I looked at it several years ago, but I don't see compelling reason how it may fit into my portfolio.

I had exchanged posts with Mr Snowball on SCMFX. It seemed overrated to me.

What were you looking at when you made the selection?
A quick look at it Vs the RUT showed that over 10 years they were about equal and over 5 years SCMFX underperformed RUT
http://finance.yahoo.com/chart/SCMFX#eyJjb21wYXJpc29ucyI6Il5SVVQiLCJjb21wYXJpc29uc0NvbG9ycyI6IiMxYWM1NjciLCJjb21wYXJpc29uc0dob3N0aW5nIjoiMCIsImNvbXBhcmlzb25zV2lkdGhzIjoiMSIsIm11bHRpQ29sb3JMaW5lIjpmYWxzZSwiYm9sbGluZ2VyVXBwZXJDb2xvciI6IiNlMjAwODEiLCJib2xsaW5nZXJMb3dlckNvbG9yIjoiIzk1NTJmZiIsIm1maUxpbmVDb2xvciI6IiM0NWUzZmYiLCJtYWNkRGl2ZXJnZW5jZUNvbG9yIjoiI2ZmN2IxMiIsIm1hY2RNYWNkQ29sb3IiOiIjNzg3ZDgyIiwibWFjZFNpZ25hbENvbG9yIjoiIzAwMDAwMCIsInJzaUxpbmVDb2xvciI6IiNmZmI3MDAiLCJzdG9jaEtMaW5lQ29sb3IiOiIjZmZiNzAwIiwic3RvY2hETGluZUNvbG9yIjoiIzQ1ZTNmZiIsInJhbmdlIjoiNXkifQ==

After reviewing all available options, we chose Iowa 529 plan that uses a host of Vanguard index funds. The choices are either age-based or individual portfolio. We are very happy with the age-based portfolio and its return for the past 15 years. By the way, we skipped our home state, Oregon 529. The state administrator consistently picked poor fund families that run the plan. First it was the Strong, then came Oppenheimer, and now TIAA-CREF. Even with state tax deduction, we decided to forgo the incentive and went with Iowa's plan instead.

We've invested in Utah's 529 for ten years. A 50/50 split between VITPX and VBMPX .
Combined annualized total return = 6.4% per year.

At least you admitted to hijacking the thread. Now can the MFO SWAT team please help me with my original questions. Hopefully our discussions are not always "look how great a fund is" and then not say anything until a time comes and fund has few good years after which we come back and PT ourselves in the back. Investing is dine in the present and notwith benefit of hindsight. That is M* behavior

@davidmoran No, not all gold related; but it sure has helped YTD, eh? @Junkster You're still covered with your prior assumption of PRPFX. It's having a "day in sun" from the choices in place at this time. Most of us here all have our "geez" moments about the ones that got away. Multiply by years of investing and the positive compound returns, over and over; and one could buy their own private island or whatever, eh?
PRPFX = 5 year return rate at 1.1%
Most here understand the market cycle sector benefits or downfalls of this type of fund.
Looking at the composition (below link); one finds gold in various forms, real estate and appears to be long term gov't. bonds; among other.
I'll pick a few simple and readily available choices if one really had their act together at the start of 2016 to look like the smartest one around for many miles. 'Course these may all go into the ground within the next year and cause one to look like a real buy and hold dumbbell, too.
YTD's for the following:
---GDXJ = +135.2%
---GDX = +98.1%
---GLD = +24.2%
---EDV = +24.1%
---IYR = +11.2%
---LQD = +10.4%
Hey, make your own list based upon what you find in PRPFX, but don't forget to sell at the proper time to lock the profits.
PRPFX composition.
@VintageFreak Apologizes for perverting your original questions.
Take care,
Catch

SCMFX What is there to like about a fund that has significantly underperformed its category YTD, 1 Yr, 3 YR, and 5 Yr ?? SEEDX isn't much better. One common refrain (excuse) when investors hold underperforming funds is it's for diversification purposes. However, in the spirit of fair disclosure I use to rag on holders of PRPFX a dog of a dog the past many years and now look how superbly it has performed this year. So what do I know? Not much - which is about as much as all the so-called experts out there.

I hold some Schwab 2030 TDF (SWDRX) and have been happy with it's performance over the years. However, YTD performance has fallen off sharply (91st percentile). I'm not panicking yet, but does anyone have any idea of what might be going on this year?

haha, maybe; I do play a little bit trading ups and downs, rich-friends' tips and such, biotech and oil and a REIT or two, also CLF, also Acacia, and had a good string of years until starting a couple of years ago, and since then probably have coughed it all up, gah, gah, gah.
In retirement I am trying to curtail my stupidity and manage my greed, with only partial success.

Well, somebody's been buying for the last couple of years. Is all of that you, David?

@JoJo26:
QLEIX and QLENX are available in Fidelity retirement accounts for $100K and $500 minimums, respectively, with a TF.
@msf:
I totally agree with your assessment of the ER. That is why I have been advocating for years that M* report on the fund's front page the actual expense ratio that investors will be paying, as detailed in the prospectus. In this case, the actual ER of 1.87% should be reported on the fund's front page. And notice that this 1.87% figure doesn't even appear in the expense breakdown for the fund. M* could report this accurate ER but chooses to not do so, likely to favor fund managements over investors. M* could and should do better.
Kevin

If you're going to be invested for ten years or more, move the dough now.

March 9, 2009 at 3:59 PM
In response to Ted's revision, I too am revising my response.
I hope I didn't sound like a smart ass, but the subtle message embedded in my terse reply above is that the best time to invest is when things are cheap. So you easily could have bought twice as much of the S&P for the same amount of money back in '09 as today.
A second message meant to be conveyed is that markets are impossible to predict.
That said, all of the other responses are well considered and should be helpful to you. Had you included factors like age, years to retirement, and personal disposition towards risk, it would have helped in suggesting appropriate allocations and methods of deploying your cash.
Regards

Hi @clacy
Now, what you and @kevindow noted does make financial sense, eh?
But, money managers would put themselves out of work, yes?
I do believe that ego, the human essence and any other self esteem word one may discover has relationship to money managers.
I don't follow science up close; but the last time I checked, these folks sit upon the toilet just like the rest of us.
This recent CALPERS article offers clues and potential guidelines, if managers would accept defeat of their egos. Although one can not imagine many folks whose money is being invested are raising a glass of wine to these folks in celebration.
Hell, I've had to adjust my directions several times over the years from "realization factors"; and I'm not even investing "other peoples money" from which a poor rate of return (as with CALPERS) would cause me to be wholly embarrassed. I continue to be asked upon occasion about where to invest. My suggestions have changed from 10 years ago.
Take care,
Catch

I remember that we had this discussion some years ago... might even have been on FundAlarm. But I still don't fully understand the mechanism: Is it accurate to say that if 40% of the equity market is now indexed (passive), then the remaining 60% is active?
And if that's true, what happens when we get to 51% indexed vs 49% active? Would that mean that a "minority" of active investors would then be determining the market?
And if that's true, what is the ongoing situation as the active share decreases further? More and more "influence" from fewer and fewer investors?

You know this about perma-inflation Singer, right?

Ah, so he was the one; I was telling someone about the terrible Hamptons r/e inflation the other day and couldn't remember what caricature of a clueless zillionaire had said it.

Yes, but that article was two years ago. These days the Hamptons are so déclassé that Starbucks even has a mug for them:

The Hamptons Housing Market Is Getting Clobbered by Wall Street Jitters:
http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2016/04/hamptons-housing-market-wall-street

FYI: Demand for exposure to emerging markets has been on the rise in recent months, and one fund that has captured a lot of that interest is a fixed-income ETF, the iShares JP Morgan USD Emerging Markets Bond ETF (EMB).
So far in 2016, EMB has raked in $4.35 billion in net assets—huge inflows for a fund that has $9.7 billion in total assets today. EMB was the fifth-most-popular ETF in July based on creations, and is ranked among the 10 biggest creations we’ve seen year-to-date.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.etf.com/sections/features-and-news/emb-years-hot-emerging-market-bond-etf

Some people have been following JENSX and it's steady, strong performance. However, the lesser known JNVSX has had a great year. It has returned 16% YTD, and 8% over the last trailing year. This places it in the 6th percentile YTD and 16th percentile over the last year for its category according to Morningstar. Morningstar is placing it in the MV category, likely because it is multi-cap, however it holds more stocks in the large cap space (38%), than it does in mid cap (29%), and small cap (34%). If it were categorized in the large cap territory, it would be closer to the 1st percentile YTD.
It has had a couple poor years relative to the market (2012, 2015), but maybe it has finally found it's groove, or its investing style has paid off this year.

Hi Guys,
This post simply adds more grist to the Indexing mill.
Many other posts that address this debate have appeared on MFO recently. Here is an internal Link to one of my more recent contributions to this matter:
http://www.mutualfundobserver.com/discuss/discussion/29128/attacking-active-fund-managers-yet-again
Like Ted, although I'm fully fimilar with the primary arguements that tilt towards an Index portfolio, my portfolio is a mix of both passive and active products. I like the excitement.
Over many decades, Ellis has advocated an Index approach. Nothing new there. But I did learn something new from the referenced video. I had never heard of comparing a bond with an expected lifetime earning income. Taken the validity of that analogy, Ellis concludes that a portfolio should only have a very lightweight commitment to a bond component.
I'm a natural for an Index portfolio. I don't wake up worrying the stock market. Stock price volatility doesn't influence my decisions whatsoever. I don't know the current value of my portfolio. I'll check its value once a year to determine what my minimum required withdrawal rate demands in terms of action.
I satisfy the Ellis definition and model of a very, very long-term investor. Nothing much troubles me. I prepared well for my and my wife's retirement years.
Best Wishes.

@Old_Joe Certainly not offended by you or most comments or posters on this site. I've also been amused quite often by Ted( see below ).But I've also gotten the "woodshed" treatment . I had to search this site for " ship " to recover my January post.Try the search feature for most any topic and notice some of the people that have left the site or rarely add their opinion/investment experiences. As far as I'm concerned, we've lost some people that added to discussions such as this one.I thought Ted's comment in this discussion a bit condescending.
@Old_Joe
PS Watching the Giants. 30 hits ! Bumgarner vs De Grom ? Dodger/Giant rivalry alive and well. The "Bum" vs the Bums .
@Ted said 'Just remember, every ship at the bottom of the ocean has a chart room !'
One of your better ones Ted They found another one ! And the chartists are more bearish by the .... hour?

http://www.mutualfundobserver.com/discuss/discussion/comment/73731/#Comment_73731
by ALEXANDER SMITH JAN 13 2016, 8:19 AM ET
Experts hunting for Malaysia Airlines Flight MH370 have discovered wreckage on the seabed. However, it's at least 100 years old and has nothing to do with the missing jet