@prinx, PRECX is a fine moderate allocation fund, but you still need exposure to international equity for the next 20 years or longer.

I was intrigued many years ago, when the "Masters" funds appeared. I was skeptical re their E/Rs, so I figured I'd wait and see. Honestly, I'd kind of forgotten about them, til I saw this thread. Prompted by the thread, I decided to "look and see"....
Looking at trailing returns between MSENX vs. VFINX (S&p 500) and FCNTX (Fido Contrarian), there certainly does NOT seem to be any convincing evidence that the "master investors" are adding Alpha, above the fund's E/R..
MNILX? (the Intl fund)... I hold Artisan's ARTKX, which blows it away (though its closed to new investors). MNILX doesn't seem to have any evident advantage over Fidelity's FOSFX. I guess MNILX is 'OK', but again, the 'masters' don't seem to bring anything special in delivering performance.
As for small cap MSSFX, Vanguard's "no master" index fund VISVX convincing trounces MSSFX over trailing periods.
The numbers are what they are. An admittedly intriguing concept of owning a 'masters' vehicle, but implementation (along with the cost burden of high E/Rs) simply has not delivered, in this writer's opinion.

Loved MJG's response.
Not considering myself an investment expert of any sorts, I luckily chose dollar cost averaging in a field I know something about...... health. So a 30 year period of regular
contributions to Vanguard Health worked out well. Later I switched to T Rowe Price Health Sciences. I did not know much about any other field but eventually I read about
diversification and have since acted upon it. But my first approach was like throwing out a dart. Would it not be a scream if after another 20 years I wished that I did not learn about diversification and kept on placing money only in PRWCX?
prinx

I agree with Lewis (not surprising, really) with this small demurral: it is an "alternatives" fund if you define "alternative" as "not vanilla market exposure." If you're looking for 60/40 and think the the risk-return profile of the core stock and bond markets is reasonable, this doesn't add a lot of value but it does charge a lot in fees. If you're skeptical of the state of, say, intermediate-term investment grade bonds or the S&P 500 but you'd still prefer market exposure to a plethora of weird derivatives and inexplicable strategies, then this might have a role.
My greater concern is not with Alternative Strategies or even International (they're run through 22 managers over time and produced a good record, but simply investing with their first manager's flagship fund - Mark Yockey and Artisan International - would have been even better). My greater concern is with Focused Opportunities (liquidated), Value (liquidated), and Equity (which has parlayed 33 all-stars into decent returns since inception but poor ones over both the current market cycle starting in 2007 and the past ten years). Collectively they raise serious questions about either the possibility of finding a stellar collection of long-term domestic equity managers or the appropriateness of a total return measure (as opposed to one that's more sensitive to risk or process or some such).
David

Saturday's Barron's piece on the L-G Alternative Strategies Fund, "Managing the Managers," [http://online.barrons.com/articles/litman-gregory-manages-the-managers-1439013175] led me to take a look at the line-up of multi-manager funds that L-G has been running for a couple of decades (Equity, International, Smaller Companies). The basic idea is to hire the best managers, give each a slice of the fund, and give them the freedom to perform. Over the years, in my recollection, the line-ups have changed, but I recognize old-timers such as David Herro and Dick Weiss who are still on board. You'd think the funds would out perform because L-G can cherry pick good managers. However, my amateurish analysis of the long-term performance of the equity funds shows they barely keep up with their benchmarks. Small-cap managers are supposed to be able to add value: L-G's guys don't keep up with the Russell 2000. My conclusion is that a stable of well-known managers is no better than the nearest index fund.

Next crash. GROW goes to $0.25. Buy, sell at $2.50. That's my plan. Of course it would mean I buy a stock after like forever. And I have a history of buying stocks of companies that go bankrupt. But hey, if I don't bind it, maybe someone will and they will bless me.

You basically have a commodity fund that behaves like a 3x fund and a handful of other okay/so-so funds. Frank Holmes is well-researched in terms of commodities, but at some point they could have produced a nat resources fund that doesn't seem as if it's on steroids.
It's astonishing that this was $35 several years ago. PSPFX is cents above its 2008 low.

Hi JohnN,
Thank you for the Link to this Joshua Kennon article. Over many years I have been informed by his many fine financial articles. This one did not disappoint in that regard.
Kennon mostly directs his writings towards neophyte investors. After many years, I am not a novice investor, but since I have no formal training in that arena, my amateur knowledge base is somewhat spotty. It has holes that Kennon can and does fill.
Although I read Benjamin Graham’s “The Intelligent Investor”, it completely escaped my memory that Graham recommended a portfolio asset allocation that had a 25% bond holding floor and a 75% bond position ceiling. I didn’t recall these limits to his conservative investing approach. I wonder if his student, Warren Buffett, shares the same or similar portfolio construction constraints.
Best Wishes.

I found this one pretty damning from a June speech he gave to the CFA Society:
"Capital formation, as this process is known, is largely represented by the raising of equity capital for new and existing companies. In recent years, total public stock issuance (IPOs, etc.) has averaged some $250 billion annually. On the other hand, during the same period, the annual volume of stock trading has averaged $35 trillion. Thus, capital formation has represented just 7/10ths of 1% of the activities of our financial system, trading activity 99.3%. And much of that trading, to state what must be obvious, has nothing to do with long-term investment. In fact, much of that frenzied activity is merely short-term speculation. Our challenge is to return long-term investing to its starring role in the financial movie, not merely as a co-star or in a cameo role, nor as a mere extra."
What does this say about the functioning of our capitalist system to spur job creation, innovation and true economic growth when so much money is devoted to just paper trading hands and so little is actually devoted to new capital formation?

People who complain about things like this are labeled as "doomers" until the issue can't be ignored and then we hear about it as a "crisis" and the financial media of course goes, "who could have known?"
Hey, ZIRP was really great at creating something sustainable and not just another boom/bust, right? The fact that the dollar volume of ETFs traded has now gone past US GDP (and as you mention above, capital formation has represented just 7/10ths of 1% of the activities of our financial system, trading activity 99.3%) shows an economy not built on sand, right?

Yeah, Reckless monetary policy powered by absurdly short-term thinking only results in positives. Right.
It wouldn't surprise me if this is the "ultimate" bubble and things in the global economy look very different on the other side.
Now the he Chinese have devalued, the economy is weak, it would appear that there's a bust going on in oil that will very likely get worse and the Fed seems less and less likely to raise interest rates, or they'll raise 50 basis points only to come back down to zero which will look awful. Yeah, the economy couldn't take a rise in the interest rate of 50 basis points, but everything's just a-okay.
If we have another crisis at or near the zero bound after several years or ZIRP and multiple QEs, the Fed will have some explaining to do.
So hey, what's next? John Kerry is making threats about how the dollar may not be the reserve currency if the Iran deal isn't passed. Wouldn't surprise me if it just happened anyways.

So, again, my view is that this period ends badly. It's not a question of if, but a question of when.

I found this one pretty damning from a June speech he gave to the CFA Society:
"Capital formation, as this process is known, is largely represented by the raising of equity capital for new and existing companies. In recent years, total public stock issuance (IPOs, etc.) has averaged some $250 billion annually. On the other hand, during the same period, the annual volume of stock trading has averaged $35 trillion. Thus, capital formation has represented just 7/10ths of 1% of the activities of our financial system, trading activity 99.3%. And much of that trading, to state what must be obvious, has nothing to do with long-term investment. In fact, much of that frenzied activity is merely short-term speculation. Our challenge is to return long-term investing to its starring role in the financial movie, not merely as a co-star or in a cameo role, nor as a mere extra."
What does this say about the functioning of our capitalist system to spur job creation, innovation and true economic growth when so much money is devoted to just paper trading hands and so little is actually devoted to new capital formation?

Tell that to the Japanese - 25 years. I don't think we will have that type of decline and for so long. However, maybe a drop and then a trading range for many years - % and years your guess. The cause if you want: Fed foolishly raising interest rates, terrorist attack, war, and then VAT, raise in tax rates to pay for debt, war, aging pop, increasing entitlements.

The article is too focused on the US stock market. Through out history there have been stock markets that have crashed and burned.
Worry and be happy.

Actually, TGBAX is doing better than Fuss and Gaffney, not as well as Ivacyn and the Poobah. But why anyone would compare him with these is beyond me. Nothing has changed with the way TGBAX is managed. What HAS changed is the various world economies, and the dollar in relation to other currencies. Investors who bought this fund should have bought it for the diversification it adds to a portfolio, not for the returns that it had in any given year or time frame. Hastenstab is incredibly defensive right now, with a duration of 0.13 years and an average maturity of 2.36 years. We captured some significant gains a year or so ago, but we maintain our positions in the fund.

Thanks @ MJG for your comments.
Whether one agrees with my investment style or not ... I still wear a smile on my face much the same as I did years ago with my betting style and system that I employed many, many years ago when I visited the dog tracks.
While my betting style was not for everyone, it worked well for me. It was a simple system in which I bet historical fast dogs to win, place or show wagers when they were running in lanes that had a good probabilty of being in the money over the other lanes. Many would think that lane number one would produce a good number of money dogs; but, it did not. For me, I kept my bets mostly to fast dogs running in lanes two through seven with win, place, show betting on my best three picks.
Thanks again for stopping by and making comment.
Old_Skeet

"Although LSBDX has had about a 20% equity inclusion."
The fund has tended to add a little equity in recent years, but nothing over 10%. A higher equity position must have been a long time ago. Here's what I found in the (semi) annual reports over the past few years:
Common + Preferred Stock by report date:
3/31/15: 6.4% + 1.8%
9/30/14: 5.1% + 1.9%
3/31/14: 6.8% + 2.0%
9/30/13: 5.8% + 3.6%
3/31/13: 5.4% + 2.9%
9/30/12: 4.9% + 2.5%
3/31/12: 5.4% + 2.6%
9/30/11: 4.8% + 2.6%
3/31/11: 2.6% + 3.3%
9/30/10: 2.3% + 2.6%
3/31/10: 1.5% + 2.5%
9/30/09: 0.7% + 1.4%
3/31/09: 0.0% + 0.1%
9/30/08: 0.7% + 1.2%
3/31/08: 1.1% + 1.7%

Hi @ MikeM,
I know you are looking at top line performance which would consists of both income and capital appreciation (total return) as a major factor to pick your choices.
One of the things that is paramount for me is income generation with now being retired. I have chosen to pick funds that have respectful total returns but kick off a good income stream if held within my income and hybrid sleeves and I moved toward these type funds many years ago after I had reached my investment goal. Even today, I still maintain a growth & income area along with a growth area within my portfolio to keep pace or exceed inflation creep.
I have listed the yield for the funds you have made reference to. They are PRWCX with a yield of 1.23%, FBALX with a yield of 1.39%, FPACX with a yield of 0.60%, OAKBX with a yield of 0.78%, VWELX with a yield of 2.42% and MAPOX with a yield 2.42%.
The yield on my overall portfolio is much, much higher and according to M* is about 3.2% on valuation and better than 4% on amount invested. The income and hybrid sleeves generate a yield of about 4.25%. With this, my portfolio can make its distribution needs to supplement my income requirements without having to sell any securities. When you consider the profit that has been made from my spiffs from time-to-time I have a surplus of income generation. Then factor in the capital gains distributions made time-to-time form my mutual funds and with this I am well head of my income needs and can either grow my cash position and/or reinvest into my funds with the excess income generated.
Although top line performance is important it was not the only item I was looking for in selecting the funds that I currently hold as I was also looking for their ability to generate yield.
Thanks again for your participation and comments.
Old_Skeet

Had invested monies with Hasenstab; but sold this holding 3 years ago. Sold all of LSBDX in January. Although LSBDX has had some equity inclusion.
More to do with this investment area (global bonds) in general and not favoring one manager over another manager.
Edit note: I incorrectly noted a 20% equity position in the past with LSBDX. @msf has corrected this with his below report. Thank you, msf.
Fidelity via M* composition for LSBDX dated 5-31-15

Hi everyone,
I appreciate everyone's comments. Certaintly at times one strategy will lead another just as at times active will lead over passive and at other times passive will lead over active. I think one of the most important things, for any investor, is to start early in life and if nothing more put at least seven percent of what one makes aside for the future and not to spend everything that one makes.
I had buddies that made more than I did through the years and now seemed to have little to show for it now that we are in our sixties. Some have said to me from time-to-time I know I made more than you did ... but, now you seem to have little concerns when it comes to money ... and, well I seem to be short. How did you do it?
It is simple ... I saved through the years and around my age of fifty my portfolio had grown in size that I was making more through investing than I was taking home from my daytime job. So, as it has turned out, investing became the best job that I ever had; and, even though I have now retired from my daytime job I am still with my investing endeavors. And, I plan to keep on keeping-on.

Bee,I think you make good points on balanced funds going forward. But the individual investor has to contend with the same total return concerns outline by Ed Studzinski and yourself. My guess is 10 years from now, the amateur investor, which we all can be classified as, will not out-perform these well managed balanced or allocation funds. We may feel more secure to be in control and we may pick a benchmark our systems can beat, but we likely won't beat the Mairs and Power's, the Wellington group, the TRP allocation team, Romick's team and the many other well managed systems available.

I've held TGBAX for the past 6+ years. Pretty solid fund that at times acts like a stock fund. I generally like it but waffle about keeping it sometimes. As for the Ukraine impact, the fund's got like 2.5% exposure to the country, which to me is hardly worth worrying about, frankly.

I was a long-term holder of TTRZX & TGBAX (it was ~9% of my portfolio at one time). I sold, shortly after I became aware of his Ukraine bets, which was preceded by some time of underperformance.
I came to ask myself: would I, on my own, invest in ANY Ukrainian bonds? (not a chance, not a dime) Do I really want or need to be taking risks with the bond portion of my portfolio, to the extent that he was? I'd rather take the risks on the equity side of my portfolio.
I think the nature of some of the risks he take, are philosophically, not the kind I am prepared to take with bonds. My sense is that over the years he has gotten more "swing for the fences" in making bets. I'm not too comfortable with that type of manager in equities, let alone in bonds. But that is just me.
Just one opinion. Good luck.

Hi Old Skeet,
Congratulations to both you and your Engineer friend. You have each chosen separate investment pathways, but your common decisions to save and invest early in your earning lifecycle is yielding a huge payoff today. That’s no great surprise.
Every single financial advisor who has developed a set of financial rules recommends consistent savings and accepting the risks of investing. In his Zurich Axiom book, Max Gunther’s first axiom is to accept the risk challenge. He said: “Worry is not a sickness, but a sign of health. If you are not worried, you are not risking enough.”
It is amazing how many folks are not up to that challenge. I too have experienced the reluctance of smart and successful folks to engage in the investment world. They don’t consider it investing, but identify it as speculation or gambling. Among these folks, the deep recession of the 1930s has a long arm.
A long time ago, I gave lectures to senior citizens and High School age kids to encourage both savings and prudent investing. My single most effective graph when making the presentations was the comparative Stocks, Bonds, and Inflation historical chart. I know you are familiar with it, but here is a convenient Link:
http://www.morningstar.com/products/institutional/SBBI.pdf
This Ibbotson chart was a terrific deal closer. I was always surprised by how conservative folks were, and how uninformed they were with respect to inflation’s erosive impact.
The goal was to get these folks into the ballgame. What game they played and/or what position they took was far less important. “There is no one right portfolio, but there is one right for you.”
That saying comes from Larry Swedroe’s “14 Simple Truths”. It is Number 14 on his list.
I currently own a mixed portfolio of both actively and passively managed mutual funds and ETFs. I am moving in the direction of more passively focused funds, so I am now more inclined towards your engineer buddy’s program than yours. Some of the logic in doing so is captured succinctly by Swedroe’s Truths Numbers 2 and 3.
Truth 2 is that “The past performance of an actively managed fund is a very poor predictor of its future performance.”
Truth 3 is that “If skilled professionals don’t succeed, it is unlikely that individual investors will.”
I believe these are statistically correct with plenty of experimental data to corroborate them. Over my investing career, I have experienced both sides of those arguments. It is indeed a challenge to overcome the professionals’ advantages. As the professionals have become more knowledgeable, and compete more against each other, Alpha is a disappearing quantity.
I especially congratulate you on winning at this most difficult challenge with such a demanding, complex portfolio construction. Just the numerical size of your portfolio would overwhelm me. If fact, the primary reason I defected from a portfolio of individual stock ownership a number of years ago was that I just couldn’t stay current on 50 stock holdings. I wish you continued good luck and much success.
You might consider working on your hesitant cash holder friends to change their losing ways. You would be doing them an invaluable service. You might want to show them the referenced chart. I've now closed the circle of my post.
Best Wishes.