@jerry: "I remember many years ago when it for one year one of the top records." I believe that's when George Washington was the fund manager.
Regards,
Ted

I remember many years ago when it for one year one of the top records.

I owned two of their int'l funds at different times, years ago, EXWAX and EXITX. Preferred the latter although M* always talked up EXWAX and never even did a report on EXITX. They were decent performers until around 2011, and they haven't done much of anything good since then.
Have to wonder if there's any traceable connection with the ipo in late 2011.

A queer and wonderful trail though, Ted. Bernie Klawans - an aerospace engineer, right Charles? - ran it for decades, from 1971-2011, likely out of his garage. One-page website, no 800-number, no reports or newsletters or commentaries. Brought on a successor when he was in his late 80s, worked with him for a couple years, retired in April and passed away within about six months. Then his chosen successor, Craig Arnholt, died unexpectedly within a year. The Board of Trustees actually managed the fund for six months (largely successful - they beat both their LV peers and the S&P) before finding a manager who'd run the fund for a pittance. The new guy was doing fine then ... kapow! He lost 22% in September and October of 2014, when the rest of the market was essentially flat. That was a combination of a big stake in Fannie and Freddie - adverse court ruling cut their market value by half in a month - and energy exposure. He's been staggering toward the cliff ever since.
Though the website's a lot nicer.

For some insane reason my 2 kids and their spouses allow me to oversee their IRA's. I've had some fun with this project (for the 2 kids this has been over 20 years). Former FA's might remember my "Annual Angst' post wherein I asked advice on their then-current port, and received great responses. However, when I see a fund such as Sequoia falling over the cliff due to stupidity, I SELL, no need to ask. This has been my hobby, not theirs, and I think they (and I) might be happy with with index stuff now. We got out with a gain, but its made me wiser (ha, I hope).
best, hawk

This is a good fund to demonstrate just how bunched together bond funds tend to be.
MCOIX (class I) with its 0.50% ER does get a 5* rating. But its sibling shares classes don't.
MSCAX.lw (class A, load waived) with its 0.75% ER gets a 4* rating.
MSCVX (Investor class) with its 0.83% ER gets a 2* rating.
A tiny difference in expenses (resulting in a tiny difference in returns) can make a large difference in ratings. One way of taking this is that a large difference in percentiles could represent a minscule performance difference, depending on the type of fund.
Then there is the matter of loads. Obviously if you can get MSCAX load-waived (e.g. at Schwab), that's going to be better than MSCVX, since the former has a lower ER.
But with respect to star ratings, Morningstar incorporates the front end load into the calculations. It amortizes the load over the period of interest (3, 5, or 10 years), to calculate a reduced load-adjusted return. That's why A shares will often have lower star ratings than load-waived A shares.
The longer the period, the less of an impact (per year) the load has. So if a fund has a ten year history, Morningstar calculates the load adjusted returns for all three periods, gets star ratings for all of them, and combines them into a single rating. But if a fund like this one has only a three year rating, the impact of the load is overstated.
That is because the load is amortized only over a short three year span. Consequently, the star rating may take an oversized hit from the load simply because the fund's lifetime is somewhat short.
Just another idiosyncrasy to keep in mind.

Hi Mark,
Until last weekend the weather had been dreadful, but not like other parts of the country where they're getting hammered. I love Mother Nature dearly, but she can be quite contrary at times. My neighbors just started cutting their grass - the barbarians.
BTW, my basement sale purchase of XOM is actually in the green +6%. However, my SQM buy is doing very well. I like this stock. It's one of the few pure lithium plays. Growth plus a 2.6% yield. Why don't you buy a Tesla?
The silver juniors? feh. Peter Lynch 101 - play what you know. I've collected coins for 60 years and this looks like it just might be my third rodeo. We'll see.
take care and good fortune,
rono

@ Junkster,
Thanks for the insight. Back than Price's wording was more vague: "Round trips" (in/out/in again) within 90 days were deemed excessive. About a decade ago (maybe less) they went to the present 30-day hold (If you sell a fund you can't buy back in for 30 days). Also, the present 90-day redemption fees (on many of their funds) did not exist (to the best of my knowledge) in the 90s.
I'm probably one of the few here who still keeps money directly at the several houses rather than using a brokerage.. Without trying to defend this archaic practice, I will say that it does impose some badly needed discipline on me and eliminates a lot of second-guessing as to whether I'm in the very best performing fund in its class. I'm afraid such constant comparing of funds would drive me nuts.
But have left a number of houses over the past two decades when they failed to meet my needs. Among those were Calamos, Strong, TIAA-CREF.
-
*Forgive me! Almost forgot to note that I left Hussman several years ago. However ... That one's on a different planet. Check-out HSGFX. The guy can't even make money after the Dow plunges 2000 points to start the year.

My income sleeve is up ytd about 2.75% which consist of six funds (GIFAX, LALDX, LBNDX, NEFZX, THIFX & TSIAX) and my hybrid income sleeve also consisting of six funds (CAPAX, CTFAX, FKINX, ISFAX, JNBAX & PGBAX) is up about 3.25%. Currently, I don't have any funds within my portfolio that are not up ytd. Overall, my portfolio as a whole is up ytd about 4.1%; and, in comparison, the Lipper Balanced Index is up about 3.1%.

If you are up 4.1% YTD with the large cash position you hold then that is a very commendable return. Congrats!
Edit: So are you including cash as part of your portfolio because if you are you must have some boffo equity funds YTD? As I recall you were a bit of a momentum investor so that would not surprise me at all.
The other ones where I have money, such as D&C, there just isn't much reason to trade. Maybe one or two changes a year. I'd love to hear Junkster reveal what it takes to be banned from a fund house! God knows I've tried their patience over the years.:)

T Rowe was the very first fund family I was banned from when I held an account there in the early to mid 90s.

Junkster said "In the old days at INVESCO and Strong you could buy and sell their in house funds at will with no fees whatsoever."
Curiously, An agent at Strong was the only one ever to call into question my frequent exchanges (during a phoned-in exchange) over the 3-4 years I had money there. But no other actions were taken. Other houses haven't ever said a word. I do read their FT regs in the Prospectus and attempt to steer clear.
I worry a lot with T Rowe. Tends to be the one where 90% of my portfolio changes occur. In part due to their large selection of funds and in part because I tend to hold both a Roth and Traditional IRA with them. Taking a distribution from one usually involves some rebalancing in the other. But so far, no problems with them.
The other ones where I have money, such as D&C, there just isn't much reason to trade. Maybe one or two changes a year. I'd love to hear Junkster reveal what it takes to be banned from a fund house! God knows I've tried their patience over the years. :)

FYI: Sequoia Fund, which has faltered from its big bet on drugmaker Valeant Pharmaceuticals International Inc., is considering opening to new investors for the first time in more than two years.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-04-19/sequoia-fund-may-reopen-to-new-investors-after-valeant-losses

@TSP Transfer: Hold on, not so fast, although Daivd Swenson does a great job running the Yale Endowmentt Fund, over the last ten years a 11.2% return has beaten him. I just proves that David can beat Goliath.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/26/business/in-college-endowment-returns-davids-beat-the-goliaths.html

Yale is routinely the best-performing endowment in the world
Posted on April 15, 2016 by David Ott Acropolis Investment Management LLC
One of my favorite reads of the year is from the Yale Investments Office, which manages their $25.6 billion endowment. You can find the report by clicking here.http://investments.yale.edu/images/documents/Yale_Endowment_15.pdf
Yale is routinely the best-performing endowment in the world and has earned a remarkable 13.9 percent return over the last 30 years – well above the 10.7 percent return for US stocks, 8.7 percent return for foreign stocks and 7.1 percent return for bonds.
I’ve read both books by David Swenson, their pioneering investment manager, and pay close attention to their annual report. I haven’t finished this one yet, but I was surprised by their large increase to foreign stocks in recent years.
http://acrinv.com/yale-bets-big-overseas/
Asset Allocations
as of June 30, 2015
Yale University / Educational Institution Mean
Absolute Return 20.5% / 24.1%
Domestic Equity 3.9 / 19.4
Fixed Income 4.9 / 9.3
Foreign Equity 14.7 / 22.1
Leveraged Buyouts 16.2 / 5.9
Natural Resources 6.7 / 7.3
Real Estate 14.0 / 3.7
Venture Capital 16.3 / 4.6
Cash 2.8 / 3.7
In 1985, 80% of the Endowment
was committed to U.S. stocks and bonds. Today, target allocations call for
12.5% in domestic marketable securities, while the diversifying assets of
foreign equity, natural resources, leveraged buyouts, venture capital,
absolute return, and real estate dominate the Endowment, representing
87.5% of the target portfolio.
The heavy allocation to nontraditional asset classes stems from
their return potential and diversifying power.
Venture capital investments provide compelling option-like returns as
the University’s premier venture managers gain exposure to innovative
start-up companies from an early stage. Yale’s venture capital allocation
of 14.0% exceeds the 4.6% actual allocation of the average educational
institution. The venture capital portfolio is expected to generate real
returns of 16.0% with risk of 37.8%.
Yale’s venture capital program, one of the first of its kind, is
regarded as among the best in the institutional investment community,
and the University is frequently cited as a role model by other investors.
Yale’s venture capital managers are strong, cohesive, and hungry teams
with proven ability to identify opportunities early and support talented
entrepreneurs as they build early-stage businesses. The University’s vast
experience in venture capital provides an unparalleled set of manager
relationships, significant market knowledge, and an extensive network.
Over the past twenty years, the venture capital program has earned an
outstanding 92.7% per annum.
http://investments.yale.edu/images/documents/Yale_Endowment_15.pdf

@Junkster I see you trade MF rather frequently, trying to time the market. Do you ignore all fees for selling mutual funds prematurely or keep some discipline in doing that?

DavidV big difference between a timer and a trader. Timers predict and forecast while traders react. Never met a successful timer or at least a successful Mom and Pop timer. Hear about a lot of their claims but whenever I ask if they care to back them up by multi years of real time trading statements or 1040s (and I would reciprocate) they always back down. Everyone seems to trade stocks, options or futures. If they only knew about the trading opportunities in open end mutual funds. But to them it is akin to watching paint dry. Yes, I ignore the fees associated with selling funds within 90 days (Scottrade) It's part of doing business albeit getting harder to ignore. In the old days at INVESCO and Strong you could buy and sell their in house funds at will with no fees whatsoever. Then came the $17 fees and now as of a month or so it's has risen steeply to $49.99 at Scottrade. Even more if it is a transaction fee fund. That may force me to change my style or at the very least be more of a diversifier and not be so quick to cut and run.

Interesting link, Ted, thanks for it. I'm curious what some of the many saavy bond investors here think about current junk valuations, @junkster and @dex maybe?

Not an investor but the "experts" are all over the ball park when it comes to the prospects of the junk bond market. In Ted's linked and bullish article we see this comment Payson Swaffield, chief income investment officer at Eaton Vance, thinks we are at the beginning of a new cycle of positive junk returns that could last a few years. Yet, in this week's Barrons we see an interview with Michael Weilheimer, head of Eaton Vance's Income Fund who is cautious and thinks we will be rangebound and are anywhere from the 6th to 9th inning of the credit cycle. Same firm yet two entirely different opinions on junk bonds. Marty Fridson the junk bond guru says ex oil we are an extreme valuations in the junk bond market. And of course we all know the Bond King's (Gundlach) constant and continual bearishness on the junk bond market.
The market though, who never listens to the experts has been very bullish and the average open end junk fund is up 3.62% YTD with many up over 5%. So unless oil goes back to $30 it is looking more and more like double digits gains for 2016 will be achieved.
Edit Ted's linked article was a good one as it highlighted the dampened volatility of junk bonds.

@kevindow, I want to ensure you that I am sincere. Over 10 years ago I was seeking an all-weather fund and seriously considered FPACX, but picked T. Rowe Price Capital Appreciation, PRWCX instead. Even though the smaller AUM, Steve Romick' track record, and flexible mandates were attractive attributes, Richard Howard, the former manager of PRWCX also have consistently good record despite having bigger AUM.
I understand that back-testing is not possible when the ETFs that don't exist in the period of question. Perhaps VWIAX in combination with VDIGX would work since both go back to 2000. With respect all active managed funds, the AUM is always an issue. Many tend to close to new investors too late in my opinion. That is one of the reason we are increasing our allocation to index funds.

I've always been an admirer of Romick but I've never been able to justify the fees. In 2000 I was 50 and could still bench 400 lbs. Times have changed for me and I suspect Romick as well. 'Course that's what makes a horse race.
The thing about IVV is one can swap for voo, vti etc and reap the tax loss instead of paying more taxes for people that bail out of the fund. Those years you mention it seems like I had funds that lost money and I paid taxes too.

@msf
Thanks for the background links.
Here's another article focused on early cellphones. No desire to detract from Lewis' article. But suspect cell phones and their modern variant smart phones play a critical part in today's investing, be it tracking current investments or (as was often the case with the Fido Selects) actively trading. Since my Fido investments in the early 80s probably amounted to a couple K, plunking down $3,995 for an early cellphone (1984 price) probably would have been imprudent. :)
"Somewhere in either Chicago, Baltimore or Washington, someone plunked down $3,995 to buy the Motorola DynaTAC 8000X, the first handheld cellphone, on March 13, 1984 — 30 years ago today."
http://mashable.com/2014/03/13/first-cellphone-on-sale/#uyYq9kRydaq6

Hi @expatsp,
Interesting question and one that I have explored myself in looking for an answer. I am not sure my findings will fully answerer your question but I'll share my discovery. To begin, I looked at what an index bond fund's weighted price was and found it to be around 108. To me, this suggest the index is selling at about an eight percent premium over par. Then I looked to see what the average weighted price was in my income sleeve of my portfolio and found it's average weighted price for the bond funds that it holds to be about 95. With this, I took it that the bonds held in the funds found in my income sleeve were priced, on average, at about 5% below their par value.
This amounts to about a 13 point spread between the index and the bonds found in my income sleeve. And, with this, I am thinking, some upward price appreciation might be expected. Naturally, there are some influences and factors that I did not mention that will effect bond prices. However, this was my down and dirty quick look. The return, five percent price appreciation if held to mauturity plus interest.
Perhaps, the above information might be helpful in you finding an answer, you seek, to the question.
For me, I think, I found mine.
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Additional comment: In addition, I found that the index fund I used as my proxy to have an average maturity of 7.6 years with a duration reading of 5.4 years while my income sleeve has an average maturity of 4.8 years with a duration reading of 2.9 years. With this, I am thinking there is more downside risk for the index over my income sleeve in a rising interest rate environment. Please note, not all the funds contained within my income sleeve have great exposure to junk bonds although some representation to the sector can be found in most of them. For information purposes their ticker symbols are as follows: GIFAX, LALDX, LBNDX, NEFZX, THIFX and TSIAX.

MStar shows 1.03% ytd, -2.69% over 1 yr, and 6.39% over 3 years. That's less than 60% IVV and 40% cash over all periods for the fee of 1.11%. Nothing confusing about that.