title says it
M* just started w DSEE(N)X, its having been three years as of last week.

This month there are 12 funds that are both 20-year Great Owls (top quintile risk adjusted return for past 3, 5, 10 and 20 years) and Honor Roll funds (top quintile absolute return for past 1, 3, and 5 years).
The 20-year GO designation is a remarkable accomplishment in itself ... long-term consistently high returns while mitigating drawdown. Add-in Honor Roll designation, which means these funds have continued to generate top returns presently.
Here are four:
T Rowe Price Capital Appreciation Fund (PRWCX)
Vanguard Wellesley Income Fund; Investor Shares (VWINX)
Fidelity Select Retailing Portfolio (FSRPX)
Vanguard/Wellington Fund Inc; Investor Shares (VWELX)
The remaining are munis:
Vanguard Ohio Long-Term Tax-Exempt Fund; Investor Shares (VOHIX)
Fidelity Michigan Municipal Income Fund (FMHTX)
Fidelity Ohio Municipal Income Fund (FOHFX)
Fidelity Arizona Municipal Income Fund (FSAZX)
Vanguard Pennsylvania Long-Term Tax-Exempt Fund; Investor Shares (VPAIX)
Fidelity Pennsylvania Municipal Income Fund (FPXTX)
New York Long-Term Tax-Exempt Fund; Investor Shares (VNYTX)
Nuveen Minnesota Intermediate Municipal Bond Fund; Class I Shares (FAMTX)

David designates funds between 1 and 2 years of age as "Rookie Funds." Here are some top performers based on risk adjusted return in category, specifically Martin Ratio ... max absolute return with min drawdown since inception through October:
SPDR S&P 500 High Dividend EtF (SPYD)
Intrepid Select Fund; Investor Class Shares (ICMTX)
Fidelity SAI US Minimum Volatility Index Fund (FSUVX)
T Rowe Price Global Unconstrained Bond Fund (RPIEX)
Restaurant EtF (BITE) ... Ha!
Intrepid International Fund; Investor Class Shares (ICMIX)
Grandeur Peak Global Micro Cap Fund; Institutional Class Shares (GPMCX)
Eventide Multi-Asset Income Fund; Class I Shares (ETIMX)
Grandeur Peak Global Stalwarts Fund; Institutional Class Shares (GGSYX)
SPDR DoubleLine Total Return Tactical EtF (TOTL)
AQR Equity Market Neutral Fund; Class R6 Shares (QMNRX)
Grandeur Peak International Stalwarts Fund; Institutional Class Shares (GISYX)
Artisan Developing World Fund; Institutional Shares (APHYX)
JOHCM Emerging Markets Small Mid Cap Equity Fund; Institutional Class Shares (JOMMX)
Vanguard Alternative Strategies Fund; Investor Class Shares (VASFX)
Brown Capital Management International Small Company Fund; Inst Shares (BCSFX)

@Old_Skeet
If this down draft continues,you might have to revive these threads.Your observations and insights were appreciated and well recieved by many of us.
From January 2016...............
Day Six & Day Seven ... Recent Selling Stampede Might Soon Be Ending
It's Day Eight /// Surprise ... Surprise ... Surprise!!
It's Day Nine ... Selling Stampede Continues ... Perhaps Plunge Protection Team Will Step In
Market Day Eleven ... It's Off to the Races
http://www.mutualfundobserver.com/discuss/profile/discussions/472/Old_Skeet
ARBITRAGE CREDIT OPPORTUNITIES ACFIX
Q3 2016 COMMENTARY
With several quarters of positive market performance
behind us, the fourth quarter could introduce new
volatility and opportunities given the upcoming US
elections, increased news flow detailing the UK’s plan
to exit from the EU, and the specter of December
interest rate hikes. As we saw during 2014 and 2015,
market gains can quickly reverse as investor
sentiment and direction rapidly change. While we may
not be able to predict political or economic outcomes
with certainty, we are aware of the risks and
outcomes that can result from changing events
https://arbitragefunds.com/restricted/get/Credit_Opportunities_Commentary.pdf
The death of retail isn't a problem for Starbucks
Nov. 4, 2016 3:50 PM ET By: Clark Schultz, Seeking Alpha News Editor
Starbucks (NASDAQ:SBUX) CEO Howard Schultz delved into some interesting large-scale retail issues during the company's earnings call yesterday.Schultz first noted that FedEx CEO Fred Smith shared some research with him confirming the significant drop in store traffic globally amid the 'Amazon Effect" across industries -- before he really turned up the retail bear rhetoric.
Q and A from SBUX conference call. Earnings Call Transcript (page 14-15)
John William Ivankoe - JPMorgan Securities LLC
Hi. Thank you. Howard, I was going to ask you to maybe apply the current environment in terms of what we're seeing both in the U.S. and around the world in the consumer environment,
Howard S. Schultz - Starbucks Corp.3rd Q
I was talking to Fred Smith just a couple of weeks ago about his situation at FedEx and he shared with me a piece of research which showed a significant drop in foot traffic on Main Street and in malls, not only domestically and around the world, as a result of e-commerce, the Web, and what I'll loosely describe as the Amazon effect. As a result of that, you're certainly seeing large companies and small companies not only not open new stores, but announce closures.
And let me just speak to that. I know this is a little long-winded but I think it's important. There's no doubt that over the next five years or so, we are going to see a dramatic level of retailers not be able to sustain their level of core business as a traditional bricks-and-mortar retailer, and their omni-channel approach is not going to be sustainable to maintain their cost of their infrastructure. And as a result of that, there's going to be tremendous amount of changes with regard to the retail landscape.
We believe, as we look down that pipe and look at the future, that our ability to maintain our growth in terms of new stores domestically and internationally, coupled with the fact that Starbucks still maintains a very special place in terms of a sense of community, the third place environment, and people looking for and seeking out human contact and a place to go, that as these store closures occur, and they will, that we are going to be in a very unique position five years, 10 years down the road because there's going to be a lot less people competing for those customers. I'm not talking about the coffee category; I'm talking overall.
But we are in the very, very early stages of a tremendous change in the bricks-and-mortar footprint of retailers domestically and internationally as a result of the sea change in how
people are buying things, and that's going to have, I think, a negative effect on all of retail.
http://seekingalpha.com/article/4019416-starbucks-sbux-q4-2016-results-earnings-call-transcript?page=15
Highlights of the Week:© 2016 Payden & Rygel
Equities Investors have been risk averse in light of the macro uncertainties, ignoring the first positive quarterly earnings growth in seven quarters.
Corporates: Corporate fund flows had a $2 billion out flow from mutual funds and ETFs
Securitized highlight of the week’s deal flow was the
$1 billion refinance of the Cosmopolitan Hotel in Las Vegas by Blackstone Real Estate
High Yield despite short-term volatility, the economic fundamentals that drive capital markets’ performance remain solid.
Municipals: Municipal issuance in October totaled approximately $53 billion, the largest total in 30 years and up 57% year-over-year...demand remained robust and municipal funds received approximately $1.7 billion of inflows during the month
.https://www.payden.com/weekly/wir110416.pdf

I believe you'll find that M* gives the last five dividends. That could span the last five years if the fund paid dividends annually, such as Vanguard Primecap VPMCX. Or that could cover less than half a year if the fund paid monthly dividends, such as Riverpark Short Term High Yield (RPHYX).

M*'s Quote for a MF gives the past five years of dividend and CG distributions. Scroll to the bottom.

FYI: The S&P 500 was trading higher Friday as the benchmark stock index looks to avoid its first 9-session losing streak in 36 years and traders react to a report showing steady job growth in October and brace for the coming presidential election.
Regards,
Ted
Bloomberg:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-11-03/japan-futures-tip-stock-losses-on-yen-bounce-pound-holds-gains
Reuters:
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-stocks-idUSKBN12Z1CD
MarketWatch:
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/dow-futures-frozen-in-place-with-all-eyes-on-jobs-report-election-homestretch-2016-11-04/print
USAToday:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/markets/2016/11/04/stocks-dow-friday/93282134/
IBD:
http://www.investors.com/market-trend/stock-market-today/stocks-gain-ground-facebook-drug-stocks-bounce-modestly/
WSJ Markets At A Glance:
http://markets.wsj.com/us
Sector Tracker:
http://www.sectorspdr.com/sectorspdr/tools/sector-tracker
Current Futures: Mixed
http://finviz.com/futures.ashx

Hi Slick,
I remember Rogers too from the Rukeyser show. But I never put 2+2 together and related the show's Owen Mills set with Price's nearby Maryland location. Always very level headed. Had some great years managing PRFDX, one of Price's oldest funds. His reputation grew from that early success. But than the fund fell out of favor for a number of years. Better recently I guess. Haven't followed it lately.

Thanks MSF! Sorry for saying 'a few years ago' - was trying to be helpful but was apparently imprecise. My bad.
Re our website -- that's quite strange. I'm on the 'old' site and am able to input 'Salient EM' and pull up the fund. I will bring this to the attention of the folks on the M*.com side.
W/re to the fee change, I misread it as well (or rather, I assumed if they were going to the bother of amending their fee table they were lowering the fees). I did some comparing of the before/after fee tables myself this morning but your analysis is more complete. If what you state is accurate, and I have no reason to doubt it, that's one of the more outrageous things I've seen.
Nice work.
Thanks.
Jeff Ptak
Morningstar

This election cycle may seem like it's been going on for years, but it's only been a bit more than a year since the Donald took his elevator ride, and just five days longer since Salient completed its acquisition of Forward. That didn't happen years ago, though it may feel that way.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/donald-trump-rode-escalator-2016-presidential-announcement/story?id=31801433 (candidacy announcement)
http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/salient-partners-completes-acquisition-of-forward-management-300096863.html (June 10, 2015)
Salient's acquisition involved only the management company. Unlike most acquisitions, Salient didn't restructure the funds. Usually what happens is that shell funds (like shell corps) are created that absorb the old funds.
For example, here's the agreement for Wells Fargo's acquisition of Strong funds (dare I comment on one firm of questionable ethics acquiring another?):

each Acquiring Fund ... [shall] acquire substantially all of the assets and assume
substantially all of the liabilities of the Acquired Fund
SHELL ACQUIRING FUNDS...........The Acquiring Funds that have no assets or
liabilities as of the date of this Plan.

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1081400/000084051904000454/agreeandplan.txt (Exhibit from N-14AE filing dated 9/15/2004)
In contrast, looks like there was no reorganization of the Forward Funds. Further, even the management company did not change - Forward Management, not Salient, continued as the fund manager.

On June 9, 2015, Forward Management was acquired by Salient, an asset manager headquartered in Houston.... Subsequent to the acquisition, Forward Management continues to act as the investment advisor of the Funds as a wholly-owned subsidiary of Salient.

SAI, Jan 4, 2016.
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/889188/000119312516420390/d102511d497.htm
So you are correct that technically, legally, these are still Forward Funds, unlike what happens in typical acquisitions, where the funds are restructured and the trusts change.
Regarding M*'s websites (plural) ... Try to find a fund beginning with "Salient EM" in the "classic" site's quote box. This comes up empty, but the site has no problem finding "Forward EM" funds. In contrast, the "beta" site gets it right - it finds the former, but does not recognize the obsolete Forward names. Calling this discrepancy a "feature" does not help matters.
The problem appears to be that M* is not keeping its "classic" database current. The resulting inconsistency between its websites merely adds to the confusion that Salient created by changing the funds' branding without changing their legal structure.
Finally, regarding the fee change. I misread the change - I should have looked at the older filings. This isn't a reduction in fees, but an increase. What changed was the addition of footnote (3) - a new fee "waiver" agreement, that actually results in higher fees getting charged.
What happened was that there had been a fee waiver agreement in place until May 1, 2014. The financials in the current (May 1, 2016) prospectus state that. That expired fee agreement may be found here.
As noted in footnote (2) to the fee table, the management company was unable to recoup the fees it waived because this fee agreement expired. So what it did was put a new agreement in place, with a higher expense limitation. For example, instead of limiting ER of the Investor shares to 1.34%, the expense will now be "limited" to 1.85%. Since the actual expenses are running "just" 1.74%, this new agreement allows the management company to recoup 0.11% (i.e. charge the full 1.85%). It had been unable to do that once the old agreement expired.
In other words, this looks like a money grab by the management company down to the very last minute.

An impressive group - especially Giroux & Vaselikiv whose been there a long time and has done a great job with high yield bonds.
Years ago, while deplaning on the tarmac at tiny Key West Airport (EYW), I followed some dude wearing a black suit (a bit out of place in Key West) and carrying a black briefcase that had "T. Rowe Price" prominately lettered on the side. On it was a conspicuous flashing red light. Top secret stuff maybe?
Perhaps such security features are common in such quarters - and I just don't associate enough with the upper crust. :)

Salient acquired Forward Funds a few years ago. (The filing nomenclature is likely just legacy/legal.) See here: http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/salient-partners-to-acquire-forward-management-300034259.html
I'd like to think our website's handling is helpful (to those that might, for whatever reason, be entering it by the old name), not confusing? Sorry if that's causing you aggravation.
The move to reduce fees of a soon-to-be-merged fund is extremely unusual. In general, they're charging the same freight all the way to the liquidation date, even with the usual cautions to investors that the fund might hold increasing amounts of cash, etc. What made this even stranger was their not reducing the fees by an even greater amount than they did -- if you're going to go to the trouble of reducing the fees then I guess why not cut deeper? The reduced fees are hardly low. In any event, given the rarity of this kind of thing, that led me to believe that they were keeping some shareclasses around but, yes, it's indeed possible that they're getting rid of the whole fund.
Regards,
Jeff Ptak
Morningstar

FYI: Last summer I watched Creed. It’s the latest movie in the “Rocky Balboa” series. One of the lines stands out. The movie’s lead character, Adonis Creed, asked Rocky how he had beaten his father. “I didn’t beat your father,” said Rocky. “Time takes everybody out. Time’s undefeated.”
It’s like that for most investors who try to beat the market. They might get lucky for a year or a decade. But if a low-cost index fund were a boxer, time would stand in its corner. According to the SPIVA scorecard, the S&P Composite 1500 Index beat 87.47 percent of U.S. actively managed stock funds during the ten years ending June 30, 2016.
Regards,
Ted
https://assetbuilder.com/knowledge-center/articles/does-factor-based-investing-work

This is a quality site concerning withdrawal scenarios. Need to read the detail to understand the chart output. Takes 111 years of historical data in one year time snapshots.
http://www.firecalc.com/
Problem being in today's world is that recent and possible future low rates have potentially tainted the age old 4% rule.

No one can give you 'the answer'. Here are some things to think about in developing your own answer:
1. At 76, presumably you are not trying to 'grow' your assets, and with your fixed costs covered, you re-invest the income, and presumably wish to conserve your assets. If that is the case, and you have 'won the game' -- meaning you have sufficient assets for your needs. Well, why keep playing the game, after the game is already won? If that assumption on my part is wrong, and you prefer to stay in the game, for whatever reason, then the answer is probably 'stay the course' -- so long as you will be copasetic with the results Mr. Market delivers.
2. If by 'bond bubble', you are implying the likelihood of a'popping' of the bubble, why stick around, at least in full-allocation mode? An investor can earn ~ 1% yield on near-cash or cash assets (e.g. "MINT", internet savings accts, etc.) Market-cap bond index products pay what now, something with a 2-handle in terms of yield? If the answer is you want the marginally higher income, that is a true answer. But consciously accept, stability of income may be at odds with stability of principal, especially when asset values are rich. You have to understand what is of primary importance to you, the income, or the value of your principal, then decide what to do.
3. If your 'bond bubble' diagnosis becomes reality and the bond market drops, expect stocks to fall in sympathy with bonds. Both asset classes benefitted from Q/E & ZIRP; IMO it would self-serving and delusional to expect that stocks will soar while/if bond prices drop. Often, stocks are more frenetic in their price moves than bonds. So reallocating principal from bonds to equities, probably won't DE-risk a portfolio. In fact, it may have the opposite effect.
4. Lastly, and I am sure you know this, a decision to buy, hold, or sell is never a 'final decision'. Circumstances may change tomorrow, and you can reverse your decision.
I'm about 25 years your junior. Still in accumulation mode, but expecting to retire early in 4 years. Except for the whole health-insurance issue, I could retire now, spend principal, and not have another worry. So, I've no intention of exposing all of my assets to the vississitudes of Mr. Market here --- which might risk delaying my retirement. Especially with most asset classes trading 'rich'. But that is me. You are in a different place. Your fixed costs are covered. The question is to what degree to you wish to expose your assets to Mr. Market -- and for what purpose? Does the marginal income/return you derive from holding rich assets adequately compensate for the risk of holding richly-priced assets? Ultimately, only you can answer that question. Nobody else can.

Get in line @ Blackstone ! From The Blackstone Group LP (BX) Q3 2016 Results - Earnings Call Transcript
In the past 12 months alone, our limited partners, we call them LPs, have entrusted us with nearly $70 billion in new capital which despite $38 billion in realizations brings us to another record for assets under management of $361 billion. We continue to see strong positive growth in every one of our businesses. Blackstone continues to be the solutions provider our limited investors need, perhaps now more than ever in a world of sluggish growth, record low interest rates, high public market valuations, the resulting very low returns for most asset classes. These challenges seem likely to persist for some time which is causing real problems for LPs.
Here is a pretty stunning fact. In the past 10 quarters, we have raised nearly $200 billion, more than the aggregate size of any of our domestic alternative peers. And given the secular forces driving capital into the alternatives, we continue to nicely grow combined with Blackstone's powerful and unique competitive position. I remain quite optimistic in our ability to keep growing with one of the largest, if not the largest, platforms in each vertical area, Private Equity, Real Estate, Hedge Funds and Credit. We are able to accept and responsibly deploy billions of dollars from individual LPs which is a critical capability that few, if any, other firms can offer
http://seekingalpha.com/article/4016086-blackstone-group-lp-bx-q3-2016-results-earnings-call-transcript?part=single
Bloomberg Gadfly Take by Gillian Tan Oct 27, 2016 3:58 PM EDT
Stephen Schwarzman, the billionaire chairman, CEO and co-founder of Blackstone Group, is accustomed to having people pay attention to his point of view, whether it's in a meeting room at the firm's Park Avenue headquarters or in his capacity as a philanthropist. But he seems to have trouble getting his message across when it comes to Blackstone's shares.
Disconnect
Blackstone, like its peers, has struggled to win over investors.
As the firm's biggest shareholder with a stake of roughly 20 percent, Schwarzman has gone to lengths to persuade investors that Blackstone deserves a higher valuation -- even going so far as walking through the math of his argument -- but his words have fallen on deaf ears. On an earnings call Thursday, after the New York firm easily beat analysts' expectations thanks to sales of real estate assets, he resorted to sarcasm. "Who needs yield when you can invest at 1 percent in government bonds?" he dryly asked, after referring to the fact that Blackstone's dividend yield is markedly higher than that.
.....potential shareholders should remember that the yield isn't as airtight as, say, a U.S. Treasury bond. Blackstone's ability to pay dividends fluctuates every quarter and is driven in part by the firm's ability to profit from its activities across various arms, such as by selling off real estate or other investments as it has done in recent years. Still, there's little likelihood that the dividend will disappear completely, owing to the diversity of Blackstone's holdings
https://www.bloomberg.com/gadfly/articles/2016-10-27/blackstone-yield-appeal-is-schwarzman-s-latest-valuation-argument

bee said, "Is TROW a good buy or is PRWCX about to correct?"
@bee Wouldn't touch your question with a 10 foot pole - make that 15' :)
Here's a link back to TRP about the $194M write-off they took back in June after botching a proxy vote on Dell. https://www3.troweprice.com/usis/corporate/en/press/t--rowe-price-to-compensate-clients-for-dell-voting-error.html This received a lot of press (mostly favorable) back in June and was broadly lauded as testament to the firm's integrity and shareholder commitment. (I don't recall any discussion here.) But I'd imagine it impacted their share price. The WSJ appears to have more on this - but I have trouble reading it without a subscription, so didn't link them.
PRWCX, BTW, isn't having a particularly good year after several great ones. Manager has become very cautious on the market and is no doubt dealing with bloat - though it's now closed to new investors. If one wanted to have some fun with play money (assuming he/she held a favorable opinion of the firm) he might invest 50/50 in both the company and PRWCX and than rebalance periodically.
The future of T. Rowe? It's tough out there. They're small-fry compared to Vanguard, Blackrock and a few other giants. There's been a shift from actively managed funds to low cost passive funds and ETFs going on for many years now and I see no signs of it abating. Over the past year, if my reading of Barrons serves me well, Price experienced net outflows - though not as severe as Oppenheimer and some other active managers. I'd expect continued shrinkage or consolidation among companies in their segment of the market.
---
PS: Asset managers are to an extent subject to the whims of the markets. In a sharply declining equity market AUMs fall - reducing profits. This interplay between investors' and advisors' outlooks for equity markets and the re-pricing of asset managers like Price is far too complex for my feeble mind to understand. But it's not inconceivable that (future) market expectations are impacting TROW's valuation. (PRWCX would be expected to hold up better during a sharp correction than TROW.)

Interesting... the stock price of TROW is trading at its lowest price in over a year. In fact, you have to go back to its 4 year low (Sept 2012) to match today's stock price. The stock is up 36% over the last ten years which included the 2009 great-cession.

Over the past 10 years TROW has more often out performed PRWCX, but that is not the case over the past year and half. (TROW in Yellow). Is TROW a good buy or is PRWCX about to correct?

Here's the most recent three performance of the two:

Just more of what has been occurring the past many months. Let's hope this move is for real and not a fake out like so many in the past several years.

Looks like it lasted then than 2 years.
Had amassed < $30 MM in AUM.