Interesting - but for global small-cap investing I'll stick with my Grandeur Peak funds. I've owned SSSFX for over a decade and concentrated funds like this are tough to own - be prepared to be the worst performer for a couple of years then the best performer for a couple of years.
Ben - I agree about the global investors part - I would think that would require some significant firm analyst/research buildout.

Why own FPACX? Well, in 2006 when I bought FPACX, my crystal ball was broken and remains broken to this day. Actually, FPACX and VWELX have been pretty comparable up until recently and, having reinvested dividends, FPACX has been a good investment.
What does not work for me is to thrash around from one fund to another. But, out of curiosity, I would like to know what fund should be bought now that in 10 years will be a general winner.

Reference was made the other day to Source Capital (SOR) in regards to Mr. Braham's article in Barron's about CEF's. Steve Romick and his FPA team took over the fund in Fall, 2015. They must have done some real housecleaning of the portfolio resulting in a huge distribution to shareholders. Here's a quotation from a fund document "apologizing" for how long it took for the transactions to settle:
"Los Angeles (April 22, 2016) – Source Capital, Inc. (the “Fund”) is pleased to announce that the Agent for its Dividend Reinvestment Plan (the “Plan”), American Stock Transfer & Trust Company, completed its purchases of the Fund’s common stock for shareholders participating in the Plan with respect to the distributions announced on February 8, 2016. As you may recall, on March 15, 2016, the Fund paid the $33.65 long-term capital gain distribution combined with the $0.41 regular quarterly distribution announced on February 8, 2016. Due to the large combined size of these distributions and the commensurate number of shares that were required to be purchased for Plan participants, it took the Agent several weeks to complete the share purchases. The Agent will be posting the reinvested shares to your account by Monday April 25, 2016 and statements will be mailed shortly thereafter. Thank you for your patience."
I guess this is one way to deal with the persistent discount which averaged -9.57% for the past three years. It's now -1.69%. Fund price was a bit north of $65 at the time of the distribution. Now it's about $39. I wonder if SOR is going to be a clone of FPACX, albeit on a much smaller scale.

I held it until a couple of years ago, and since 1998. Fwiw.

Very few investors have owned FPACX for the past 20 years. According to BrightScope.com, FPACX had only $37M in AUM on 12/31/1996, and only $1.4B on 12/31/2006. As for VWELX, it had $16B in AUM on 12/31/1996 and $29.6B on 12/31/2006. So for me, the 20 year performance of FPACX is meaningless as its current $17B in AUM bears no resemblance to the tiny fund it was 20 years ago. I would like to know if anybody on this forum has owned FPACX continuously for the past 20 years ?
The keys to the excellent performance of VWELX and VWINX have been solid stock and bond selections, low portfolio turnovers, very low exposures to cash, and very low expense ratios. FPACX on the other hand, has had comparably low portfolio turnover, but has tried to time the market with relatively large cash positions. Also, FPACX has had much higher expense ratios since inception, and has not changed its 1% management fee in recent memory despite ballooning assets.
As I have stated previously, I would prefer a low cost combination of VWIAX and VYM over FPACX going forward.
Kevin

Besides Lipper, what vehicle do you use to screen for your funds? Do you use a search engine?
How do you determine if a fund is "diversified income" or "between income and balanced", etcetera when searching?? In other words, what do you search on to determine those type of details/characteristics?

@mcmarasco: Good questions. Let me premise by saying that I think allocation, appropriate diversification and an ability to stick with a plan over time influence long term results more than does selecting the very best fund in every category. That may seem a bit sacrilegous, as MFO is highly successful at evaluating funds to the unteenth degree. But I haven't the time or temperament to research continuously and would probably view any performance record under 10 years as suspect anyway.
Most funds I've held 10 years or longer, and some for more than 20. ("Likeable enough" is a phrase that leaps to mind.) Some I first learned of at Fund Alarm or MFO. Some were featured in Barrons. As a long time investor with T. Rowe and Oppenheimer, I uncovered some reading their web sites. An important second step was looking up funds (after they came to my attention) at Lipper, M*, MaxFunds, FundMojo and similar sites to garner their overall impressions. Finally, I studied the Prospectus and recent fund reports to learn how the manager invests (particularily the current holdings). The Prospectus details performance records over the last 10 successive years, helpful in assessing risk.
Re: different categories (balanced, diversified income, etc.), there's a lot of discretion involved. In some cases it was a matter of plugging existing funds into the plan as it evolved. DODBX has been my balanced fund for a long time. RPSIX, a fund of funds, works well for diversified income. I'll occasionally make small tactical changes within the buy and hold area. Added a precious metals fund last September to the inflation sensitive portion but sold it a few weeks ago after it rose 40+% in 7 months (substituting PRAFX in its place). 35% of the international bond segment is now in a Local Currency/EM bond fund - but that's considered semi-speculative and will be vacated at some point.
Thanks for the chance to follow up. I've read your posts before @mcmarasco and know you not to be a novice (far from it). So I suspect there may be a degree of devil's advocacy in the question you pose. :)
Regards

There are criteria, and then there are the application of those criteria.
For example, though it's not a major factor for me, like Hank I do look at fund size. But unlike Hank, I don't have a preference for larger funds; mine is for anything not extreme (not itsy bitsy unless new, and not humongous).
In addition to criteria already mentioned, I look at manager age, experience, and track record. Keep in mind none of this may help. Bob Stansky had a great record at Fidelity Growth Company, but floundered taking over Magellan. That was especially true once the fund doubled in size from the $50B when he took it over. By the time Stansky left, it had fallen back to the $50B size it was when he took it over.
A good example of how the factors I care about interrelate is BTMIX - a fund I asked about several months ago. Baird brought over a team from BMO who had done a fine job there. So even though the fund was (and is) tiny and has no track record, it's in a good family for bonds with very low costs and a proven management team.
Part of looking at a fund family is how they handle management transitions. (IMHO T. Rowe Price is superb at this, taking months or years to do a handoff and with full transparency.) In the past, I might have looked at LSBDX, as it appeared to have a transition plan in place (Gaffney taking over for Fuss, now about 83). That's gone, or rather she's gone. Eagan and Stokes started along with Gaffney, but they hadn't been groomed as Fuss' successor. I'd like a bit more clarity about a transition plan before considering this fund again.

Wow! You're likely to get a plethora of widely different reactions. Sorry for the redundancy that follows. (I also require 20 minutes to change a light bulb.)
Premise: First, you need some sense of your goals, investing philosophy and the degree of risk you're willing to take.
Than you need a plan.*
Than you select funds that fit the plan.
-
To the heart of the question, here's what I look for:
- Below average fees
- Reputation of the house for integrity, consistency and client service
- A fund's long term performance with a proven track record extending back well over a decade. (I tend to focus on Lipper's category ratings.)
- I like larger funds. They've grown large for a reason. There should be some economics of scale. And the detrimental effects of hot money chasing short term performance and than leaving in droves is likely to be less.
- I also favor larger longer established houses thinking they can afford deeper research staffs.
* For what interest it may hold, here's one plan that might be suitable for a moderate-risk investor 20 years into retirement (like myself).
80% Buy and Hold: (1) 22-25% diversified income, (2) 22-25% balanced, (3) 30-35% hybrids (three uniquely different funds positioned somewhere between income and balanced on the risk spectrum), (4) 7-10% international bond funds, (5) 7-10% inflation-sensitive funds (like real estate and commodities).
20% Flexible Portfolio: Nominally, 50% cash / 50% equity. Since this portion is by definition flexible, the cash could range anywhere from 0% to 100%. Currently, I'm a bit overweight equities and tilted slightly towards an energy/NR fund where I still perceive some value.
I too have trouble limiting the number of funds. Goal is 12. Currently 14. :)

@kevindow Check out some of the closed-end funds from Tortoise (TPZ, TYG, NTP, etc.) I've owned some of them off and on over the years but now just hold a few individual MLPs.

"The nearly 19-year-old Defined Risk Strategy" - not fund, i.e. private money
Also from the article:
"The $1.5 billion Swan Defined Risk mutual fund (ticker: SDRAX), launched in 2012, hasn’t performed as well, which is largely a function of time and the market cycle. It’s up an average of 4% a year over the past three years, versus 12.9% for the S&P 500. "
Makes one wonder what is "All Seasons" about this fund.

@shipwreckedandalone,
Nice work on your closed end funds. I use to dabble in them some years back; but, not anymore. I'd be interested in knowing how you continue to fair with them. I'd buy at good discounts and when they narrowed I'd sell collecting the dividends while I waited for the discount to narrow. Sometimes it worked ... and, sometimes it did not.
Old_Skeet

FYI: (Click On Article Title At Top Of Google Search)
IInvestors who bought master limited partnerships years ago, thinking they had found a high-yielding bond substitute with tax advantages, have been sorely tried. Those who held on through the 18-month downturn have gotten some welcome relief these past 10 weeks as the sector rebounded from its staggering 60% plunge from 2014 highs.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.google.com/#q=MLPs+Are+Rallying—but+They’re+Still+Risky+Barron's

I am the most patient investor I know, not always that way but age and time will do that.
I saw the opening was on Bonds, so I looked at my only 4 bond funds TGEIX, PIMIX MWTRX, TGBAX for 1yr and YTD. The leader YTD is TGEIX-Emerging Market Bond, for 1 yr.TGEIX. The worst TGBAX for both YTD and I yr. No changes planned. For 5 years none are loosers.

I used to be like that but for intellectual hygiene (my brain clarity and challenges thereto) I went a few years ago to ML via BoA and Fido only, and so I buy only whatever is offered therein for free. Works okay thus far, although I forsake Bruce and some (many) others, yes. Also I trade and 'time' less than in decades past. But tracking and tax time are way simpler.
@AndyJ, if you like JENSX you might want to look into the thus far outperforming LC etfs SPHD, NOBL, CAPE, and latterly OUSA.

"Cunningham said Thursday that he is retiring due to a health issue of a family member that requires his attention."
And, too, assets under management have declined by $13 billion - 25% or so - in three years.
David

T. Rowe Price Group Inc. said Tuesday it is diversifying its equity fund lineup, announcing the launch of three new funds and the renaming of another in a quantitatively managed series.
[...]
[Sudhir] Nanda has been managing T. Rowe's Diversified Small-Cap Growth Fund for about a decade. The fund functioned as a proof of concept for his methods. It's now been renamed the QM U.S. Small-Cap Growth Equity Fund. "It wasn't something which happened overnight," Nanda said. "I think we've reached a point where we think it's a pretty well-proven process."
[...]
The QM U.S. Small-Cap Growth Equity fund has about $4 billion in assets under management. It joins the newly launched funds, the QM U.S. Value Equity Fund, QM U.S. Small and Mid-Cap Core Equity Fund and QM Global Equity Fund.

http://www.bizjournals.com/baltimore/news/2016/04/19/t-rowe-price-rolls-out-new-quantitative-funds.html?ana=yahoo
For what interest it holds. PRDSX can be rather volatile, but it has had some very good years (e.g. 2013= 44%).
http://www3.troweprice.com/fb2/fbkweb/snapshot.do?ticker=PRDSX (SC Growth)
http://www3.troweprice.com/fb2/fbkweb/snapshot.do?ticker=TQMVX (Value)
http://www3.troweprice.com/fb2/fbkweb/snapshot.do?ticker=TQSMX&v_linkcomp=link&linkplmt=RN&v_link=findFundModule (SC/MC Core)
http://www3.troweprice.com/fb2/fbkweb/snapshot.do?ticker=TQGEX&v_linkcomp=link&linkplmt=RN&v_link=findFundModule (Global Equity)

@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.