Yeah, but let's agree what "substitute for cash" means. There is under the mattress(and good luck), Bank Account (and FDIC), Money Market Fund (and hope manager is not Bernie Madoff's third cousin), then RPHYX.
So anyone plonking down their entire cash in RPHYX, leave alone RSIVX, need to know what they are doing. Or rather, they should not be doing that. I mean HSGFX is market neutral and losing more money than most funds. By this analogy I should be complaining it should give me 0% return not negative. Now I AM complaining, but that's because it is giving me severe negative return for several years (well fewer years than other folks...)
If RPHYX/RSIVX drops 3% for 4 years, then let's all complain. Or let's give them time unless we hear anything more. Frankly, as I have said before, at this time I just need to know how much of his own money Sherman has in each fund. I never understand the fund disclosure rules. Besides, WTF don't managers tell us exactly what they own? It's not like it's a privacy issue, I don't think.

Hi, guys.
Sorry about the delayed announcement. I'm away at a professional conference doing stuff on behalf of the college and haven't been able to get near a computer.
This morning we announced the opening of the MFO Premium site (It's the site that a bunch of board members have had access to for the last few months). The note that went out to all of the folks on our mailing list is pasted below. Here's the story: we've been working for a year or so on ways to keep MFO free, open and vibrant. We're mostly getting by each month on $500-600 from Amazon and two or three contributions. That keeps the lights on but not much more. While Accipiter, Charles, Chip and Ed have been incredibly generous in donating their time and expertise, I didn't think that I could sustain MFO for years on hundreds a month. We took two steps to change that. First, we became a non-profit. Second, we designed MFO Premium as both a useful tool and an incentive to encourage folks to contribute. It's mostly Charles's fund screeners and a Works-in-Progress feature where I'm sharing some of the stuff that won't be ready for the cover essay for months (I write slowly).
Our first goal for the site is to cover the cost of the data we've licensed from Lipper; $1,000 a month, which is really a very good price for such stuff. If we're able to raise that much, we'll begin using the surplus to strengthen MFO's ability to help folks. That might mean actually being able to pay folks for stuff they've written or to pay programmers to help with the next redesign of the monthly essay. It's kind of a mess now: a single scrolling essay that runs to 30-40 pages in Word. We're trying to customize a template that will make it look more like a magazine which, we think, will make it much easier to read and navigate. But getting that right requires fairly high level skills and experience. Eventually finding ways to help small, smart fund managers thrive would also be good for us all.
As I note below, we are taking nothing away from MFO. Nothing's getting moved behind a paywall. Period. We're a non-profit with a mission. I'm mostly trying to find a way to keep pursuing that mission.
As ever,
David
---
We are pleased to announce the launch of MFO Premium. We're offering it as a gesture of thanks to folks who have supported MFO in the past and an incentive for those who have been promising themselves to support us but haven't quite gotten there. You can gain a year's access for a tax-deductible contribution of at least $100; if there are firms that would like multiple log-ins, we'd happily talk through a package.
MFO Premium has been in development for more than a year. Its genesis lies in the tools that Charles, Ed and I rely on as we're trying to make sense of a fund's track record. We realized early on that the traditional reporting time frames (YTD, 1-, 3-, 5- and 10-year periods) were meaningless at best and seriously misleading at worst since they capture arbitrary periods unrelated to the rhythms of the market. As a result, we made a screener that allowed us to look at performance in up cycles, down cycles and across full cycles. We also concluded that most services have simple-minded risk measurements; while reporting standard deviation and beta are nice, they represent a small and troubled toolkit since they simplify risk down to short-term volatility. As a result, we made a screener that provides six or eight different lens (from maximum drawdown in each measurement period to recovery times, Ulcer indexes and a simple "risk group" snapshot) through which to judge what you're getting into.
Along the way we added a tool for side-by-side comparisons of individual funds, side-by-side comparisons with ETFs, previews of our works in progress, sample screener runs and a small discussion area you can use if something is goofed up.
We think it has three special characteristics:
1. It's interesting: so far as we can tell, most of this content is not available in the tools available to "normal" folks and it's stuff we've found useful.
2. It's evolving: our current suite of tools is slated to expand as we add more functions that we, personally, have needed or wanted.
3. It's responsive: we're trying to make our tools as useful as possible. If you can show us something that would make the site better and if it's within our capabilities, we'll likely do it.
To be clear: we are taking nothing away from MFO's regular site. Not now, not ever. Nothing's moving behind a paywall. We're a non-profit and, more particularly, a non-profit that has a long-standing, principled dedication to helping people make sense of their options. If anything, the success of MFO Premium will allow us to expand and strengthen the offerings on our free site. Right now we operate on little more than $1,000/month, which is exactly what our recently-signed data licensing agreement with Lipper is going to cost. We're hopeful that premium memberships - at $100, tax deductible, a year for individuals - will allow us to cover the cost of the data feed. If we're able to raise more than that, we'd like to be able to offer some compensation for the folks who write for the Observer and expand our efforts to help guide and support independent managers and boutique firms.
In response to a frequently asked question, we've kept track of all of the folks who've already contributed to the Observer this year. You're not getting left behind but it may take a couple weeks for us to catch up with you.
That's about it. We think that the site is useful, the contribution target is modest and the benefits are substantial. We hope you agree and agree to join MFO Premium.
On behalf of Charles, Chip, Ed and all the folks who make MFO work,

Hi ron.
The legacy version of Risk Profile above can be obtained by entering a single symbol here. Return ranking is provided for all evaluation periods (1, 3, 5, 10, and 20 years), as applicable. But the metrics, like STDEV, are just for the oldest of these. There is a nice comparison, however, with various reference funds across same eval period as the age group of requested fun (entered symbol).
The outputs above are from MFO Premium, which I believe David will announce very shortly.

FAAFX has a cash reserve of 24% of NAV per GoogleFinance. But also 23% in a single stock.. Sears (SHLD). Very strange that a go-anywhere fund (can own stocks and bonds) would throw 23% in a single equity ---

I've only been yelling about SHLD since Fundalarm and back then people told me that, "It's a value stock!" Berkowitz and his Sears thesis have been completely wrong for years now, not to mention slimy (Berkowitz: “Sears does just enough, so they're not breaking the terms of their very long lease.” http://www.investmentnews.com/article/20120918/blog06/120919939/why-bruce-berkowitzs-bullish-stance-on-aig-is-paying-off)
To me, Berkowitz/SHLD is kind of like aspects of SEQUX/Valeant and Nygren/WaMu all wrapped up in one. Plus, with SHLD bonds, FAAFX is closer to 30% Sears.

Many investors look at that $50 fee and think "why should I pay this, when I can get the same fund for 'free' (NTF)?"
If they're looking at investing $5K in a TF fund, they may be right. $50/$5K is 1% and typically buys an ER reduction of 0.25%. That's four years to break even. For a true long term investor, four years is nothing, but I suspect most investors look at that as "forever" , i.e. too long.
If anything, it seems that the minimums on institutional funds at brokerages seems to be going up (as contrasted with the increasing availability of load-waived retail funds). That could be due to the pricing structure imposed on TF funds. They pay fees, too.
0.10% of AUM or $20/account/year is what Schwab charges TF funds. The same sort of calculation as above applies to the what these funds pay. For high min funds, $20/year is peanuts. Drop the min below $20K, and the funds might as well just pay Schwab 0.10%/year to sell institutional shares. That's a big bump in expenses for this share class.
http://www.schwab.com/public/schwab/nn/legal_compliance/compensation_advice_disclosures/schwab_compensation.html#transaction_fee_funds

@MJG - I remember there was an article in “The Economist” many years ago. At that time England was suffering through the Mad Cow Disease and the article was about picking a best alternative. I expect there may be research papers on this topic, but not necessarily related to investments. I see that Wikipedia has a discussion of
Regret_(decision_theory)

Cheers

Howdy @Joe
You noted: "I provided the same information to a number of managers (my age, investment horizon, risk tolerance, goals, etc.) and the recommended allocations were all over the map. I concluded that I could guess about the future and the appropriate allocations about as well as anybody else and didn't need to be paying an advisor to do it for me. Been on my own around 10 years now and doing fine without any advice."
Wonderful overview. Pretty much says it all for many here at MFO.
Moderate allocation per M*, for what value this list holds, has a large YTD range.
Take care,
Catch

Interesting how different these portfolio allocations are. I noted the same thing some years ago when I decided to get rid of investment managers and run my own portfolio. I provided the same information to a number of managers (my age, investment horizon, risk tolerance, goals, etc.) and the recommended allocations were all over the map. I concluded that I could guess about the future and the appropriate allocations about as well as anybody else and didn't need to be paying an advisor to do it for me. Been on my own around 10 years now and doing fine without any advice.

FYI: Walking the exhibit hall at the Schwab IMPACT Conference in Boston last week was a bit like strolling through the perfume and cologne department at a big department store.
Every few steps, it seemed like a representative from a firm selling exchange-traded funds was jumping out to spritz you with their wares.
Some of the smells were pleasing and appealing, others muddled and a few were offensive and seemingly hard to scrub off, like they could leave a portfolio reeking for years.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/some-sweet-smelling-mutual-funds-and-etfs-could-turn-out-to-be-skunks-2015-11-17/print

Echos of Andrew Foster's outlook going back three years - and he's crushed the index with SFGIX. Still, even following the Foster/GaveKal formula, EMs haven't done much, in absolute terms.

https://www.onefpa.org/journal/Pages/NOV15-Updated-Advice-on-Mutual-Fund-Selection.aspx
"Over the past three years, academic research has revealed new characteristics to look for in an actively managed mutual fund. In 2012, I suggested that financial planners look for funds with a high level of fund manager ownership, board of director ownership, a short-term redemption fee, a high active share or low R-squared value, and that lack affiliation with an investment bank. Recent research shows that financial planners should also look for funds that manage their portfolios in-house, outsource the execution of their shareholder services, have managers with performance-linked bonuses, and have a key role in their fund family performed by someone with a Ph.D. Each of these characteristics are associated with outperformance. "
I'd like to see a little math. It's early for these.

Tradability or low expenses or whatever 'benefits' aside, I'm not a fan of ETFs either. If I want a 'fund' to buy and hold for a long time, I will go with a properly-run, low-cost OEF any day of the week. If I'm bored and want to speculate on a sector/idea, I'd play with an ETF. ETFs also present the illusion of "power" to individual, and likely less-informed, investors who end up churning their accounts regularly based on every wiggle of the market, because they can do so, and quite cheaply if not for free, with ETFs.
The fact that hedge funds and others hold/trade ETFs versus their underlying holdings (or futures contracts) right there turns me off to them as a long-term investment vehicle.
I used to hate the idea of mutual funds and their once-a-day trading. But seeing the markets in recent years, I've come to like that feature since, among other things, it forces me to analyse a situation versus react intraday -- and likely emotionally. Plus, most OEFs are designed / intended as long-term holdings, not trading vehicles.

@VF - I'm in the same boat as you - been looking for another moderate allocation fund the past few years to compliment PRWCX - was going to go with BRUFX - but passed and keep adding to PRWCX instead; but it's getting to be too big a chunk of my portfolio. Thinking of just starting a position in GLRIX within a couple of years to balance.
There are too many negative things I see with BRUFX - thin bench, succession plan issues - the dad is older than dirt and the son is up there now too, have to do contributions via paper check, strict limitations on withdrawals per their prospectus, limited access and literature on them, long periods of underperformance. Possibly some of these negatives are unwarranted - it's just hard to find any info out there on these guys!

I was actually eyeing their DLCMX for when the commodity sell off is over.

I hold uncle Jeffrey's core-plus bond fund. I had not even seen this offering before. It does make me nervous that the DL shop is planning to spawn so many new items, so soon. Like Royce, several years ago. Uh-oh.
As for commodities (DLCMX,) I just initiated a tiny position which I intend to grow over the long haul, in ConocoPhillips--- for the dividend. (Ticker COP.) When oil's price rises again, this depressed stock--- the largest of its type in the world--- should rise, also. That's the theory, anyhow.... 5.5% yield on the sucker, at the moment.

@VintageFreak. The database is good. It's the presentation of the legacy screener that is causing you the confusion. The tabulated metrics are only for the longest evaluation period applicable ... 1, 3, 5, 10, or 20 years ... so you can only compare the metrics of funds from same age group. The return group rankings are directly comparable, but not the metrics.
Below are the risk/return metrics for BRUFX, OAKBX, PRWCX, and WGRNX across various periods from the MFO premium site ... hope this helps.

@VintageFreak and catch. No worries. Right, so, the legacy screener tabulates metrics only for the longest evaluation period applicable ... 1, 3, 5, 10 or 20 years. In case of WGRNX, that means 5 years (through September ... it crossed the 10 year mark last month). Its big drawdown occurred prior to that ... as can be seen in the lifetime metrics on the premium site (snapshot below). The legacy site ratings will be updated again after 4th quarter.

The power of patience. Not just of BRUFX managers but both of investors who did buy and those who didn't. It's top holding was once $2, now it is $450. The problem is it is now 12% of the fund. The chart below shows BRUFX underperformed the S&P 500 for 20 years after inception.
After having waited so long, I think I might want to wait a bit longer.

I have owned BRUFX for years in a regular account. Bought into it when NAV was about $288 per share.
I thought there were some states that would not permit you to buy BRUFX?

That's correct. I'm in TX and lamented about it long, until someone not too long back on MFO let me know it is now available in TX. Since minimum is $1000 I'm thinking I would start DCAing in. At least enter at $1000 and watch and creep in over time, would be a better way to put it.

I would like to see Gundlach start an unconstrained fund of his best ideas not exclusively tied to bonds ....

I've had that thought too, and every time I do,

check out DMLIX (multi-asset growth, I think the closest thing to that approach in his fund stable) to see how it's doing, and it's only a middling-sorta fund, so far anyway. It may not really be unconstrained, though - every time I look at the asset mix, it has a "check off this box" feel to it.

I was in this fund when it first opened. It did not seem to move anywhere,at least compared to other balanced/allocation funds, so I eventually sold it. I have not followed it closely in the last couple years, but it does not look like the type of fund we would be looking for, as far as Gundlach's highest convictions. It looks more like a play it safe fund.

I expect most have had quite enough of the Valeant business by now, but for those who haven't, or who have lingering questions re. the nitty-gritty of the matter, here is some number crunching done by a corp finance wonk at the NYU Stern School of Business.It's the weekend. More leisurely hours for musing. Might as well use them.
http://aswathdamodaran.blogspot.com/2015/11/checkmate-or-stalemate-valeants-fall.html
Teaser:
3. Accounting games: Part of Valeant’s rise can be attributed to the laziness of analysts, who apply multiples (that they pull from a cursory assessment of the comparable) on pro forma earnings, and some of it to the debris of acquisition accounting (goodwill, impairment of goodwill and acquisition-related restructuring charges). I have written before about the damage that goodwill does to both accounting statements and to good sense, but the degree to which acquisition accounting has muddied up the numbers at Valeant can be captured by looking at how they have taken over Valeant's financials in the last 5 years:

He also makes his case as to whether Valeant will be a going concern re. its value. He breaks it down pretty well.