Read the full analyses. The current one (almost a year old) has the summary line: "This remains one of the more independent-minded, idiosyncratic funds around, but this hasn't led to outperformance in recent decades."
Let that sink in. Hasn't outperformed in recent decades. Now look back at the analyst report not decades ago, but merely three years before current one was written. That one gave the fund a Silver rating.
What changed? The fund had a really bad past three years. But it was with the same people, who had been there, as M* noted, for decades. So why downgrade the people? M* says it's because they had a couple of high conviction misses. That goes to performance, or is M* saying that people it loved suddenly became more stupid?
M* also downgraded the performance pillar. That would be perfectly reasonable if this were a rating of past performance. But it's a judgment of how M* expects the performance to be in the future. So is M* admitting that after praising the people and the fund for years (it started giving out analyst ratings in 2011 with Gold for this fund), it completely missed the boat and is now just projecting more of the same?

FYI: Retail alternative-investment funds, practically speaking, are 10 years old. Alternatives have long been in institutional portfolios, but they attracted little attention from retail buyers before the 2008 financial crash. After the disaster, however, the people craved protection, and the fund companies responded. Launching a spate of alternatives funds, they marketed the strategy hard.
The results, so far, have not been good. The problem is not just that the insurance was sold after the fire--a customary practice in investment management--but also that many of the alternatives have been flat-out losers. Even if U.S. stocks hadn't compounded by 13% annually during the decade of 2009 through 2018, those funds would have been poor choices.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.morningstar.com/articles/909394/the-past-decades-worst-alternative-investments.html

Yeah --- it's been 'the rage' for a few years now. Some factor implementations are better than others (ie, factors for volatility) and within factor offerings, some factor products are better than others (ie, VMVFX, USMV I think, and others.)
Speaking for myself, I don't invest according to 'factors' but there are tons of OEFs/ETFs catering to the factor crowd these days. (Tho I do hold VMVFX in large amounts, b/c I like its eclectic global midcap-skewed allocations ... I care not that it's 'minimum volatility').

Hard to know what to say here. I don't find these arguments especially compelling.
I mean, yes, we know AI is here and it's going to take over the world. I don't see AI customization creating 150mm separate portfolios for 150mm separate retail investors, but maybe I'm missing the author's point.
Financial advisors are already using "really, really, really smart" software to make allocations for clients.
Now, whether or not all fund companies go AI, is another matter...is TROW or Fidelity, for example, going to largely do away with its human analysts in 10 years or so?

FYI: In the next few years, the entire rationale for investing via funds will dissolve. Advances in technology have transformed industry cost structures. Absent the need to pool assets for volume discounts, advisers and relationship managers can skip the one-size-fits-all cookie-cutter vehicles. Instead, financial advisers will use software to truly customize portfolios, resulting in a more engaged and loyal client base.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.google.com/search?source=hp&ei=1mdQXPjrJ5e9jwTp9KfgDA&q=Death+Of+The+Fund+&+What+Comes+Next+&btnK=Google+Search&oq=Death+Of+The+Fund+&+What+Comes+Next+&gs_l=psy-ab.3..33i22i29i30.3480.8036..9172...0.0..1.164.1760.14j5......0....2j1..gws-wiz.....0..33i299j33i160.Ors8USFYOpk

@Bobpa: My portfolio was built over many years of investing. From an all equity income fund perspective I have two sleeves that are geared towards equity income genertion with these funds being found in the growth & income area of my portfolio.
The first sleeve is my domestic equity g&i sleeve and holds the following funds with their ttm yield in (y%). The funds held in this sleeve are ANCFX (1.74%) ... FDSAX (3.03%) ... INUTX (3.46%) ... and SVAAX (3.93%). This sleeve as a whole generates a yield of 3.26%. Include fund capital gain distributions and the income generated is much greater and has averaged above 5%. The three year total return on this sleeve is 8.7%.
The second sleeve is my global equity g&i sleeve and holds the following funds with thier ttm yield in (y). The funds held in this sleeve are CWGIX (2.33%) ... DEQAX (2.55%) ... DWGAX (2.28%) ... and, EADIX (3.95%). This sleeve as a whole generates a yield of 2.77%. Include fund capital gains distributions and the income generation is much greater and has averaged above 5%. The three year total return on this sleeve is 7.1%
I have other sleeves that are also geared towards income generation within my portfolio; but, these are the two sleeves that consists of all equity mutual funds.
In doing a Google search on the subject I came up with the below linked article.
https://investorplace.com/2018/02/10-best-dividend-funds-to-buy-now/
Old_Skeet

@tmadell: Dr. Madell, thank you for writting such a fine newsletter. I would encourge you to publish a newsletter model asset allocation (conserative, moderate and agressive) along with perhaps one for income generation with their anticipated returns. I'm thinking some investors might find this of interest. At one time I ran a 70/20/10 (stock/bond/cash) allocation while I was in the building phase of my portfolio. Holding some cash offered me the opportunity to buy pullbacks and/or engage some spiffs (special investment positions) form time-to-time. Then as I approached retirement I began to reduce my stock allocation and began to hold more bonds and cash. Recently, I have switched towads an all weather (20% cash/40% bonds/40% stock) asset allocation model. I'm not quite there yet but well on my way. I'm thinking that this all weather model will provide me ample cash, ample income and ample growth to offset inflation plus a little more. By my math I'm thinking my all weather model should generate an average annual return of somewhere between 4.5% to 6%, on average, possibly a little more, at times. With these anticipated returns I should be able to withdraw up to 4% annually and still maintain and perhaps even grow my principal. Currently, my withdrawal philosophy is to take no more than one half of what my five year average rolling returns have been. In this way, I have over the past five years, since I retired, been able to grow my principal while providing a reliable and steady income stream. Currently, my portfolio yields about 3.4% plus any capital gain distributions and when combined have averaged better than a 5% income stream.
Perhaps, my above comment concerning income generation might provide a topic to write about in an upcoming issue.
Thanks again ... Dr. Madell ... for publishing such a fine newsletter. I have enjoyed reading it.
Old_Skeet

Are you buying through a brokerage or direct? Their website is underwhelming and they have no online account access. Everything is done by phone or mail - no electronic statements or documents. If you prefer to do everything online, stay away, or buy through a brokerage.
Their customer service is good, though. Their reports are timely and detailed, unlike some who take a full 90 days. (I hate getting fund reports in January for the period that ended in September.)
Performance is easy enough to look up. I won’t say they shoot the lights out, but I’ve been happy with it for years. They keep AUM under control, and despite being somewhat concentrated it’s not too bumpy.
I also like POAGX and RPMGX (if you can get it).

I've owned it and the other FMI funds. I have no plans to sell it. There's nothing flashy about it and that's what I appreciate. If you're interested, spend some time reading their quarterly reports. It is important to understand how their team is set up and their approach. I would read several years going back to the dotcom period if able.

Owned it for several years. Pretty decent fund.

I held it for a number of years & sold it 9/17 when cashing out 401-k. From what I remember it was okay.
Good investing, Derf

Thanks for the suggestion on My Final Picture - I'll take a look at it.
Generally, my experience with brokerages attached to banks is that they are clunky and have limited offerings. If an account gets me a perk I value (like boosted credit card rewards), I'll dump in some holding that I expect to leave untouched for years.
I dropped WellsTrade when it got so difficult to figure out what they sold that it wasn't worth it to me, even at $0/fund trade, to keep the account. What surprised me now with ME was their idea that they couldn't sell fractional shares back to the distributor, so they only redeem fractional shares on their books monthly. Talk about unclear on the concept.
Aside from not offering ETNs (a form of debt), ME also doesn't offer new issues of bonds, except Treasuries if you want to pay $30 to go through a rep.
Which gets us back to what we all agree this account is good for - ETFs and stocks. And credit cards.

Thanks @Ted for posting.
For what it is worth.
I have always found good value in reading Dr. Madell's Newsletter. I am sorry to learn that he is going to stop publishing his asset allocation models along with how much of each fund to hold (if I read this newsletter correctly). For me, I feel my asset allocation has been a big part of my investing success as well if not more so than just making good fund selections although that is important too.
I always like to see how much cash, bonds and stocks each model held. By taking the average of all three of his models (conserative, moderate & aggressive) when combined and averaged pretty much matched that of my own asset allocation until recently I changed to my all weather asset allocation of 20/40/40. So his discontinuning of the asset model allocations are something that I will indeed miss seeing. Plus, Dr. Madell matained some good fund selections within his model portfolio's along with pointing out sectors he felt beneficial to overweight.
It will be interesting to see what he writes about now concerning investing in the coming months or if this is a first step he is taking in winding down and closing a prior well written newsletter.
Thank you Dr. Madell for your helping the average retail investor find their way through the investing maze by writting and publishing your newsletter (for free) to anyone who wanted to read it. Your thoughts have been most appreciated, by me, through the years.
Old_Skeet

FYI: First, thanks to those readers who responded to my request for feedback on the Jan. Newsletter in which I discussed the phasing out of my forward-looking Model Portfolios, along with their allocation percentages to each recommended fund.
Among those who responded, most seemed happy enough with the changes discussed. However, several readers expressed regrets that Model Portfolios, as formerly defined, will no longer appear. And several stated they would particularly miss the suggested allocations.
In reality, these recommendations typically didn't change much from Quarter to Quarter. Therefore, if I had published new Model Portfolios in January, they would have been quite similar to the one published in Oct. '18. Since Model Portfolios, especially for stocks, were envisioned as remaining valid for up to five years, there is no reason to believe that a new Model Portfolio would be significantly different than one three months earlier.
Regards,
Ted
http://funds-newsletter.com/feb19-newsletter/feb19.htm

Can anybody think of good reasons to go with actively managed balanced funds (other than Vanguard) instead of their Balanced Index? Over the past 10 years the Balanced Index has been competitive with actively managed funds yadda yadda. But what about the future?

I was surprised too, but then I don't keep up with, at best, more than a couple of individual companies at any one time. With GE, though, I'm under the impression that their renewables (division? subsidiary? whatever it is) is pretty well positioned, globally, especially in wind tech. Not sure how much of the portfolio that'll be once the dust settles, tho.
Seems like it would be, at the very least, worth considering something like you're thinking about.

I was actually surprised he said that. I've been toying with buying some GE LEAPS in my Roth and just let them sit there for the next few years to play on the potential recovery/restructuring.

Interesting that DG's 'one investment' was GE, calling it a $20 stock eventually.

Thanks @Ted - An informative discussion.
Some take-aways:
- Reminds me a lot of Peter Lynch 30 years ago. Both are / were more concerned about product, and much less so with price performance, technical indicators or indexes.
- Loved his comment: “There are good active managers and there are bad active managers.”
- Repeated reference to autonomous driving. My Accord has “level 1” capability which allows it to self-steer, provided it can discern a clearly marked center line. Biggest problem is it cannot tell smooth portions of a roadway from the pot-holed and broken-up areas. To be able to steer around those (endemic on our local roads) I often have to turn it off. Only mention it because I’m wondering how the designers will work around that issue?
- Nothing surprising about T. Rowe. After 25+ years, I know them to be excellent at sorting out the macro trends.
- On GE, if you’re familiar with Arthur Miller you’ll recall Willy Loman also held them in high esteem. Hearing his Hastings refrigerator had broken again ...
“I told you we should’ve bought a well-advertised machine. Charley bought
a General Electric and it’s twenty years old and it’s still good, that son-of-a-
bitch ... Whoever heard of a Hastings refrigerator?” (Death of a Salesman - Act 2 )
Couple disappointments:
- Little if any discussion of fixed income.
- Mack’s lead-in suggested some bearishness on Giroux’s part. But I didn’t sense that. I’d say he’s very macro oriented and bearish on some big names while being positive on others - depending largely on sector.

I was actually surprised he said that. I've been toying with buying some GE LEAPS in my Roth and just let them sit there for the next few years to play on the potential recovery/restructuring.

Interesting that DG's 'one investment' was GE, calling it a $20 stock eventually.

If you believe the GMO 7-year forecasts, along with many of the other pundits, emerging markets is the place to be for the next 5-10 years relative to other asset classes; so I would expect the Grandeur Peak funds to do well since they are heavy on emerging markets. Only time will tell, I'm not unloading mine just yet!

Even older funds may not gather many assets if they don't market themselves. See BRUFX - 35 years old, $500M, not available through any brokerage. (But it does offer an HSA - talk about a stealth product!)