@MFO Members The thrust of the article was to focus on a fund in the healthcare sector that had outstanding yield with reasonable capital appreciation. The poster chose to compare GRX strictly on capital appreciation bases totally is unfair !
Regards,
Ted
P. S. GRX yield has been income with no capital gains or ROC for the last two years.

Part of this CEF distribution in 2017 was return of one's own capital invested.
Being curious....., the below 3 healthcare related were chosen, for about 5.5 years of compare.
GRX FSPHX FHLC FSMEX compare chart starting Oct. 2013
GRX has performed well during the past 3 week healthcare whack. It appears they are able to use a percent of the money for derivatives functions; and have it right at this particular time frame.
However, we remain a total return investor; not for the yield/distribution function.

Too many children. Now, there's an interesting financial subject that I can't recall being discussed on MFO in the last ten years or so.

Accustomed to pointless useless movie clips from one member here, I nearly didn’t click on the one above. But I must commend @Ted for that one and highly recommend it if you have time on this somewhat busy news day. (I sampled it but haven’t watched the full 30-minutes.)
It’s a half hour Consuelo Mack production. Begins with Buffett’s apparent affinity for index investing and than goes into a lengthy interview with Winters. I disagree with Buffet. And recall long discussions here years back when he revealed his investment strategy for his wife’s inheritance after his passing. (No desire to wade through that muck again.)
The interview is typical optimistic charming David Winters. He was an apprentice under renowned activist deep value investor Michael Price decades back, who managed the Mutual Series (later acquired by Franklin Templeton). Price had a style for pushing management to make changes which often resulted in quick appreciation of their stock price - possibly at the expense of longer term value. Winters’ approach to Wintergreen likely reflected that deep value approach. I was tempted to send money when he opened Wintergreen but resisted. The high fees were a turn-off. Charm and pedigree can only get you so far. So Winters’ act turned out to be not a “Michael Price II” - but a failure instead.
To me this has as much to do with the fickleness of investment trends as anything else. We have very short memories and tend to think things will always remain as they are. It’s possible Winters had it right, but was out of step with the current indexing / momentum driven investment climate. Who knows? I don’t pretend to. But don't dismiss Winters as an investing lightweight. The picture is a bit more complex than it might appear on surface.

@johnN
Please start a new post; as this thread is already too much off track.
Thank you.
I personally don't follow what you are asking about with your below statement.
different ?: how much should we cash out from IRA/401K/pensions plans monthly if we retire at age 62?

I agree that question needs to be rephrased by @JohnN. Sounds more like something related to longevity issue and making savings last over a lifetime. Unfortunately, some workers do “cash out” 100% from these plans and spend the money right away or within a few years of retiring. Poor planning - but all too common.
Somewhat related to Catch’s original question - These workplace plans do not need to be rolled over into an IRA if worker prefers not to. My own personal thinking (based on something I read at the time) was that while in the employee plan your investments are still partially controlled by the employer who administers the plan. But, once in an IRA (“I” for individual), control of the plan shifts completely to that of the the individual. Probably oversimplifies it - but I was more comfortable moving to an IRA and having full control.
It was simpler back than (90s). There was still a loophole in the 403B Regulations allowing participants to transfer assets to a custodian of choice. So, TRP had received most of those assets (originally with Templeton) while I was still working. They remained a 403B with TRP until I retired and elected to rollover the assets into an IRA. Very simple. A few pages of documents which I signed off on.
Lots of things to consider, including the comments by @msf above. Gets into questions of investment choices, fees, possible confiscation of assets by creditors under some circumstances - depending on type of plan selected.
-

FYI: “YOU’RE FIRED” was made famous by Donald Trump as host of The Apprentice. Imagine my surprise when my broker delivered the same message to me two years ago.
Regards,
Ted
https://humbledollar.com/2019/04/unloaded/

@MFO Members: Who would have thought that David Winters, who honed his skills under Max Heine and Michael Price at Mutual Series, and once considered a rising star in the fund world, would come to an end after fourteen years at the helm of Wintergreen Fund. But the numbers tell the story of his downfall, the fund was in the 100% percentile during it's life.
Regards,
Ted

@Derf
I don't know why Vanguard would have a problem allowing more than 1 beneficiary. We've set primary and secondary beneficiaries "on-line" through our accounts. I've seen primary, secondary and/or co-beneficiary listed as choices at various accounts over the years.
Beneficiaries/co-beneficiaries would be of the same legal status with a 401k, 403b, 457, traditional or Roth IRA to the best of my knowledge. To the point of superseding a will for purposes of distribution at death. Beneficiary is the first trump card.
If any know of a variance with the above; please let us know.
ADD: Derf, here is the Vanguard link explaining beneficiary designation.
Ok.......you're on your own from here tonight. Early rise next day and pillow time calls.

Hi Catch - By “vendor” I’m assuming you mean a mutual fund family or other fiduciary like a bank or insurance company. I can’t think of any reason for not combining. However, the vendor might be able to answer that one for friend.
I do know Price used to try to “keep straight” in their in-house records whether IRA funds I had with them had come from a “rollover” out of a 403B (like your friend) or whether they had been “transferred” in (as from one IRA custodian to another IRA custodian). Their reasoning at the time was that a rollover from 403B had for a number of years the ability to be rolled again back into another employer’s 403B should I return to work again.. Muddle the distinction in the sourcing of the funds and that option becomes impossible.
Price long ago gave up the ghost on that one - at least as far as my money is concerned. So, in all practicality, I think JoJo is correct that it doesn’t matter.

Does anyone have John Hussman’s own remarks to his investors for what went wrong here? Since it appears other Hussman funds are remaining open or being opened, it would be out of character of him not to comment on this closure. Not that anybody cares. But it would be interesting to some of us, anyway, to hear what he sees as the primary reason for the fund’s failure.
You could argue that there’s more - or at least an equal amount - to be learned from failure than from success. I think Musk had 3 Falcon 1 rockets blow up before one actually made it to space. There was a “cute” cliche widely touted in education seminars 30 years ago: “Monitor and adjust.” - :) Of course, that gem can be applied to most disciplines.
PS - While I found one poster’s video amusing, most will agree Hussman had more education and intellect than the fictionalized 60s television persona the poster linked above. It doesn’t take a lot of brains to lose money, but having the afore-mentioned education / intellect is no guarantee that you won’t either.

"Wealthfront, for example, harvests losses by switching between the Vanguard ETF and the Schwab U.S. Broad Market ETF."
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-sec-fintech/sec-sanctions-robo-advisers-wealthfront-hedgeable-idUSKCN1OK22E
Wealthfront, for example, was fined $250,000 by the SEC for allegedly making "false statements about a tax-loss harvesting strategy it offered to clients."

The company had told clients using the service that it would monitor all clients’ accounts for transactions that might trigger a sale of securities that would diminish the benefits of the tax-loss strategy but it failed to do so, the SEC alleged.
For a period of over three years these sales occurred in at least 31 percent of accounts enrolled in the company’s tax-loss harvesting strategy, the SEC alleged.
[The SEC also claimed that Wealthfront paid bloggers for client referrals w/o disclosure, and that it posted performance figures that included less than 4% of their clients' accounts - the better performing ones, of course.]

Definitely beware the bold claims when they're paid testimonials and rigged numbers.

The fact is you don't want stupid people in charge of any government agency but for obvious reasons this Fed appointment is getting the most attention. I am far more concerned about idiot Trump appointees in charge of for instance the Department of Energy which is responsible for our nuclear arsenal or the Department of Agriculture responsible for food stamp and food safety or the Department of Education: https://vanityfair.com/news/2017/07/department-of-energy-risks-michael-lewis
That said, if the U.S. were to lose its world reserve currency status I think it would be game over for us as a superpower and our markets would crash, especially the ones we often view as the safest--Treasuries.

Trump’s decision to consider close political allies for the central bank comes at a sensitive moment for the world economy and the IMF.

When isn't it a sensitive moment? The problem is having nationalists in charge of the world's most powerful country when we're now living--and have for at least 100 years-- in a global economy in which everything is intricately linked.

@jerry et al I don't disagree about a time frame chosen by Fidelity. They know better than any of us about the internals.
A couple of notes for the curious.
FSMEX and fund assets for the past few years.
2016 remained mostly around for the year for each month. I suspect, although did not check; this flatness to be the same for 2015, as that year was pretty much sideways for health funds in general.
---2016, avg. monthly assets =$2 billion
---2017, Aug. = $4 billion
---2018, Oct. = $6.3 billion
---2019, Mar./early April = $7 billion
Not a fair and fully just comparison, but FSPHX (broad-based health), which has been in place since 1981 and is very well known and respected, currently has $7.2 billion of managed assets.
Lastly, we did a test trade and for those having a position in FSMEX, all is well for purchase at this time. I suspect the same holds true for as long as access is allowed where this fund exists within 401k's, 403's, etc. Obviously, a lot of money may still flow to this fund.
ADD: Fidelity closed the FDGRX fund to new money in 2006. However, notice was provided as to a time frame. I don't recall exactly, but suggest the cut off was within a 3 month period. But, the fund remains open to adding money from existing fund holders, including where available in 401k/403b type retirement accounts.
Good evening,
Catch

FYI: Patience is usually considered to be a virtue except when it comes to investing. Investors are notoriously impatient when the funds they are in underperform the market for a few years. The magic number seems to be three. Key investment lessons from the financial crisis with Ariel Investments’ Charlie Bobrinskoy.
Regards,
Ted
https://wealthtrack.com/financial-crisis-survival-lessons-beats-market-peers-since-bottom-ariel-fund/
M* Snapshot ARFFX:
https://www.morningstar.com/funds/xnas/arffx/quote.html
Lipper Snapshot ARFFX:
https://www.marketwatch.com/investing/fund/arffx
ARFFX Is Ranked #151 In The (LCV) fund Category By U.S. News & World Report:
https://money.usnews.com/funds/mutual-funds/large-value/ariel-focus-fund/arffx

Gets confusing. Macquire runs a fine infrastructure investment complex. Oppenheimer, where I have a bit, apparently farms out their infrastructure fund to Macquire to manage (OQGAX). Not a great record since Oppenheimer got involved - but they’ve only had it a year or so. I have small hold in it. Me thinks Macquire may be based in Australia, as a lot of their holdings are there.
On another front, Invesco is taking over Oppenheimer. Got a bunch of paperwork + proxies on the complex deal. Looks like Invesco will continue to run the current lineup of Oppenheimer funds alongside theirs - at first anyway. Firm commitment not to exceed current ER on all the funds for 3 years.
Invesco sounds, if anything, even higher fee and lower regarded than Oppenheimer.

Ive held IHI for 3 years,and have not been sorry I chose it over FSMEX, returns exceed ytd, 1, 3, 5 and 10 year over Fidelity's fund, which I did look at when choosing, but since I have FSPHX, same manager as FSMEX, chose IHI.

FSMEX is a health care fund, but travels the technology/medical devices path.
I don't know how fresh is this close, but I don't recall seeing any notice a few weeks ago while looking at things within Fidelity. Anyway, from recall in 2018; I do believe the size of this fund moved from about $4.6 billion to almost $7 billion now, in less than 1 years time.
I'll get back here with a handy-dandy chart of this fund and related. The charting is not being cooperative right now.
Catch

@Catch22- Ask, and you shall receive. (Maybe... but don't count on it.) The following excerpts from the Wall Street Journal article, which I believe that you were interested in, were selected and edited for brevity.
"The magnitude and speed of the market’s recovery [so far this year] helped three Morgan Stanley mutual funds land in the top six in The Wall Street Journal’s first quarterly Winners’ Circle contest of 2019.
Top laurels, meanwhile, were again won by two Fidelity Investments funds that focus on growth companies. Fidelity Advisor Series Growth Opportunities Fund (FAOFX) repeated as the best-performing stock fund over the previous 12 months. (Under our contest rules, funds must be diversified U.S.-stock funds, actively managed, with at least $50 million in assets and a record of no less than three years.) The fund posted a 12-month return of 38% as of March 31. Fidelity Advisor Growth Opportunities (FAGOX), was again No. 2 with 33.5%.
Readers shouldn’t treat this as a list of recommended funds. Often, the managers recognized in our contest are reaping the fruits of investments made several years ago and have endured periods of underperformance en route to their moment in the spotlight. It is also worth noting, this month, that our top-performing fund can’t be accessed directly by investors; instead, it is an underlying investment in Fidelity Freedom Funds and certain asset-management programs. Our rankings exclude passive investment vehicles, sector funds, funds that use leverage to amplify returns or manage risk, and quantitative funds that employ screens to select their holdings."

Possibly a graduate of The Bernie Madoff School of Accounting?
Haven’t watched entire video. From the mentioned discussion point it seems he’s attempting to demonstrate that an equal probability of risk (ie loss) can be achieved by investing 8X the amount of money in 2-year T Bills as in stocks. And at the same time he seems to be suggesting that the potential gains would be 8X higher with his bond position as for stocks with only equal amounts of downside risk. Be suspicious of his claim that “everybody in the business knows this”. (Get the feeling you’re being talked down to?)
The analysis is incomplete / faulty on many levels. His 16% assumption about the “average” stock market sell-off / gain is out of thin air. He cites a 16% sell-off last December as some sort of proof. Obviously, a stock sell-off / gain can be of greater or lesser magnitude (and not necessarily equal). He claims treasury bonds were the only asset class to increase in value in December 2018. Misses completely that gold climbed 5% during the month.
He seems to imply that a half-percent cut in the fed rate would translate into a 2% increase in the value of 2 year Treasury. That might be true, I can’t find any charts or calculators that might prove or disprove the assumption. But I also doubt that the correlation is as direct as he suggests.
His case rests on the assumption that by multiplying the bond term (2 years) X 8 you come up with a risk quotient equal to that magical (probable) 16% gain or loss in equities. Somehow this is supposed to translate into 8X the gain potential in 2 year treasuries as for equities. Makes no sense (he’s comparing entirely different concepts). However, it’s impossible to analyze precisely without at least knowing how much the value of that 2-year bond would be affected by a half-percent drop in rates.
Confuse, offucsate and misdirect - Maybe no one will notice. :) Possibly Mack didn’t understand - or it’s equally possible she decided to let the idiot’s words speak for themselves.

Purchased MSCFX after it made 2018 distributions. It is a small cap core fund. Also have PRDSX being a quant fund for growth.
If you don't care about expenses, WMICX (small cap core) has been on a tear the last several years.