IMHO this is good news, since it means we can expect less bloat, less of a headache for managers having to deal with hot money, and more good funds reopening.
The object is to do well over time, not each and every year. In this article, they looked at how many funds outperformed (defined as being in the top 25%) annually over the past year, and a year ago, and two years ago, etc. Surprise, surprise, no funds outperform every year. From this they concluded that that funds don't outperform for more than three years or so. Wrong.
I ran a similar screen - except instead of using years ending Jan 31, I used years ending Dec. 31. Similar (and useless) results. After 2 years (2016 and 2015) I found 1026 share classes (vs. the 1098 that the article reported using Jan 31 ending dates). After three years I came up with 455 share classes, that amounted to about 183 different funds.
After six years of this (2016-2011), I got 41 share classes amounting to a tad over a dozen funds. Over eight calendar years (as opposed to years ending Jan 31), I found 18 share classes (9 funds). That's nine more funds than the article reported for years ending Jan 31. FWIW: UTAHX, RSGYX, GMCDX, LLDYX, NCSPX, PFORX, PISIX, PIFZX, and VMPYX.
But it's an absurd exercise. Backing up to five years (since there's data on five year performance), there are only 72 share classes that outperformed each of the past five calendar years (34 funds). Yet obviously 1/4 of the funds that have existed for five years have outperformed their peers (defined at being in the top 25%). Over 1700 funds.
Even if we add in the requirements that the funds must also have performed in the top 25% over the past three and one years, we still get around 600 funds. Roughly 20 times the number of funds that this article suggests.
This is why one should be skeptical of anyone saying that a fund consistently outperforms. Just as one should be skeptical of articles using consistency (over relatively small periods like a year at a time) as a metric for long term performance.
How many index funds outperformed 75% of their peers year in, year out, for five, six, seven years? Hint: The only index fund that managed this feat for even five years is VSCSX.

Many brokerages have improved significantly in the past decade or so. These days it seems to be (with a few exceptions) a choice between adequate, good, and really good. I put Schwab in that latter category.
Though I don't use Schwab much, I have been with them for many years - I even have an old "No annual fee - free for life" IRA there. (When's the last time you saw an IRA account with an annual fee?)
As others have said, they've got good execution, don't bother you (maybe that's because I don't have enough invested with them), a good selection of NTF funds. They seem pretty fast in making newly load-waived funds available NTF.
For me, the biggest plus, outside of the high quality service, is the rebate ATM card that expatsp mentioned. What wasn't mentioned was that not only does Schwab rebate the ATM fees, but it also eats the 1% foreign exchange fee imposed by the network (VISA/MC) when you use the card abroad.
A small plus is that Schwab bank is a real bank. That matters in a few situations where other financial institutions only allow EFT linking to a real bank. (Sometimes you can't link a third party to a Fidelity account, since Fidelity doesn't run a bank.) Be aware though that virtually no Schwab branches are Schwab bank branches. I don't know if this list is accurate, but it shows just 11 bank branches:
https://www.branchspot.com/charles-schwab-bank/
The biggest minus for me is that Schwab doesn't seem to have a backdoor like Fidelity where you can buy shares of a TF without paying a large fee (here, $76) per purchase.
Finally, since Vanguard Brokerage Services was mentioned - it's true that they offer fewer funds, but they seem to sometimes offer institutional class shares with lower mins than Schwab or Fidelity. Notably PIMCo ($25K vs. $100K at Schwab/Fidelity.)

Have not been finding zaggers to counter ziggs for a great many years now.
Have placed a modest portion of total nut into RE funds including FRIFX and VNQI, and have left it alone. Not much diversification there, really.
Otherwise am watching DSENX balanced w/ PONDX/PDI for the much larger remainder.

To be honest, I don't have a comparison to reference. When I left my employer of 40 years, I pulled a good portion of my 401k proceeds (not all) and put them in a Schwab IRA. The 401k is with T. Rowe Price who I like very much, but no brick and mortar presence. I already knew Schwab had a good reputation. I could see they had a boat load of NTF funds plus their own brand of ETFs with zero trade cost. I didn't need it then or now to be honest, but they have plenty of other banking options too. But the most important criteria for me was they had a local branch. I prefer 1 on 1 contact when talking to someone about my investments. Screw the phone and email conversations. I like to sit across from a human and explain my thoughts and listen to theirs. I welcome a second opinion as a sanity check. If you are into seminars and work shops, which I am, they have plenty.
After I had already transferred assets to Schwab, they came out with their robo-portfolios. This may not be a plus for you, but I did like the idea. I acknowledge I have made plenty of fund buying and portfolio management mistakes. I wanted a side by side, disciplined approach to compare. I put 1/2 my money into the Intelligent Portfolio and it has worked out well.
I would suggest you go to 1 or 2 of the branches in your area just to talk with them. See if there is a connection or not. Yes, their prime goal is for you to move your money to them, but knowing that you can still get a comfort level and gain knowledge to see if they are a good fit. Reading through your criteria, I think Schwab would be a good choice for you.
Good luck with your choice Mark.

It all depends on your gastric acidity and if you need the money. Excluding the Great depression, if you believe James Clooney of AAII regardless of the downturn if you can hang on for four years and not sell you will be OK.
While I cannot really counter this argument intellectually, I know myself emotionally and having experienced October 2008, I know that I will not be able to hang on if I lost 30% of my retirement savings, even if I do not need the money tomorrow.
So I am willing to accept lower returns as the price of not buying all the Prilosec at CVS.
It is critical to look at what you could loose to know how far out on a limb you are.
BUT the bond market is a lot different now than 2008. I hope we get fair warning of recurrent "stagflation" where bonds crash as do equities.

I have used Schwab for three decades and have been pretty well satisfied. I also use Fido and Vanguard.
I think their customer service is better than Vanguard, at least there are fewer restrictions on accounts at Schwab so less maneuvering. Fido is pretty good too but we have less money there.
the account executives at Schwab leave you alone unless you ask for help. When asked they are knowledgeable and professional and it is nice to talk to the same person. Having said that there is a lot of turnover. I have been thru three in ten years.
Statements are better than Vanguard which consolidates all the accounts in one statement, including retirement non retirement etc
The only problem I have ever had with execution ( I mostly use market orders and MFs) was a mutual fund changed the NAV two days later after I sold it. Both Schwab and Vanguard said it was not their responsibility. The Mutual fund refused to answer. I went to the SEC and they were interested but as it was only a few bucks I decided I had better things to do. I posted on this earlier so you can reference it if you want
My major complaint about Vanguard is the limited selection of funds. Schwab and Fido have much better lists, and usually have A shares without a load and lots of funds with huge minimums available for a song. I haven't compared Fido and Schwab but I think they are close.
Schwab wants $75 a mutual fund buy vs $35 at Fido. ( Vanguard Flagship is only $8), but when I asked, in the guise of a "500 free stock trades for two years from Fido" my Schwab rep immediately said they would drop the $75 to $30. If you have a large account I would ask before you move.
The website is a little irritating as you get this drop down menu that hangs there unless you move off of it. I find Fido's clearer and easier to maneuver around. Both beat Vanguard hands down.. There you have to click thru three screens to find the cost basis and can hardly ever find daily return. I guess they want investors who only are in it for the long term, not daily.
All in all I think Fido is a little better ( cheaper, cleaner web) but it is slight.
One thing to keep in mind if you are truly paranoid like I am, Schwab as a public company has to disclose it's quarterly results, so if it were ever to get over leveraged or make an insanely bad acquisition, you would know.
At Fido, you are at the mercy of the Johnsons. While Abigail seems like a nice gal, with her cute bob haircut and horn rims, you are not picking her up in a bar( well if you live in Boston and get a chance, go for it) . You are giving her your hard earned money and it makes me a little nervous you really can't tell and will never be able to tell what is going on behind the scenes.
I have the same general concern about Vanguard with all their propaganda about the "funds" owning the company. Maybe, but try to find out who really makes decisions there and what they get paid. Notice shareholders do not get much say.
Hope this helps. Bottom line... don't put your eggs all in one basket, unless you really do meet Abby in a bar and she seems to like you.. but get it in writing.

@DavidV,
Under bankruptcy protection laws, Puerto Rico will not have to pay their monthly dividend while it is being restructured. As debt holders, you will experience smaller dividend paid to OPCAX until a restructured plan is approved. NAV will not reflect the SEC yield until the payout date. This mess can linger for a while until restructure plan is approved by the court. Usually that means that the bond holders may received a lesser amount of payout as dividend.
Actually PR problem stemmed back several years when they have issue of not able to meet their obligation. Oppenheimer muni bond funds offer higher yield while carry with sizable PR bonds exposure, so does the risk. On the flip side, Vanguard being a conservative house, have less than 1% of PR bond in the national or CA muni bond funds.

DavidV, Under bankruptcy protection laws, Puerto Rico will not have to pay their monthly dividend while it is being restructured. As debt holders, you will experience smaller dividend paid to OPCAX until a restructured plan is approved. NAV will not reflect the SEC yield until the payout date. This mess can linger for a while until restructure plan is approved by the court. Usually that means that the bond holders may received a lesser amount of payout as dividend.
Actually PR problem stemmed back several years when they have issue of not able to meet their obligation. Oppenheimer muni bond funds offer higher yield while carry with sizable PR bonds exposure, so does the risk. On the flip side, Vanguard being a conservative house, have less than 1% of PR bond in the national or CA muni bond funds.

Hi Old Joe,
Thanks for reading my post and for replying.
I am not an expert on the Laffer curve. I know less about tax dynamics than about the equity marketplace, which translates into not very much whatsoever.
The Laffer curve is just a simple model. It is definity not a " fact". Over the years, data have been collected that examines its vitality and usefulness. Here is a Link to a discussion of its history:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve
The opening comments in the referenced discussion clearly defines the proposed generic Laffer curve and its shortcomings: " the Laffer curve is a representation of the relationship between rates of taxation and the resulting levels of government revenue. Proponents of the Laffer curve claim that it illustrates the concept of taxable income elasticity—i.e., taxable income will change in response to changes in the rate of taxation."
Again, please don't assume that a proposed model is an "alternate fact". It is not! The proposed candidate model is an attempt to simplify and understand the mechanisms that drive what is being modeled. Some models succeed, most fail and are discarded. In the economics world, I suspect even successful models will need frequent adjustments and revisions as the dynamic economics change.
Best Wishes

I can't understand how the author gets to $3,245 in this example:
"Say you gain 30% a year in three years and lose 20% in the other two... your $10,000 would be worth only $3,245..." Multiplying the corresponding factors together, 1.3x1.3x1.3x.8x.8 = 1.4061, so your $10,000 would be worth $14,061, not $3,245.
Also, "... because losses after good years would be bigger dollar amounts than average, and gains after bad years would be smaller dollar amounts." is not an explanation. The order of the gains and losses in the example doesn't matter; for example, 2x4 is the same as 4x2.

I've got SFGIX and GPEOX too, but bought some of RNWOX today anyway. After a few years I can always drop one of them, but by then it might be too late to buy in.

Like I said...$100 if possible to get a toe in.

I've got SFGIX and GPEOX too, but bought some of RNWOX today anyway. After a few years I can always drop one of them, but by then it might be too late to buy in.

Thanks very much for the recommendations. I appreciate it. I should not have been so down on the funds as it has been a poor few years for holding International.

In terms of the track record....yes, the prospectus traces to privately managed accounts like institutional, pensions, etc. The retail funds represent ~15% of AUM. I'm not seeing the correlation that folks are trying to make from that.
As for this critique..."BTW. 25 years is not a strategy, it is a career". I don't understand what point u are trying to make?

You are correct Junkster, the fund was allowed to use previous track record. I learned of the fund here from Mr. Snowball's fund profile. The first two years were good and the fund was discussed frequently. Not much discussion as of late. I did find it showing up in what are the best worst funds discovered on MFO. BTW. 25 years is not a strategy, it is a career. IMO. Thanks for everyone's comments.

Certainly the last 3 years have been subpar. But Rolfe's selective approach to equities isn't always going to be aligned with the overall market. Their 10 yr return still holds up due to their outperformance in 2009.
You can peruse longer term returns (~25 years) for the overall strategy on the fact sheet posted on their institutional site.
Wedgewood Fact Sheet

You obviously hold the fund and know more than me re. RWGFX and RWGIX. Morningstar shows inception in late 2010. Is the fact sheet performance information then based on the manager's track record before being offered to the public. And isn't that the point. That when an institutional manager with a great track opens a fund to the public........ It looks like it did well the first two years it was open to the public (the new fund effect) and then subpar vs its benchmark. It has made money for sure but isn't this just another example of passive beating active?

Certainly the last 3 years have been subpar. But Rolfe's selective approach to equities isn't always going to be aligned with the overall market. Their 10 yr return still holds up due to their outperformance in 2009.
You can peruse longer term returns (~25 years) for the overall strategy on the fact sheet posted on their institutional site.
Wedgewood Fact Sheet

Ferri's "reasoning" with Occam's razor doesn't make sense. Occam's razor is applicable only when predicted outcomes are the same.
When MJG writes: "the key is to select the option with the highest expected return", he is saying that different options have different outcomes. The conclusion is that we can't use Occam's razor.
Ferri writes, on a leap of faith as near as I can see, that "active management and indexing are expected to lead to the same result. Which should you chose?" This is how he rationalizes using Occam's razor.
Yet at the same time, like MJG he also that the expected returns are different: "The probability of outperforming the markets is small, and the payout for being right is often lower than the potential shortfall from being wrong".
IMHO, pseudo-logic babble.
An example of how to use Occam's razor: If you had no data about motion close to the speed of light, you would look at Newton's laws of motion and Einstein's theory of relativity, and conclude that Newton was right. Force equals mass times acceleration. Clean and simple, and it predicts all normal speed motion the same as relativity does.
That would be the wrong conclusion, but if you can't tell the difference, Newton's laws work just fine and they're easier to work with. They've held up fine for hundreds of years. But if you had measurements on motion near the speed of light, you'd find that Newton's laws predicted different (and wrong) outcomes. In that case, Occam's razor wouldn't even come into play, because the two theories of motion wouldn't be predicting the same results.
It would be nonsense to suggest applying Occam's razor here.

Ted
Seems like Paul Wick is very tech hardware/infrastructure heavy in his picks......
The big alpha has been made in he ad mobile media tech segment in recent
years. Is the tech evolution passing this experienced 54 year old manager..?

Hi, Crash!
Here's what I got back from the Morningstar folks though, in reality, it might be best for us to hook you up directly with one of their data folks.
David
---
“The user “Crash” notes “X-Raying my portfolio at Morningstar. "Projected Earnings Per Share Growth" over the next 5 years = 10.78%, where the SP 500 standard is 1. (Or does the constant 1 just apply to SP 500 YIELD, in the next column?) So, the thing is telling me that, compared to SP 500, my portf is projected to grow earnings at 4.83%. That's 4.83 times better than SP 500? What did I do right?”
Morningstar.com’s Portfolio Manager X-Ray value for Projected EPS Growth - 5 Year %, available at http://portfolio.morningstar.com/Rtport/Reg/XRayOverview.aspx, is an aggregation of the same projected five-year EPS growth for stocks - including those owned through funds - within the user’s portfolio. For a stock, projected five-year EPS growth is the mean estimate of long-term EPS growth, derived from estimates by analysts who cover the stock. The five-year earnings growth forecast shows what the consensus is among analysts concerning the company's long-term growth rate. For a mutual fund (and other managed products), projected five-year earnings growth is essentially a weighted average of the five-year EPS growth estimates of each fund's stock holdings, though there are some refinements made in aggregating the underlying numbers.
As a baseline for comparison the projected five-year EPS growth for the S&P 500 is 2.22% as of 4/27/2017. A portfolio with a Projected EPS Growth - 5 yr of 2.22% would be equal to the S&P 500, or 1.0 relative to the S&P 500. A simple portfolio of just Apple Inc stock, which has a projected five-year EPS growth of 6.8% is 3.06 times better as measured relative to the S&P 500.
Crash notes the Projected EPS Growth - 5 yr for their portfolio is 10.78%. Relative to the S&P 500’s 2.22% that is 4.83 times better than S&P 500 which is likely what shows in the “Relative to the S&P 500” column for this portfolio. To unpack where that is coming from I would suggest adding the same column of Projected EPS Growth (%) - 5 Year to the “My View” at http://portfolio.morningstar.com/Rtport/Reg/MyView.aspx (click “Customize My View.”) That added column will break down the projected five-year EPS growth by holding to give a sense of which holdings are contributing a higher value than the S&P 500’s 2.22%.”
Best regards,
Mary Kenefake
Communications Specialist, Corporate Communications