I generally don't discuss funds I've owned, but it's worth making an exception here, because this was a holding I went into with eyes wide open - taking a flyer despite knowing all the strikes against it.
PBHG Emerging Growth (PBEGX). Managed by Christine Baxter, the 25 year old daughter of the fund family's co-founder (Harold Baxter); a fund family focused on momentum investing (guaranteed to crash and burn at some point) - sort of like Janus on steroids if that was possible; and a fund family just as caught up in the 2003-4 fund scandals as was Janus.
As this M* column notes, PBHG wasn't well staffed with analysts and had high management turnover including Baxter, who stepped down at the end of 1999 after erratic and underwhelming performance (relatively speaking).
At least I sold it in early 1999 - on an absolute basis, the fund did great; on a relative basis it underperformed by more than 10%/year for several years (see link on Baxter stepping down).
Some people go to Vegas; I decided to spend my play money this way.

Hi @ MikeM,
Each of us have to run with what works best for each one of us.
I have my portfolio as a whole benchmarked against the Lipper Balanced Index and overall have out performed it through utilization of my sleeve management system which I have posted many times before and below again for those interested. And, yes ... I have most of the sleeves benchmarked against a standard and entered into Morningstar's Portfolio Manager as a portfolio by themselves. With this, I can check each sleeve along with the funds held within the sleeve for their daily performance, weekly performance, monthly performance, quarterly performance, year-to-date performance, one, three, five and ten years returns against a chosen benchmark the exception being the specialty sleeve which has no benchmark.
In addition, the use of special investment positions (SPIFFS), form time-to-time, have been a positive contributor to the portfolio's overall performance.
Old_Skeet's Sleeve Management System (06/26/2015)
Here is a brief description of my sleeve system which I organized to help better manage the investments that were held in five accounts. The accounts consist of a taxable account, a self directed ira account, a 401k account, a profit sharing account and a health savings account plus two bank accounts. With this I came up with four investment areas. They are a cash area which consist of two sleeves … an investment cash sleeve and a demand cash sleeve. The next area is the income area which consists of two sleeves. … a fixed income sleeve and a hybrid income sleeve. Then there is the growth & income area which has more risk associated with it than the income area and it consist of four sleeves … a global equity sleeve, a global hybrid sleeve, a domestic equity sleeve and a domestic hybrid sleeve. An finally there is the growth area, where the most risk in the portfolio is found and it consist of four sleeves … a global sleeve, a large/mid cap sleeve, a small/mid cap sleeve and a specialty sleeve. Each sleeve consists of three to six funds (in most cases) with the size and the weight of each sleeve can easily be adjusted, from time-to-time, by adjusting the number of funds and the amounts held. By using the sleeve system one can get a better picture of their overall investment picture and weightings by sleeve and area. In addition, I have found it beneficial to xray each fund, each sleeve, each investment area, and the portfolio as a whole monthly. Again, weightings can be adjusted form time-to-time as to how I might be reading the markets and wish to weight accordingly. All funds pay their distributions to the cash area of the portfolio with the exception being those in my 401k, profit sharing, and health savings accounts where reinvestment occurs. With the other accounts paying to the cash area builds the cash area of the portfolio to meet the portfolio’s monthly cash disbursement with the residual being left for new investment opportunity. In addition, most all buy/sell trades settle to the cash area with some nav exchanges taking place.
Here is how I have my asset allocation broken out in percent ranges, by area. My neutral targets are cash 15%, income 30%, growth & income 35%, and growth 20%. I do an Instant Xray analysis of the portfolio monthly and make asset weighting adjustments as I feel warranted based upon my assessment of the market, my risk tolerance, cash needs, etc.
Cash Area (Weighting Range 5% to 25%)
Demand Cash Sleeve… (Cash Distribution Accrual & Future Investment Accrual)
Investment Cash Sleeve … (Savings & Time Deposits)
Income Area (Weighting Range 20% to 40%)
Fixed Income Sleeve: GIFAX, LALDX, THIFX, LBNDX, NEFZX & TSIAX
Hybrid Income Sleeve: AZNAX, CAPAX, FKINX, ISFAX, PASAX & PGBAX
Growth & Income Area (Weighting Range 25% to 45%)
Global Equity Sleeve: CWGIX, DEQAX, EADIX & PGUAX
Global Hybrid Sleeve: CAIBX, IGPAX & TIBAX
Domestic Equity Sleeve: ANCFX, CFLGX, FDSAX, INUTX, NBHAX, SPQAX & SVAAX
Domestic Hybrid Sleeve: ABALX, AMECX, DDIAX, FRINX, HWIAX & LABFX
Growth Area (Weighting Range 10% to 30%)
Global Sleeve: AJVAX, ANWPX, NEWFX, PGROX, THOAX & THDAX
Large/Mid Cap Sleeve: AGTHX, BWLAX, HWAAX, IACLX, SPECX & VADAX
Small/Mid Cap Sleeve: IIVAX, PCVAX & PMDAX
Specialty Sleeve: CCMAX, LPEFX, SGGDX & TOLLX
I wish all ... "Good Investing."
Old_Skeet

That was also nearly 11 years ago... Liquidity in these markets is much different today.

As are the number of golden geese Wasatch has left :)

In another post talking about ARIVX, PressmUp brought in the concept of having multiple funds in the same category (or bucket or sleeve) to diversify management mishaps. Basically if one manager is having an off year another might be compensating with a good year. I know a lot of people here follow this concept and I understand the principle. My counter to this argument is that an index will give the same result of management diversification and the same or better returns over time. My own personal attempt at investing is to mix one favorite fund/manager in a category with the corresponding index. Hopefully a little alpha to outperform the index but even here I could be kidding myself. Of course this alpha fund has to have a system or process or be unique enoughto give alpha.
Just playing around, I used the 2 funds PressmUp mentioned and compared return to the one alpha fund plus index idea. Because all the funds mentioned were fairly new it is a very limited comparison. I took the funds in equal ratios, 50:50 since there were only 2 funds to play with. VVPSX and SCMFX were the funds PressmUp uses and I use 1 fund, GPGOX in the SCap space. I only took the last 3 1/2 years to compare all over an equal time frame.
50:50 mix of:
VVPSX + SCMFX averaged 16% / year from 2012 to 2015 YTD
VVPSX + Russ2000 index avg 17%
SCMFX + Russ2000 index avg 15%
GPGOX + Russ2000 index avg 17%
Russ2000 index alone avg 16%
All examples pretty close in return I would say. I also know my statistics are flawed in that I used 2015 with the same weight in the average as the other full years. But for quick and dirty comparison it works.
Now I'm more curious about people who have 3 or 4 or more funds in a category. Have you stopped to make sure that your manager diversification scheme actually benefits your return?
Are you willing to test your multiple fund selection?
For people with multiple funds in a category, would you be willing to make this comparison for information purposes? If you averaged your 3 or 4 or 5 small cap funds for example (any category really) and compare that to what you think is your favorite fund (if you had to pick just 1) plus the index, which method gives greater return? I'd be very curious to hear.

@PRESSmUP and heezsafe,
For now credit risk in VWITX is low comparing to Oppenheimer exposure to PR bonds. Since rates are will definitely be higher in the future, duration risk still persist in higher rate environment, but it is still manageable unlike long-term mini funds. Having said that, there are only few years where the annual total returns turned negatives since 1994 (2014, -1.56%; 2008, -0.14%; 1999, -0.50%, and 1994, -2.12%) when the interest rates range between 0.25 to 6%.

http://www.moneycafe.com/personal-finance/fed-funds-rate-history/

In the 80's when the interest rates were in double digits, this fund did not fared nearly as well. Given low inflation (by Fed's definition) and slow economy, rate hike will likely to be gradual over the next few years, and I can live with these unknowns.

Safe... I suppose so. As much as anything on this side of cash.
I have 2 years of spend in my taxable account in VWITX. I do know that VWITX has no Puerto Rico exposure, so that's a plus. On the bond side, I have absolutely no idea what is safe and what is not. If I can wring 1-3% out of a bond holding, I will be happy as a clam. I am glad that at this point, I don't look to bond income for my daily bread.
press

Yes, Scott is right. Eric Cinnamond's name has become synonymous with "value trap" manager. And he has been invested this way for years now. MFO has endorsed many good funds, but the endorsement on this manager turned out to be a loser over the last 4 1/2 years.
Hate to beat a dead horse, but this guy has been barking up the wrong tree with his investments. He has been over-weight in PM miners for years now. His inability to adapt or see that the market doesn't agree with his analysis is kind of Hussman-esq. Might he preserve capital in a down turn with all that cash? Sure, but how long do you give a manager to prove himself right? Personally, I got out of ARIVX a couple years ago because he was so over weight in mining stocks. Two years later, he still is.

other holdings, some bonds and equities are the drag on performance for both PDT and FFC. With an 8+% distribution, patience will pay off as in pervious years. Quality is the difference.

30 years in front of "eager learners" (Public School Industrial Arts...which transistorized into Technology Education...which morphed into STEM) will cause this. Thanks.

I don't have any junk bond funds because of the recent price action. And junk bond funds could well be on their way to only their fourth negative year (1994, 2000, 2008) since the Michael Milken fiasco in 1989/90. I would love to see a mini crash in this sector. But Josh Brown is really stretching it by invoking Jeff Gundlach (saying Mr Gundlach believes junk bonds could be the next big blowup) in his commentary on the imminent demise of junk bonds. Just last week Mr Gundlach was on CNBC saying he believes junk bonds are a **good** investment bet in 2015. He believes any debacle is a long ways off like 3 to 4 years down the road.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-07-15/gundlach-says-junk-bonds-will-be-debacle-in-3-to-4-years

If the chart included the the late 70s and the 80s and 90s, it's a totally different picture. One thing I learned as a futures broker in the 70s is never buy commodities, not even as a hedge. I can't tell you how many end of the world fanatics I have encountered over the past 40 years that have a huge portion of their net worth in gold/silver bullion/coins. Had that been in equities instead, they would be vastly richer by an untold amount.

A diversified allocation doesn't really care, since these things all tend to work themselves out. Over 10 years, growth has done better because of the last 3 and 5 years. Technology and health care have led the way, and these are rarely considered value sectors. Five years from now, we could be asking "when will value funds improve?"

FYI: Fifteen years is a long time, but it hasn't been enough to erase the poor average annual returns of growth stock mutual funds for that period. The average growth mutual fund rose an average annual 0.58% in the past 15 years vs. 7.28% for its value-style counterpart, 6.83% for core funds and 4.38% for the S&P 500, according to Morningstar Inc.
Regards,
Ted
http://license.icopyright.net/user/viewFreeUse.act?fuid=MjAwMTcwODY=
Enlarged Graphic:
http://news.investors.com/photopopup.aspx?path=WEBlv072215.jpg&docId=762773&xmpSource=&width=1000&height=1225&caption=&id=762770

That was also nearly 11 years ago... Liquidity in these markets is much different today.

Can anyone shed some light on the comparative performance of PRGTX to PRMTX? Are these two funds too similar to own both?
I own PRMTX. Aside from 08/09 and 2014, PRMTX has outperformed PRGTX eight out of the last ten years.

This is a report of how employees of national firms (such as Edward Jones) like their employer, not how customers like their advisors.
One cannot read the actual study (this is how companies like JD Powers make their money), but one can still go to the actual press release. That provides more (and often clearer) information than one gets elsewhere (rewrites of the PR).
The survey has been going on for many years (at least since 2008) - the rewrite said just the past two years. It is true that the survey was restructured in 2014, but it appears that the same 1,000 point scale was preserved. (I can't find any description of the scale, e.g. whether it is linear, or like M* ratings distributed unevenly.)
Here's the 2015 release, 2014 release, and 2013 release.
It seems that what the restructuring amounted to was using the same seven factors (e.g. compensation, operational support, etc.) in surveying all advisors post 2013, as opposed to using different factors for employee advisors (9 factors) and for independent advisors (8 factors). The older surveys also ordered the weighting of the factors differently depending upon whether the advisor was an employee or independent.
Not that I think any of this matters, but if one's going to read the results, one might has well have an idea of what they're talking about.

Yes, it would have been great to buy XBI a few years ago at the bottom. At my age, however, I would be too nervous to commit that much money at once after the run biotech has had. Much less anxiety to buy a little ETNHX...or FBIOX. Now, if we had a biotech pullback......

The more I read, the more I think VMVFX (and maybe a bond fund, if one doesn't want to view SS payments as a bond.)
I look at fees as a percentage of what I earned that year. If I pay 1% and earn 5%, I pay 20% of earnings. (VMVFX still costs me >6%.) If I lost money, I don't even want to go there. If someone had been with me from year zero (which NEVER would occur, because I was in debt at year zero), had advised me well, and I had on the average earned 5 to 8 X her charges yearly (10 x would be better), I'd probably be happy, even if she had taken 15% or more of my earnings.
But, if someone wants me to pay them $50K - $200K over 10 years, they had better promise me $0.5 to 1M better than VTI during that interval to justify their cost. If all they are offering is downside protection, they had better cost much less. (Timing may be everything, but it's extremely difficult, and you probably still lost money.)
Since I don't believe it is 4X more difficult to advise a $2M portfolio than one of $500K, I would opt for hourly reimbursed advice even if it's padded by a couple of hours, if I trust the adviser.

International/Global Stalwarts looks interesting, and perhaps they'll stay open a little while longer because of the slightly larger size. Honestly with the microcap fund, this might go small enough that it compounds in the high teens especially since it won't make it past 25 million.
Their funds have done well over the past few years, but with hundreds of holdings, it's hard to believe there are that many attractive companies, despite the universe of stocks they choose from. I'd love to see a focus fund with almost no turnover should they launch something after these three.
I didn't pull the trigger last time on gpiox, but I could definitely consider these for part of my foreign allocation.

@hank. Your comment on the tomatoes reminds me of the 1973 film Soylent Green where I think one went for $250. Actually over the years my attempt at growing tomatoes in my back yard is similar. After buying the plants, the best soil, the mulch, plant food, I figure each tomato I would get cost at least $25.00. Growing them in the strong New Mexico sun and summerheat not like growing them in my former east coast home.