For foreign large growth, JOHAX is my choice, although it is recovering from a serious drop in 2015. Over the past few years, I have cut back on pure foreign stock funds in favor of global funds. My best result has been with ARTRX, worst with now-departed Oakmark offerings. Good global managers should be able to allocate more or less to foreign equities as conditions warrant and do it better than I can. If I recall correctly, FMIJX hedges currency when conditions call for it, not always.

@catch22- Hey there, Catch... now that rings a bell. Held ACITX years ago, but haven't looked at that in a long time. Will do, thanks. If I do invest and lose any money my uncle, Joe "knee-breaker" Mafioso will be the arbitrator.
Take care- OJ

FYI: Several years ago, I interviewed C. Thomas Howard of AthenaInvest to learn more about his firm’s unique implementation of behavioral finance. This turned out to be one of the best performing pieces of content Enterprising Investor has ever run. But it isn’t just AthenaInvest’s originality that’s so compelling, so too is its strong performance.
Howard also has an interesting pedigree as a recovering and almost lifelong finance professor turned practitioner. Recently he has focused his attention on another problem: determining whether or not active management is dead. In addition, he is dedicated to uncovering ways active managers can improve their performance — and he has the academic chops to back up his story.
Regards,
Ted
https://blogs.cfainstitute.org/investor/2016/07/26/is-active-management-dead-not-even-close/

I own a couple of these funds and I like them for holdings I keep before they go into a straight cash account. ie, For 3 years cash eq, I have 1 yr in cash and 2 yrs in MAIFs.

You might put the Aston/Pictet International Fund on your watch list. It would be more similar to the Harbor fund than others mentioned so far.

The fund is rather similar to Harbor Int'l. But with all due respect, I think you'll find LZIEX to be just as similar ...

APINX is only two years old, but it has demonstrated good defensive properties since the dust-up started in Europe last year. Low turnover so far. Measured as a LC blend fund, it has a median cap of around 5B. It has some size (currently around $1B, almost entirely institutional money).

LZIEX has a somewhat lower turnover rate (23.6% compared to 53%), and a somewhat larger weighted market cap ($50.1B compared to $43B or Harbor's $67B). AUM are close, with LZIEX having $1.2B, of which 90% is institutional, and APINX having $0.9B AUM. Sector weightings are likewise similar.
In fact, APINX and LZIEX may resemble each other more closely than they resemble Harbor.

When international is on a tear, I can't recall a Pictet fund that hasn't done well (although my memory stops about 10 yrs ago on this, so take that with some salt, so to speak).

Your memory is better than mine. The only Pictet fund I (or apparently VintageFreak) could remember offered in the US was Pictet Global Water. While Pictet is a significant presence in funds offered outside the US, it seems that their US-sold funds folded over a decade ago.
In particular, there was a Pictet International Equity fund. Whether that bears any resemblance to the Aston fund, I don't know. Here's the Bloomberg profile (stating that it existed from August 25, 2000 to Sept 8, 2003), the SEC filing to shut it down (along with Global Water), and the 2002 prospectus (showing six Pictet funds).
http://www.bloomberg.com/research/stocks/private/snapshot.asp?privcapId=28148103
(shutdown) https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/containers/fix048/945774/0000940400-03-000487.txt
(2002 Prospectus) https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/945774/000093506902000363/0000935069-02-000363.txt

I don't know much about this topic (but that's never stopped me from chiming in).
What I think I know:
1. REIT funds been on a roll for several years. When I was looking for a few "Hail Mary" investments at Oppenheimer during a rough patch in September 2015, I dribbled a bit (equal amounts) into 3 new funds: Real Estate (OREAX), gold and EM bonds. All were beaten up, but OREAX not as much as the other two. To my surprise OREAX rebounded very nicely and has held up well since than.
2. Over the past few months the fund has been nicely non-correlated with equities, sometimes moving in the opposite direction. However, I do not think this is always the case. I recall long periods in the past where they were not so inversely correlated but quite closely correlated.
3. These funds tend to be very concentrated. TRRIX (mentioned in the OP) has a 50% concentration in its top 10 holdings. I've found the one I own, OREAX, to be similarily concentrated.
Hope this helps. FWIW

FYI: Although they've been around for less than five years, many of these funds benefit from a wealth of experience.
Regards,
Ted
http://news.morningstar.com/articlenet/article.aspx?id=761286

Hi @johnN,
Thanks for posting Dr. Madell's monthly newsletter. I always enjoy reading Dr. Madell's perspectives. In this month's newsletter ... Dr. Madell covers active management vs. passive (the market).
Below is an interesting quote from the newsletter.
"Out of all the 17 Vanguard mananged US stock funds that have been around for 15 years or more, 11 beat VTSMX over the prior 15 year period. The average return for the 17 was 7.57% vs. 6.72% for the Vanguard total stock market Index."
Interesting? Yes!

@MikeW You might put the Aston/Pictet International Fund on your watch list. It would be more similar to the Harbor fund than others mentioned so far. APINX is only two years old, but it has demonstrated good defensive properties since the dust-up started in Europe last year. Low turnover so far. Measured as a LC blend fund, it has a median cap of around 5B. It has some size (currently around $1B, almost entirely institutional money). When international is on a tear, I can't recall a Pictet fund that hasn't done well (although my memory stops about 10 yrs ago on this, so take that with some salt, so to speak).
Profile sheet:
https://astonfunds.com/includes/modules/assets/controllers/fileDownload.php?file=1469561876_FS_ASTON_PictetIntlFd_2Q16_063016_FS163-AC.pdf&id=1876&r=/funds/aston-pictet-international&type=file
Website:
https://astonfunds.com/funds/aston-pictet-international

@ Soupkitchen: Like some others, I threw in the towel on OAKIX too and decided to put proceeds into ARTGX in one account, but in another account, I sold off all but $2500 in favor of FMIJX. I have noticed OAKIX has started coming back a bit, lets see how long it lasts. I decided to keep a foothold in it because historically until 3-4 years ago it was a fine fund with good management. Maybe they will be back.

Yet for years, as VF pointed out, it knocked the ball out of the park, was an M* analyst pick etc. For me, another piece of evidence that it is damned hard (not impossible, but damned hard) to pick a fund that's going to outperform.

That's why I keep selling in round robin fashion and keep rebuying the same funds. I know I'm never going to land that 10-bagger fund. Anytime my investment yields 50% I sell and buy another fund. Over time I decide which one to keep. I don't want to be caught napping.

Yet for years, as VF pointed out, it knocked the ball out of the park, was an M* analyst pick etc. For me, another piece of evidence that it is damned hard (not impossible, but damned hard) to pick a fund that's going to outperform.

I bailed on Harbor Int'l about three years ago. I also recommend FMIJX. Third quarter report just came today and I have linked it. I think the discussion will give you a good idea of how cautiously the fund is managed.
http://www.fiduciarymgt.com/funds/shrpt/qly_shrpt_063016.pdf

A few you should look at:
Matthews Pacific Tiger, Artisan Intl Value, Capital World Growth&Income (American funds), Polaris Global Value, Vanguard Intl Growth, Artisan Global Equity, Artisan Global Value
I have been investing in Matthews Pacific Tiger for 5 years, and have been happy with it.

You're 5 months late John. The time to load up on energy-heavy funds was in February when oil bottomed around $26. By my crude calculation it's now up about 70% from those lows. As I wrote on May 3: "I suspect the big gains in NR & energy are over for the year, but remain optimistic for PRNEX (and natural resources in general) looking out two or three years." http://www.mutualfundobserver.com/discuss/discussion/comment/77459/#Comment_77459
On that day (May 3) oil closed around $43-44 and PRNEX (the fund mentioned in the post) was sitting at about $32. That's about where both are today. So neither has moved much. In the intervening months since that post, oil touched $50 and PRNEX approached $35. I sold another 25% of PRNEX at the higher prices, so now have only a small position.
Energy analysts are divided of course, but there seems to be some consensus that oil will be in the $60 range in a couple years. Unfortunately, a 2-year time horizon seems very long for some. So John, you'll probably get paid to wait - but your gains will come in drips and drabs.

If you are looking for diversification, I would not use a fund that owns REITs and stocks of companies that have a lot of real estate. An example of this is Baron Real Estate. It is much more tied to the stock markets than just plain REITs. We have used Cohen & Steers for a very long time. CSRSX has been around since 1991 and has had management changes over the years but has been very consistent. Marty Cohen and Robert Steers retired in 2013. Vanguard VGSLX has minimal expenses and is an index fund. Also take a look at ICF which is the ETF version of Cohen & Steers. While international real estate may have some merits, it add another layer of volatility and risk that may not be worth it. Any of the above give you a quality, alternative investment. One thing to keep in mind, REITS are less subject to interest rate risk than you might think, since they can pass the added expense on through their leases to their renters. This is especially true in a very slow, careful increase in rates as we are likely to have.

He'll be right one of these years....

I've been debating whether to invest more into Real Estate. I have a foot-hold in TRREX (trow price) and TAREX (third ave, international) for many years; I bailed during the "great recession" and never went back in any meaningful way.
I'm looking for more "diversification" and "non-correlation", if you will, to go with my bond allocations. I know very little about "alt" funds and other such non-correlated vehicles.
I also understand REITs are sensitive to interest rates and supposedly rates will be rising sometime (soon?), but when and how fast; I certainly do not have a clue.
This investment will be in a TAXABLE brokerage account, so (relative) tax-efficiency is important. TRREX is not bad compared to others in the category.
I came across Davis RE (RPFRX.LW at FIDO) it has a very low tax-cost ratio and does not look too bad. If anyone has any suggestions or opinions on other worthwhile "relatively" tax-efficient REIT funds, please let me know!
The bottom-line question is, after a good run since the "great recession", is this a bad time to increase my Real Estate allocation (5%-7% of portfolio)?
Any thoughts are greatly appreciated!!
Regards,
Matt
fyi, Also, posted on M*.

That's an interesting webpage, one I've visited in the past. But casual viewers should use those Vanguard-collected status with care.
Consider:
The span of those 'average returns' is 89 years. "Averaging returns" is a mathematical exercise, but investors don't experience smoothed-over 'averaged' returns. They experience sequential, erratic returns. Certainly, 20- or 30-somethings might look at those average returns and reasonably conclude to go "all-in" to equities. -- But it may not make a lot of difference for a typical young investor --- as they have relatively little saved. Most or all of income often going for raising kids, placing a down-payment on a home, student-debt servicing, kids' college or for some, 'living large'. By the time many households get round to saving serious dough (many never do!) they may be in their 40's or 50's. Are average 89-year returns something they should expect? What about when they begin the distribution-phase and are withdrawing assets (via RMDs, etc). Should they count on historical 'averaged' returns, or make some reasonable (and conservative) estimate of future returns based on asset prices? I believe John Bogle and others do offer those estimates in interviews from time to time, based on today's prices as a "set-up" for likely prospective returns. Buying long-term Treasurys in 1982 would have reasonably generated a certain forward-return over 30 years. Buying long-term Treasurys today, prospective-returns will be much more compressed.
Even if an investor could obtain a GUARANTEE of receiving those average returns (say in the form of an insurance company annuity etc.) at the terminal date (89 years), if they had to wait 89 years to receive that payout, would they be alive to collect it? My point: 89-year average returns, even if 'guaranteed' are not meaningful for individuals, if one is pushing up daisies when the guarantee is due to them. Ask Japanese equity investors who bought/held in 1988 and are still well under-water today, 30 years later. -- Hey in another 59 years they may enjoy the fruits of their patience....
Then too, the Vanguard site lists the historical return on a 100% bonds portfolio as 5.4%. Consider AGG, which is a proxy for the total (non-junk) US bond market. Presently, the SEC yield on AGG is 1.72%, with an average coupon of 3.2% The average-price of the bonds trade $9 over par. Perhaps 89 years from today, average-returns may match that. Nobody reading this will be around then. What are the likely returns over the next 1,3, 5, and 10 years? --- This would seem to be more relevancy. Are forward returns, using today as a starting point, likely to be closer to 89-year historical, averaged returns OR the SEC yield?

A couple things:
I think the TERM 'multi-asset fund' (with or without income) is a creation of fund-industry marketing types.
Any old-fashioned balanced fund which emphasizes income is a 'multi-asset income fund'. (MAIF) I own one, its called Vanguad Wellesley.
Some newer MAIFs add in riskier sleeves-- junk, MLPs, whole-loan products, etc. etc. They are simply stepping out on the risk-spectrum. --- the higher the yield (i.e. the bigger the spread), the bigger the risk.
While I still own some VWINX, my thinking on hybrids (MAIFs or otherwise) has evolved over the past 3-5 years. I generally eschew them, in favor of single-asset products. I suspect that 'bundling' assets has the effect of obscuring how good the manager of each asset-sleeve within the 'bundle' is. [Take OAKBX, for example. The stocking picking was always very good, but Oakmark never had much of a bond desk. They usually loaded their bond-sleeve with Treasurys (US & Canadian) and that was it. The stock picking "carried" the fund overall for many years. Til it didn't.] How does an individual investor get comfortable that each of the asset-sleeves within a hybrid (or "MAIF) is at least average -- and hopefully above so?)
Then too, every asset class will encounter an investing environment with a lousy "setup". At those times, its best to UNDERweight such assets. Most hybrid products have allocation guidelines which require weightings stay within a certain range. Having witnessed 3 massive boom-bust cycles this century (tech, mortgage, energy), I am uncomfortable with "forced" allocations. The lower rates go, the more convinced I am, we are in the 'pleasant' phase of a 4th boom-bust cycle.
Another thing: all commingled products, MAIFs included, assess a MER equally, across all AUM in the fund. But is it really serving investors best to levy (for example only) a flat 1.25% for managing the equity-sleeve, and the same 1.25% for the bond-sleeve. -- Especially if that bond sleeve is often Treasurys, Agencies, and investment-grade paper. --- And especially now that bond coupons barely will cover that MER....). I mean you can find superlative dedicated-bond managers for ~0.50%. Paying 1.25% for the bond sleeve of a hybrid fund seems like you are paying for that bond manager's Alfa Romeo...
FPACX is a good example. It has a superior performance, granted (though performance seems to have suffered with growing assets). It levies a 1.09% on AUM. 34% if AUM is sitting cash. Institutional MMFs are paying NOTHING! I'm not arguing Romick isn't prudent in holding cash --- rather that he should not be charging investors 1.09% for the cash-sleeve. A hybrid can get away with this. Dedicated-asset funds are less prone to charging investors for NOT investing their money.
I'd much prefer to choose single-asset "best of breed" managers for the major asset classes myself. In some cases (say L/C US equities) the "manager" may be Standard & Poors (i.e the index). In others (foreign equities, S/C, REITs, bonds), active managers who persistently excel may be able to be identified. As an asset-class "smells bubbly", I can trim back, rather than relying on a professional allocator, who is frankly, not at all concerned if Edmund's nest-egg is halved due to a forced allocation in a hybrid product.
Just my opinion.