Clearly. Trying to imagine why you would charge such a thing. Guess you have not studied in detail its changing fortunes the last few years. 5.5y ago DS mentioned its defensive stance to an extent (http://www.mutualfundobserver.com/2013/03/seafarer-overseas-growth-income-sfgix/) but not more recently (https://www.mutualfundobserver.com/2015/05/seafarer-overseas-growth-income-sfgixsigix-may-2015/). See also its M* star changes over time.
In any case it invests in EM; who would think "philosophy should protect capital in down markets" of any such vehicle?
It is fascinating to me to read that investments which do not pan out, or not quickly enough, are somehow the result of defocusing, as though effort and will and hard thinking and other notionally causal behaviors can and will preclude outcomes like @MikeM quoted. That's why I wondered if he doubled down on those overreacted-to stocks.
I have been reading Foster for years, back to Matthews, interesting guy. But some months, and longer, the bear eats you.

Harbor is saying that it will realize all gains in the portfolio this year. If all gains are realized, any attempt to optimize by selling lowest gain shares first would be pointless.
Still, I agree that the vast majority if not all of the net cap gains realized will be long term. That's for a few reasons:
- Very low turnover (13%), so on average, investments have been held for 4 years. Think of a portfolio filled with investments held 8 years then sold; half will be under 4 years old at the moment, half more. In any case, very few holdings owned for under a year.
- Net losses this year; YTD performance -2.73%. So holdings purchased this year may easily have dropped in value; at least enough so that short term losses should wipe out any short term gains.
- New management building a new portfolio - it's very unlikely that the new management is buying securities now just to dump within the fiscal year. They're not about to generate additional short term gains with their own purchases.
Here's the source for M*'s estimated 38% distribution.
https://www.harborfunds.com/HIF_manager_change_QA.htm#7
It's worth keeping in mind the dollar amount of the expected distribution, more so than the percentage. Harbor estimates that $9B will be distributed in cap gains: $4.5B already recognized, and nearly all of the $4.5B unrealized gains are expected to be realized.
The current AUM of the fund is $20.8B, so that comes out to 9/20.8 = 43%. (This is just slightly higher than the 41% one gets by taking Harbor's high end distribution of $27 and dividing by the current NAV of $64.94.)
So watch that AUM. As it drops (people sell), the $9B won't change, but the denominator will get smaller and smaller.

Ive held the fund for 24 years so lots of cap gains

'16 and '17 underperformance is fine as I'd expect him to lag in stronger years. The underperformance YTD is disappointing.
I do think, to some extent, he's been a victim of his own success. He took quite a bit of money in early then subsequently opened another fund, which I think was a bad idea... Too soon.

@MFO Members: They say timing is everything. It all depends what time period you invested with Mr. Foster. Year-to-date, three years, not so good. Five years a lot better.
Regards,
Ted

I'm not sure what you're saying here. Is it that Harbor should have fired Castegren in 2000, since that's the last good year you identify? In that case, perhaps it was Ivy International Growth (now Ivy Global Growth) IVINX that had the right idea. Ivy induced Castegren to quit in 2000 by refusing to close its fund.
More likely, it was Ivy, not Northern Cross that had no succession plan. I don't believe Ivy was expecting Castegren to quit. It plunked Reilly in as manager for 1.5 years, followed by McLachan for another year. Only then did it settle on a long term manager with Mengel. In those intevening couple of years, IVINX returned -17.26% (2000), -21.03% (2001), and -20.96% (2002).
In comparison, HAINX had returns of -4.97% (2000), -12.25% (2001), and -6.38% (2002).
For a frame of reference, TEMFX had returns of -3.67% (2000), -7.92% (2001), -8.64% (2002).
Northern Cross had a succession plan in place. For almost two years before Castegren died, starting Feb 2009, Castegren was joined by Ducrest, LaTorre, and Wendell. For the two years of overlap, and the two years following, HAINX put up good to very good numbers: 17th percentile (2009), 31st percentile (2010), 17th percentile (2011), 17th percentile (2012).
Those managers did not maintain their fine performance. However, the succession was planned and the fund continued to perform well through the transition.
The lesson to be learned is when a fund does not have a smooth succession plan (successful or otherwise), you may expect a portfolio overhaul and large amounts of cap gains realized. Harbor just fired Northern Cross. That's what caused the gains to be realized.

The real lesson was to sell the fund after the death of long-time fund manager Hakan Castegren in 2010. It was one of the top international funds before 2000. Unfortunately, Northern Cross didn't have a successful succession plan in place resulting in mediocre performance in the following years.

FYI: Below is a look at each country’s percentage of total world stock market capitalization based on Bloomberg indices. (We only include the 35 largest countries by market cap in the table.)
For each country, we show its current percentage of world market cap, where it stood on Election Day 2016, and where it stood ten years ago.
Notably, the US has just recently eclipsed the 40% level for the first time since 2005. At the moment, the US stock market makes up 40.01% of world stock market capitalization. Given dollar strength, gains in US equities, and declines in most international equity markets recently, it’s no surprise that this reading is at multi-year highs.
As the US’ share of world market cap has gone up, China’s share has taken the biggest hit. On Election Day 2016, the US made up 36.53% of world market cap, while China made up 10.21%. Since Election Day, the US has gained 3.48 percentage points, while China has lost 2.7 percentage points.
China’s drop has actually moved it into the third place ranking behind Japan, which currently makes up 7.59% of world stock market cap.
Behind the US, Japan, and China ranks Hong Kong (6.51%), the UK (4.49%), France (3.23%), Germany (2.91%), and India (2.83%).
Regards,
Ted
https://www.bespokepremium.com/think-big-blog/us-as-of-world-stock-market-cap-tops-40-again/

Thanks again @davidmoran
Re tutorial (noun) - Cambridge Dictionary
1. a period of study with a tutor involving one student or a small group
2. a period of study with a tutor and a small group of students
3. IT a document or website on a computer that shows you how to use a product in a series of easy stages:
Albeit, you used the adverb form of the word (which is rarely used). So to tie things together:
tutorially: in the manner of a tutorial (Collins Dictionary)
Here’s how M* describes Ms. Benz’s role and purpose: “Morningstar director of personal finance Christine Benz has developed a series of hypothetical portfolios for savers and retirees. These portfolios are offered as general examples for investors' reference. These portfolios are not personalized recommendations, nor are they investable products offered by Morningstar.”
Hope I’m not nit-picking. Just trying to understand why I should be particularly interested in her advice over, say, someone like Ol’Skeet here who does a great job explaining his long standing bucket approach or the folks at T. Rowe Price who present models by example. (ie - I can take apart a given target date retirement fund designed by them and visualize how much they allocate to different funds or sectors.) I’m not saying Christine Benz’s is bad advice. Just asking why she deserves more credence than someone else who’s equally (possibly more) experienced?
Nothing in Benz’s listed educational background (below) suggests any type of financial training or certification. All I see there is political science and East European history. Also, I’ve never thought of M* as an advisory firm. Always thought their forte was in statistical analysis of fund data. (But, I’ll admit to rarely looking at them.)
Christine Benz’s Experience (Linkedin) https://www.linkedin.com/in/christine-benz-b83b523/
Director of Personal Finance
Morningstar, Inc.
2008 – Present (10 years)
Director of Mutual Fund Analysis
Morningstar, Inc.
February 2006 – March 2008 (2 years 2 months)
Education
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
BA, Political Science, Russian and East European Studies
Lyons Township High School
From Amazon https://www.amazon.com/Christine-Benz/e/B002PICOLS
“Christine (Benz) holds a bachelor's degree in political science and Russian/East European studies from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. She lives in the Chicago suburbs with her husband, Greg. She is an avid cook, a political junkie, and a long-suffering Chicago Cubs fan.”

https://www.morningstar.com/content/morningstarcom/en_us/model-portfolios.html
https://www.linkedin.com/in/christine-benz-b83b523/
dir of personal finance at M*, for some years

Thanks @davidmoran
Who employs her? (some company or agency, wealthy individuals directly, financial planners)?
40 years is a long time. If she’s wrong, you wouldn’t know for a long time. I suppose it doesn’t matter because there’s probably no legal accountability anyway.
3 years (advertised by some here) doesn’t serm very meaningful to me. In a 40 year span (first investment to time of drawdown) a 3 year streak (positive or negative) would appear trivial.

My earlier goof. Glanced at the thread on the way out the door and assumed “Christine” was a newbie here seeking advice. Didn’t realize she’s actually a journalist spewing out model portfolios. I’d be very careful criticizing the investment choices of any one individual. Only they really understand their situation and temperament.
But if folks find it either instructive or amusing to argue about model portfolios that’s fine for me. Go for it. Few of us will be here in 40 years to judge who had it right. I used to look at them for ideas 20-30 years back seeking to chart my own course. Little value or interest now to someone like me (and many others here) who’ve been at this for the past 50 years of their life. Indeed, most of the TRP funds being touted here didn’t even exist 50 years ago.
Regards

"Past performance is not a guarantee of future results."
We'll check back in 40 years to see who had the better long term portfolio. :-)

FYI: (Christine Benz's Aggressive T. Rowe Price Retirement Saver Portfolio
Anticipated Time Horizon to Retirement: 40 years )
20%: T. Rowe Price Dividend Growth (PRDGX)
15%: T. Rowe Price Equity Index 500 (PREIX)
10%: T. Rowe Price New America Growth (PRWAX)
10%: T. Rowe Price Small-Cap Value (PRSVX)
35%: T. Rowe Price Overseas Stock
5%: T. Rowe Price New Income (PRCIX)
5%: T. Rowe Price Real Assets (PRAFX)
Performance
3-Year Annualized Return: 11.93
( The Linkster's Aggressive T. Rowe Price Retirement Saver Portfolio
Anticipated Time Horizon to Retirement: 40 years )
20%: T. Rowe Price New America Growth (PRWAX)
20% T. Rowe Price Equity Index 500 (PREIX)
20% T. Rowe Price Global Technology Fund (PRGTX)
20% T.Rowe Price Health Sciences Fund (PRHSX)
20% T. Rowe Price Blue Chip Growth Fund (TRBCX)
Performance
3-Year Annualized Return: 19.82
The Entire Article:
https://www.morningstar.com/articles/880485/how-our-t-rowe-price-retirement-saver-portfolios-h.html

Along with others here, I have a "healthy" dose of health care in my active portfolio. CELG has been on a roller coaster, but my basis is so low as to make a sale unpalatable, even when it dropped. Also hold HQL, which has underperformed in recent years. I contacted the PM to express my concern and received no reply. I cannot complain about the 8% distribution plan of this CEF, but I didn't buy it to fill the role of an equity-income fund. Looking for something else and VHT figures in my thinking, along with a fund to capture the biotech sector.

Mike W - msf has it right of course (as regards money market funds)
1 or 2 ran into trouble in years past. But that was before the SEC-mandated reforms that were imposed within the past decade. One that lost money (several decades ago) was of the institutional variety serving large corporate customers - if memory serves. So even than consumers didn’t lose money. But it was common for some firms to play a bit “fast and loose” with ratings on the paper their mm funds held. Also, back than some went out too long on duration and got into trouble when rates moved the wrong way.
Sure - Theoretically, even a government money market fund could experience losses. But under such a scenario, we’d all have much more serious issues to think about aside from losing a few cents on the dollar in our government money market fund.

As @Ted and I agree with tech. and health exposure.
My particular watch for these two areas is that in the event of a major equity correction; these 2 sectors, as well as the other high fliers in growth will be some of the areas to get picked on the most for profit taking. The big money will come out of the best return areas over the past several years, yes? I'm not concerned at this time; just my open thought here.
Also, dependent upon one's available choices at their vendor; one can decide whether to have broad exposure to health or more narrow sectors. Review the holdings and performance carefully.
Health and tech. are two sectors where I don't regard expense ratios as a particular "evil". I'll guess the average ER for a managed fund is .7%. One can pay this much, too; for a passive managed etf.
Also note that one may already have 15% - 30% exposure to these 2 sectors via an equity growth fund or more broad based equity fund. Perhaps this is your comfort level.
---EXAMPLE: ITOT, I-shares, U.S. equity, broad
--- info tech. = 25%
--- health = 14%
--- finance = 14%
--- telecom = 1.8%
I've not looked deeper into all holdings with this etf; but included finance and telecom; as there may be additional tech. related inside these areas, too.
Note: To the etf list below, an OMG moment. The current best performance from this list is both a small cap and health, too. A great place to be this year, at this point in time; at least from the year's beginning.
In addition to Ted's active fund list, is this list for 47 health related etfs. I set this link with YTD return, but not sure how it will load here or for your use.
Do your homework in the healthcare sector and good fortune, as there are lots of choices.
We remain 50% of total equity exposure with health and tech.
Regards,
Catch

FYI: ( Last week catch22 linked an article,https://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-15-us-companies-that-are-investing-the-most-in-tomorrows-big-ideas-2018-08-23/print, about how much large pharma companies were spending on R&D. It got me rethinking my asset allocation in healthcare. I held PRHSX for many years, but sold it during the 2016 health sector downturn. I have held PFE since 2006 and have done very well. Tomorrow I will retake a position in PRHSX.)
If you’re looking for that healthy glow, look no further than health care.
That might be hard to imagine, given the sector’s earlier travails. Through May 8, it had dropped 2.4% even as the S&P 500 advanced 0.6%, with the market fretting about the political pressures being brought to bear on drug prices, among other issues.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.barrons.com/articles/why-health-cares-rally-may-be-just-getting-started-1535153121
List Of Health Care Funds:
http://mutualfunds.com/themes/health-biotech-equity-funds/

FYI: It might seem odd to open a retirement account for a high school student.
But teenagers can get a big head start on long-term savings, financial advisers say, by stashing some of their earnings in a Roth individual retirement account.
Now is a good time to talk with teenagers about long-term savings using a Roth I.R.A. because they may have earned money from summer jobs, said Patricia A. Seaman, a spokeswoman for the National Endowment for Financial Education, a nonprofit organization that promotes financial literacy.
Teenagers can benefit from tax-free growth of investments in a Roth account years before they have the opportunity to contribute to a workplace retirement plan, Ms. Seaman said. And five decades of growth allows plenty of time to ride out market swings.
“The earlier you start,” Ms. Seaman said, “the more the time value of money works for you.”
A Roth I.R.A. for someone under 18 must be opened and managed by an adult custodian, like a parent or grandparent. The teenager must have earned income, whether from a formal job or from gigs like babysitting and lawn mowing. Children can contribute their total annual earnings up to $5,500.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/24/your-money/roth-ira-retirement-teenagers.html

Hi @bee, My portfolio is comprised through many years of investing and there are guidelines in place but no hard rules. For instance, the two largest fund holdings are also my oldest at about six percent each (FKINX & AMECX). I decided ... enough is enough ... and, I don't want to keep expanding these two funds so I split some off and open other funds with these being my seed funds for the others. With new money, some gift and inheritance transfers, and taking what the existing funds generated I built what you see. With this I'm thinking new positions to complement the core. Also, a good amount of what you see is also held in taxable accounts. So, I have to consider the tax angle as well.
An exapmle. Currently, NEWFX is the largest position in it's sleeve so I'm thinking of splitting some of it into another fund (DWGAX) through a nav exchange process. This will rebalace NEWFX's sleeve while adding some diverfication to the sleeve that will hold DWGAX. As you can see I have another fund under review for a nav exchange buy (INUTX). So, this is an on going process and done when I felt warranted. Again, gudelines but no hard rules. Generally, no fund starts at less than 5% of its sleeve and becomes no more than 60%. For instance AOFAX is currently 15% of its sleeve, NDVAX 15% and PMDAX 70%. When AOFAX gets built AOFAX is tatgeted to become 20%, NDVAX 20% & PMDAX 60%. PMDAX is held in a taxable account and has been a long term position and through the years of growth become an outsized position within its sleeve. The strategy is not to sell any of PMDAX but to grow the other positions to balance the sleeve with some more buys and natural growth as they should grow faster than PMDAX.
That is why it is important to Xray what you have before starting to tweak.
The below outlines the process and was not posted with the portfolio. Again, no hard rules just guidelines about my sleeve management system.
Old_Skeet's Sleeve Management System
Now being in retirement here is a brief description of my sleeve management system which I organized to better help manage the investments held within mine and my wife's portfolios. The master portfolio is comprised of two taxable investment accounts, two self directed retirement accounts, a health savings account plus two bank accounts. With this, I came up with four investment areas. They are a cash area which consist of two sleeves ... an investment cash sleeve and a demand cash sleeve. The next area is the income area which consist of two sleeves ... a fixed income sleeve and a hybrid income sleeve. Then there is the growth & income area which has more risk associated with it than the income area and it consist of four sleeves ... a global equity sleeve, a global hybrid sleeve, a domestic equity sleeve and a domestic hybrid sleeve. And, there is the growth area where the most risk in the portfolio is found and it consist of five slleves ... a global sleeve, a large/mid cap sleeve, a small/mid cap sleeve, a specialty/theme sleeve plus a special investment (spiff) sleeve. Each sleeve (in most cases) consist of three to nine funds with the size and weight of each sleeve can easily be adjusted, from time-to-time, by adjusting the number of funds held along with their amounts. By using the sleeve system I can get a better picutre of my overall investment landscape. I have found it beneficial to Xray each fund, each sleeve, each investment area, and the portfolio as a whole quarterly. My positions and sleeves can be adjusted from time-to-time as to how I might be reading the markets through using my market barometer and equity weighting matrix. The matrix is driven by the barometer. All my funds with the exception of those in my health savings account pay their distributions to the cash area of the portfolio. This automatically builds cash in the cash area to meet the portfolio's disbursements (when necessary) with the residual being left for new investment opportunity. Generally, in any one year I take no more than a sum equal to one half of my portfolio's five year average return. In this way principal builds over time. In addition, most buy/sell transactions settle from, or to, the cash area with some net asset exchanges between funds taking place.
See the portfolio for asset allocation ranges for each area. Sleeve and fund weightings are known but not listed.