refer to it as "confirmatory bias." The more we scan, the more likely we are to find that one BOS ("frontier markets -- they're immune!") that overrides all else.
Oh, right, back to the highlights.
Charles did an immense amount of digging to address the question how good is your fund family? He's got more intriguing ways of approaching the same question than you'd think possible.
We profiled two high income funds (Dodge & Cox Global Bond and RiverNorth/Oaktree High Income) with two more in the works. I'd intended a profile of Artisan High Income (ARTFX), but the Artisan folks proposed meeting with the manager at Morningstar for a face-to-face rather than trying to squeeze in a phone call. That seemed like a generous, productive offer so I took them up on it. At Koshy's request, I've been looking into West Shore Real Return Income (AWSFX) but my conversations with one of the managers left me a bit unsettled and then they requested that I delay the profile until I had the chance to talk with another of the managers but they haven't quite followed up on that offer yet. Hmmm. Similarly, Charles suggested looking at the new Whitebox Tactical Income (WBIVX) fund but the Whitebox folks also asked for a delay in the conversation until mid-June. Those delays are slightly goofing with my tidy plan to focus on income in June and innovators (GaveKal Knowledge Leaders, G A Global Innovators, Firsthand Tech Value) in July.
There's an Elevator Talk with the folks at Barrow Street. Their Barrow Street All-Cap Core (BALAX) has a flashy record as a private partnership with two caveats: they need to stock the portfolio with 200 deeply-discounted high-quality names at a time when a lot of managers can't find two names that meet those criteria and their record was compiled in an internally-funded account. Still, they've got a long record as private equity investors (rather like the Oakseed Opportunity guys) and it might well be that private equity eyes see values that others miss. If we move coverage from an Elevator Talk (which is designed to be informational rather than judgmental) to full coverage, we're going to have to ask about those two issues.
Finally, the site has been relatively stable this month. Heck, we've been a paragon of stability and performance in comparison to whatever's going down at Morningstar.com. We'll go offline briefly twice in June, once to move to a higher-security server and the other time to clean at database. Neither should be extensive and we'll certainly give you a heads up a day or so before we do it. If those changes don't get us where we need to go, we might face the ugly prospect of needing to rebuild the site from the ground up because there might well be some conflict buried deep, deep in the coding (you'd be amazed at the number of processes, many of them customized, that are running simultaneously and that all need to play well together) that we can't track down. On whole, that's just a little below "get a colonoscopy" on my list of preferred ways to spend summer.
As ever,
David

Hi Guys,
I just spent the better part of Sunday afternoon cleaning up my investment book library. In that process, I rediscovered Harry Browne’s book “Fail-Safe Investing”. It’s a small thing and had slipped behind the bookcase.
The book promises “lifelong financial security in 30 minutes”. That’s a tad presumptuous or just might be correct for a speed reader. The book extols the virtues of 17 simple rules. They are rather generic and commonsensical. That dovetails with Browne’s personality perfectly. In the text, Browne acknowledges that these rules reveal no secrets from the worlds most successful speculators, but nothing else would do that either. That too is classic Harry Browne.
He wrote numerous, very detailed investment books. I own several of them. Here is a Link to a nice short summary of his 17 rules that you likely can read in 30 minutes or less:
http://thetaoofwealth.wordpress.com/2013/02/17/harry-brownes-17-golden-rules-of-financial-safety/
Enjoy. There are no shocking revelations here. Again, that was typical of Harry Brown.
Harry Browne was a humble and honest man. He passed away in 2006. He was a presidential candidate on the Libertarian ticket in both 1996 and 2000. I always made a point to attend his Las Vegas MoneyShow lectures.
Elaborate viewgraph material is the order of the day for these selling presentations. It was not Harry’s standard, however. He made his remarks from a single densely annotated 3 X 5 note-card that was tattered from overuse. I fondly remember joking with him about it in a cordial way.
Good memories about a fine gentleman.
Best Regards.

It would have been worth the price of admission just to see the reactions to this sermon from the Financial Planners in attendance at this trade conference. :-)
Since probably at least 50% of the people in attendance at such a trade confetence, pride themselves on carefully researched portfolios of both index and actively managed funds appropriate for their clients. Clients whom they don't consider and look down on as the caricature painted here with every imaginable human failing. Clients that are recognized as fairly educated and informed and increasingly getting involved in the planning process and don't tolerate their FPs treating them as people with peanut brains in financial matters.
The same 50% that think the other 50% FPs who treat their clients otherwise are on their way to extinction.
@BobC, were you at this conference?

If I remember correctly, Hartman flip-flopped twice within a month or so, right?

Lol, he flip flops constantly. He's also always talking about how he's long commodities in other currencies and the currency seems to be changing every other day. The best is when he's on "Fast Money" and he says something and the people on that show look like they really, really want to say something or question him but they never do.
Gartman has also had three ETFs delisted in two different countries and yet no one says squat. That's what I hate about the financial media - bad performance is never, ever questioned. You just get a cushy gig spouting nonsense every other day.
http://seekingalpha.com/article/2187533-lights-going-out-for-off-and-onn

That chart is one for the ages.
I think I'm recalling right that Consuelo Mack never asked Andrew L. about his record on the alt strategy he was touting during the May 2 WealthTrack program.

No financial media ever questions guests. CNBC never questions Gartman (whose Canadian ETF was down substantially over the last few years until it closed) or anyone else.