***Ding!
Years ago, I was a shareholder. I got out long before the whole operation, as it were, went so far south, so fast.

Yes, I did the same. Have you read the Morningstar report by William Samuel Rocco on Cooper's hire? It's terribly un-insightful for a supposed experienced fund analyst. He misses everything we've discussed in this thread, the really important stuff between the lines.

Sorry. Getting very far afield, here. The early years were a muddled mess for the infant new country. Lots of veterans just plain got SCREWED:
"...In 1797, Knox's claim was upheld. Martin's 100-acre farm was valued by three commissioners: one appointed by the settlers, one by the Proprietors and the third by the first two. Martin's was appraised for the sum of $170, payable over six years in three installments either in cash or in farm products. He could not raise the money and begged Knox to allow him to keep the land. There is no evidence that Knox even acknowledged his plaintive letters and appeared to let him remain on the land. Plumb Martin farmed only eight(8) acres of the original 100 he opted for. Knox died in 1806, never demanding payment from Plumb Martin. By 1811, his farmland was cut by half, and by 1818, when he appeared in the Massachusetts General Court with other Revolutionary War veterans to claim a war pension, he owned nothing.[7]
In 1818, Martin's war pension was approved and he received $96 a year for the rest of his life.[6] Still, other war veterans were fighting for what they were properly owed and, in an effort to further the cause of the veterans, Martin published his memoirs anonymously in 1830. It was not considered a success and mainly fell to the wayside, apparently lost to history.
In 1836, a platoon of United States Light Infantry was marching through Prospect and discovered that Plumb Martin resided there. The platoon stopped outside of his house and fired a salute in honor of the Revolutionary War Hero.
*** So, not only did he fight and win, but afterwards, the Sec. of War first attempted to evict him, but then tacitly relented. "Thanks a lot, that's awfully white of you!"
After all he had been through, JP Martin's gravestone simply states: "A Solder of the Revolution." (Stockton Springs, Maine.)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Plumb_Martin

Hmmmmmm...... Through thick and thicker for all these years, Robert Horrocks remains. Is something he's doing driving everyone away?

Where there's smoke, there's usually fire. It is odd, especially since performance of nearly all their funds has really deteriorated.
It does smell a bit of entrenched management.

***Ding!
Years ago, I was a shareholder. I got out long before the whole operation, as it were, went so far south, so fast.

@mcq, I have the SEC Form N-1A link bookmarked and the same link has been working for YEARS. The Form just keeps getting revised and updated. I didn't bother to save paper copies of the older versions. May be the SEC can provide older versions on request.
There are Laws/Acts and then the regulatory agencies are charged with preparing the implementation materials. I think that this Form falls in that category. There is lots of stuff in there now that didn't even exist at the time of the ICA 1940 but funds just follow whatever the Form requires now.

That was very helpful, yogibearbull (gives new meaning to the phrase "regulatory burden"). It makes clear that at present, a comparison of fund performance to a broad-based index is an SEC requirement. I wasn't sure.
But this version of the form mentions exchange traded funds, hence, can't be too old. Do you happen to know whether an agency like the SEC would keep a trailing history of the text of prior versions of a key form like N-1A? Or would those be buried in some paper archive, like pre-1994 EDGAR submissions, and only apparent by unearthing an old 1950 filing for some fund?

Funds follow the current SEC Form N-1A that has been revised over the years. This Form includes what the SEC thinks should be included by the funds now and probably doesn't include anything that would violate/contradict the letter or spirit of the ICA 1940.
https://www.sec.gov/about/forms/formn-1a.pdf

Hmmmmmm...... Through thick and thicker for all these years, Robert Horrocks remains. Is something he's doing driving everyone away?

Where there's smoke, there's usually fire. It is odd, especially since performance of nearly all their funds has really deteriorated.
It does smell a bit of entrenched management.

Funds follow the current SEC Form N-1A that has been revised over the years. This Form includes what the SEC thinks should be included by the funds now and probably doesn't include anything that would violate/contradict the letter or spirit of the ICA 1940.
https://www.sec.gov/about/forms/formn-1a.pdf

He left out the 5th, or first one, which occurred toward the end of the War of 1812. Lenders in New England were issued short term bills toward the end of the war. It was not possible to redeem them at the time the war ended, and for some years thereafter; there was nothing in the till (the notes had to be paid in gold and there wasn't any).
IIRC, the notes weren't paid until 1820 or so, and by awarding shares in the newly formed 2nd Bank of the US, not gold.
History buffs can read the Report of the Secretary of the Treasury for those years; look on FRASER or hathitrust.org

Given the fact that money managers have long invested in and celebrated companies that increased their profit margins by replacing human workers with machines, should we feel sorry for the same managers who are now being replaced? Or should we see it as poetic justice? I have long called the index fund a profit extraction machine.
Also, it is not simply the machines’ doing that is causing the problems here. I would say I learned about 20 years ago that the typical non-hedge fund manager charged institutional retirement plans about 0.40% to run private institutional accounts. The institutions had negotiating leverage regarding fees, yet managers could still be profitable at 0.40%. Yet they still charge routinely double that today for retail investors. Much as these same managers often complain about unionized labor having wages that are too high and say that’s why jobs are being outsourced overseas, retail investors are sick of paying 0.80% or more for what should really cost 0.40%. So they’re outsourcing the overpaid managers’ jobs to machines. Again, poetic justice.
If managers want to beat the machines in a highly competitive somewhat efficient market, they either need to charge less so the hurdle to win is lower or take large risks and charge the same exorbitant fees they always have and hope for the best. Either way, it’s still other people’s money they’re putting at risk.

ISTM Alternative funds occupy a bizarro corner of the investing universe. For lack of a better source, U.S. News does offer up a mixed platter of such funds. For those interested in return, checking the 5 year + return of some of these might give a clue as to what to expect over the next several years. (Better to look after a prolonged downdraft than when equity / bond markets are sky high)
I don’t dwell on what any pocket of my allocation model will return. Total return over 3-5 years is the goal. At any specific time some assets giveth and others taketh away.
One way to look at it … If inflation over the next 5 years averages 3% than a total (annual) return of 5% over that time might be good enough. But if inflation averages 10% over those 5 years, a 5% annual return would leave you standing in the dust. What will inflation be? Only The Shadow knows!

- “I’m not against alternative funds perse … But when do these winning alternative funds get mentioned? When do they come into MFO attention? - when they have already made their money. That's my point.”
- “I'm sure there are some here that are good at adding value to their returns with their buys and sells. I dare say, I've looked at past data and I am not one of them. But I keep trying.”

@MikeM - Be careful with the term “alternative fund”. Almost by definition it’s not classifiable. That’s because the word “alternative” essentially means “not something else”. However, as commonly referenced in investing “alternatives” are investments other than conventional stocks, cash or bonds. For instance, precious metals are sometimes cited as an alternative investment. So are things like art, comic books, stamps, real estate. The fund industry has jumped on the “alternative” bandwagon and concocted hundreds of variations to stock or bond funds under the banner of “alternative.” I have no problem with them applying the name alternative to whatever exotic high cost product they wish to market. I’m just saying - be careful with that term. To your point … we both lived through the madness here 10-15 years ago with MFLDX, an early alternative fund that soared as its fame and popularity rose and than nose-dived as investors fled overnight it seemed.
I like the concept of alternatives as part of a portfolio - but apply the term loosely to fit my needs. In my 45% alternative sleeve, I have: a conservative allocation fund that overweights commodities a bit (ABRZX); a style permea fund that spreads risk around among stocks, precious, metals, natural resources, bonds (PRPFX); a multi-strategy fund (BAMBX); and a long-short fund (NLSAX). The other components consist of 3 individual stocks representing distinctly different market sectors. As stocks carry no fees, their inclusion helps offset the higher fees of the alternative funds. As you can see, I define the term “alternative” very loosely to fit my own needs.
As far as ‘high” expenses go, I hold virtually none of the most expensive asset of all - cash. With inflation at 8-10% annually, cash is a guaranteed looser. Total allocation to all types of income oriented investments is 20% at present. Most is in DODLX and PRIHX. A smaller sum in GNMA etf. Only a trace resides in money market funds or bank accounts. So my use of alternatives is a way of maintaining some level of portfolio stability as needed at my age without carrying much cash.
-
I dunno about why folks buy and sell a lot. But I’d guess the results vary depending on what gets bought or sold and when. Markets have been ugly. If you can grab off a quick 1K or so playing Cathie’s musical chairs or taking some other gambit and than reinvest that $$ back into your regular portfolio, why not so indulge? :) Especially beneficial if the winnings are inside a Roth.
With me the spec money ranges between 5-10% … play money really. Right now it’s committed to a couple inverse funds as a hedge against some really nasty rainy day - an insurance policy. And there’s a bit in GLTR - for mostly the same reason. Than, there’s my predilection to lay more money on the table when stocks appear cheaper and than pull it back off after they rebound. Might be what you’re seeing in other individuals as well.
Glad you like your Schwab Robo Advisor Mike! Has to be far better than many of the “low risk” conservative funds nowadays. (Check out AOK)

Hmmmmmm...... Through thick and thicker for all these years, Robert Horrocks remains. Is something he's doing driving everyone away?

Good question. He is still the CIO.

i concur. and i had not heard about teresa kong's leaving. where did she go? does anyone know? I will take a look.....
...Found this. RETIRING???? She can't be that old.....
https://citywireselector.com/news/a-rated-bond-boss-to-exit-matthews-asia/a2391349
Or is the word being used here in a non-standard way?

Exactly. All the portfolio managers that left have been Teresa's age or younger. Firm has lost an entire generation of leaders on the investment team. Teresa is not that old herself, she's <50 years old if I had to guess? It's a really bad sign.
Looking at the direction of the company, its not a surprise. Why stay on the proverbial sinking ship when your skill set is in high demand? Having felt the change there over the years, I'm not sure why matthews didn't make a leadership change sooner at the top. It almost seems too late at this point. You all might remember they brought in some outside leaders, but they ended up resigning or leaving after very short stints. Yu Ming Wang famously joined in 2020 as Global CIO/President, but resigned within 9 months. That is also a really bad sign and highly unusual. Actually I've never heard of such a thing happening.
https://www.pionline.com/money-management/matthews-asias-presidentglobal-cio-resigns

As I mentioned earlier, I swapped out GATEX with NLSAX in my alternative sleeve. I thought the reasons might be worth explaining …
In late March of this year Warren Buffett agreed to purchase a stock I held in the alternative sleeve of portfolio. The stock is Allegheny (Y) and the price shot up 25% overnight. I immediately sold all my shares of Y at the 25% premium, leaving a hole in the alternative sleeve. Readers may be aware that I’m not one to hold much cash. So, somewhat in desperation I tried to come up with a suitable fund or stock to fill the hole. GATEX is a fund I’d owned years earlier and had researched more recently. So, the cash proceeds from selling Allegheny went into GATEX.
The biggest drawback to continuing to hold GATEX is that, while hedged against market volatility, it otherwise uses S&P index stocks to represent its equity positions. I hadn’t realized that when buying. Since I also own a small speculative hold in SPDN (a fund that shorts the S&P 500) I found myself essentially shorting GATEX while at the same time owning it. Not a good position to be in. Decided to hang on to GATEX until something better for my purposes came into focus.
That’s the long and short of it …

Don't you have the option to take your monies elsewhere after the 5 year term? And couldn't the APY go up if interest rates go up 5 years from now?
YBB - so after you are 59.5 no penalty, to moving your monies after term expires correct?
Generally no fees, correct? (I'm asking, I don't know)
I do know when my wife inherited an annuity it was a colossal and I mean colossal task getting the monies from the insurance company...so many hurdles, BS was off the charts....from rather well known company.
Thanks for the replies

A few years back I bought a 2 yr Cd @ 3%. After the second year came to an end I "wished " I had a 5 yr CD as their rates went into a steady decline.
I believe a CD ladder is the way to go. That kind of puts a lot of cash into one CD on hold.
Have a pleasant Sunday, Derf

Word on the street is that Bill Hackett was asked politely to retire, or in otherwords, he was fired. Matthews has lost more than 10 portfolio managers in the last 2 years, and no, they aren't people retiring but rather the up and coming, next generation portfolio managers that got tired of poor leadership of the firm. Tiffany Hsiao, Beini Zhang, Lydia So, Raymond Deng, Rahul Gupta are just a few names. Just last month, Teresa Kong head of fixed income, also left. This exodus of talent is unprecedented and something I've never seen in my career from a small boutique.
Per their website, Matthews Asia's assets stood at $17.2 billion as of July 2022. I was in their offices in 2017/2018 and their assets were nearly $35 billion. I've heard from portfolio managers at the company that most of the drop in assets are due to outflows (clients redeeming), not markets.
It sounds like Cooper was brought in to try and turn things around. He has a tough job ahead of him. Besides massive outflows, the performance of the funds has been horrible. Their flagship, Pacific Tiger has underperformed its benchmark for nearly the last 5 years. Two of their other big funds, Innovators and Asia Growth, were heavily loaded with tech names and took huge hits with the latest correction.
https://www.matthewsasia.com/funds/mutual-funds/asia-growth/pacific-tiger-fund/?FundClassType=MIPTX
Matthews fall from grace has been sad to see. I met with their founders years ago and loved their passion for Asia and entrepreneur spirit. But that energy left the firm many years ago, and the firm has become mediocre at best. I wish Cooper luck, but its a steep mountain to climb and competitors have really stepped up their game in both Asia and EM. Matthews is not the only trick in town anymore.

That's almost 3 years, Crash- I wouldn't lock up a lot of cash for that long at 3.3%. 1 year max at that rate.

Thank you for the comments, my appeal to both funds because although they may have different investment approaches can be used as "cash" when the funds are not invested, like right now. I am about 95% in RPHIX. Why wait when the markets break moving averages as even smart people like Meb Faber in Tactical Asset Allocation use tools to reduce the drawdowns and stomach ulcers, Ulcer Index. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=962461.
This is my personal view, in contrast to a view by the bogleheads crowd to hold the allocation no matter what. Yes, I am using various tools to gauge the risk levels and premiums. Let's just say that even if you hold equities, it is a very smart idea to add put options as well in today's environment. I don't "play" too much with options, but the tools are handy. Why sit in the 17%-20% drawdowns, especially knowing that the Fed will continue to reduce liquidity from the market?
And as @TheShadow mentioned Fed just raised the CDs and you are locking yourself for several years and risking paying early withdrawal penalties. I do have 3% CDs with Andrews. I locked right when Covid hit. It doesn't make sense to have all my money in CDs.
The appeal of HMEZX is that although it has a bit higher st deviation, the return is higher with this vs RPHIX. I use portfoliovisualiser extensively, and although, it is a backward-looking tool, it provides clues about the stability of funds and how they fared in various environments.
So, I goal is to ask if you have valid reasons to avoid HMEZX, but also looking forward to your thoughts/ideas. Thank you