This fund has an ER of 2.4. That's a pretty high hurdle to overcome if you agree it's going to be low return scenario for years to come.

Hi Guys,
Like Edmond, I don’t have a horse directly in this race. I select the mutual funds that I own without a Socially Responsible Investing (SRI) criterion. My uniformed overarching belief is that any additional constraints imposed in the selection process reduces the candidate fund list, and could potentially harm performance.
Thanks to the excellent reference that MFOer LewisBraham provided, the accumulated research indicates that my fears were imaginary. In that report, the authors conclude that 9 academic studies find neutral or mixed performance results, and even one instance of outperformance. The models suggest that outperformance is a doable goal from a theoretical perspective, but that optimistic assessment is not executed practically by fund managers. See page 61 for these conclusions.
So, adding a SRI criteria in the selection process does not necessarily hurt returns, although, as in all investment decisions, it must be executed prudently. It might not do an investor any good, but it will not break the back of his portfolio either.
I have a nearby neighbor who actually worked on a solar farm in the late 1970s. He is not a fan of these farms. At that time efficiency was poor. The farm was located in the Southern California desert region. His negative anecdotal assessment was not base on the relatively poor energy conversion efficiency, but rather on the excessive water requirements to keep the solar panels clean. That solar plant has shuttered its panels and has been abandoned.
Solar panel efficiency has improved remarkably since those early days. But even after 40 years and countless tears from working the problems, our primary energy sources have not changed very much. How much? Here is a Link to a superior summary generated by the International Energy Agency:
http://www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/keyworld2014.pdf
I invite you to scan this informative report. On page 7, the document shows the world’s Total Primary Energy Supply (TPES). The presentations graphically display energy consumption from the early 1970s to 2012. A pie chart comparison of the energy contributors in 1973 and in 2012 allows a rapid assessment of trends.
After decades of resourceful trying and skillful engineering, coal, oil, and natural gas remain the world’s primary energy sources. These 3 sources still provide over 80% of the fuel shares. Meanwhile, in the “other” category (geothermal, solar, wind), its share of the energy marketplace has advanced from 0.1% to only 1.1% over this 4 decade timeframe. This is not a brave new world signal. Progress in the “other” category is painfully slow.
There will be no eureka energy source moments in the near future. The fuel sources that govern the marketplace today will also be major factors for decades. The data show that coal production has steadily risen in the last 4 decades. These “other” sources have been experimentally explored for decades and are now respectably mature contributors. Don’t anticipate major innovations or efficiency improvements.
For example, solar photovoltaic cell efficiency can be significantly enhanced (to numbers approaching 30%) by using rare element materials like gallium arsenide. But that is not likely to happen. Why not? Rare element materials are extremely costly, and more importantly, universal scale limitations exist because rare element materials are “rare” (what a shocker).
There is some hope that thin-film gallium arsenide might prove doable. Let’s hope so. At this moment Gallium arsenide costs 1000 times more than an equivalent product made from silicon. The current goal is to reduce that differential from 1000 to 100. That’s still a long way from home.
The International Energy Agency report also shows consumption and production data on a country-by-country basis. Additionally, the document provides future energy projections that just might be useful when making an investment decision. For those of you considering energy investments, this referenced report just might give you an edge.
Progress in the energy field will be made, but only slowly and with many missteps. That’s science. In that context, keep John Maynard Keynes cautionary warning in the forefront: “Long run is a misleading guide to current affairs. In the long run we are all dead.”
Good luck and good research to all MFOers.
Best Wishes.

meconti:
Thanks for note. I think [can you confirm] that you are talking about the table that appears on the bottom of "Page 9", which I agree is a complex mess.
HOWEVER, the linked document ALSO contains a table that appears on the left side of "Page 28". [*]
That table includes performance for 3 months, 6 months, 1 year, 3 years, 5 years, 10 years, and [wait for it] "since inception".
If you look at that table - which compares the Baron Small Cap Fund to the R2000 Growth & the S&P500 indices, it is clear that the fund has under-performed both, *consistently* for the last 3 months, 6 months, 1 year, 3 years, 5 years, and 10 years.
Another way to see this is to look at the M* [Performance] tab for this fund:
http://performance.morningstar.com/fund/performance-return.action?t=BSCFX
for these periods. If you do - as of 09-02-2015 - you will see that the fund has been resting fairly consistently among the bottom (worst) third or so of its peers for the last 3 months, 6 months, 1 year, 3 years, 5 years, and 10 years.
To almost coin a phrase, there is no need to feed this dog. This dog won't hunt. Thanks to the folks at Baron for providing (diligent at least) investors with the table (on Page 28) that shows the weakness of the fund.
[*] Note: If someone knows how to link images and has the time, that would be a great help! Thanks [!] in advance [?].

In response to the original post, I found an even more deceptive depiction of performance in the most recent Baron Funds quarterly report. I don't know how to insert the table from the report (p. 9 of report). I hope this link works.
baronfunds.com/BaronFunds/media/Quarterly-Reports/Quarterly-Report-063015.pdf
When I looked at the table, I said to myself, "Huh?" There are column headers for 10-year, 5-year, and 3-year returns along with average excess returns. I had to study the table and footnotes for 30 minutes to see what they did. At first (and second) glance, one would get the impression that BSCFX has been performing wonderfully. By using the entire history of the fund, they have whitewashed over its "recent" performance. BSCFX uses the Russell 2000 Growth Index as its primary prospectus benchmark. I looked at returns of BSCFX compared to the ETF IWO (iShares Russell 2000 Growth ETF). If you were a new investor, or added to your account in the past 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, or 13 years, you would have trailed the ETF/benchmark, and with a higher tax cost ratio.
Number of Years Cumulative Return BSCFX
Begin Date End Date BSCFX IWO Annualized Underperformance
6/30/2002 6/30/2015 13 226.34% 252.77% -0.66%
6/30/2003 6/30/2015 12 223.88% 250.71% -0.73%
6/30/2004 6/30/2015 11 156.60% 167.07% -0.40%
6/30/2005 6/30/2015 10 120.37% 156.46% -1.65%
6/30/2006 6/30/2015 9 104.96% 124.22% -1.09%
6/30/2007 6/30/2015 8 71.40% 92.24% -1.54%
6/30/2008 6/30/2015 7 99.71% 115.67% -1.22%
6/30/2009 6/30/2015 6 154.73% 186.54% -2.31%
6/30/2010 6/30/2015 5 113.90% 142.93% -3.00%
6/30/2011 6/30/2015 4 51.67% 69.41% -3.11%
6/30/2012 6/30/2015 3 57.98% 73.93% -3.80%
6/30/2013 6/30/2015 2 27.52% 40.43% -5.58%
6/30/2014 6/30/2015 1 4.05% 12.54% -8.49%
I found Baron's report egregiously deceptive. When this fund was new and nimble, it sidestepped the dot.com debacle. Since then, its quacks like an index fund with a grossly high 1.30% ER. Even as assets continue to overwhelm this fund, it continues to charge a 0.25% 12b-1 fee to attract even more assets.

@msf
Thanks msf for your comment. I'll give it consideration. My portfolio was born and grown, for the most part except for my 401k, profit sharing and health savings account, with A share development through the past forty years, or so; and, as such, I can now buy a good number of A shares funds at nav or at a discounted price.
One of the crafty ways I found, years ago, was to buy A shares in a family's fixed income funds that usualy had a lower sales load, hold them for the required period of time (usually 90 days), and then do a nav exhange to the equity fund product that most often had a higher sales load. In some cases, this created a tax loss for me if done in a taxable account. In this way, some or most of the commisions paid became tax deductable if a loss took place as the nav exchange is considered a taxable event if done within a taxable account.
Thus far this form of buying has worked out well for me. I am sure if this method of purchase becomes too widely used then steps will be taken to slow or discourage this type of purchase. However, these purchases, at the time made, conformed to the rules found within the fund's perspectus and current tax laws.
This is one of the "many things" I learned from my late father as how he went about opening his special investment position with a fixed income fund, usually holding it through the summer months, and then, come fall, did a nav exchange into an equity fund for his traditional fall stock market special investment (spiff). Any losses he had incurred thus far which would usually include the commission paid became a tax loss for him when he made the nav exchange. Kinda clever? Yes.
Thanks again for making comment. It is indeed appreciated.

This is a rather tiresome old-fashioned view on SRI and ESG--environmental social and governance--based investing that has been refuted by academic evidence. Click here: https://institutional.deutscheawm.com/content/_media/Sustainable_Investing_2012.pdf
A key excerpt from this report is the following:
"100% of the academic studies agree that companies with high ratings for CSR and ESG factors have a lower cost of capital in terms of debt (loans and bonds) and equity. In effect, the market recognizes that these companies are lower risk than other companies and rewards them accordingly....
89% of the studies we examined show that companies with high ratings for ESG factors exhibit market-based outperformance, while 85% of the studies show these types of company’s exhibit accounting-based outperformance. Here again, the market is showing correlation between financial performance of companies and what it perceives as advantageous ESG strategies, at least over the medium (3-5 years) to long term (5-10 years)."
In fact, I think the idea that "personal beliefs don't belong in your retirement account" actually is a reflection of the personal beliefs of many of the authors who routinely bash SRI/ESG without looking at the academic evidence, revealing their own biases. The fact is trillions of dollars are now invested globally according to some sort of SRI/ESG principles with little negative effects and in many cases positive ones:
fa-mag.com/news/sri-assets-up-76--since-2012--study-says-19953.html

I stopped using stop loss orders also, over the past 3 years used them and got stopped out on about 5 stocks to protect profits only see them go right back up. That won't always be the case, but feel this way is better. I do like limit orders though.

"With the market turmoil, I reduced my stock fund holdings % in my 401K account down to about 50%."
"was able to avoid some of the carnage"
"your advice on a strategy for gradually increasing my stock holdings back to their target allocation"
"Also, please let me know if you have any thoughts on my asset allocation."
---
Ten weeks ago U.S. equity markets were sitting at or near record highs, so if you bailed than it was a precient call. After a 6-year bull market in equities (dating back to March '09) you chose the exact moment to reduce your risk exposure.
If you bailed more recently due to the increasing chaos (mainly over the past 2 weeks) than that's a very short time-frame in which to be considering reallocating back into equities. As others have said, it's impossible to make these kind of week-to-week calls with precision. If using open-end mutual funds, you'd probably run into trouble with frequent trading restrictions as well.
Ted was correct in suggesting that if you have decades until retirement it's best to take a deep breath and stay at your previously appropriate allocation. For me, up until about age 50, that was 100% in a good solid global equity fund.* In hindsight, I'm happy I didn't sell it and move to bonds or cash every time the markets swooned. I'd never have selected the "correct" time to re-invest and would have damaged my prospects for a comfortable retirement.
As you near retirement it does get a bit more complicated for two reasons: (1) your investment time horizon shortens significantly and (2) you likely lose the stabilizing benefits of dollar cost averaging that you enjoyed during your working years. Here, you'll find plenty of spirited debate about how best to allocate during those later years. But ... that's a different subject than what you seem to be inquiring about.
-
* Note: 100% invested in an equity fund is not quite the same as 100% invested in equities. Most of these funds do maintain a bit of exposure to cash, bonds or alternative investments.

Checking the chart since inception ~2 years ago - it survived two dips much better than the S&P, one dip was almost (but not quite) as bad, yet overall returns over the past two years are 1% vs 20% for the S&P. That's a bit lousy, hedge fund or no, especially considering the ER.
So for those of you who hold it - or have held it - are you happy with your investment?

@VintageFreak,
I have two retirement accounts with American Century. I talked to one of their retirement specialists on the phone and he set everything up. I got the paperwork and signed it. One account was a 403b rollover in their funds. The other was my defined benefit pension which I was able to take a lump sum. I opened a brokerage account for that one. That gives me more flexibility in choices. I would suspect the procedure is similar with most fund companies.
I have enjoyed a good relationship with AC over the years and with the amounts in these accounts I was given Priority Investor status which gives me me additional benefits like a personal rep I can call or email anytime for one.

Ten years ago (late 2005) the new manager for Giftrust (who had been appointed early 2004) raised Giftrust's performance (12 month period) to 8th best out of 240 growth funds (as ranked by Bloomberg).
From the time Giftrust started to the time it removed its restrictions on new money (2011), there were 119 rolling 18 year periods (the longer of the lock up periods for the fund). Of these, 70 had double digit annualized returns. For the final five years before "opening up" (2006-2011), the fund ranked in the top 2% of large growth funds (M*).
WSJ, Nov. 7, 2011 Goodbye to Giftrust, a Rare Rund That Locked In Its Holders
So American Century may have done people a favor ten years ago when didn't let them out. The idea of a lockup (to manage cash flows as with hedge funds) is to keep cash flows stable. You don't need a lockup when a fund is doing well; you need it through lean times.
The WSJ columnist opined in that 2011 column: "The strategy mostly has paid off for investors." In 2012 he said unambiguously that "Ultimately, [the lockup] strategy paid off; the fund suffered some rough short-term patches, but was consistently above average when viewed through a long-term lens."
Yet when the fund had hit one of those patches in 2004 he called the fund a stupid investment of the week for the second time, noting that "it takes a rare investment to earn the distinction twice".
That was Chuck Jaffe, who often has some interesting thoughts, but just as often blows with the wind. Which is the point. The wind happened to be blowing cold ten years ago.
For the record, I think the idea was oversold, but that was started in 1983. The lockups were agreed to by the investors years before 2005; ten years ago they did not suddenly become "pacts with the devil".
I have my own gripes with AC concerning their herky jerky migation to being a load family. 1996, 2001, and other changes I can't find now. But that doesn't deter me from looking at their funds so long as I can get no load, inexpensive shares.

Stopped using AC 10 years ago when they screwed anyone who used their Giftrust plan.

We've been using AC for over 20 years...

Have an old 401k I have been wanting to rollover. Do you have a retirement account with them by any chance? What is your experience?

I may not have been sufficiently clear. Many funds offered in VAs are not designed (from a legal perspective) to be offered for sale as securities. Even if they are structured that way, they are rarely offered for sale outside of an insurance policy. The two funds I wrote about are generally not sold outside of insurance policies.
This has nothing to do with tax efficiency. Though with a tax cost ratio over the past five years of 1.5% and nearly 3% in the past year, I might have second thoughts about keeping this fund in a taxable account. To put those figures in perspective, DBLTX's tax cost ratios over the same periods are 2.3% (five year) and 1.8% (one year) - that's for a pure bond, ordinary income fund.
The Voya fund prospectus reads: "Shares of the Portfolio are not offered directly to the public. Purchase and sale of shares may be made only by separate accounts of insurance companies serving as investment options under Variable Contracts or by Qualified Plans, custodian accounts, and certain investment advisers and their affiliates, other investment companies, or permitted investors.
The AZL fund prospectus states likewise: "Shares of each Fund are sold exclusively to certain insurance companies in connection with particular variable annuity contracts and/or variable life insurance policies (each a “Contract” and collectively the “Contracts”) they issue.

@mcmarasco
"Does anyone know anything about the Voya versions (virtual clones) of PRWCX (ITRAX / ITRIX / ITCSX / ITCTX)? They are open according to M*, but can the average investor purchase them???"
According to test trades I just made, these clones are not available at WellsTrade, Fidelity, TDAmeritrade, Scottrade and Firstrade. I still think that the most attractive option is to get a friend or acquaintance of yours to gift you a share between taxable accounts at a given brokerage.
Kevin

This is a fund designed for tax advantaged accounts. One finds it in individual variable annuities, college 403(b) plans, etc. So the question is: how desperate are you to purchase a PRWCX clone?
You can purchase the ADV class (ITRAX, 1.24% ER) through a Voya Preferred Advantage VA. The annuity itself adds another 0.60% fee. IMHO, that's too high a total cost - the 0.60% annuity fee is about the same as Schwab's, but you're paying up for the fund (it's tacking on a 0.75% 12b-1 fee).
On the plus side, the annuity has no withdrawal fees, the min for the whole VA (all investments) is $5K, and the annual maintenance fee is waived with a relatively low $15K balance. Also, the contract is relatively straightfoward - 50 pages plus fund descriptions, which may sound like a lot, but most of this is required to describe a basic annuity; no bells or whistles.)
Another option is to invest in AZL T. Rowe Price Capital Appreciation. A combined (print) page with all the M* info is here (scroll past the nonexistent analyst report for the rest of the info).
You can purchase this inside the Allianz Retirement Pro® VA. This is a low cost VA, rated one of the top 10 traditional VAs by Barron's a couple of years ago, along with Vanguard/Monumental Life), Fidelity, TIAA-CREF (see embedded graphic) - Top 50 Annuities, May 27, 2013.
The VA costs 0.30% (Base Account, not the Income Advantage Account, which is a more restrictive and costly GLWB rider). The Class 2 shares of the PRWCX clone have an ER of 1.05%, for a combined cost of 1.35%, 1/2% below the ING offering, but still not cheap.
This annuity requires a min of $75K (across all investments), and charges an annual maintenance fee unless the balance is above $100K.
I don't suggest investing in these clones, but since the question was raised about how the average investor purchases them, there you have it. It is possible that other retail annuities offer these clones, though I am doubtful, because these seem to be proprietary clones offered through proprietary VAs (e.g. Voya clone offered through Voya VA).

@mcmarasco,
Since my holdings are all with American Century, my suggestions would be narrowly focused. I hold ASDVX for the short duration unconstrained bond. AMJVX is their multi-asset income fund and ALNNX is their alternative income fund which I use as a complement to AMJVX.
For short duration, I like the template my fund has. < 2 years duration. Unconstrained gives the fund management more leeway as where to go.
For income funds, I also favor the anywhere style of unconstrained and multi-asset. The markets of today are complicated with various types of investments. As I mentioned above, I use ALNNX as a complement. There are some duplicate strategies between both funds but ALNNX includes hedging and other strategies. The way it performed in this past downturn was impressive, but that is also just one event. With the bond markets as they are investors have to change their thinking somewhat as being in longer term bonds during a period of rising rates will surely be counterproductive.
These strategies are relatively new and M* doesn't classify them properly. Running some Google or Bing searches may provide more answers.
Edit: BlackRock has a decent offering in the multi-asset income sphere. BAICX.
http://www.blackrock.com/investing/products/227565/blackrock-multi-asset-income-inst-class-fund

I want to thank each of you very much for your detailed and thoughtful comments. I'm always impressed reading about the strategies that each of you employ. I've got a lot to learn. Thanks in particular to Scott, Press,and Old Skeet for the discussion of specific ideas and links. Gives me some great weekend reading for strategy development!
Scott, I'm quite intrigued by your discussion of real estate investments. You clearly know this area well. If I'm somewhat limited in the amount of capital currently available I'm wondering if it might be better to with a REIT fund vs. individual names. Are there specific funds that you like a great deal in this area? If not, I can do some research on the names that you list above and perhaps just buy small positions across a few stocks. I'm also reading up on Ecolab based on your earlier posts. That also looks quite interesting. thanks so much again everyone!
Good article on dividend payers in Morningstar today -- http://www.morningstar.com/cover/videocenter.aspx?id=712994

Thanks!
I think my issue - and I emphasize that this is a me thing - is that I don't want a lot of retail and I don't want apartments. The latter is more an instance of "at this time" and the former is more of a long-term view. I've thought for a long time that - in terms of retail - the highest quality and most innovative operators will succeed. I also have no interest in hotel REITs.
I think "dime-a-dozen" mall operators will struggle or go. DDR - which was obliterated in 2008 and is still nowhere remotely near its pre-2008 levels - is an example of what I don't want. Simon Property took its strip malls and spun them off into a different company. We are overbuilt on retail in this country and one of the reasons (among many) that I've never really been enamored with the Sears bull thesis.
"Consider this: The number of enclosed shopping malls with a vacancy rate at or above 40% – the point at which malls typically enter their death throes – has more than tripled since 2006. Nearly 15% of all enclosed malls are suffering from a vacancy rate between 10% and 40%, according to Green Street Advisors" (http://www.wallstreetdaily.com/2015/03/11/mall-reit-simon-property-group/)
I like Tanger Outlets (SKT) due to management and due to the fact that people like the high-end outlet concept. Go to one of these high-end outlet malls on a weekend and they're jammed. Go to one of them on a particularly busy period (when people are doing back to school shopping or Christmas shopping) and they're a mob scene. At least that I've seen.
General Growth (which I have exposure to via Brookfield Property) and Simon (SPG) are fine, with the latter also having a significant portfolio of premium outlets. So, I'm not a fan of malls. I do think that some large, quality operators will innovate and continue to succeed, but I really, really don't want much exposure to malls and I don't want strip malls/dime-a-dozen malls.
Retail Opportunity (ROIC), which I mentioned above, is somewhat different from the fact that it is retail, but with need-based anchors (drug stores and grocery stores), which I think gives that some level of defensiveness.
I think apartments in major cities are a compelling investment with high barriers to entry and people have to live somewhere. That said, I don't feel comfortable investing in apartment REITs with apartment rents at absolute record highs that don't feel terribly sustainable over the long-term. I like things like Equity Residential (EQR), but I have no interest in them at these levels. Again, longer-term I think quality apartments in major cities are great, but they'd need to come down quite a bit to get to an interesting entry point.
I don't own it, but I'm slightly interested in things like Lamar Advertising (LAMR), a REIT that is basically outdoor/indoor advertising spaces. I do think that with the rise of mobile phones, people who are waiting at the airport and elsewhere will have an increasingly larger level of interactivity with advertisements on a daily basis. Their website is pretty ridiculous, you can literally see every advertising space they own. I'm not looking to add to much of anything right now, but I may explore this further. There are only a few major billboard companies and those few enjoy the majority of market share. Also, regulations may limit new competition. This wasn't a REIT until a year or two ago. The real big problem here in the short-to-mid term is that it is at its core .... advertising. In a 2008 situation, this will get obliterated. Longer-term I do think outdoor advertising may become a more and more compelling space as there is more and more interactivity due to smartphones - someone's sitting at an airport and they can scan a cereal poster with their phone for a coupon and when they use their mobile wallet to buy the cereal the coupon will already be there. We're not there yet, but I think it's an eventuality.
Not a fan of hotel REITs not because, I mean, look at 2008. Many of these companies bought right into the top and not only were the shares rocked, many either cut or eliminated dividends, with some not bringing dividends back for years after - see Strategic Hotels and Resorts - while that is now entertaining a possible sale, it was $23 in 2007 and $1 by 2008 and never reinstated its dividend. Are hotels in major cities interesting in terms of barriers to entry? In theory, but geez, these are economically super-sensitive.
I like high quality office space in major metropolitan areas. Brookfield (BPY, or BAM if you want to go with the parent if you don't want to deal with a partnership) is an example. Vornado is a great example, but I think a lot of REITs ran up to a silly degree earlier this year because of a hunt for yield. Vornado's move towards $120 was way overdone and $78-82 is more fair value.
As with healthcare in general, I think healthcare REITs will continue to do well and a number of names have been unfairly taken lower. I like Ventas (VTR), but HCP, HCN and Omega Healthcare are other options. I like Industrial/warehouse, although I don't think there's tons of names that grab my interest.
Triple Nets (WPC, O) have been taken down to points where they're compelling.
Certainly, in the shorter term there's a good deal that depends on the Fed rate hike and if the Fed does hike rates in September or December you may get a better opportunity for income names.
As for income names, Pipelines have been unfairly obliterated by the combo of interest rate fears and concerns over anything oil-related. Inter Pipeline (IPPLF) just reported a record quarter and is down considerably. Quality MLPs (EPD, MMP) are down enormously and I just don't think the state of the business for these companies suggest the declines that have been seen.
As for Ecolab, that's absolutely never going to be a home run. What I want is something that I think offers a high degree of consistency and whose business provides a need in both good times and bad. It's raised the dividend every year for 30+ years. The water aspect of Ecolab (ECL) is a core element of why I find it attractive, but the company works for me on a number of levels - as for hygiene and sanitation, hospitality/restaurant and other businesses have to maintain standards in good times and bad. (http://www.ecolab.com/about/our-businesses.) Again, I'm not looking for a home run with Ecolab by any means, I'm looking for something that I think works for a number of themes and I think will be consistent and relatively boring over the long haul.

We've been using AC for over 20 years, and never had an idea of this. Agree with VF re genuine!

FYI: Most corporate philanthropy follows a conservative and predictable course, but at American Century Investments, a $152 billion-asset mutual fund firm in Kansas City, Mo., charitable giving has a whole new level of meaning and commitment. In 2000, American Century’s founder, Jim Stowers, broke ground on the Stowers Institute for Medical Research. He endowed the organization over the years with $2 billion, including a chunk of his wealth and, crucially, a 40% share of his mutual fund company. Since then, the medical institute has received $1.1 billion in dividends from American Century.
Regards,
Ted
http://blogs.barrons.com/penta/2015/08/28/how-american-century-investments-funds-science/tab/print/

Sure would have been nice to include some evidence in support of that claim. Barry's evidence seems to come down to two things. First, computerized selling created Monday morning's disconnect between price and value. SBUX was down 22%. Some ETFs were down 30%. Second, he links to an article from January 2012 on the theme "sure has been quiet around here lately." Sadly, neither of those two bits of information (nor the fact that hedge funds were poorly allocated and that CNBC's ratings suck) support the claim that mom 'n' pop are finally cool, steely creatures.
The evidence he offers that folks are buying more ETFs actually points in the opposite direction (the "T" is for "Trading" and evidence I've seen suggests that people who possess trading vehicles, well, trade them). The evidence that TD Ameritrade froze up and that Vanguard had to do the "all hands on deck" thing to cover incoming calls suggests that mom 'n' were on the phone and at their keyboards . The WSJ reports that Tuesday's stock fund redemptions were the greatest in eight years.
I'd really like the headline to be true. I'm just not sure that I've seen the evidence to substantiate it.
David