A good list that was, but I memorize only some of your posts over time, not all of them. Davidson is famously good, I shoulda thought of him. GMiller I do not know, but good to be aware of such outstanding work.
Yes, Tilllinghast's penchant for non-US equities, almost 38% as of a few months ago, has often been a drag, especially the last few years, and this has been much commented on. I wonder why FLPSX had less of a drawdown a year ago.
Miller's notable Victory Sycamore has the lowest 15y UI in MFOP, moreover, again probably in part because its mandate excludes foreign equities. A value fund triumph.

I don't look for managers who "rule", just ones whom I reasonably believe will turn in an above average performance over time. However, since we're talking about a MCV fund manager, why not look at my 2012 list of MCV funds?
https://mutualfundobserver.com/discuss/discussion/3176/thoughts-on-mid-cap-value-watch-list
Two of those five funds no longer have the same lead manager. NSEIX (hardly a surprise, longevity was a risk back then), and MSAIX (a fund that promptly dropped into the bottom half each year after my mention, except for its 47th percentile showing in 2018).
But the other three have had the same lead managers for 15+ years. They're all fine; I don't see FLPSX standing out.

Fund    15 year     2008 (Q4)          3Q2015   4Q2018  
FLPSX   9.14%    -36.17% (-20.73%)     -6.20%   -13.54%
ACMVX  10.45%    -24.49% (-18.96%)     -6.34%   -14.96%
JAMCX   8.95%    -33.24% (-21.70%)     -7.38%   -14.88%
VETAX  10.84%    -33.10% (aprox-19%)   -4.44%   -15.29%

JAMCX https://connect.rightprospectus.com/JPMorgan/TADF/339128308/P?site=JPMorgan
ACMVX https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/908186/000090818609000024/pea44-2009.htm
VETAX https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/802716/000110465909013154/a09-4636_1485bpos.htm
These four alone constitute 4% of MCV funds according to M*. They can't all be the rare 3% :-)

I was just looking at 15y return, as LB mentioned, of the rare individual managers I am aware of (I am missing some, I am positive) who have worked that long nonstop, compared w various indexes.
(FLPSX is not easy to compare fairly, prospectus notwithstanding, because of its usual large foreign slug, in some periods thought to be a good thing.)
Tillinghast is only 61yo, so if I were going to invest for 15 more years I would consider his work seriously.
Puglia is a bit younger.
Did not say it screams 'buy me'. Whose work does that for you? 'Absolutely rule' meant outperforms almost all others over that long haul. Whom do you have in mind for top rankings over the long hauyl?
am reading now about DCohen and Scherschmidt, at
https://www.forbes.com/sites/kenkam/2019/02/08/investing-with-the-greatest-mutual-fund-managers-2/#2c08d7db2a71
also these guys. Fried is sometimes mentioned in such articles.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/kenkam/2018/06/08/greatest-fund-managers-redux-4-that-are-keepers/#496a96a3554f
Puglia is not commonly mentioned anywhere that I can see. His big runup is recent, looks like.
All three of the POAGX guys' stints hit 15y end of this week.
Should also do a search of these names on MFO and MFOP.

While I agree that Tillinghast is a fine manager, I'm wondering on what basis he appears to "absolutely rule".
In 2008, FLPSX returned -36.17%, less than the -33.79% return of its chosen benchmark (R2K, per prospectus). Personally, I would have chosen a benchmark such as the Russell Midcap Value index, as was used by JMCVX. That latter index returned -38.44% in 2008, per the JMCVX 2009 prospectus.
For completeness, the R2K value index returned -28.92% in 2008, and the S&P 400 midcap index returned -36.23% (both from the same Janus prospectus). FLPSX returned -20.73% in the fourth quarter of 2008 (from any FLPSX prospectus - that was its worst quarterly return).
Regarding Tillinghast's break, it was for four months, starting in Sept. 2011 and ending in January 2012. Given that FLPSX's best annual performance relative to its peers over the five years 2009 through 2013 was in 2011, it wouldn't appear that Tillinghast's temporary absence had any negative impact. And since both Fidelity and Morningstar report Tillinghast as the fund manager from 1989 to the present, a simple screening for continuous management wouldn't have excluded Tillinghast from consideration of best 10 year managers.
On the positive side, FLPSX did outperform its MCV peers in the 4th quarter of 2018 (-13.54% vs. -15.72%), though over the two quarters including that one and the 1st quarter of 2019, everyone lost the same amount of money: about 5%. The fund did a little better in providing protection in the 3rd quarter of 2015, when it lost 6.2% vs. 9.19% for its peers. Including the slight bounce back the next quarter, FLPSX still did better, losing about 5% overall, while this time its peers lost around 7%.
http://performance.morningstar.com/fund/performance-return.action?t=FLPSX
The figures are okay, but I'm not seeing anything in the numbers that scream "buy me". Is that it, or is there something else that leads you to feel this manager rules?

@catch22: In the past, on could find "enhanced cash" funds - what I called "secondary cash" above. Post 2008, it's hard to find anything similar outside of Australia.
For me, series I savings bonds serve the same role, and I stocked up before 2008, when purchases were not limited and the fixed rates were significantly higher. Since then, between the fact that purchases were capped and the fixed rates were effectively zero, I've nibbled only slightly.
You are correct in pointing out that even if one likes investing in savings bonds, the impact is limited. That's another reason to think of these more as a cash alternative and less as a major portfolio allocation.
Personally I'm disinclined to invest in inflation-linked products. While there's always the possibility of inflation rising rapidly, I'm guessing that it won't, and if it does that some part of my diversified equity portfolio will provide cover.
My interest in series I savings bonds is not for inflation protection. Rather, I expect them to outperform cash regardless of short term (6 month) inflation fluctuations, while having nearly the same liquidity as cash, plus tax advantages.
That latter point goes to your question of what type of account: taxable, since federal debt instruments are tax-favored (at the state level), and you lose that with IRAs. Besides, the income from savings bonds is deferred anyway. Unlike income from TIPS.
IMHO, to the extent that one does better with TIPS (or any bond) fund, it is because of the longer duration and interest rate risk one is assuming. Over the past several years, they do not seem to have been worth that risk.
Using your funds as examples, STPZ has returned 1.10% (annualized) over the past five years, 1.57% over the past ten. Not much better than cash.
LTPZ has done much better, returning 4.16% and 5.80% over the same time periods. But it has done that with a 20+ year duration in an era of declining interest rates. EDV, which invests in straight treasuries, has returned 7.20% and 9.29% respectively over the same periods. PEDIX's returns are very similar (7.20% and 9.58%). I'm not betting on that long term downward trend continuing.

I think there is a real danger right now in reviewing managers by their 10-year returns as the second worst bear market in U.S. history ended in March 2009 and the ten year-returns now exclude that bear market and we instead have returns for a great bull market. What you will end up with is likely some aggressive growth managers who out-beta'd the benchmark to beat it in the last ten years with large concentrations in tech stocks. A 15-year record would be better, but then much fewer managers have that tenure at one fund and may not be around much longer if they retire soon. What I might suggest actually is looking at a 3-year one instead as 2018 was the first bad year we had in a long time. Or simply see in the bad periods 4th quarter of 2018 and I believe--please doublecheck--fourth quarter of 2015--which funds performed well then and then see if those same funds also hold up when markets are good again or are they too conservative during bull runs? Upside/downside capture, ulcer index, bear market return numbers are probably easier ways to look. But articles like this one are dangerous if one simply takes the numbers for granted.

Hi Guys,
There are a very few rare gem current fund managers who are special. They are special and deserve consideration if they outdistance their benchmarks. Long term performance is perhaps the most significant criteria. I provide a reference that summaries the data in that arena:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/kenkam/2019/02/08/investing-with-the-greatest-mutual-fund-managers-2/#775ebd1e2a71
This is good stuff, but caution must be exercised. From the referenced article: “ Out of about 7000 U.S. equity mutual funds in Morningstar's database only 199, roughly 3%, have fund managers who have beaten the S&P 500 by enough to make a difference and outperformed their category benchmark over the past 10 years. “.
Now that is really special, but unfortunately it measures a fleeting characteristic. Investment management is a tough business. Past success doesn’t always translate into future success. Change happens.
However, it just might be worth your time to visit the reference and examine “The List”. You just might improve your portfolio.
Best Regards.

You got it. Worth highlighting from the article you linked to:

You can redeem them after one year, costing you three months of interest. Or redeem them after five years and pay no penalty, or just hold them for 30 years and cash out.

Note that there is absolutely no way to redeem the savings bonds in less than a year.
I'm looking at swapping some older savings bonds for these higher yielding 0.5% fixed rate bonds before the end of the month. That will start a new clock going, but I hold these as "secondary cash", so I'm okay with that.
Or I may just continue holding the older savings bonds for awhile (as well as buying the new ones). 2.02% tax deferred, state tax exempt is not a bad deal in this low interest rate environment. And that comes with, as your article describes it, "fantastic flexibility."
Some frames of reference: current 3 month and 6 month zero T-bills up for auction are anticipated to yield slightly over 1.6%. (From Fidelity's site.) Vanguard's Treasury MMF ($50K min) has a current SEC yield of 1.85%, APR of 1.87%. That's gradually declining and is not tax-deferred.

I've held TWEIX THOPX and TRBUX for a number of years-satisfied with the role they play in my investments.

Hi Catch,
Yeah, I also like healthcare as you do.....not as much now as a few years ago. Also own FSPHX and FSMEX. I think you do also. Have added to GIBLX and PTIAX with the 10 year at 1.80. Also have added to FSENX on Friday. Have made 6.3% on the first investment on 10/2. Too bad it was so small. Other things I'm looking at: YAFFX, TWEIX, THOPX, and TRBUX. I think we go higher from here. My biggest regret is that I did not add to VWINX when I had a chance at the end of last year. One last question: is a municipal fund worthwhile in an IRA? Have been thinking about EALBX.
God bless
the Pudd

I Bonds, paying 2.5% from next month. You are guaranteed to earn 0.5% above the rate of inflation if you buy before Oct 31.

If you buy before Oct. 31, the bonds you receive will pay 1.90% through March of 2020. That's the way Series I savings bonds work. You get the current inflation adjustment (1.4%) for the first six months you own the savings bonds regardless of which month you purchase them in, then the you get the next inflation adjustment (2.0%) for six months, and so on.

The 1.90% composite rate for I bonds bought from May 2019 through October 2019 applies for the first six months after the issue date.

https://www.treasurydirect.gov/news/pressroom/currentibondratespr.htm
The argument for buying now:

The current I Bond fixed rate is 0.5%. That is the highest it has been since early 2009 when it was 0.70%. In this falling interest rate environment with low Treasury yields, I think it’s likely that the I Bond fixed rate will fall. For five of the last ten years, the fixed rate has been zero.
If you buy I Bonds for the long-term, the fixed rate is the most important consideration, and it may be at a peak. We won’t know the next I Bond fixed rate until November 1st when the Treasury announces the changes.

https://www.depositaccounts.com/blog/inflation-treasury-series-i-savings-bonds/
Whether you buy now or buy in November, it's unlikely that the savings bonds will pay 2.5% next month. (I've no complaints with 1.9%, tax deferred, state tax exempt.)

Hi Ted,
Thanks for the nice rules summary. However, it’s not the rules themselves that generated the superior performance, but as you also identified, it is his patience and discipline. Buffett simply stays the course. His long term persistence pays off big time. Those are the necessary key elements in a winner’s strategy.
Before reading your submittal, I was only familiar with an even simpler 2 rule famous summary of Buffett’s investment rules. He is often quoted as saying “ "Rule No. 1: Never lose money. Rule No. 2: Never forget rule No. 1.". Now that’s solid advice, but a bit difficult to put into practice.
Luck is more important then any and all rule books.
I really like this famous quote from a Bob Brown: “ Behind every successful man there's a lot of unsuccessful years,”. Indeed, persistence is a needed quality.
Best Wishes

Hi @rono
Thank you for your redo ink to shadowstats. There are those here who may not have know of the site previous, and the old timers who had forgotten.
I'm absolutely positive inflation is running more than the gov't provided CPI increase (1.6%) for 2020 for SS, etc.
As you've noted numerous times, invest in what you use as a consumer, too.....local utils, etc. A "pay yourself" investment plan, eh?
Neighbor chat indicates that their Plan F supplemental health coverage premium will increase 9.6% in 2020. Insurance is insurance for a reason and they've had a need for this over the years and are pleased they had the extra coverage. I've expressed previous, that to help offset the rising costs of healthcare to invest in the sector. A good example is FSPHX, with an inception date of 1981. The lifetime annualized return is 15.4%. There are plenty of decent healthcare investments from the broadbased to the more narrow sectors, as with an etf of IHI (medical tech./devices).
Take care,
Catch

I use a small-cap index, VSMAX, by far my worst performer over the last couple years. I'm close to consolidating it with VTSAX already. But of course, small-caps will have the mega bounce once I do.

FYI: (This Is A Follow-Up Article.)
The latest tally shows more than $3 billion in client assets pulled from Fisher Investments since the Oct. 8 comments were initially criticized in a video posted on Twitter.
Most of those departing assets are represented by public pension plans and high-profile companies like Goldman Sachs that are showing their own PR prudence by distancing themselves from Fisher.
But Fisher Investments, as the nation's second-largest RIA behind Financial Engines Advisors, has over the past few years undertaken an aggressive retail branding campaign and could also be vulnerable on the consumer side.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.google.com/search?sxsrf=ACYBGNQfxbvLiQf4TfPJXK_NCyTHTdBEtw:1572078987192&source=hp&ei=iwW0Xf2UCcjmsAXbk404&q=Is+it+time+for+Ken+Fisher+to+step+down?&oq=Is+it+time+for+Ken+Fisher+to+step+down?&gs_l=psy-ab.3..33i299.4920.4920..6175...0.0..0.93.93.1......0....2j1..gws-wiz.D0GWZyMH8wA&ved=0ahUKEwi9htrMwrnlAhVIM6wKHdtJAwcQ4dUDCAc&uact=5

I'm looking to buy DFDMX for my Roth IRA on the next reasonable dip. I'm very impresssed by its risk adjusted performance and the management's philosophy. I am amazed it's still such a tiny fund ($170m), especially following three years of outstanding performance and no outflows to speak of.
On the general topic of actively managed versus index funds, I have never owned nor ever wanted to own the latter. If the market does take a serious downturn then a manager who can navigate the headwinds is worth his weight in gold. Think Larry Puglia at TRBCX which has not had a single down year in the last ten. Investors in many index funds, however, will be at the full mercy of market forces - and they will finally pay full price for their cheap investments.

I used to listen to a very good investment show hosted by legendary Bruce Williams back in the 80s. It was broadcast nationwide.
Bruce often alluded to “The Rule of 72” which the link below explains. He claimed a investor should on average double his money every 8 years. That would work out to a 9% annual return, using the rule of 72. That sounds quite high by today’s standards without taking on a lot of additional risk. In the 80s mortgage rates were still double-digit. Interest rates generally were much higher than today.
https://www.thebalance.com/how-to-use-the-rule-of-72-2388567

[Special relativity twin paradox]

Because the twin traveling is moving close to the speed of light when they return, the time it took them to travel millions of miles may have only been a few days, while the lapse of time for the twin on Earth may have been multiple years. Time was relative to the rate at which the twin was traveling.

Just another example of a financial writer lifting something out of context, not comprehending it, and then misapplying it.
The whole point of special relativity is that there are no absolute positions or motions, everything is relative. (Only the speed of light is absolute.) You cannot say that one twin is traveling away from the earth and that the other twin is "standing still". Such a suggestion reeks of Ptolemy. From each twin's perspective, it is the other twin who is moving.
If neither twin altered course (so that, relatively speaking, both continued traveling in straight lines), then each would see the other aging more slowly and each would be correct. It is when one twin reverses direction that the twin moves from one frame of reference to another and that time appears to "jump".
Here's what's happening:
https://properphysics.wordpress.com/2014/05/28/a-no-nonsense-introduction-to-special-theory-of-relativity-part-4/

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/10/25/billionaire-investor-ron-baron-sees-the-dow-at-650000-in-50-years.html
Billionaire investor Ron Baron sees Dow 650,000 in 50 years — about 25 times higher than today
If we can live 50 more yrs that would be great

Howdy folks,
Love reading your thoughts.
I'm staying in a rope-a-dope with my heavy parking place at Price RPSIX. Still riding my momentum play in the junior silver miners, but standing pat as things resolve themselves. I still really like stocks that pay me a dividend particularly if I'm customer of theirs [read: T, CMS, VZ] and can never, ever, ever stay away from NCV with a yield of 11%.
Couple of thought from above. Being older absolutely changes your approach to risk as you don't have the time to 'revert to the mean'. This is compounded if this is an account from which you're taking distributions. The 2000 dot.com meltdown impacted my wifes 401(k) distributing acct from Vanguard it ran out in about 12 years. And it was invested very conservatively.
Inflation. The tricks they play with the numbers are obscene. Hedonic adjustments (i.e. if it's new and improved they can charge more without it counting. Can you still get the old unimproved model?) Is hamburger a substitute for stead? Which housing metric dampens the number? feh. http://www.shadowstats.com/alternate_data/inflation-charts
Whether you care for shadow stats or not, it is one measure of inflation that seems to better reflect what I experience every day.
Lastly, this too shall pass and I too have my shopping list.
However, I must admit that I am ashamed to be an American and I spent 20 months in 'nam.
and so it goes,
peace,
rono