Howdy @heezsafe
Hmmmmm. Yes, to the aging brain thing. Do think about this at this house and have a plan.
Recalling a few discussions with a 90 year old several years ago regarding items that had been structured into a "living will" and a trust that was set in place with an attorney. The discussion was an after the fact. I performed my normal "why and what if" with this person; not unlike we do at our house regarding investments.
The first discussion resulted in anger towards me; as I was told that I'm not an attorney, and what did I know. Although the questions I asked were standard reasonable questions as to why was such and such established in this fashion.
After several months and a few more discussions, there was an admission by the 90 year that they should have included their daughters in the whole thought process before any papers had been signed by her for the "trust" account. Only one daughter was involved with the process, with the other three being notified about what had taken place after finalization. The living will portion was altered two times within the next two years to reflect a more proper thought process; versus a "let's get this done today" approach.
The 90 year old is a very sharp thinker and can recall more of their life than I every will be able to do for my own life. But, they thought more along the line of I know what I am doing and didn't feel a need to place their thinking to a "devils advocate" circumstance of bouncing their decisions for a Q&A with the daughters.
Aging isn't the only potential problem with the brain and investing. I'm sure we all know those who are quite sure they know everything and don't need to discuss their investment choices with anyone else regardless of age.
I've never been in that "place". I at least understand my limits of knowledge. But, my stupid day may/will arrive at some future date, eh?
Thanks for the article link.
Take care,
Catch

FWIW, I bought OSTVX near it's inception and used to be very happy with it, but it has been subpar for the last 2 years, so I finally sold it.

@heezsafe
I noticed the spillback information prior to the CG information being posted. I am glad I don't have to deal with the accounting for that.
Years ago I held Fairholme. After I filed my taxes, months later, I received an amended tax 1099 from Fairholme. I had to filed an amended tax form. Was not too happy about that.

FYI: When fear was pumping through the stock market this summer, most retirement savers kept their cool.
So say figures from Fidelity, which could see how individual investors in general behaved by looking at its 13.5 million 401(k) and 6 million IRA accounts as stocks tumbled in New York, Shanghai and places in between during the turbulent third quarter. The Standard & Poor's 500 index sank more than 10 percent within a week during August, driving the index to its worst quarter in four years.
Regards,
Ted
http://bigstory.ap.org/article/72fb3bd726b24e36b1f28aa047e2c8a9/while-markets-tumbled-summer-many-savers-held-tight
So far the linkster has held tight in 2015, with the same five fund that I began the year with.
QQQ= 11.96%
PRHSX= 10.38%
FBTCX= 8.78%
SPY= 3.69%
PFF= 3.37%
7.636% YTD

Does Seafarer offer to issue certificates as an alternative to book entry? How quaint and charming.
I still have a mutual fund certificate (from a very old fund that has gone through several name changes as well as fund family changes). I couldn't find it a few years ago after a move, so I contracted the fund company. Just as with a stock certificate, they said they'd replace it if I'd pay something like 2% of the value to ensure that it really was lost (or something like that). I declined.
Not much later, the fund company decided that it didn't want to deal with certificates any more, so it converted all certificates regardless of whether they were returned. So I now have book entry, and I finally found the certificate for my scrapbook.
If Scottrade (or any brokerage) were to abscond with street name assets (which are segregated and held by DTC), SIPC would kick in. "Street name" is equivalent to how banks hold your cash. It's not your cash - it's the bank's cash, which it is free to lend out and keep an IOU for you on its books. If the bank goes bust, or someone steals "your" cash, FDIC kicks in.

@msf Thanks for the factoids; they were "in there," but I wouldn't have recovered them without your assist. Several years ago, when I found myself standing on my head repeatedly to try to explain why data on different pages didn't match up, and when they would say one thing and do something else (or not do it), I decided not to use M* as a go-to source, so I don't much care what they do, or when they do it, or how many stars they see, or what kind of metallic glaze they choose for different shiny objects.

Why people are surprised with the change in stars of the fund ? Star rating is purely on mechanical calculations based on the risk-adjusted performance of the funds and a reflection of their aggregate past record (3, 5 and 10 years) with more weightage long term record than short. Periodically star ratings are caluculated every year and I am not sure how frequently they do that and publish the new start ratings of the funds.
If M* mentioned this fund is under review, that is for their qualitative rating (Gold, Silver, Bronze, etc.) based on their Analst analysis of the fund

Yeah, once I get my 1st $ 1 BILLION I will consider a 90/10 allocation...!
I have in my possession an old (~1960s era) edition of "The Intelligent Investor", written by Buffett's one-time mentor, Ben Graham. In it, he discusses the topic of asset allocation. He wisely admitted that there is no optimum allocation advice for all investors, but as a general guideline that a 2-asset (equities, US Treasurys) portfolio should generally contain no more equities than 75% and no less than 25% for most investors. Graham described that investors younger and more risk-tolerant might have as much (but no more) than 75% equities; older and less risk-tolerant investors should still have at least 25% equities. Basically any extreme allocation outside the 75/25 to 25/75 was not recommended.
Graham's counsel always seemed to me to be simple -- and thus easy for an individual to implement-- and wise.
(Several years ago, I paged through a modern edition of Graham's book in a Barnes & Noble, looking for that passage, but it seems to have been posthumously excised, perhaps replaced by "newer, enlightened" thinking during the great 1990's bull market).
An aside: I doubt Graham would have much positive to say regarding the current excitement with "alternative strategies" -- especially given the expense ratios in vehicles available to retail investors.

Ya know, Charles adds some clarity with the data. Recent performance hasn't been so hotsy-totsy. Add to that the (reasonable) supposition that their huge Valeant holding is a dead man walking, do the math, and M* pretty much had to knock off some stars. A cautionary tale for those who believe that concentrated MFs and high active share numbers hold to the virtuous path, in and of themselves. When one goes with concentration anywhere inside the portfolio, I think it's important to mine a little deeper on the screening before making choices, and to look at other stats we rarely talk about on the Board: tracking error and information ratio.
[I think it was @MJG who made this point in a comment over a year ago]
Anyone know how those figures have moved for SEQUX, over the past 5 years?

Through the third quarter, the fund was rated five stars: overall, for five years, and ten years; though it was rated four stars for the past three years. Here's T. Rowe Price's summary page:
http://www3.troweprice.com/fb2/fbkweb/gateway/snapshot.do?ticker=SEQUX
As of today, the three year rating dropped to one star (a 3 star decrease), its five year rating dropped two notches to three stars, and even its ten year performance took a hit, losing a star - down to four stars.
With a three year risk rating of high, and a three year reward rating of low, you can't get more solidly one star.

I certainly don't think they're being overpaid for what they're doing, but the question is whether they can overcome a 2% drag to deliver results that make it worth investing in global micro cap stocks. I believe they can and I'll be happy that I invested, but 2% is a pretty big hole to climb out of year after year so it'll have to be evaluated after a few years when we get a sense of what they're able to deliver.

Interesting to think that Oil companies started preparing for this 40 years ago.
Exxon Predicted the Present Cheap Solar Boom Back in the 1980s
"The oil giant's 25-year-old research into the economics of solar was spot-on."
I recall years ago Exxon Mobil buying the patent rights to integrated solar roof shingle technology (not panels that are mounted on the roof, but are integrated into the shingle).
bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-11-04/exxon-predicted-today-s-cheap-solar-boom-back-in-the-1980s
Article on Integrated Photovoltaics:
nytimes.com/2009/09/27/business/27novel.html?_r=0

"So far, about three-quarters of the S&P 500 have reported results, with profits down 3.1 percent on a share-weighted basis, data compiled by Bloomberg shows. This would be the biggest quarterly drop in earnings since the third quarter 2009, and the second straight quarter of profit declines. Earnings growth turned negative for the first time in six years in the second quarter this year."
The trend is your friend? Ummm, which one would that be? Eni Meeni Miney Mo.

Ted, Just wanted to say how great it is to see you back posting.
Regarding forecasts for the S&P - I haven't a clue where it will be in one year or in five years.
But I don't think the world will end anytime soon.
Regards

Many other posts have compared ZEOIX to RPHYX. Now, comparing SSTHX and RPHYX for the past three years, we have the typical $10000 at $10,733 for RHYPX, and $10,663 for SSTHX, pretty much a dead heat. In this year's difficult market though, it's 0.76% return for RPHYX, and -1.30% for SSTHX, about a 2% difference in favor of RPHYX. While I'm certainly less than thrilled at the deterioration in the RPHYX NAV, it would still seem to be a better place than SSHTX at least for now.
Looking at ZEOIX, it's doing quite well this year, at a 2.58% return, and with $10,966 for three years. Unfortunately, it's not available NTF at Schwab, as Press notes. Guess I'll have to stick with RPHYX for a while.

I want to decide where I am going to expend my energy
Fund A
Assets: $100B
ER reported: 0.5%
Avg Annual Return: 10%
Fund B
Assets: $1B
ER reported: 1.5%
Avg Annual Return: 10%
Returns are always after expenses. I care about who makes how much money why now? I make 10% in each fund. If either fund is misrepresenting expenses and investors would have ended up with higher return, then all crusaders can go complain to justice department.
25 years back, when information was not forthcoming may be this makes some sense. In today's time with the internet, every fund investor knows all things remaining the same, go with the lower ER fund. If you are going with higher ER fund, do it for a reason - lower asset base, better fiduciary management, etc. etc. "Investors need to know how fund expenses are being paid and who they are being paid to". No, they don't. Why? Because they cannot do diddly squat about it.
I would like Jack Bogle to give interview to someone else besides M*. Or I would like him to ask Christine Benz WTF one ANALyst or another at M* marries American Funds every other week. All well wishers of fund investors, please stop telling investors what they should do and go tell/appeal to those who make money off those investors.

If the last thirty years are any indicator of future trends in Healthcare, maybe a 90/10 portfolio of VGHCX / VFISX vs Warren's VFINX / VFISX: (click on each image for better clarity)

@VintageFreak As the author of the article, I obviously disagree. But I wonder if you read it in its entirety. I think there are two good reasons why total dollars in fees matter. One is this question of economies of scale, which has huge legal ramifications. The perspective that a fund with $128 billion that is collecting $903 million in fees a year has "low" expenses because its expense ratio is 0.83% of assets seems misguided to me. It is relevant to these law suits filed by employees of 401k plans arguing fees are too high. Simply examining the expense ratio leads regulators and judges to say fees are fair when anyone looking at the massive asset growth and thus total dollars in fees the industry has experienced in the last twenty years would realize that economies of scale are not adequately being realized. If a pension plan with $128 billion hired a money manager to run its portfolio directly and not via the mutual fund route, there is no way it would be paying 0.83% for that service. Yes, there are ancillary costs such as shareholder services and broker placements, but these still are not enough to counteract the basic fact that for fund companies opening a new fund is essentially like opening a toll booth. Once you've built the booth and hired the clerk to man it the profits just grow and grow no matter how many people drive through.
The second reason is actually more relevant to MFO readers. These giant funds suffer other costs not recognized by the expense ratio, namely market impact costs that makes it more expensive to trade illiquid securities. Asset growth also makes it more difficult to have a high active share ratio as fund portfolios become more index like as assets grow. The comparison in the story is highly relevant as the JOHCM International Select Fund is run by a small boutique shop that closed the fund to new investors at around the $3 billion mark. As such, it faces much less of the market impact cost and closet-indexing problems of a much larger $128 billion fund. It also happens that it is collecting much less in total dollars of fees as a result. Yet because everyone is looking at expense ratios instead of total dollars in fees it gets penalized for having a higher expense ratio by Morningstar and investors. That seems unfair to me. It also happens that JOHCM International Select is a fund David has reviewed for MFO. So I think the story is relevant here.
I don't necessarily disagree with you about load funds and the high front-end commissions, but that is another story entirely--not the one I wrote in this case.

Sorry, but I don't understand.
I totally get one should look at how much the fund company is raking in. That's why one needs to observe if ER is going down when assets are going up or not. One also has to look at the management fee portion of the total ER since some fund strategies are costly to implement and one must weigh that before purchasing any actively managed fund.
What I don't get is the comment about whether it needs really $1B to run a $128B. Of course not. Since when has it been about that? The larger the fund asset base, the larger the management fee as a percentage. A fund manager is successful when he generates more revenue for his fund company. Are we going to pretend it is anything else? If the asset size of fund grew more because of appreciation and less because of asset accumulation, then didn't the investors think it is worth it. You pay more for an iPhone than other phones right?
VFINX ER is 0.15 (or whatever it is does not matter). What if the assets of VFINX were 10th of its current size. Are we going to ANALize how much it is going to cost to run this fund based on its asset size now? Someone of Bogle's standing IMHO should do more about railing against investors. Tell them to vote with their feet and SELL funds with $128B in assets who are raking in $1B in fees. Or is he suggesting capping fund expenses beyond a certain asset size of a fund? That would be a fantastic regulation. I
Finally, anyone who buys a load fund needs to have their head examined. If it is because they are working with an advisor, then as I have said many times we need to put that occupation out of business. I want Bogle to write articles about advisors who are selling loaded funds with 5.75% loss upfront. I want him to rail about M* doing analysis about how American funds (who can do no wrong) are cheap because even if most people pay a load, over time they cost less because their ER is lower. I listen to Bogle when he rants about indexing vs active management. Indexing is what I use largely in my tax deferred plans. If I was saying same thing for 50 years, I would think it is quite enough and at age 85 take a chill pill.
BTW, Alan Greenspam. Please go away as well. No one needs to hear your expertise on how to (mis)manage the fed.
I'm sorry, but this "news" is only slightly less annoying than "who killed marilyn monroe" shows which TV channels show whenever nothing else interesting is happening in the world. Does anyone have an original idea to help investors?
End of rant.
PS. For the record, I do NOT want Mr Lewis Branham to go away. I DO WANT Greenspam and BogleMyMind to go away or comment on some other topic. Write a cookbook or something.

Don't know much about the tax angle, but VEIPX is one of the best V'rd LCap value funds in the last 5-10 years.

Good point. Even in what has been largely a "Growth" environment, this "Value" fund has done quite well. Might be a good candidate to DCA into.
Thanks for the heads up!