An interesting article that comments in some detail about Franklin Income which is Old_Skeet's largest holding, other than cash, as it accounts for about six percent of my overall portfolio and a fund I have owned since the 60's. Considering the dividends I have collected through the years it could go to zero in value and I would still have made money through collecting it's distributions. For me the best time to buy more of it is when it's valuation is towards it's fifty two week low. However, being that I own a slug of it now ... I'll continue to collect the disbursements that it makes and let my principal float as it's valuation changes.

FYI: The onetime mutual-fund rock star says the famous advice isn’t quite so simple.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/peter-lynch-25-years-later-its-not-just-invest-in-what-you-know-2015-12-28/print

Thank you all for your answers. I still have some doubts selling funds to recognize loses.
My specific situation is following:
I started MF investing only1-2 years ago and practically all my MF purchased this year experienced loses after dividend payments and year end capital gain distributions. To recognize the loses I would need to close almost all my positions. Is it really a good idea?
For examples my 2 best funds PRWCX and PONDX. Their prices now are the lowest in 2 years. That means all my contributions (including reinvestments from capital gains and dividends) to these funds during that time have loses. Do you recommend to sell them now with intension to purchase again in a month? (For closed to new investors PRWCX that probably means selling not 100%).

Mutual funds that might be useful in replicating - to some degree - the soon-to-vanish SPHQ (an E.T.F. that currently follows the S&P High Quality Rankings Index) would seem to include the following:
DRIPX: The MP 63 Fund http://portfolios.morningstar.com/fund/summary?t=DRIPX
MPGFX: Mairs & Power Growth Fund http://portfolios.morningstar.com/fund/summary?t=MPGFX
VDIGX: Vanguard Dividend Growth Fund http://portfolios.morningstar.com/fund/summary?t=VDIGX
The first fund [DRIPX] is obscure but available at TDAmeritrade.
ETFs that could be used to construct similar exposure include:
FTCS: First Trust Capital Strength http://portfolios.morningstar.com/fund/summary?t=FTCS
NOBL: ProShares S&P Dividend Aristocrats http://portfolios.morningstar.com/fund/summary?t=NOBL
SPLV: Powershares S&P500 Low Volatility http://portfolios.morningstar.com/fund/summary?t=SPLV
VIG: Vanguard Dividend Appreciation http://portfolios.morningstar.com/fund/summary?t=VIG
XRLV: Powershares S&P500 Ex Rate Sensi L V http://portfolios.morningstar.com/fund/summary?t=XRLV
However, I have mixed feelings about the third and fifth ETFs [SPLV & XRLV], since they are offered by Invesco Powershares, the same folks that are in the process of monkeying with (i.e., IMHO destroying) SPHQ by switching its index to one that has a very different exposure - in terms of sectors and industries - than that (currently) used by SPHQ when it was posting it's admirable record over the last 5 years or so.
Keeping it 'simple' (HAH!), a 50/50 blend of MPGFX and SPLV appears to have very similar exposures and performance, based on historical performance (and for 2009 - 2011, when SPLV did not exist for full year,using SPLV Index returns from S&P website less SPLV tracking error of 26 bps from E T F.com).
Looking at individual holdings of each...

MPGFX owns 50 stocks
SPLV owns 100 stocks
SPHQ owns 132 stocks (current index, until March 2016)
The 50/50 blend of MPGFX & SPLV has 139 stocks. There are 11 stocks shared between MPGFX & SPLV, representing about 19% of the balance of the blended 50/50 portfolio.
Comparing the "BLEND" (MPGFX+SPLV; 50/50) with SPHQ, there is an overlap of 61 stocks. This represents, by dollar balance, 45% of BLEND and 49% of SPHQ.
Of course, most of the "heavy lifting" is being done by SPLV, since both it and SPHQ are subsets of S&P 500. Comparing SPLV only with SPHQ, 51 stocks are shared between these two ETFs. They represent, by balance, 51% of SPLV and 39% of SPHQ.
Again, let me know - via a post here - if you folks come up with other potential 'substitutes'. Thanks.

I owned this fund a few years ago. Had it for a year then dumped it. "Broken" might be too harsh as to the reason why I dumped it , it just did not meet my expectations and it just wasn't going anywhere, maybe down a few percent overall while I owned it. I see that it is down 6% YTD. FWIW, my recommendation is it is not worth holding, and I am a person who is not averse to holding such alternative investments.

there *likely* will not be any good candidate, only the lesser of all the evils. hate to say it but at this point i'd probably go with jeb if he somehow *fluffered* up the rankings at the last minute. HC vs JB, JB would maybe get my vote, but as I said before, I think HC will ultimately get the nod, whereupon we'll have at least four (more) years of a country divided and at war with itself, at the very least.

Some years I do, others I don't. I look at AGI figures as well as how much tax I'm going to pay. There are reasons why one wants to control AGI (e.g. eligibility for Roth contributions, taxation of SS, etc.).
So my personal answer is: yes I sell losers to offset gains, but no, not necessarily for the purpose of reducing taxes.
Since I am focused on AGI, one of the cons of selling when one doesn't need the loss to reduce AGI below a threshold is that one does not have the loss available to use next year when one might need it.
Another con is that you cannot immediately repurchase the same, or substantially identical fund (e.g. swap one S&P 500 index fund for another, though there's never been a ruling on that). This is rarely a big deal as you can usually find a reasonable substitute. Still, if it's a unique fund you're selling ...
Wash sale rules apply to MFs, so you need to watch out for automatic reinvestments. I usually turn them off before I'm expecting to sell. Otherwise they can trigger wash sales. But if you're liquidating (permanently or at for least 30+ days), those reinvestments don't matter - you'll get the whole loss.
A pro of taking losses with MFs (as opposed to individual stock) is: if you sell before December distributions, you avoid getting taxable dividends. It comes out even (selling before or after distributions) if all the dividends are cap gains and qualified income. But if any of the divs are nonqualified income, you're better avoiding them by selling before the distribution.
With stocks, the dividends are generally qualified, so you can't reduce your tax liability the same way with this maneuver.
Another pro of doing loss harvesting with MFs as opposed to stocks: with MFs, you have a choice of average cost or actual cost. If you're selling in a down market, using average cost will reduce the cost of your short term shares (increasing your short term losses) and increase the cost of your long term shares (decreasing your long term losses). That's a good thing, since short term losses can be more valuable than long term losses.

Prefer to use cash and patience instead. Having tracking a number of alternate strategies for the last several years, only sure thing is that the fund managers are paid very nicely.

FYI: (Click On Article Title At Top Of Google Search)
Years of discord ended in a final showdown, with CEO David Barse escorted from the building.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.google.com/#q=How+the+Third+Avenue+Fund+Melted+Down+wsj

FYI: Investors pulled more money from U.S. mutual funds last week than they have in any seven-day period in the past two and a half years.
Net redemptions reached $28.6 billion in the week ended Dec. 16, according to a statement from the Investment Company Institute, a trade group. It was the biggest weekly outflow since June 2013, ICI data show.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-12-23/investors-pull-most-money-from-u-s-mutual-funds-in-two-years

Tom Tobin suggests there are reasons to be wary of health care investing in 2016. The article provides numerous things to consider. Here are a few excerpts:
"From the beginning of 2013, the year before the roll out (of Obamacare), to the peaks of 2015, the S&P 500 was up +47.8% while the XLV nearly doubled that effort by rising +91.1%. For the hospitals, who likely saw the most incremental benefit, increased patient volume and less unpaid charity care led to stock returns of +141.6%. In small terms, a $10,000 investment in a basket of hospital stocks would have peaked a few months ago at over $24,000. In big terms, the XLV added an additional $5.0 billion in market capitalization over the same period going from $12.7 billion to $18.7 billion. The reason the portfolio returns were so big is because the tide of newly insured medical consumers was so large; the largest in over 30 years by our estimate."
"Heading into 2016 we will enter a period we are calling the #ACATaper, when the benefits of millions of new medical consumers and the money to pay for their care tapers off back to slow to negative growth and the industry resumes grappling with the litany of cost pressures that existed before Obamacare, and will certainly exist after it."
"The ACA has created a year-over-year comparison so enormous that healthcare stocks will probably unwind rather violently. In fact, there is already evidence that the taper is underway as we have already seen an abrupt about-face for the industry."
"Beyond 2016, there are additional industry headwinds to consider which the ACA either masked or exacerbated. Demographics are putting downward pressure on pricing as Baby Boomers are graduating into Medicare leaving their employer-based commercial insurance behind."
"One of the great alterations that Obamacare made to the U.S. Medical Economy, among the many others, is the rise of information technology in the delivery of healthcare. The highly likely outcome over the years to come is that Americans receive better care at a cheaper price; a crazy idea after 50 years of excess healthcare inflation. Breaking the inflation cycle will be one of the great benefits of Obamacare."
"For now, given what we think unfolds in 2016, we would encourage investors to approach healthcare stocks with extreme caution in the short term. That’s why our list of shorts is far longer than our longs these days, and it’s going to be a while before that changes."
See: http://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/122115/why-perfect-storm-brewing-healthcare.asp

FYI: High-yield bond ETFs and mutual funds have stoked a lot of recent chatter, not all of it good. Meanwhile, smart investors have quietly bid up exchange traded funds holding preferred stock, a hybrid security.
Preferred stock ETFs are an ideal choice for investors seeking income with low volatility, says Monish Shah, head of ETF trading at Mizuho Securities.
Regards,
Ted
http://license.icopyright.net/user/viewFreeUse.act?fuid=MjExNzI2MDM=
( Regular MFO Members are aware that the linkster has recommend PFF for a number of years)

Treasury Bills Beat Oil 30 Years On
Posted on December 22, 2015 by David Ott Acropolis Investment Management
The annualized standard deviation of monthly returns for WTI spot was 25.21 percent. To put that in perspective, it was 16.86 percent for the S&P 500 during the same period, which include the tech bubble/burst and the 2008 financial crisis.
That’s right, oil was 50 percent more volatile than stocks, but it yielded lower returns than Treasury bills over a 32 year period.

The orange line below takes the historical prices and puts them into today’s dollars ... I find it remarkable that oil was trading at the equivalent of $65 per barrel when the data first started (1983)compared to the $35 level today.

http://acrinv.com/treasury-bills-beat-oil-30-years-on/
Update 12/23/15 Oil and Energy Stocks
Posted on December 23, 2015 by David Ott
One of my favorite long-timer readers asked me today to follow up on the chart from yesterday to include the performance of energy stocks
The best quality sector data from S&P only dates back to 1989, so this data set isn't quite as long as what I showed yesterday, but the story is basically the same and I have to admit that I was surprised by how well energy stocks have done over the last 25 or so years.
In fact, despite the absolute bear market in energy stocks, which have fallen by about a third since their peak last year, they are still outperforming the S&P 500 when you look at the entire period. (1989-present0
In that same vain, when we look at this shortened period, WTI crude has kept pace with inflation, unlike the chart yesterday that showed crude failing to keep up with inflation - it just goes to show how so much data is period specific.

http://acrinv.com/oil-and-energy-stocks/

if I sold off some of these funds, to reduce their number, with one being held since to my teenage years (FKINX).
And, so it goes ...

I had that plan when I was young but go sidetracked. I wish I would have stuck with it.

Hi @Dex,
Thank you for your questions.
I am retired. Catching pension income, social security income and drawing on investment income when needed. In addition, being a former corporate credit manager, I do some consulting work form time-to-time.
To run my portfolio form a win, place, show perspective requires at least three funds per sleeve. And no, I have not given much thought to reducing the number of funds held for many reasons one being having to pay large capital gains if I sold off some of these funds, to reduce their number, with one being held since to my teenage years (FKINX).
And, so it goes ...

MANNING & NAPIER has been a wonderful financial investment house from my neck of the world (Fairport NY, an affluent suburb of Rochester) for many years. Recently they bought a majority holding in Rainier Investment Management. I wonder if closings like this will be a consolidation of similar type funds from these companies.

@ Old_Skeet - an impressive collection of funds. Do you have a benchmark that you measure your portfolio's performance against? How have you fared over the years?
I now use mostly index funds for equities, mostly actively managed funds for fixed income and only actively managed funds for my "non-traditional" alternatives (long-short, managed futures and equity market neutral). I was fortunate to have bought into some AQR alternative funds before the minimums went through the roof (at least on Fidelity, for taxable accounts).

@Mona, over the years I had enough of paying IRS on distribution even in down markets. Since vast majority of active managed funds failed to out-perform their respective indexes, getting the boring index level return is good enough for us. So on taxable accounts, we use exclusively index funds and ETFs to minimize the tax consequences. Granted that dividends will be tax according to our tax bracket, but at least I can minimize short term and long term capital gains. </blockquote
Sven,
If you are invested in Vanguard Index 500, 100% of the dividends were qualified. In Vanguard Total Stock Market Index, 95% were qualified. And for another example, if you are invested in Vanguard Mid-Cap Index, 86% were qualified.
https://personal.vanguard.com/us/insights/article/estimated-yearend-distributions-122015
Qualified dividends are taxed at 0%, 15% and 20%, the latter if you are in a 39.6% tax bracket. So unless you are making a lot of money putting you in 39.6% tax bracket, you are paying no higher tax rate on your qualified dividends than you would would pay on Long-term Capital Gains.
Mona

For the past 4 years or so I was in ARTLX, it seemed each year at distribution time that the IRS was the big winner.

@Mona, over the years I had enough of paying IRS on distribution even in down markets. Since vast majority of active managed funds failed to out-perform their respective indexes, getting the boring index level return is good enough for us. So on taxable accounts, we use exclusively index funds and ETFs to minimize the tax consequences. Granted that dividends will be tax according to our tax bracket, but at least I can minimize short term and long term capital gains.
The other thing to watch for in international funds when currency hedging is used. All the contracts will pay out as short term capital gains.

@David, Stephen Yacktman has been listed as a manager of the Yacktman Focused Fund since 2002 so part of its record must be attributed to him, for better or for worse. He seems competent and intelligent whenever I speak to him, although my reading about this family indicates that there are some significant personality differences between father and son. In the press Don Yacktman has always been painted as more reserved and less flashy than his son. But I don't know if that's true. Back in the 1990s I used to interview Don Yacktman and Jean Marie Eveillard every week for a column called Dueling Portfolios and Don Yacktman seemed pretty passionate to me. It's hard to say if some of the skill one person possesses passes from parent to child in any field. I think fundamentally the Yacktman Focused Fund's strategy is a sound one for conservative investors who know what they're getting into. That conservatism and value orientation can lead to years of underperformance in the wrong kind of market. Returns by default will be lumpy, but the underperformance one would expect should be more on the upside than the down. Oddly enough, the 1990s was another really dry period for Yacktman's style so when I was interviewing him there was a lot of pressure from shareholders for managers like him and Eveillard to load up on tech stocks. Today his style is again out of favor. I expect that to change as the bull market ends.