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

@Mav123 - I hold a 3% position in EPD in my Roth account. Opinions seem to be divided on whether that's a good idea or not but I haven't had any issues yet. I've held it for 10-12 years despite that contrary opinion. It does issue a K-1 which TurboTax handles easily.

The OP discussed HMEZX, a merger type fund, which is quite different from that of RPHIX. I selected a comparable fund, MERFX, which by coincidence, I have owned for numerous years.
You can see the returns here for MERFX since its inception:
https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/MERFX/performance/
MERFX was closed to new investors as of June 1, 1996 and resumed sales in 1998.
(closed)
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/701804/0000950123-96-002625.txt
(re-opened)
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/701804/0000950123-98-008974.txt
MERFX's YTD return is (1.61%) according to Google which is better than many of my other mutual funds.
Concerning one year cd rates, the rates have only increased due to the FED increasing interest rates in the last several meetings. Before those meetings. short term CD rates were abysmal in comparison to RPHIX.

Also, Mav123, please explain the appeal of RPHIX? The fund's total return % for 1 and 3 years is 1.70 and 1.78, respectively. Over the past 5 years its 2.21%.
On the other hand, you currently can get a 1-year FDIC insured CD at Fidelity or Vanguard that pays 3.05%. Why bother with RPHIX?

Hi Crash, I agree with you, BUT, the beauty of investing is the fact it can be extremely easy. Suppose someone decides to invest $1000 monthly in a target fund(made of indexes) for 40 years in Roth 401K, makes 8% annually, and never touch this money until retirement. She retires with about 3.2 million, not bad. At age 65, she takes SS and another 2-3% from her Roth for living expenses...DONE.
Of course, she can do better and invest more.
I believe the above can beat most investors, and even pros. KISS and effective, no science or art needed. I also think many people who participate in investing forums make things too complicated, including my own (system). Financial advisers make it complicated to confuse their clients.

@ Vanguard ; I put in 3 buys all of the same MF. my bad ! Called to straighten out the buy of 3 funds , all different. They fixed my f up. This happened about 3 years ago.
All is good, Derf

Concur with LB.
More, I read many of Marks articles over the years and they are long. Lots of fluff with contradicting reasons of what to do and what not. The end result is hardly any specifics of what to do and when.

......Sounds like a very common reaction from years ago on this Board re: The Zurich Axioms: complaints about the Axioms containing contradictory observations and advice, making them virtually useless. I think the response here from @FD1000 illustrates perfectly the fact that we are all put together differently. We confront the world from different perspectives, operating with very different assumptions, fundamentally. Our various approaches to making sense of things will be different. My own reply is simple: investing is not a cut-and-dried process, like following a recipe. If that's the way one invests, I assert that it must be a method arrived at after much PRIOR investigation and analysis. Because not only the Markets, but the entire world, is a jumble of contradictory signals and noise and extraneous incidentals. Each of us must sort it all out for ourselves. I am very much in touch with the line of thought which says that investing is always some combination of both Science and Art. Very little in this life is all-or-nothing, either/or, or black or white. It's complicated. Anything which is important enough to matter is complicated.

Concur with LB.
More, I read many of Marks articles over the years and they are long. Lots of fluff with contradicting reasons of what to do and what not. The end result is hardly any specifics of what to do and when.

Good post. The longer you check, and I'm talking about at least 20-30 years, a cheap index such as the SP500 beats most stock funds.
The SP500 is based on the best indicator, the price. The price never lies, regardless of any opinion.
The SP500 is global too, it gets about 40% of its revenues from abroad.

The S&P 500 index is a good representation of large-cap U.S. stocks.
Most active funds underperform this index over longer time periods.
Although many S&P 500 companies derive substantial revenue from foreign countries,
it may be prudent to also include foreign-domiciled companies in your portfolio.
I respect Warren Buffett and Jack Bogle but disagree with their views to avoid foreign investments.

I have heard the above many times. Why stop at foreign-domiciled companies? Why not slice it 8 ways, just to be sure. This is why many investors lag by complicating their portfolios. The fact is that the most dominated companies are in the SP500 + the USA is very stable + capitalism is not perfect, but still the best we have + I prefer American management globally. China high tech looked great until Xi Jinping took care of that. Europe have been sinking for years. Did you know that there is no European high-tech company by revenue at the top
(link).

Good post. The longer you check, and I'm talking about at least 20-30 years, a cheap index such as the SP500 beats most stock funds.
The SP500 is based on the best indicator, the price. The price never lies, regardless of any opinion.
The SP500 is global too, it gets about 40% of its revenues from abroad.

The S&P 500 index is a good representation of large-cap U.S. stocks.
Most active funds underperform this index over longer time periods.
Although many S&P 500 companies derive substantial revenue from foreign countries,
it may be prudent to also include foreign-domiciled companies in your portfolio.
I respect Warren Buffett and Jack Bogle but disagree with their views to avoid foreign investments.

Scanned @bee’s linked article. Typical Marks. To me the take away is that market valuations follow a herd mentality. At any given time part of the price of a security rests on investor sentiment. Now, none of us has the research capabilities and analytic tools at Mark’s disposal. So it’s difficult trying to replicate his process or even come close.
Still, I think the herd mentality concept has legs - more so today than ever. Go back 8-12 months and read the threads posted on this forum. Certainly some anticipated the approaching storm and were taking steps to lighten up on risk. But the overwhelming number of posts remained quite bullish. People were eagerly buying. I nearly got into a spitting match with one fellow who insisted “buying the dip” was always a reliable investment approach, even with the DJI near 37,000 and the NASDAQ 20% higher than now,
So if (a big if) one can identify severely undervalued assets and if one can remain calm and allow time to do its work, than one can be more successful than investing in broadly diversified funds. It’s difficult to see how an extra 1 or 2% in fees would cancel out the benefits of a 2X or 3X appreciation in value over a few years time. BTW - Not long ago passive investing - mostly the S&P 500 was near conventional wisdom here and elsewhere. Doubters were faced with fiercely intense posts trying to prove its validity. Now many (including some D&C funds) are actually shorting that index. One problem some of my sources identify is the huge amount of passive investing coming from retirement plan contributions at the individual level. Much of that has been going into funds linked to the S&P index for decades.

Good post. The longer you check, and I'm talking about at least 20-30 years, a cheap index such as the SP500 beats most stock funds.
The SP500 is based on the best indicator, the price. The price never lies, regardless of any opinion.
The SP500 is global too, it gets about 40% of its revenues from abroad.

I have no idea how to make geographical sector bets so personally I wouldn't use any non-diversified EM fund myself, especially as a buy and hold fund.

Yeah, That’s a tough nut to crack. I have a little diversified EM at Dodge & Cox. Blind faith I guess in their stewardship. And a very small hold in ENOR (Norway) which is actually in my Real Assets sleeve due to its economy’s heavy dependence on energy exports. Neither of the aforementioned funds, however, is “shooting the lights out.” In fact I’d liken it more to shooting myself in the foot.
As far as going “off the reservation” is concerned with non diversified EMs, I always think back to hearing Sir John Templeton remark that it’s very rare for any country’s market to fall more than 50% and stay down that far for long. (In specific he was addressing a rout in the Asian EMs back than.) In that day Sir John would have found an economy down that far a lucrative investment target. However, a lot has changed in the 25-35 years since he made that remark. May not hold water today.
Kudos to @Crash for sticking to his guns.
Great insights from @LewisBraham. Much appreciated.