@Mark- For years I've blamed various disastrous investment episodes on you when I've been explaining to my wife. Now you're making me feel like a scumball. OK, OK: in the future I'll blame MJG. :)

FYI: At $2.5 billion, the fund managed by Bruce Berkowitz since its 1999 launch is now a shadow of its former self.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/berkowitzs-fairholme-faces-16-billion-in-withdrawals-over-6-years-morningstar-says-2017-04-12/print
M* Snapshot FAIRX:
http://www.morningstar.com/funds/xnas/fairx/quote.html

FYI: (The Linkster never links anything from Seeking Alpha.Com.)
The Securities and Exchange Commission is trying to rid the nation of phony stock stories. It’s safe to say that the agency has a steep climb ahead of it.
On Monday, the SEC announced that it is cracking down on stock promotion schemes that played out on Seeking Alpha, Benzinga, Wall Street Cheat Sheet and other investment websites in recent years.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.barrons.com/articles/fake-investment-news-could-be-here-to-stay-1491951655

Umm, UAL doesn't have much blood on it. The stock is up 27% annualized over the last five years and is close to its five year high. It's no bargain anymore. You could make a better case for WFC, although it too is only about 11% below its five-year high. So regardless of anyone "beating their moral chests," these stocks ain't cheap.

LPEFX has been one of Old_Skeet's holdings for now better than five years with an average annual return, for me, of around 15%. I hold this fund in the specialty sleeve found in the growth area of my portfolio.

Hi Guys,
The tidal wave of mutual fund money storming away from actively managed funds and towards passively managed products certainly is a cause for concern among the actively management contingent.
So is the fact that fund fees are being reduced, that investors are becoming better informed, that the managers themselves are better prepared limiting any potential advantages, that the competition is more uniformly challenging, and that the community is numerically shrinking. Wow, that's formidable headwind!
All these are combining to make active managers perspective's significantly dimmer. But the referenced article is not written in a nasty, non-reversible trend sense. It inspires some hope. It highlights the investment strategies of a few attractive individual investors who use both active and passive components when assembling a portfolio.
I say attractive because the mixed management investment styles of those profiled are very similar to my own investment rules of engagement. It is a battle. And everyone likes to be a part of a group and not an outlier when doing battle or when making investment decisions. There is comfort in not being alone.
Although the active management community is struggling through a tough,abandon ship period, it will not totally disappear. It's needed for price discovery purposes, and because there will always be some folks who will never be satisfied with only earning average market returns. These folks covet superior returns as their guiding goal.
Tom Petruno is an excellent financial writer. I like his work. I have read his measured articles for countless years. He rarely disappoints and always includes data that is easily understood. Good for him; good for us.
Best Wishes

FYI: Today’s infants may gasp in wonder 20 years from now at tales of how humans once were trusted to drive cars. They may also be shocked that humans once were trusted to pick stocks for investment portfolios.
The soaring popularity of “index” or “passive” mutual funds in the last few years has dealt another blow to the ranks of traditional “actively managed” funds — the ones with human portfolio managers who are supposed to ferret out the best stocks and beat the market average return.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-investing-quarterly-active-funds-20170409-story.html

Morn'in @VintageFreak
From a post or two I linked over the years, from Nov. 2009, per Mr. Lloyd Blankfein.
http://www.businessinsider.com/lloyd-blankfein-says-he-is-doing-gods-work-2009-11

SPECX is Old_Skeets largest holding in the growth area of my portfolio and has been for a good number of years. Indeed, it has been a good fund through the years. However, there are other good large cap growth funds as well. Some that I follow are SBLGX, LGRRX and NEFSX (which I have owned in the past as a spiff).

FYI: To beat the stock market and mutual fund peers, having the right stocks isn't enough. It's having them at the right time that counts. And Alger Spectra Fund (SPECX) has done that in spades in the past 10 years and is doing so again this year.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.investors.com/etfs-and-funds/mutual-funds/blue-chip-tech-names-help-fuel-this-red-hot-fund/
M* Snapshot SPECX:
http://www.morningstar.com/funds/xnas/specx/quote.html
Lipper Snapshot SPECX:
http://www.marketwatch.com/investing/fund/specx
SPECX Ranks #139 In The (LCG) Fund Category By U.S. News & World Report:
http://money.usnews.com/funds/mutual-funds/large-growth/alger-spectra-fund/specx

Matt, PYMDX/PHMIX and MMHAX are the two I normally have money in, going in and out, partially, in steps, based on T rate trajectory and trading ranges. They're both up 4%+ ytd.
Fyi, MMD is a top-performing muni cef run by the same managers as MMHAX. Bob DiMella, one of the management team (and I think the lead, though he's not id'd as such by M*), has been on WealthTrack in the past, the last time maybe a year or two ago - you could get the flavor from that interview if you want to search for it.
Found my way to HY munis about two years ago, and until the markets change, I'm done with ~ all investment-grade muni oef's. Cef's (which the article emphasizes) are a different animal; I usually own one or two, but opting for the oef's right now.
Like the article says, HY muni funds aren't nearly as junky or default-risky as corporate HY; the default rates on the former are much lower, and the muni funds typically have higher average quality than corporates. For example, Pimco and Mainstay are about 60% and 50% investment grade, respectively.
Best -- AJ

I don't worry about "go anywhere" but I have owned WHGIX for many years and it has served me fairly well; of course, you must keep this fund in perspective. As wm72 stated it does not hit home runs, but it is fairly steady, good safety and tax-efficient for its category.
If it fits into your overall portfolio objective, then it is a solid choice (IMHO).
Good luck and profitable investing going forward to both of us wm72 and any others invested!!
Matt

"I'm looking at the 5-year tax adjusted returns for RPHYX and it's 1.40%. Three years is 0.90%. "
Okay, but what are you saying? That this is better than cash, or that it's worse than more volatile funds?

I wasn't saying anything other than what was stated - the numbers provided by *M. People can make their own conclusions based on the numbers. Taxes may play a part in returns so I think it's important to keep that in mind, especially for those holding these types of funds in taxable accounts.

I checked with my favorite site for total return ...
I also checked performance at M*, with their closest return indicator at 5 years and the total return numbers since inception are a match within .02%.
I fired up my handy-dandy HP-12C and did rough numbers.
RPHYX is 6.38 years old and has a total return of 17.75% in this time frame. The math indicates an annualized return of 2.78 (M* reads 2.76% at the 5 year return), before any taxes if held in such an account.

M* has all the data, you just have to know how to coax it out. If you go to the chart page, you'll get a chart for the lifetime of the fund. $10K grew to $12,137.31, for a total return of 21.3731%. (You can also see this on the summary page chart.)
http://quotes.morningstar.com/chart/fund/chart?t=RPHYX&region=usa&culture=en-US
The Stockchart link you gave appears to go back only to March 24, 2011 (just over 6.0 years). The fund started Sept. 30, 2010 (just over 6.5 years). Not sure where 6 3/8 years came from.
The M* chart can be adjusted for any dates. If I adjust it to begin on March 24, 2011, I get a total return of 19.17%. I don't yet have an explanation for the discrepancy.

"I'm looking at the 5-year tax adjusted returns for RPHYX and it's 1.40%. Three years is 0.90%. "
Okay, but what are you saying? That this is better than cash, or that it's worse than more volatile funds?
If someone was in the top marginal tax bracket (that's how M* computes tax-adjusted returns), then they probably owned RPHIX that gave an extra 1/6% or so in return (after taxes). You can also add another 0.1%/year to the after tax return to account for the capital loss writeoff when cashing out. (Shares were around $10/share until about 3 years ago; they're now around $9.75.)
So over five years, the after tax return looks closer to 1.65%. Not bad compared to a five year CD (offered five years ago). Even before taking out the 30+% (top rate) taxes on that CD.
http://www.bankrate.com/banking/cds/historical-cd-interest-rates-1984-2016/
The after-tax return also looks good compared to short-intermediate muni funds like BTMIX, VMLUX, or FSTFX. (I'm inclined to look in this duration range for muni funds; anything shorter doesn't seem to pay enough to beat cash, and anything longer seems to have too much interest rate risk.)

I don't have any money with this horse and will not; but was curious. I checked with my favorite site for total return, and the graphic is at the below link.
I also checked performance at M*, with their closest return indicator at 5 years and the total return numbers since inception are very close.
I fired up my handy-dandy HP-12C and did rough numbers.
RPHYX data is for a time period of 6 years; and has a total return of 17.75% in this time frame. The rough math indicates an annualized return of 2.89 (M* reads 2.76% at the 5 year return), before any taxes, if held in such an account.
Stockcharts by default, uses adjusted calculations for returns. The adjustments are for common items as; dividends, cap. gains, splits and assumes everything reinvested; whatever affects total return. I prefer this method versus the commonly used price/NAV only shown at many charts. I want the whole picture for the investment return. If one wants price only appreciation, an _ is placed in front of the ticker symbol.
The below linked chart is "active", meaning that you may add up to 9 more tickers separated by a comma; if you want to compare something else. Save the page for future use, if you have not. Lastly, Stockcharts will not chart a ticker that has not yet attained an age of 2 years.
One may move the slider bar under the graphic to change the begin and end period if you want to view a particular period.
Pillow time here,being a bit to the tired side ......hoping for no errors in the above; .
http://stockcharts.com/freecharts/perf.php?RPHYX&n=1519&O=111000

I'm looking at the 5-year tax adjusted returns for RPHYX and it's 1.40%. Three years is 0.90%.

"The instititional version is a tad better but not that better."
True. Just the very little bit better that's needed to give the institutional class an extra star. (An artifact of star ratings being discrete; 1.99 stars are not given out, only 1 or 2.)

Since inception it is 3.31 vs. 3.02. So closer to what David was speaking of. I was speaking of the past three and five years. It is not unusual for a new fund to outperform its first year or two with small AUM and this fund is no exception. RPHYX hasn't done 3.5% to 4.5% since 2012. What dragged its 3 and 5 year returns down was 0.86% in 2015 when junk had its worst year since..... I am not trying to start a fight with David. I have said it is great as a sub for cash and retirees. It has been on an up trajectory with about as least volatility as you can find.

I'm confused as to how it can be both "2.20% over the past 3 years" and "3.5-4.5% every year except 2012". Surely one of these two statements may be in error?

I am going by Morningstar and the retail class RPHYX. The instititional version is a tad better but not that better.
http://www.morningstar.com/funds/XNAS/RPHYX/quote.html

I'm confused as to how it can be both "2.20% over the past 3 years" and "3.5-4.5% every year except 2012". Surely one of these two statements may be in error?