In this case, mainly because he never just comes out with a call ("foreign sovereigns look like the place to be the next 15 years or so", "everyone thinks Treasuries are going up, but oil prices tell a different story so we're positioning ourselves differently", etc.) -- he wraps his "read" up in some pseudo-literary naval gazing.
And, among the would be poets out there, he's the worst.

Ted, I am with you. I thought this would happen a long time ago as folks become more educated. But the fact is that even though there are many fewer brokerage firms than there were twenty years ago, the ones that remain are mostly enormous. They have tons of money that they use to lobby Congress to limit regulations on what they do. Consider the DOL rules just recently implemented. There are a ton of exceptions to the new fiduciary requirements, with more and more commission options being deemed "in clients' best interests". Firms that a year ago had drafted very different business structures based on what the DOL then appeared to be, and who were telling their clients that getting rid of commissions was a good thing, have backtracked and are now telling clients that charging commissions is now much better for them.
Yes, the RIA industry, which is the true fiduciary arena, has seen assets grow tremendously. But the average retail client still thinks their "broker" or "advisor" is doing a wonderful job and has no clue how much they are overpaying for what they get. So I think "twilight years" is wishful thinking.

Thank you, gentlemen. While downside protection is important, i cant pay for large cash holdings within a fund as we manipulate cash levels on the overall portfolio level.
@Old_Joe: the nose belongs to my 11 and a half yo airedale. He is around and kicking. We added a smaller one in recent years..belonging to a Scotty. I havent been around the Boards much as I crossed to the dark side and joined the "retail" world by becoming an advisor. Hope all is well with you and the sunny state of California!

FYI: I begin today’s column with a mea culpa: I have been expecting the imminent death of the brokerage industry for about 20 years. This is something I have been dead wrong about.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-07-19/stock-brokerage-industry-enters-the-twilight-years

A demographic of baby boomers has allowed seniors housing to become a winning investment—both in commercial real estate (CRE) overall and healthcare realty specifically. And there are plenty of reasons. Research shows that 100,000 units must be built each year through 2040 to meet anticipated demand. When you consider seniors housing is also recession-resistant, many would call this investment a basic “no-brainer.”
Over the past decade, seniors housing has outperformed every other asset classes of CRE. But recently, some investors have expressed concern over rising interest rates and potential overbuilding. In 2016, the occupancy rates declined 0.5+% (to 89.3%), leading some to wonder if oversupply could potentially impact returns in the long term. In fact, some sub-sections of the seniors housing market have already been impacted, specifically skilled nursing.
Which begs the question: is seniors housing still a wise investment? Research indicates “yes.” A survey from CBRE showed nearly 60 percent of U.S. investors actually plan to increase their seniors housing portfolios this year. And that’s an increase from less than 50 percent last year. Many seem confident a wide range of opportunity still lies in the seniors housing sector—if investors can keep the following factors top of mind.
Consider Secondary Markets: It may be true that some primary markets face a potential oversupply, but many secondary and even tertiary markets hold lots of potential for both renovation and new construction. Indeed, a significant portion of supply across all markets is outdated, leaving room for much-needed enhancements, such as making spaces more comfortable and sociable for seniors.
Do the Research: There is no substitute for doing your own due diligence. Whether you’re looking to invest in private equity or a REIT, make sure your chosen fund manager is knowledgeable, experienced, and aware of current market conditions. Request a portfolio showing past investments and new deals, as well as historical returns. Lastly, ensure that the fund manager takes time to consider each individual investment, analyzing existing demographics and competitors before committing to any specific project.
Be Informed: Keep an eye on current issues to make sure the fund or REIT you select is on trend. Skilled nursing declined this last year, and memory care has likewise seen impact in some areas from overbuilding. Meanwhile, independent living is now a favorite, which is off-trend from previous years. In fact, independent living reached a seven-year high in occupancy rates closing 2016—so high that it was actually highest absorption rate in a single quarter since NIC started collecting data back in 2006. The best fund managers will be aware of these trends.
Ask Lots of Tough Questions: A strong fund manager will likely tell you that project operators play a large role in ensuring the success of a given investment—sometimes even the most significant. Dan Brewer, the Chief Fund Manager at SeniorLivingFund.com, says, “The operator is hands-down the most important player in our investment decisions. They can make or break any opportunity, regardless of market or demand.” In other words, don’t shy away from asking who your fund manager may be working with, how long they’ve worked with one another, and to what outcome.
Keep It Real: As with all investment opportunities, market conditions like interest rates or political issues, can impact returns. Although seniors housing has seen unparalleled growth in the past 10 years, it’s reasonable to think the industry will keep growing—if only at a slower rate.
The great news about seniors housing: the opportunities are just beginning. The current wave of seniors now seeking care is the first of many to come. Research shows our 75+ population will likely grow at rates above current inventory growth rates (3.1 percent) until 2021. Indeed, for the 75-79 age group, growth could be as high as 5.7 percent. That leaves lots of room to grow the sector—and lots of room for solid returns for smart investors.

I'm sure there are those who do trade on his (and others) recommendations, not understanding many things about the markets or those who pontificate about them on TV. But hey, it's not my money that's being invested in such cases!! :)
Years ago CNBC had a new program about options trading. Their first-ever guest suggested selling puts on Google when it was around 500/share. I was screaming at the TV for the asinine idea, targetted at retail investors who likely didn't have 500 x 100 = $50,000 cash lying around for when (or if) the stock was put to them and they had to buy.....b/c in a 3-minute piece, you can't also teach folks the intracasies of options-101. The clown simply picked the stock, said it was a good buy, and here's how to profit from it. Thankfully he was never to my knowledge invited back on the program. But I wonder how many people tried to do the trade, or got burned if it went against them, b/c they didn't know the risks of the trade, just got caught up in the possible rewards of it should it work out as intended.

The part that always bothered me is he'll go on CNBC or do an interview with Barron's and he'll say stuff that's totally true at the moment he says it. Unfortunately he might change his mind overnight and not only doesn't anyone know that but there's not much effort made by these media organizations to be transparent about it other than the standard legal blah-blah disclosures that not many pay any attention to. I guess most people wouldn't trade based on anything he says but I "pity da fool" who does.

"If you look at the fund's trailing SD, you will see it at 18.11 over 10 years, then it drops drastically to 11.41 at 5 years. You think something changed in their investment strategy during that time?"
Not based on that data alone. Since std dev is a second moment, outliers such as 2008 have a disproportionately large impact on the figures.
The S&P 500 std deviation also dropped by around 3/8, from 15.21 to 9.56. Do you think something changed in Standard and Poors' Index Committee's selection strategy during that time? (The S&P indexes, unlike those from other companies, are selected by individuals rather than by mechanical algorithms.)

Again, about keeping DODGX and M* accountable for a clear standard.
The webpage of D&C states (as of June 30), 10 year returns 5.89% - compared with S&P 7.18%. Let's please not search for excuses for underperformance. Without discussing the yearly tax cost of 0.98%.
In relation to the fund performance during the past 5-years, more volatile funds that missed in the downside in 2007-2008, typically have better returns in the more recent period. For this reason I tend not to rely on 5-year returns.
What is different about DODGX (in relation to other outstanding funds!) is that its returns, after the 07-08 underperformance, were not adequate for the fund to catch up with the S&P.

+1
In order to get a full reading of this fund's performance, you have to look back 10 years, not 3 or 5. It's clear to see that they dropped the ball big time and never recovered to keep pace with the S&P 500 over the past 10 years. I held the fund during the disastrous 2007-2009 and dumped it upon a partial recovery. When I bought the fund, it was my understanding that they would hold up better on the downside; they did not. Quite the contrary. *M can talk about its "deep investment team" and "decisive value approach" all it wants. Currently, *M shows the fund's risk as very high. I guarantee it was showing as lower on *M when the credit crisis hit. Clearly, *M misread the fund as well. If you look at the fund's trailing SD, you will see it at 18.11 over 10 years, then it drops drastically to 11.41 at 5 years. You think something changed in their investment strategy during that time? Lessons learned.

"Huh? Gosh, the three ]LCV funds] I moved to long ago from DODGX (before placing everything LCV in DSEEX): PRBLX. YACKX, and TWEIX."
What is long ago? DODGX was in the top quintile for 2009 and top fiftieth (second percentile) in 2011 and 2012. D&C funds often go through multi year funks and multi year spurts. 2008 is an important benchmark, as is 2015 for value funds. (By that latter metric, DSEEX looks good, at least so far.)
If one wants a smooth ride, shorter term, D&C funds are not the way to go. M* seemed to agree, saying that DODGX had enviable long term results. But (assuming that the long term market trend is upward) there is a problem with long term investors placing too much emphasis on the down years.
For example, one investor here five years ago almost to the day (Aug 2012) wrote about another D&C fund (DODBX):
"it certainly seems to have improved, but (recent, tempting) past performance does not etc. I cannot imagine why anyone would automatically prefer it now over Oakbx, Glrbx, and even AOR / AOM, my two 'new' favorite ETFs. "
Here's the five year chart comparing these five funds.
(Data per M* as of 7/17/17) Growth of $10K:
DODBX: $18,358.73
OAKBX: $15,848.45
AOR: $14,959.24
AOM: $13,422.89
GLRBX: $13,366.85
Now I'm not suggesting that one compare any of these funds with the S&P 500 (or S&P 1500); they're a different type of fund and the comparison wouldn't be meaningful. Likewise, I wouldn't go comparing value funds with blend (e.g. SPY) or growth funds, especially over the past decade when growth had a decided advantage. Heck, if I were to do that I'd just dump everything into a growth fund - even the average (median) LCG fund (NMFAX) returned 7.48% over the past decade, beating the S&P 500.
D&C, like many peers (and also unlike many other peers) completely blew 2008, getting caught in a value trap - continuing to hold on the way down. The questions are: how likely is another 2008, has D&C modified its investment process since then, is short term (e.g. 2015) or even prolonged underperformance acceptable in exchange for longer term gains? Different people have different answers.

Again, about keeping DODGX and M* accountable for a clear standard.
The webpage of D&C states (as of June 30), 10 year returns 5.89% - compared with S&P 7.18%. Let's please not search for excuses for underperformance. Without discussing the yearly tax cost of 0.98%.
In relation to the fund performance during the past 5-years, more volatile funds that missed in the downside in 2007-2008, typically have better returns in the more recent period. For this reason I tend not to rely on 5-year returns.
What is different about DODGX (in relation to other outstanding funds!) is that its returns, after the 07-08 underperformance, were not adequate for the fund to catch up with the S&P.

FYI: Dennis Gartman is the man behind The Gartman Letter, a daily newsletter discussing global capital markets. For almost 30 years, The Gartman Letter has tackled the political, economic and social trends shaping the world's markets. ETF.com recently caught up with Gartman to discuss the latest developments in the financial markets.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.etf.com/sections/features-and-news/gartmans-favorite-trades-right-now?nopaging=1

@davidmoran, For sure we have different point of view and personal experience. I used to invested with D&C for many years, most notably the Stock and International funds. The team approach in my opinion failed in risk management and time it took to full recover was longer than their peers. In addition, the management never owed up to mistakes made either in interviews or shareholder reports.

This large cap value fund outpaced the S&P 500 Value Index over the last 10 years (5.78% annualized vs. 5.01%) as well as over the past fifteen years (9.56% vs. 8.51%), 5 years (16.72% vs. 14.01%), 3 years (8.83% vs. 7.98%) and 1 year (25.45% vs. 13.37%). All data as of 7/17/17, per M*.
If you don't want a value fund, that's fine. Invest in a blend or growth fund. But if you are looking for a large cap value fund, what do you feel is a better one than DODGX?
If one finds indexing attractive, one might consider VSPVX ( your index company of preference appears to be Standard and Poors)? Or perhaps VRVIX (M* seems to like comparing DODGX against the Russell 1000 Value index). Note that these both have had returns falling short of DODGX. (FWIW, DODGX has better 5 year performance than any 5* LCV fund as rated by M*, so its performance does come at the expense of some extra risk - hence its lower 4* rating).
Lipper rates DODGX a 5 as a large cap value fund for consistent return and for total return. The fund drops to 4 on consistent return, which, like the M* rating, suggests that the fund is not the very best LCV fund around for short term investing.

I am trying to understand how a fund can be considered outstanding when for the last 10 years it could not keep pace with the S&P, for the last 15 years was ahead of the index by only 0.46%, with volatility higher than the benchmark - for most of the period. If this is considered 'enviable long-term results", then indexing is indeed attractive.

+1

I am trying to understand how a fund can be considered outstanding when for the last 10 years it could not keep pace with the S&P, for the last 15 years was ahead of the index by only 0.46%, with volatility higher then the benchmark - for most of the period.
If this is considered 'enviable long-term results", then indexing is indeed attractive.

Thanks LLJB,
Wasn't always the case, but in the past - maybe 20 years - they did come out with a way to own bullion thru an ETF.
BTW - You'll also need to come up with 10% worth of Swiss francs, some highly aggressive growth stocks, some real estate and some natural resource stocks to go with those other holdings. Than you'll need to rebalance once a year buying/selling among those assets - perhaps more often when one segment runs hot or cold. It can all be accomplished of course.
For simplicity, I'll sit on my chunk and see what happens. Converted to a Roth in January 2016. Believe that was near its recent bottom. Nice bounce since then. Am certainly not predicting success for this fund going foreward (and I don't give investment advice). But for diversification purposes I'm willing to hold both winners and laggards. There are many here who disagree with that "mix it up" approach and concentrate only on winners. I'd wish them "investing success" - except that they don't need any best wishes. They're excellent investors in their own right.
Thanks again for the informative posts & the reply.

I discovered Mr. Foster from Matthews Asia Growth & Income fund and followed him through the Seafarer Oversea Growth & Income fund. He is one of rare manager who I like to invest with many years to come as I did with Micheal Price (before he sold his company to Franklin and retired). It is when the EM index lost over 60% in 2007 while MAPIX lost half of that and recovered much quicker. Having long term investment horizon is key to keep everything in the proper perspective.

@LLJB - No quarrel with your overall take. One question - Do those gold or precious metals ETFs you're citing for comparison invest directly in bullion (per PRPFX) or in the miners? I honestly don't know enough about ETFs to say. However, with a toe-hold in PRPFX, I'm quite certain they hold their bullion directly per their benchmark (and also own some mining stocks). It could be that only @rono is qualified to address this authoritatively. But I do know there is a big difference between holding bullion and owning miners.
If those ETFs are investing in mining companys, it would (partially) explain the outperformance you note - since equities have generally been in a bull market for as long as some of the members here have been alive (with a couple dramatic corrections along the way) and would have bolstered the miners. That said, I've no doubt you'd be better off owning the assets of PRPFX directly and avoiding those outrageous fees.
Thanks to @BobC for noting the dramatic move in AUM away from PRPFX. The move into that fund was, I believe, nearly equally dramatic as gold soared from near $300 an ounce over the decade beginning around 2000. Highlights the performance chasing that goes on. I'll refer to it as "indirect performance chasing" in this and many instances. While a lot of investors wouldn't dream of buying gold or gold shares, they'll chase an allocation fund or a fund like PRPFX anyway - perhaps oblivious to how much of the glowing performance is/was related to its p/m holdings. Human nature I guess.
PS - DavidS made essentially the same argument you're making here re PRPFX ... umm, maybe 6 or 7 years ago (memory like an elephant here - when it works) :)

FYI: Jamie Dimon’s (CEO of JPM) definition of a financial crisis is “something that happens every five to seven years.” It’s been eight since the last recession. As you get old enough to observe cycles, as actual cycles, you begin to recognize the economic time you’re in is a point on a curved line and, sooner than you think, the direction of the line will change. Better or worse.
An asset bubble is a wave of optimism that lifts prices beyond levels warranted by fundamentals, ending in a crash. I promised myself that I’d be smarter the next time. “Next” meaning on the cusp of a pop or recession. So, how do you ID when we’ve entered the danger zone, and should you adjust your behavior / actions?
Regards,
Ted
https://www.l2inc.com/daily-insights/no-mercy-no-malice/every-seven-years

I have no reason to believe Foster has suddenly taken dumb pills. He has ably managed dollars for my clients and me for about 10 years, first at MAPIX and with SIGIX since he started that fund. I frankly do not care if the fund under-performs during an EM bull market. It is up about 12% year to-date. I'll gladly take that. The way bigger test for me is when EM is struggling, as they did in 2013, 2014, 2015, and even 2016 to some extent. In those years, SIGIX came through as I expected it would. If you bought SIGIX for outsized gains during EM bull markets, you bought the wrong fund. That is not how the fund is run. While I am sure Andy would like to be at the top this year, and that he is frustrated to be near the bottom, that does not bother me one bit.