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

I've been getting Kiplinger and Money magazines for years. Like others have said, at about $10 a year (cheap) for each, they are worth it to me just to have something to skim through while sitting on the patio drinking a beer. There is nothing in them that you would act on without doing more homework, but I would say the same for posts here at MFO. It's all about listening to different ideas whether it be from magazines or article links or posts. Some will make sense, others you just shake your head.

Would like member's thoughts on this fund. I've held it for 4 or 5 years although I have reduced my holdings in it at least once. When I read the Manager's reports, he sounds like just the guy I want looking over my money. But then there's the performance issue. I've search this website for discussion of this fund but everything I find is quite old when the fund was performing. I like the potential downside protection but not at this cost. Who do you like better in this space. Schwab 401k account.

Let this be a learning experience about buying a fund because an institutional manager with a great track record opens a fund for retail investors. I have seen that story played out over and over and more often than not with subpar results.

I don't put much faith in theirs - or any MSM publication - list of funds to own. As mentioned above, they do tend to oversimplify things to reach the widest # of readers' experiences.
I've been a Kip reader for many years mainly for quick-skim "finance-lite" reading and a dirt-cheap subscription rate ... I probably get through it in about 10-15 minuts, if that. But every now and then I come across an investing or lifestyle article/tip that's interesting & gets me thinking, but generally speaking the publication plays ZERO in my investing decisions.

When I was a beginning investor I used to read magazines such as Kiplinger's, Money and others figuring they had answers. You learn with time and experience to become more discerning. Simple sells, I get it. Our last presidential election is proof of that.
In reference to the posted article for example why did the author choose a term of 9 years for his evaluation when he could have easily used 10 years. Funds are often compared over 1-3-5-10 year periods but he choose 9. You have to ask yourself why. One possible reason might be related to the occurrence of the big market swoon in 2008 and a time when go-go growth funds were punished the worst. Guess it makes those picks look more porny.
Next, he only choose one fund out of the 25 to grind into the dirt in comparison to his index fund. Why not show us all of the funds. Sure we can go look them up but he's the one calling us to arms.
Finally, why didn't he provide us with the returns for just 2008? Maybe (doubtful) these were the best 25 funds for that year but at least show us what happened.
All in all there doesn't appear to be much value in assetbuilder porn either.

Would like member's thoughts on this fund. I've held it for 4 or 5 years although I have reduced my holdings in it at least once. When I read the Manager's reports, he sounds like just the guy I want looking over my money. But then there's the performance issue. I've search this website for discussion of this fund but everything I find is quite old when the fund was performing. I like the potential downside protection but not at this cost. Who do you like better in this space. Schwab 401k account.

My question for Abhay would be about the depth and experience of his analyst and trading team versus IVA and First Eagle. When the folks left First Eagle to found IVA I got the sense they left as a group and now years hence have a pretty decent sized staff to do the intensive research required to cover stocks and bonds worldwide. Abhay, I believe, left by himself or at least not with investment staff but operational staff, and has hired younger analysts. Is that correct? If it is, how does he plan to cover the world's securities​? Will, he be bulking up analyst staff soon? Thanks.

Thanks @Ted for posting.
I, most times, enjoy reading about a fund that I own.
FKINX is Old_Skeet's largest (@6% or so) and longest holding since the early to mid 60's. Hey, that is better than 50 years.
Currently, hybrid type funds make up about 45% of my overall portfolio's allocation, cash another 20% leaving bonds, equity & other at 35%. It seems, I now have the most with hybrid asset managers and moving more towards them each year as I age.
Skeet

FYI: Every year, Kiplinger’s publishes their favorite mutual funds. It’s a lot like online porn. Nine years ago, the magazine published The 25 Best Mutual Funds—2008. Let’s have a look at the damage it might have caused.
Regards,
Ted
https://assetbuilder.com/knowledge-center/articles/what-kiplingers-has-in-common-with-online-porn

she's on a roll
http://news.morningstar.com/articlenet/article.aspx?id=804419

I read your fatherly advice (M* comment) and also read this other M* comment added below. There's something about home ownership that goes far beyond the numbers, but it's also nice to have the numbers work in your (daughters) favors. Good luck!

When I bought my first home 4 years ago, I withdrew my contributions plus $10K from my Roth to help get me a 20% . While it would have been nice to keep that $44K total in the IRA, I do not regret it for a moment.
Effectively, I was just moving my retirement investment into another form - a home of my own. Since then, I've paid $30K to the principal, instead of that money going to a landlord. My home has appreciated considerably in value, and my monthly mortgage on a 3 bedroom house is apparently slightly less than the average monthly rental for a 1 bedroom apartment in the same area.

Here's another quote from the Markets Insider interview that I found interesting:
"I can't help think that there may be a period when folks who are putting their money into index products are going to regret it a few years from now. This is not a prediction, but just an observation that indexing has had its waves of popularity before. It hasn't been proven wise to deploy your capital there."

I don't tend to post much with respect to our actual investment funds, because of the perception at MFO that American Funds is a almost a pariah because of their front loads. We may be somewhat of an exception on that, as we haven't been subject to those "A" share loads for almost forty years now.
The ER at American is among the lowest, and the management style, with no emphasis on so-called "stars", suits us just fine. As the chart shows, American is just below Vanguard with respect to ER. If your investment at American is long-term, that ongoing low ER will eventually offset the load if you do have to pay it.
We keep about half of our investments at American, about one quarter at American Century, and the other quarter mostly at Schwab, where we take positions mostly based on information gleaned here at MFO. That Schwab bunch is certainly the most interesting to deal with, if not always fun to watch.

That's a pretty cool chart! I sometimes worry because TRP (where I invest) seems to be perpetually cranking out new funds - some very similar in nature. But looking at these "balloons" I think I understand why. They're struggling to stay large (and competitive) among some real giants.
Maybe I missed something. But to state "The best firms ... are American and Dodge and Cox" strikes me as somewhat presumptuous. For sure, D&C (where I have a little) has a lot to recommend it. They have some of the lowest ERs among the active managers. They're a privately held held firm. And have a great long-term record.
The one thing I'd caution against is that tit-for-tat I think you'll find their equity and balanced funds are a bit more volatile than those of many peers. Don't know if this is (1) just part of their investment culture or (2) whether perhaps the mamouth size of their funds necessitates they stay pretty much fully invested in larger cap stocks and assume a longer-term time horizon. Probably both.
@bee - If you missed it, there's some discussion of DODGX in @Ted's: "M*: 10 Funds That Beat the Market Over 15 Years" thread.
Regards

Hi Bee, I thought Yahoo has a separate link that plots the "D" you mentioned. At least several years back they did. You may also want to try Google Finance.
Finally, I think M* alert subscriptions will alert you when distributions are made (not sure if they alert you BEFORE they are made). May not be what you want, but it's something.
Finally, not sure exactly as to what you are trying to find/analyse, but Yahoo also has dividend adjusted NAV numbers (again, at least they used to).

@VF:
DODGX - Value of $100 on January 1, 2008
December 31, 2008 - $56.69 (loss of 43.31%)
December 31, 2009 - $74.41 (gain of 31.27%)
December 31, 2010 - $84.44 (gain of 13.48%)
December 31, 2011 - $81.00 (loss of 4.08%)
December 31, 2012 - $98.83 (gain of 22.01%)
December 31, 2013 - $138.34 (gain of 40.55%)
You'd still be slightly behind 5 years after investing the initial amount. This assumes no custodial fees were paid from your invested amount over those years. Had you paid such fees out of invested money, you'd be further behind. Waiting one additional year would have paid-off. The fund jumped 40.55% in 2013.