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

If you have 5 or 6% college debt I am doubtful that you should invest in the stock market unless you have the possibility ofa match in your 401k.A great many experts such as John Bogle think the average return over the next 10 years will be about 6% . THis makesa riskless ^% paying off loans apretty good idea./ And, if your debt is say 3 0r 4% that seems like a close decision.I made my first stock market investment about 30 and it was years before I had as much as 20K in the markett

This is not my conclusion thou. I am holding on to stuff purchased years ago either at a discount (pdi) or at par (pty). What keeps me in them is extraordinary and consistent NAV performance and reinvestment at a 5% discount. I wouldnt buy at these levels, but am not selling. I did sell PCI, DMO, DSL - DMO just insanely expensive provided its scheduled termination, the other two are just more volatile due to EMD exposures.

@davidrmoran is correct about a discount or premium continuing to grow even though it seems to defy logic. M*'s quote page for any CEF provides a lot of information about current discount/premium, the historical d/p, and the 1-year Z-Statistic, a measure of how far from the past the current discount is. PDI has a Z-Statistic of .91, meaning the fund, at a current premium of +8.3%, is almost a standard deviation above the relatively modest premium the fund traded at in the past few years. Traders of CEFs often look for a Z-Statistic of -2.0 or greater when searching for a fund that may be a value. If you don't like to trade, you can buy the CEF trading skills of Patrick Galley at RiverNorth in various OEFs and CEFs.

Frankly ... and I don't mean to start a dogmatic fight here ... but I've never been a big fan of such "rules" about allocation percentages, rebalancing, and so forth. I don't rebalance any of my long-term accumulating portfolios, other than to make sure it's allocated in sectors/companies/position sizes that let me sleep well at night. (I'm 90+% in equities and equity funds across my various accounts....but what works for me may not work for someone else, as is the nature of many things in life, including investing.)
My 403(b) is 95% in one largecap equity fund (RWMGX) with a smidgen of idle cash in the account ready to deploy onto that position if there's a market swoon before employer contributions resume in the new academic year.

401(K) is a long term investment for 30-50 years horizon. Unless one is invested in target dated funds, rebalancing on a regular basis (quarterly or annually) is necessary rather than leaving it on autopilot.

All ratings have been updated on MFO Premium site, including MultiSearch, Great Owls, Fund Alarm (Three Alarm and Honor Roll), Averages, Correlation, Dashboard of Profiled Funds, and Fund Family Scorecard.
The latest up-market cycle reached 101 months, from March 2009 to July 2017, inclusive ... about 8.5 years.
Annualized return for SPY over that period: 17.8%, or just under 300% total return ... for those wise, lucky and flush enough to invest at the bottom ... and brave enough to hold.
Remember when this was the most hated bull market? And to some, it remains so.
The top 10 US Equity funds over this period, based on absolute return, are shown in table below. Most have nearly doubled SPY total return and interestingly, three are PIMCO equity funds!

401(K) is a long term investment for 30-50 years horizon. Unless one is invested in target dated funds, rebalancing on a regular basis (quarterly or annually) is necessary rather than leaving it on autopilot.

Barrons strikes me as continuing to "dumb down". And I say this as someone who as subscribed for + 10 years, and picked it up at the newsstand regularly for decades before that... The article is a prime example.
A couple glaring problems with the article/survey:
-While the survey asked respondents about where they would invest money not be spent for 10 years, psychologically, I doubt young people will accurately "mentally account" for that span of time. More likely a sizeable chunk of them are saving for their 1st home. So they are naturally "investing" in cash (i.e. their down-payment) and plan to "invest" in real estate. OTOH, few boomer-age households are saving for their 1st home.
-Contrasting how differing age groups invest today, provides much less insight than comparing/contrasting how different age groups invest vs. their similar age groups in prior decades. In the 1970's were early boomers really investing in stocks? I don't think so. Most 20/30-something then were probably using passbook savings accounts and CDs and going to buy their 1st house.
-Stating another obvious factor: A growing % of boomers are collecting their govt annuity (Soc Security) & have less of a need for a rainy-day fund than working age folks. -- Further, presumably seniors have a lifetime of savings. So any rainy-day fund would likely be a smaller portion of their assets, on a % basis, than younger, working-age folks.
-Lastly, the real estate benchmark used to demonstrate comparative returns vs stocks SEEMS to be a price-index only. However, for those who invest directly in real-estate rentals, price appreciation is only one component of returns. Other, equally important component of returns is the cash rent received & tax-deferral of income (via depreciation).
The very predictable takeaway that Barrons wishes to leave with readers in the article is the Millenials need to own more stocks. Given the flaws noted above, its not a conclusion I would necessarily agree with.