Yes, let's follow the herd and dump domestic mid and small cap, and dump any international we might have that we didn't already dump. And then, when the S&P 500 has a drop of 10-15%, we will all sell at the low point, just as we did about 10 years ago. Unfortunately, that's why lemmings have such a bad reputation.

FWIW, given the fund's big manager turnover and rather high expenses for mostly AAA-rated debt, and lack of asset base ($9 million), I would look elsewhere. Vanguard's VFSUX has a better long-term record for teeny expenses. Yeah, Vanguard has higher duration, but that really applies to more sudden jumps in interest rates rather than the 0.25% moves we have seen the last two years. If I want to pay what SEMRX charges, I would own OSTIX for higher yield and much longer management experience.

http://www.palmersquarecap.com/about/commentary has some interesting commentary about their approaches.
These people (Palmer Square) run PSYPX
When you look at their 'team' they are a lot of smart people - all about 40-45 years old.
They try to focus on credit markets - on the other hand they took a beating in the later part of 2015, early 2016, or later 2016.
I think that the June 2015 podcast is interesting --- where they try to paint how difficult a time it was.
Did they learn from their mistakes? Well, they've made a big comeback but SEMRX looks steadier.
Right now PSYPX is heavily in Fannie Mae paper - altho' it is a small enough fund to be more nimble.
SEMRX lost several of their managers near the end of 2016 (one of whom, Vesta Marks, went to PSYPX)
The lead mgr has been there since inception - but loss of 4 other mgrs raises questions.
SEMIX(inst. class) /SEMRX (non inst. class) also has a lot of collateralized mortgage obligations --- more circuitous than straight fannie mae.

FYI: Pension Trustee Smith: I recommend to the committee that we liquidate our International
equity assets and index our equity exposure to the S&P 500. US stocks have outperformed
for the last 20 years, and I see no reason why that should not continue. Everyone knows
that the US is the strongest economy and market in the world.
This is a somewhat fictionalized version of a comment or conversation that has gone on in many
committee discussions over the last several years in one form or another. And why wouldn’t it?
Being a US equity investor over the past several years has felt glorious. The S&P 500 has trounced
the competition provided by other major developed and emerging equity markets. Over the last 7
years, the S&P is up 173% (15% annualized in nominal terms) versus MSCI EAFE (in USD terms),
which is up 71% (8% annualized), and poor MSCI Emerging, which is up only 30% (4% annualized).
Every dollar invested in the S&P has compounded into $2.72 versus MSCI EAFE’s $1.70 and MSCI
Emerging’s $1.30. Diversification theoretically sounds good, but as Yogi Berra said, “In theory there
is no difference between theory and practice, in practice there is.” Diversification in this particular
instance seems good in theory but not so much in practice.
So, shouldn’t we agree with Trustee Smith and throw in the towel, index all of our equity exposure
to the S&P 500, and call it a day? If our goal is compounding capital for the long term, which it is,
we would not just say “No,” but something akin to “Hell no!”
Regards,
Ted
https://www.gmo.com/docs/default-source/research-and-commentary/strategies/asset-allocation/the-s-p-500-just-say-no.pdf
MarketWatch Article:
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/just-say-no-to-the-sp-500-and-buy-these-stocks-instead-say-gmos-strategists-2017-08-16/print

Synchrony Financial looks interesting and I would like to know more about. First impression is that it's interest rates are going to be high on specialty loans.
Any one have any information.
Looked at a Zero turn lawnmower the other day and it was company financed at 26% int.
per year for four years. I tried to buy with cash and not negotiable on price. Also a car lot offered the similar terms on a used car at 22% over the life of the loan.
It's a new dynamic make some money on the product and a killing on the finance charges.
Is cash good anymore???

TimesSquare Capital is a welcome addition. However, it will start with only a small sliver of the fund. Vanguard might send new cash its way while not reducing the amount managed by the other firms. Just a possibility - one that would minimize turnover.

Following the transition, TimesSquare Capital will initially manage a modest portion of the fund (less than 5%), with its allocation expected to grow over time. Schroders, which has managed the fund since its inception in 1996, will oversee approximately 66 per cent of the fund. Wellington, which was added as an advisor in 2010, will manage approximately 29 per cent of the fund with the remainder in equitized cash investments.

http://www.wealthadviser.co/2017/08/02/254593/timessquare-capital-join-advisory-team-vanguard-international-explorer-fund
Schroder is also a fine fit for this fund. It ran the fund well from its inception as Schroder International Smaller Companies (SSCIX) through 2002 when Vanguard acquired and rebranded it, until mid 2010 when Wellington was added as a manager.
I remain less than thrilled with Wellington's international management skills (as I've commented about before). VINEX did not fare particularly well in the first couple of years after the mid 2010 addition of Wellington. 2011 (90th percentile) and 2012 (68th percentile) were not good years, though it has generally done much better since (except last year).
If you want to get a purer view of how Wellington management has done with international small caps, you can look at HNSYX. It's been co-managed by Simon Thomas (who is the Wellington manager for VINEX) and Daniel Maguire (also of Wellington) since 2006. An okay fund, but not one that stands out.
Note that HSNYX was closed in 2016. It currently has $422M AUM. VINEX currently has $3.6B AUM, 29% of which (about $1B, i.e. over double the size of HSNYX) will continue to be managed by Wellington, at least for now.
Finally, I wonder whether the addition of TimesSquare Capital will accelerate VINEX's drift toward growth stocks. My vague recollection is that VINEX started out as a value fund. M* still classifies it as blend, though its portfolio drifted into growth three years ago, where it has remained.
Perhaps Vanguard will reduce Wellington's AUM and shift them to TimesSquare. The numbers suggest that would help improve the fund.

@LLJB,
Thank you for your question. I am sorry for the delayed response but I was out of pocket most of the day due to another family member's medical issues. I hate to be short with an answer but I also did not want my response to linger.
I use the Lipper Balanced Index for several reason. 1) It is easy to reference and track along with 2) it represents the combined performance of the most widely held hybrid funds plus 3) I have used it for a good number of years and have historical data that centers around it.
Since, my portfolio is pretty much a balanced portfolio with an equity allocation ranging form 45% to 55% equity. I use my market barometer which I have written about previsouly to drive an equity weighting matrix which in turn is used as an aid to help me throttle my equity allocation within my portfolio.
With this ... I felt the Lipper Balanced Index was a good choice for a bogey and, again, it has been my standard for a good number of years.
Thanks again, for your inquiry.
Skeet

From Bloomberg - "Nir Kaissar is a Bloomberg Gadfly columnist covering the markets. He is the founder of Unison Advisors, an asset management firm. He has worked as a lawyer at Sullivan & Cromwell and a consultant at Ernst & Young."
Prospectus (of sorts) for Unison advisors LLC :
http://unisonadvisors.com/Unison-ADV-Part-II.pdf
It is dated 2012, at which time Mr. Kaissar appeared to be the primary owner.
"As of March 26, 2012, Unison managed $18,241,839 on a discretionary basis and $0 on a non- discretionary basis"
For comparison, T. Rowe Price (whom Mr. Kaissar tales a mild swing at) recently reported assets under management of $861.6 Billion. https://www3.troweprice.com/usis/corporate/en/press/t--rowe-price-group-reports-first-quarter-2017-results/jcr:content/article-pdf/pdffile/jcr:content
I've found in my near 25 years with Price that they are often early in their market prognosis - sometimes painfully early. But that they are seldom wrong.

Hello,
Most of the posters from my observation found at MFO are students of the markets and skilled investors while for the most part the average retail investor is perhaps better served by indexing. For me, I feel it has been benefical to devote the time and energy necessary to become a student that actively engages the markets within my risk tolerance, of course. After all, I was an econ major and not an engineer major as my high school buddy was who indexes. The markets are something that I have become to know and he doesn't nearly as well as I. One of the measures I use to gague my investment success is to compare my results with those of the Lipper Balanced Index. If my returns generally beat the index then I consider myself successful. Thus far, my better returns over the Index through the years have indeed put additional money in my pocket that otherwise would not be there. When the margin factor of my success is applied to my principal that is what I figure I have been paid for my time and energy that it has taken to become a good accomplished student and successful investor.
I am finding that I have been paid pretty well through the years. And, besides, it is something that I have come to enjoy doing ... and, that accounts for something. So, when it something that you enjoy and are making good money at it what is there not to like? For others, this might not be the case.
Old_Skeet

FYI: THIS BULL MARKET is more than eight years old, U.S. stocks are undoubtedly expensive and there’s even talk of war. Tempted to sell? Problem is, there was also ample reason to be worried three years ago and yet here we are, with shares both higher and more richly valued.
What to do? I fall back on my standard advice: Forget trying to forecast the market’s short-term direction and instead focus on taking the right amount of risk. That brings me to two quick-and-easy ways to analyze your portfolio.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.humbledollar.com/2017/08/measure-for-measure/

FYI: The financial whizzes cocooned in the serene offices of the Sequoia Fund atop one of New York’s iconic office buildings seem far removed from the noise of the city far below.
But the 47-year-old mutual fund known as much for its ties to billionaire Warren Buffett as for its uncanny stock picks that created massive wealth for clients — retirement funds, pension funds, university endowments and regular-Joe investors — has had to descend from its lofty perch in the past two years and rescue its good name.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/capitalbusiness/an-epic-winning-streak-on-wall-street--then-one-ugly-loss/2017/08/11/137fc2dc-7637-11e7-8839-ec48ec4cae25_story.html
M* Snapshot SEQUX:
http://www.morningstar.com/funds/xnas/sequx/quote.html
Lipper Snapshot SEQUX:
http://www.marketwatch.com/investing/fund/sequx
SEQUX Is Ranked #245 In The (LCG) Fund Category By U.S. News & World Report:
https://money.usnews.com/funds/mutual-funds/large-growth/sequoia-fund/sequx

My usual threshold question before I go past screening a fund is to check whether I could buy the fund. Are these shares available to you? (So far, I haven't found any back doors to invest without using an advisor, though M* claims that it is available through TIAA. I don't have access to the TIAA brokerage fund list, so I can't verify.)
The next thing I do is check manager tenure - are the performance figures meaningful (especially since you placed emphasis on ten year performance)? One notices that the managers changed completely less than three years ago, and that the fund is subadvised by Goldman Sachs. That suggests a possible subadvisor change in 2015.
A quick check of the SAI says that " on October 9, 2015, ... the name of the GuideMark® Large Cap Value Fund was changed to GuideMark® Emerging Markets Fund."
For completeness, a review of the last prospectus (July 31, 2015) before the name change confirms that GuideMark® Large Cap Value Fund (GMLVX) had been subadvised by Barrow, Hanley, Mewhinney & Strauss, LLC. That's a good management shop. Vanguard employs them for some of their funds, such as VASVX and VWNFX. But EM it's not.
Everyone should read a fund's prospectus, though even without that one can see this change on the M* fund performance page, where M* classifies the fund as LCV through 2015.
Edit: Out of curiosity, I ran the same screen - below average (or better) risk, 3 and 5 year performance in top quartile, ten year performance in top half. The elephant in the room, NWFFX, passes this screen, as does HLMEX though that fund is closed.

MFO has favorably reviewed a number of emerging market funds in recent years. Among those with at least five years of history are Fidelity Total EM (FTEMX), City National Rochdale (CNRYX), Seafarer G&I (SIGIX) and Driehaus (DRESX). Using MFO Premium, each of these funds looks good but GuideMark EM (GMLVX) seems to look better than each of those (with CNRYX a close 2nd.)
I used Morningstar and MFO Premium to examine performance. Morningstar rates CNRYX a 5 star. For funds with below average risk but with 5 year and 3 year returns in the top quartile, it is 1 of 7 funds. Adding a requirement of 10 year performance in the top half, it is the only fund. It shows up extremely well using the MFO Premium tool. Its MFO Ratings, MFO Rank %, Ulcer Index and Bear Market Ratings show an EM fund that protects on the downside while delivering top tier returns.
What am I missing?

FYI: (Click On Article Title At Top Of Google Search)
After 14 years of working together, sitting side by side, Jenna Barnard and John Pattullo finish each other’s sentences, laugh at wonky jokes, and know how to walk the line between unwavering respect and spirited debate.
The co-managers of the $417 million Janus Henderson Strategic Income fund (ticker: HFAAX) have shared periods of stress—they took over the portfolio at the end of 2008, after it had lost 39% of its value.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.google.com/search?site=&source=hp&q=Bond+Managers+Who+Don’t+Fear+Rising+Rates+Barron's&oq=Bond+Managers+Who+Don’t+Fear+Rising+Rates+Barron's&gs_l=psy-ab.3...4064.10994.0.11321.12.11.0.0.0.0.85.765.11.11.0....0...1.1.64.psy-ab..1.7.493.6..35i39k1j33i160k1j33i21k1.M4TQxiDrIL0
M* Snapshot HFAAX:
http://www.morningstar.com/funds/xnas/hfaax/quote.html
Lipper Snapshot FHAAX:
http://www.marketwatch.com/investing/fund/hfaax
HFAAX Is Ranked #6 In The (WB) Fund Category By U.S. News & World Report:
https://money.usnews.com/funds/mutual-funds/world-bond/janus-henderson-strategic-income-fund/hfaax

Hi Fundalarm,
I completely agree with everything that you said in your excellent post. I not only concur with the general thrust of your comments, but with every single claim. Your profession does provide a useful and meaningful service to many investors.
When I started to invest in circa 1960, I knew very little of market mechanisms, realized my many shortcomings, and employed a financial advisor. He not only provided a needed service, he was also a superior teacher.
After a few years I gained sufficient knowledge and confidence to do my own investment sorting and decision making. I still apply many of the lessons and bits of wisdom that he taught me. In no way do I regret that learning experience. That advisor definitely earned his pay.
I fully understand your cautionary comment that closed your post. There are a few MFO members who harbor deep personal grudges for unspecified and unreasonable reasons. Pity these poor souls! Their comments are easily discounted and discarded.
Best Wishes for your continued success in helping hapless investors. They do exist, even on this fine website.

Ditto what Ted said. As stated before, I find watching funds and sectors mildly amusing - perhaps even educational. Rarely buy or sell, so that's not much of a consideration.
Three I track: HSGFX gained 1.23%, but is still firmly in the ash-heap for the year. DSENX, a board favorite, lost 1.48% - which ain't bad. PRGMX (Ginny Mae) held flat. Am surprised it didn't gain.
Mine overall (includes cash) lost .41% - better than my benchmark TRRIX which fell .58%. That's about what I'd expect, having been in defensive mode for awhile. Gainers were 3 income funds DODIX, RPSIX, PRFHX and also a gold fund, OPGSX. Notable was PRPFX which lost just .25%.
Like Faulkner, I sense this is all sound and fury - signifying nothing. Get a couple back to back 500-point down-days in the Dow and many will consider cutting and running. Followed the markets for 50 years and can tell you that's the way it always goes.
-
@Crash - Re "Bad day" ... Surely you jest!
(But good to see you back :))

I'm a little surprised that the Stalwarts funds were introduced because they wanted to create some room for people, advisors mostly I guess, to invest more money, but the 2 funds have only garnered $500 million. That's not a small amount of money compared to their total AUM and it's not bad for funds that are a bit less than 2 years old, but I'm a little surprised they're not bigger considering everything else is hard closed.
Sorry for a tangent about the search tools- isn't it a little strange that we have, what, 10,000 unique mutual funds and etfs out there but there are categories like International Small/Mid Cap Value with only 13 funds? It suggests there's either too many categories or a surprising absence of funds in that space. It might also be that they're putting too many funds into "multi-cap" because I've seen quite a few funds with that designation in a couple of different discussions now and that's not how I've ever thought about quite a few of those funds. It made me wonder why there's not a "value with a bit of growth" or "growth at a reasonable price" category. :)

I just finished the GP Annual Report and June quarterly letter.
Three highlights:
1. all of their strategies, except EM Opportunities (GPEOX/GPEIX), are substantially outperforming their benchmarks, YTD (through 6/30/17). In general, the lead is between 400 - 500 bps.
The EM lag reflects the fund's small cap orientation (it trails the EM Small benchmark by much less than the EM All benchmark, reflecting the generally softer performance of small caps), valuation concerns that led to an outsized cash position early in the year, and a few individual-issue problems. It remains a five star fund and a Great Owl.
2. over the past six years, stock prices in their universe have roughly doubled with earnings have flat-lined (their word). In consequence, "Our focus is increasingly on companies with great moats and defensive characteristics."
3. Rondure is traveling with and exchanging research with the GP teams. They're happy with the level of integration between the teams. Ms. Geritz is now managing about $65 million, a very quick start.
Grandeur Peak's AUM is, they say, essentially unchanged with all of their strategies - except the Stalwarts - closed to new investors.
David

These days I'd definitely make sure they're a RIA and not a broker. When it comes to products, advice, and service the former has customer's best interests in mind; the 'broker' has their firm's best interests in mind. (although there are always exceptions to this sentiment)
One small RIA firm stocked by advisors I trust based primarily on their down-to-earth commentaries over the years is run by Barry Ritholtz up in NYC. If I didn't already have a very low-cost RIA handling one of my long-term accounts already, and if I wanted a broad-based allocation strategy, I'd probably consider them.

There are an interesting article in the WSJ today reporting that on Monday SPY, the SPDR S&P 500 ETF, had its lowest trading volume in 11 years. 32 million shares changed hands, down from an average of about 80 million shares a day. Of necessity, that means that "sophisticated" investors sat out.
A second story noted that during 2017 the Dow has seen its lowest intraday price volatility in six years.
At one level, the lack of volatility kills value investors, who rely on volatility to offer up occasional irrational prices. At another, it raises the prospect that something is happening under the surface - the Big Money is moving toward the door? - that might cause a bit of turmoil in our portfolios.
David