It's not looking so good for farmland; some similarities to the picture of the mid-1980s, when a lot of family farms got overextended and were crushed and lost everything. But not that dire (yet), so I don't anticipate that much calamity. It's just gonna take some time for the fundamentals to improve.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-05-14/american-farmer-its-death-1000-knives”-us-farmland-values-plunge-most-30-years
https://www.chicagofed.org/~/media/publications/agletter/2015-2019/may-2016-pdf.pdf?la=en
Nonetheless, many of the TBTF banksters went into farmland in a big way in the mid-00s and bought up what they could (and, of course, "financialized/securitized" it), so I'd hesitate investing in anything publicly-traded because I'd be concerned I'd be encouraging the corporate farming trend and hastening the demise of a way of life I think is very important to preserve (not to mention the loss of local control and good environmental stewardship).
On the other hand, there are a number of farmers in the Midwest who are continuing to pool their needs into some rather substantial cooperative businesses, and I've seen several interesting preferred stock offerings, with good yields and very ample dvd coverage, if you wanted to invest for income with a margin of safety. However, I haven't pulled that string because it was my impression, the deeper I went in researching them, that they are very tightly-held, and one would have to put in many buy orders, over time, to ever get lucky and have one filled. Not my territory.... could be dead wrong about it. Anyone who knows something about how to buy stuff so off the beaten path, please take me to school!

Seems every year or two a thread along this line comes up, discussing how much funds pay the supermarkets to participate either NTF or TF. I ran across a sizeable M* column from two years ago that goes into detail.
Morningstar, NTF Platforms Can Mean Higher Costs (November 6, 2014)
Highlighting a bit of the column: "Oddly, those fees have gone up since the 1990s ... despite the fact that technology has made servicing fund accounts much cheaper. ... Indeed, NTF fees may have risen to compensate for declining trading revenues".
Let me quantify that a bit. Schwab OneSource (NTF) started in 1992. At the time, Schwab charged 0.25% (sometimes as much as 0.35%) That actually made economic sense for boutiques that couldn't service directly sold accounts for less. Not for Vanguard of course, but for many smaller funds.
Over time, the rates rose. According to the WSJ, in 2003 Schwab's typical fee, which had already risen to 0.35% was raised to 0.40%. In addition, Schwab started charging TF funds for the first time. The original fee was $20/account/year. The article goes on to note that families like Longleaf and Yacktman balked (so they were closed to new investments). But Schwab didn't impose the fee on Fidelity or Vanguard.
WSJ, Schwab Fees Steer Some Funds to the Exits, Others Get a Pass (May 5, 2003) - link is google search, pick first result.
Today, the fees are even higher. NTF fees are typically 0.40%, but can go as high as 0.45%. TF funds now typically pay 0.10% (but as high as 0.25%) per year in addition to the aforementioned $20/account/year (which can go as high as $30).
Schwab Compensation Disclosure
IMHO this is a lot to pay for convenience. These days, I'll buy what's cheapest, with convenience being secondary. How hard is it to purchase/sell via ACH? So that might mean buying directly from the fund or paying a TF to come out cheaper in the long run. The only time I buy NTF funds is when I like the fund and can live with the ER (and the fund can't be purchased more cheaply by buying direct).
Older thread on same topic:
http://mutualfundobserver.com/discuss/discussion/15542/how-much-do-fund-companies-pay-to-be-on-fund-supermarket-platforms

Dig a bit deeper on Royce -- look at how many of their funds have significant stakes in international stocks (say, above 5-7% or so). Some have topped 25% or more. Look at how many of them regularly hold mid-caps (hence the reason Royce refers to themselves "small-er cap" specialists).
Yet their benchmark is always one of the US small cap index. That is, when they list a benchmark. You see, in Royce's annual and semi-annual reports for funds that are having a bad stretch, they suppress some rolling intervals, as well as the benchmark returns and other performance metrics. And, no, its not just for the newer funds which don't have a sufficient track record. Nearly every single report for the past several years has done this -- and they're not consistent in which funds' data they suppress.
Don't let the bow tie fool you. Royce only wants your money. And if they don't have a fund that suits you, they'll re-name or create a parallel copy-cat fund to suit.

I just looked at the Royce web site. As we know they are "small cap specialists". They have 11 domestic small cap funds with 10 year records. How many of them would you guess were able to beat the 7.10% annualized returns of the Vanguard small-cap index fund VSMAX? Would you believe none? That's the fact.
So I looked at the 3 and five years returns. They are also batting an even .000 for those periods.
Are they not a marquee example of the damage that high fees, stock-picking mistakes, and trading can do? Is there something I am missing?
All those smart people going to work every day for 10 years!

FYI:
Regards,
Ted
May 13, 2016
Dear WEALTHTRACK Subscriber,
Bankers, financiers or money lenders, as they have been called derisively at various points in history are currently at one of their reputational low points. Presidential candidates from Bernie Sanders to Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump have all taken their shots. Sanders has introduced the “Too Big to Fail, Too Big to Exist Act” which would break up the big banks.
Dislike of banks and bankers is not a modern phenomenon.
Thomas Jefferson once stated: “I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies.” You can see why he and Alexander Hamilton, who created the first national bank and was the first Treasury Secretary, had their disagreements!
Even some titans of industry have been critics. Henry Ford, the Founder of the Ford Motor Company was one of them, stating: “It is well enough that people of the nation do not understand our banking and money system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning.”
Luckily, that revolution never came. For the record, banking and Wall Street provide the essential fuel for economic growth, mainly money and credit. They enable individuals, companies and governments to raise capital, buy goods and services, build, expand and invest. As this week’s guest points out, the vast majority of us are bank customers!
Investing in financial stocks in recent years has been challenging. Over the last decade the S&P 500 Financials Index has delivered negative annualized returns whereas the S&P 500 has not. And although their annualized performance over the last five and three year periods has been close to 10%, the group has continued to underperform the market.
This week’s guest is Christopher Davis, a third generation value investor whose family has a long history of investing in financial stocks and continues to do so today. Davis is Chairman of Davis Advisors, Portfolio Manager of the Davis large cap portfolios, and Co-Portfolio manager since 1995 of the firm’s flagship Davis New York Venture Fund, which was founded by his Dad in 1969. Chris has also been the Portfolio Manager of the fund’s no-load equivalent, Selected American Shares since its launch in 2004. In 1991 he created the Davis Financial Fund, now celebrating its 25th anniversary.
Rated 4-stars by Morningstar, the fund has far outperformed its benchmark and the market since inception with better than 11% annualized returns. I began the interview by asking Chris why he created a fund focused on financial stocks in the first place.
If you’d like to see the show before it airs, it is available to our PREMIUM subscribers right now. We also have an EXTRA interview with Davis about how his approach differs from his grandfather’s and father’s. It is available exclusively on our website.
WEALTHTRACK is also available on a YouTube Channel. So if you are unable to join us for the show on television, you can watch it on our website, WealthTrack.com, or by subscribing to our YouTube Channel.
Thanks for watching. Have a great weekend and make the week ahead a profitable and a productive one.
Best Regards,
Consuelo
M*: Davis Family Of Funds:
http://quicktake.morningstar.com/fundfamily/davis-funds/0C00001YWZ/fund-list.aspx
Selected Funds Website:
http://selectedfunds.com/funds/

What are the specific arguments for farmland? Not just more mouths to feed. I have Kansan friends who have talked for years about farm abandonment and the like.

The "best" fund in any category can be a moving target, but especially so with actively-managed EM funds. YTD vs. 3 Yrs? Does 10 years even matter? Some say yes, some say no. Because EM stocks carry higher volatility than developed international stocks (for the most part), there may be a reason to make relatively low volatility a key screen. If that is the case, Seafarer SFGIX is worth a look, even though it only has a 4 year record. Its 3-yr Sharpe ratio is ahead of the other EM funds we track. If you value management that separates itself from the index, Driehaus DREGX and Wasatch WAEMX might fit the bill, since they are small-cap focused. If high Sortino ratio (performance compared to downside risk) is important, SFGIX once again comes through. Just because an entire asset class tends to have high volatility does not mean you have to accept that in the funds you select. ODYMX has the best 10-year record (Leverenz having run the fund for 9 of the 10 years). American New World NWFFX has a darned good record, too. But understand it only has about 35% in EM stocks. And Seafarer is only 57% EM stocks, both of which explain the lower volatility. So there you go.

Obviously, Oppenheimer agreed with my assessment voiced just a week ago in the "What are you buying?" thread:
" ... I've taken a beating on QRAAX over past couple years. Unloaded most of it last fall on an uptick but continue to cling to a very small stake ... But really, somebody should take that one out to pasture and #*+*#.:)"
The dastardly deed's been done.

@MFO Members: For your information.
Regards,
Ted
FYI: (Click On Article Title At Top Of Google Search)
Money management firm OppenheimerFunds Inc. is shutting down its nearly two-decade-old commodities fund, the firm said, following years of losses and underperformance.
Oppenheimer plans to liquidate the Commodity Strategy Total Return Fund “on or around” July 15, the firm said last week in a supplement to the fund’s prospectus.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.google.com/#q=OppenheimerFunds+to+Shut+Down+Nearly+Two-Decade-Old+Commodities+Fund+
M* Snapshot QRAAX:
http://www.morningstar.com/funds/XNAS/QRAAX/quote.html

Yep, I'll tell you how the moving averages worked out 10 years from now!

The title is a bit deceptive) but the answer to the question raised by the title is that mutual fund investors expected their active managers to protect then from 2008 type markets but in fact index funds continued to outperform though with a smaller margin. Then the risk adverse tried investing in the funds that did well in 2008 (Hussman funds anyone ) Finally after the whipsaw they worked out that on average index funds were a better bet. I don't doubt that several American funds (referenced in the article outperformed but am pretty sure it took years to be ahead considering the fees and loads

These days, 5 years isn't a useful metric at all ... since the GFC all fund performance returns have been goosed by QE 1-4 and related artificial support around the world. When 5 years passed since 'the bottom' fund managers and their PR folks were gleefully preparing new info sheets to show awesome 5-year performance to anyone who would listen.
For a mutual fund I will *start* at ten years. Right now, I want to see how a fund was positioned going into the GFC ... that to me gives great insight into how the managers think and how beholden (or not) to the Wall Street 'herd' mentality they are during the latest mania/bubble/groupthink. IE: were you an equity fund and lost only 20% in the GFC versus 35-40% in your same category? I'm interested....why was that?

Don't know about the timing question. Here's an answer to the Great Owl question: over the past three years, TRAMX has outperformed the average EM fund by 700 basis points/year. And over the past five years, it's up by 700 bps a year. And since inception it's up, though only by 150 bps/year. And, in each of those periods, it's been less volatile than the competition.
Weird, eh?
David

I remember the old Stein Roe Young Investors Fund in the 80s and 90s ... was "the" thing parents would gift to their kids and/or many people owned as their first investment, and I owned some myself. It owned the things a "young investor" would be interested in and/or using as they started their careers. But that was when folks entered the markets for long-term investments, not short-term hype-cycle-driven trading-through-ADHD. :/
Not sure how popular this latest thematic ETF will be though. Nevertheless, I wonder if GlobalX is already planning for the "Aging Millennials ETF" in a few years......because, hey, there's always someone willing to buy something, right?

From the WSJ (12/8/2008), writing about the Reserve Primary MMF:

in 2006, with the Primary Fund underperforming rivals, it went on a commercial-paper buying spree. It acquired so much of this higher-yielding but riskier asset that by September 2008, the fund's yield was tops in its class. But $785 million of that paper was Lehman's.

What's the difference between that and Rochester funds picking up junk or near junk to look better?
From WSJ (12/4/2013):

"That greater yield comes with higher risk. ...
"I don't think there was reaching for yield going on," says Daniel Loughran, head of the Oppenheimer Rochester muni funds, whose Oppenheimer Rochester Virginia Municipal tops Morningstar's list for Puerto Rico holdings, at 33%. ...
Morningstar's Mr. Jacobson cautions investors, however. In a competitive environment, "there is always something you can do to goose the income of a bond fund and pick up those extra sales," he says. "The temptation is always there."

Rochester funds have done this for years (perhaps forever?).
Is that looking out for your interest or facilitating placing a bet? Both are legal.
I'm not sure if "shareholders" (above) is a reference to the fund shareholders or the bond holders (who own bonds, not shares). If the former, it seems to me that they invested knowing they were getting higher than market yield and with that comes risk. More risk than with Reserve Fund Primary MMF.
If the latter, what does "make whole" mean? For vulture investors who purchased the bonds for pennies on the dollar because the bonds priced in risk, does it mean simply recognizing that risk and getting back, perhaps, the same pennies on the dollar? Or does it mean getting $1 back at maturity on a bond for which they paid perhaps 40c?
I'm no Trump, but I do hold a couple of PR bonds and I'm happy to take a haircut along with him to reduce my chances of taking bigger losses later. That might mean accepting lower interest payments (but still expecting principal returned at maturity), or extending the maturity of the bond, or something more substantial. Note that even if I get interest when due and just have to wait longer for the bond to mature does not make me whole.

FYI: Is that gift horse 401(k) plan you have a good deal? Have you examined its teeth?
Maybe it’s time.
The issue here is simple. This gift horse is one you may have to ride until you retire. When 401(k) plans got their start 30 years ago they were imagined as a supplement to pension plans. Today they are the main deal for retirement saving
Regards,
Ted
https://assetbuilder.com/knowledge-center/articles/how-good-is-your-401(k)-plan

The March 2016 Kiplinger's magazine "Annual Mutual Fund Issue" section ranks NASDX, for large growth:
#3 for 3 years;
#1 for 5 years; and
#4 for 10 years.
In each instance, it beats out USNQX.

VTSMX has outperformed VFINX from 4/27/92 to 5/5/16, returning 710.70% cumulative vs. 695.03% (dates chosen by M*'s system).
Over the past 10 years (5/6/06 to 5/5/16), VTSMX has outperformed 90.28% cumulative vs. 89.28% (yes, exactly 1.00% difference).

It looks like you're right about K shares being for supermarket platforms. It's a particularly nasty example of an NTF fund, though.
Most NTF funds add 25 basis points (often via a 12b-1 fee) to pay for the NTF platform. This one adds 50 basis points - 25 as a 12b-1 fee, and another 25 basis points for "Shareholder Services". You have to dig through the footnotes for this; the fee is buried as a part of "Other Expenses"
According to the semi-annual statement, Note 2, these are to compensate "other service providers ... for providing certain services to clients owning K Shares, including processing purchase and redemption transactions, assisting in other administrative details and providing other information with respect to each Fund. "
It gets better. In the 2000s, Schwab instituted a policy that required any fund on its NTF platform to sell its cheapest retail class NTF. That seems to be in play here. Since NASDX isn't sold NTF, Schwab so won't even sell NDXKX (allowing redemptions only).
The difference between USNQX and NASDX seems huge - about 2/3% per year over the past five years with only a tiny difference in ER. I'll have to look into their methodologies. At first glance this does seem to show that index funds are not fungible - management and methodology matter.

Usually these are just fluff pieces, but this one makes playing "spot the error" too easy.
"Every investor should have some exposure to the S&P 500 index"
Why should I bias my portfolio toward large cap vs. say, VTSMX?
"Your return [on $10K] in the SNPBX would be $36,784 — a roughly 270% return"
That would be a roughly 370% return. Rather, the total value of the investment, including both the original cost and the return would be $36,784.
The number is way off anyway. It assumes that the ER of the class B shares doesn't change for 30 years. But the class B shares convert to cheaper class A shares after 8 years, so the return is significantly higher than shown. Obviously still less than that of truly inexpensive funds.
This share class isn't open for sale. Even existing shareholders couldn't buy additional B shares after May 1, 2015.
You have to wonder how much the writer understands index funds when he includes a Fidelity (enhanced) index fund FLVEX among the most expensive in a category (large cap value). Only TIAA-CREF has a lower cost enhanced LCV index fund (per M*).