Woulda, coulda, shoulda. It's fun grinding someone's face in the dirt isn't it.
So really, folks waited a half hour after the news to start selling a stock that just dumped on them. Really!?
I agree. Entry and exit plans should be laid out ahead of time for any investment. There was, and still is, plenty of handwriting on the wall with respect toward deterioration in the energy sector. However news events work in both directions. Not everyone can be glued to their electronic devices throughout the day in order to react to every wire snippet. We also have no idea other than digital fog clouds about an investor or their portfolio or their positions in same or any of the reasons why they invest in what they do. For all any of us know those recently bought shares could be add-ons to legacy shares handed down from great, great grandma who lived out her golden years on the capital gains and dividends they produced. Who knows!?
Yeah, I love I told you so's.
Edited to correct some typo's, increase clarity and also to add the following. Conoco' executives made a point of coming out nationally and making repeated statements about how safe the dividend would be. Either they were lying or incredibly incompetent plus too stupid to have a grip on reality. For cripes sake the company RAISED the dividend last year. Since they didn't foresee this being a problem one might postulate that managing a company of this nature and in this environment is not their strong suit.

I left his fund about two years ago, thankfully.

MikeM - I don't know about COP but in the case of another energy company, KMI, shareholder reports were for maintenance of the dividend at it's then current level with growth of that dividend increasing at a 10-16% clip for the next 1-2 years. A month later the dividend was cut by 75% with muted at best growth of that dividend projected. Lie. Lie. lie.

Hi @MJG,
Thanks for posting your thoughts on the January effect on the markets (S&P 500 Index) along with explaining your reasoning.
If investors have invested based upon their risk tolerance, goals, time horizon, etc. then this past January is a good opportunity for them to review how they are invested and make adjustments if this volatility brings them pause and makes them uneasy. Things have indeed changed over the past ten years. Thinking back my portfolio now generates about half the income of what it did ten years ago. After all, back then, I was getting about 4% to 5% interest on my cash area investments alone. Today, zilch.
Perhaps some have taken on more risk than they realize, in an attempt, to maintain income levels.
Old_Skeet

Fidelity used to offer Active Trader Pro as a courtesy to Private Client customers (though not level 2 quotes). They stopped doing that years ago, though.

@vkt This is interesting. Thanks for sharing. Could looking at the correlations between your RARE ratings and current 3 and 5 year measures for common statistics such as the Martin and Sortino ratios help to clarify what new information the RARE rating is providing? I took a quick look in MultiSearch using 3 and 5 years for a sample of the funds you ranked. Just quickly eyeballing things there appeared to be somewhat positive correlations except perhaps with YAFFX. Anyway, an evaluation tool like RARE seems like it could provide a useful additional metric to consider when evaluating a fund.......

Howdy @msf and @vkt
Overview of Fidelity's Active Trader Pro in link below.
At least 36 trades per 12 month rolling period, and more tools available for 120 trades and above. I do agree with @vkt regarding what is available with this program has value with helping to establish a better buy/sell.
I queried Fidelity about this a few years ago and attempted to download the program to a laptop. I/we didn't qualify for the program due to low trading volume. It didn't matter whether one could present a fact of having enough money within Fidelity account(s) to more than satisfy any other conditions and circumstances, including longevity as a customer. We still do not perform more than 36 trades/12 months.
I do understand their position.
I/we are very pleased with Fidelity over a 35+ year period.
Lastly, a few years ago I mistakenly purchased and then sold (to remove the mistake) a mutual fund within a two day period. This fund did have a short term trading period monetary fee ($fine). I called Fidelity and explained the "boo-boo" and the fee was never debited against the account.
https://www.fidelity.com/trading/advanced-trading-tools/active-trader-pro/overview
Regards,
Catch

@llljb, you have it exactly right. BTW, I had to correct the numbers in my previous post from a bug in my earlier script that didn't calculate the percentages correctly, so YAFFX comes out second best below SMVLX in the average but your conclusion is correct.
As I mentioned in the first post, an average is just half the story. It is easily affected by outlier values, hence the distribution is important. I didn't put all the numbers in this post so people's eyes wouldn't glaze over.
The only difference between an A grade and an E is the rarity of that outperformance while both have good average expected values. Most investment periods in YAFFX history over last 8 years wouldn't benefit from the small period in which it outperformed.
To give some concrete numbers, while YAFFX had an expected average outperformance of 12%+ over 5yr periods, the median was actually -12%+. So half the periods not only saw negative alpha but also by a significant amount.
In terms of percentile, 0 or getting the same returns as an index happened at 57 percentile so if investors had invested spread uniformly across those 8 years, 57% of those investors would have seen negative alpha after 5 years in the fund. Hence the term lottery ticket for this grade and lower than a B which would have a lower alpha expected average but majority of people would at least see a positive alpha if not the maximum. Mainly because YAFFX outperformance was in such a narrow period. This is what gets hidden in cumulative calendar year returns listed everywhere.
In contrast, SMVLX had a long enough outperformance periods that any 5 yr period in its history would have enough overlap with an outperformance period to enjoy positive alpha. 0 is at 0 percentile for 5yr returns. So, investing on ANY day in the last 8 years would have given you a positive alpha between zero and the best, so even with worst luck in timing, you would not have suffered relative to the index and may have enjoyed respectable positive alpha. Hence the highest grade.
What is surprising to me is how poorly highly rated T Rowe Price funds in this category have done in this metric. Haven't looked at them closely yet to see what the explanation might be.

I'm not fond of Fidelity's latest website, but then again, I've found each iteration worse than the one before. Anyone remember their old color scheme (years ago)? To me it had a more attractive shade of green.
Some of the changes they've made over time have been gratuitous, others designed to organize more and more types of information and transactions, while the most recent changes have been in part to offer a common mobile/desktop presentation. In doing so, IMHO they dumbed down (er, "simplified") the pages.
This is an instance of a design quandary that's been around for decades - do you design an application to look uniform across platforms, or do you design an application to follow conventions on each platform (and thus look different on each)? As you might infer from the paragraph above, I think Fidelity made the wrong choice in this case.
All that said, their current website is (again IMHO) much better than it was when they first deployed it for feedback. I stopped even looking at the first cut, I found it that unusable. This final iteration of their current design is much more usable than that initial pass.
Regarding clicks - the IBD metric for site performance (just one of 12 different factors going into the overall scoring) is described as considering three subfactors - speed, reliability, and clicks. So already we're down to a weighting of about 3% for number of clicks needed. The text talks about clicks for trading stocks. For that, Fidelity seems about as efficient as possible. Ckick on trade, get a dialog box (no moving off current page), input the trade info (you'll get a quote in the dialog box, no clicks needed), and away you go.
On the other hand, activities I care about, like bill pay, have gotten harder to accomplish. You used to be able to indicate that you wanted bill pay for a particular account and get there in one click. Now you have to go to a bill pay page, indicate which account you want to use, and finally land on the right page. Getting quotes (without using the trade dialog box) seems impossible. If you enter a ticker in the search box (which says "search or get a quote"), it brings up the research page. No current price to be found anywhere.
The bottom line is that some perceived problems have to do with lack of familiarity, some with a less than ideal design, and some with the particular tasks one cares about (which is why any particular review, like IBD, may think more highly or less highly of a site than you do).

Updated Feb 9 with SCG grading
A follow up from my earlier preliminary study that I have named Rolling Alpha Returns Exposé (tm) RARE analysis of mutual funds to identify if mutual fund returns are sensitive to when an investor holds them (more sensitive they are, less likely most investors would have realized the fund's best returns even if they held it for a long time).
Having finished the remaining programming to find the distribution of returns, I am presenting a grading system for mutual funds using the following grades. Selected funds with at least 8 years of history from The Great Owls and the top 20-30 ranked funds at US News Fund ratings. They show significant differences in the sensitivity to time periods.
The grading scale:
A - Over-achievers : Significant alpha over index returns (1% or more per year) and for most investment periods regardless of which 3 or 5 yr period you pick in the last 8 years. So most investors would have seen that performance.
B - Steady achievers : Respectable alpha over index returns (0.5 to 1% per year) for most investment periods
C - Closet indexers : No statististically significant difference from index returns for most investment periods.
D - Pretenders : While some cherry picked returns look good, less than index returns for most investment periods
E - Lottery tickets : Significant alpha for specific periods but underperformance for most investment periods
F - Failures : Statistically significant under performance for most investment periods
X - Toxic : Very poor returns relative to index for most investment periods except for an insignificant percentage of intervals so unless investors caught that interval would have suffered significantly relative to the index
Selected funds can be index funds themselves but using a different index or a narrower index than the sector index but measuring themselves againt it.
Grades for selected funds:
(*) indicates Great Owl Funds
Large Cap Core/Blend US Domestic Funds
A+
SMVLX
A
JENHX(*), VSBPX
A-
VSLPX
B+
VITPX
B
POSKX(*), AWEIX(*), VTCIX, NMIAX
B-
JPDEX
C+
NOPRX(*), DTMEX
C
FLCEX, VQNPX, VPMIX
C-
PRBLX
E
YAFFX
F+
GLDLX(*)
F
PRDGX(*), TRISX(*), PRCOX
F-
WMLIX
X
CAPEX, SLCAX, SCPAX
Large Cap Value US Domestic Funds
A+
FDSAX(*), DFLVX, DPDEX, BRLVX
A
NOLCX, BPAIX, DDVIX(*), TRVLX, VWNDX, LSVEX
A-
VUVLX
B+
VEIPX, DODGX
B
MPISX, EVSAX
B-
TILCX, HOVLX
C+
FLVEX
C
TFFYX(*), DIVIX
D
EQTIX
F+
LCEAX, ILVAX
F
MEIAX
X
FBCVX
Comments on LCV funds in the post below.
Large Cap Growth US Domestic funds
A+
FDGRX, NICSX, GTLLX
A
TRBCX, TPLGX, TRLGX, FBGRX
A-
PLGIX, FNCMX, JIBCX
B+
PRGFX, PARNX
B
POGRX, VHCOX, RDLIX(*)
C+
TILGX, FDSVX, TLIIX,TILIX
C
VPMCX, FLGEX
C-
EGFIX(*)
D
JICPX, HACAX
D-
BRLGX, VWUSX
F+
MMDEX(*)
X
FCNTX, PRGIX
Comments on the LCG fund grading in my comment below
Small Cap Growth US equity funds
A+
PRNHX, DCGTX
A
PRDSX, HSPGX, BCSIX, RSEGX, TRSSX, JGMAX, WFSAX, JANIX
A-
PPCAX
B+
OTCFX
B-
WGROX, LSSIX
C+
TSCIX
C
PLWAX
C-
HASGX, GWETX
D+
WAMVX
D
DTSGX, FCAGX
F
CCASX, QASGX
F-
TISEX, GSXAX, SGPIX, TSGUX
X
BRSGX, MPSSX, TCMSX
PS: I do realize it is egg on my face for criticizing SMVLX and starting this analysis to prove my hunch while it came out on top of all the other funds. Sometimes intuitions can be wrong and hence the need for analysis. This is why startups pivot when intuitions about their markets aren't supported in numbers later on. Shows I didn't design the analysis to prove my hunch as can be easily done with statistics!
It appears that this analysis could be applied between any two similar funds to decide which one is less likely to disappoint if you weren't lucky enough to be in it for its best periods. This can be ONE fund selection criterion say for example if you wanted to choose between POSKX and VTCIX. This would help even more when there is no good index to compare a fund to like allocation funds or multi sector funds. More of such results later.

@Crash
I don't think we are in for the 1930s right away. My way of thinking is what I have posted in the past we are in a sea change that people are not talking about - free trade, population growth, robotics, free movement of money and movement of mfg to lower cost areas causing deflation and hardship for worker.
So, I'm expecting a slow grind - years.
I don't the EU will change but they can show us what to expect a VAT to deal with the debt (for awhile) and social programs.

I have to assume he was just showing only funds that start with A - C because it looks like Vanguard Dividend Growth VDIGX beat those listed and also the S + P for 3, 5 and 10 years. Its been my choice as largest fund holding a while now, with additional money waiting on sidelines for a bit lower level.

Tradeking supposedly charges $9.95 to buy a no-load fund, and another $9.95 to sell one, regardless of the holding period. I contacted them a few years ago and was told that they charge no short-term redemption fees other than what an individual fund might charge for short-term trading. I've read that they offer 8000 funds. I've never bought or sold a fund through them, so can't vouch for their reliability. Their website seems to be down today, so maybe trying to trade funds through them would be a headache.

I think Scottrade is just coming more in line with its rivals. Tradeking is too obscure for my tastes. Just today and yesterday I paid out $160 more in fees to Scottrade than I would have prior to 2/1. In the good old days you could buy and sell funds with no fees whatsoever no matter how short your holding period. I had to adjust when they changed the rules to short term fees and will have to adjust again now that these fees have been raised.

Tradeking supposedly charges $9.95 to buy a no-load fund, and another $9.95 to sell one, regardless of the holding period. I contacted them a few years ago and was told that they charge no short-term redemption fees other than what an individual fund might charge for short-term trading. I've read that they offer 8000 funds. I've never bought or sold a fund through them, so can't vouch for their reliability. Their website seems to be down today, so maybe trying to trade funds through them would be a headache.

FYI: Dividend funds have underperformed the S&P 500 over the past 10 years after outperforming through the first seven years of the 10.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.investors.com/etfs-and-funds/mutual-funds/can-dividend-funds-get-their-mojo-back/

Vanguard Brokerage Services, like Fidelity, also imposes a $50 short term redemption fee for NTF shares sold within 60 days. There are some brokerages that do not add their own short term redemption fee to any that the fund might impose. When I posted on this three years ago, WellsTrade didn't add any short term fee of its own.
This may be obvious, but you can avoid all brokerage fees by buying funds directly.
You won't get access to institutional class funds that way (brokerages often reduce the min required), but if you're looking at short term positions, the 25 basis point difference between retail and institutional class shares won't add much to your costs.
Check into the fund family's wire fees - they're likely less than the broker would charge for a short term redemption, and wiring should give you access to the cash just as fast as selling at a brokerage. For example, DoubleLine's wire fee is $15 - less even than Scottrade's old $17 short term redemption fee.

We had an earlier discussion on PTIAX, where I said I'd contact the fund and get back on some of the details about the portfolio. I was finally able to speak at some length with one of the analysts, so here's the Cliff Notes version.
* Credit quality: The munis are basically A, with only a few BBBs and nothing below investment grade. For the mostly non-agency mortgages, it's the same thing Gundlach always says: credit ratings alone aren't very helpful for evaluating older, higher-yielding mortgages, since there haven't been any revisions since the typical downgrades of the financial crisis era. PTIAX invests only in prime and Alt-A, no subprime, so the credit quality of their holdings is comparatively good for the asset class.
* Duration: The munis fall in ~ the 7-8y range, and the mortgages (on paper, by the usual calculation) are ~ 4-5. (But see the 'graf below on their take on using duration as a metric.)
* Strategy: As is pretty obvious by the holdings, it's a strategy that attempts to balance risks. On the rate-sensitive side of the scale, as tax-exempt munis have moved into historical fair value range (based on the spread to Treasuries), they've moved some of that part of the portfolio to taxable munis, which they regard as still a decent value. They've also added a single-digit stake in IG corporates, but are going slow in that department and still regard IG corps as peripheral to the strategy.
* Duration and their process: they regard duration as interesting but not definitive, not in their top tier of evaluation metrics. For example, the mortgages they use in the portfolio, on paper ~ a duration of 4-5, typically don't move much if any when there's a rate bump. Their process, "Shape Management," starts with rate and credit-based analysis, but the critical piece is "a forward projection of a fixed-income security’s total return characteristics over a variety of interest rate scenarios, yield curve shifts, and time horizons." (The "shape" is the shape of returns under different scenarios.)
Thus endeth the dissertation. These guys are still very helpful; the delay in responding was apparently due to the ramping-up of the operation that's going on now.
Best, AJ
Edit to add: To clarify on the non-agency mortgages, they're what show on, say, the M* portfolio page as the below-IG part of the portfolio, based on the ratings of years ago, which the PTIAX folks think aren't very accurate today.

@lljb, thanks for the site suggestion. I explored it and the manual process on M* as well where you can enter start and end dates. But it is too laborious for the number of runs needed. If I had the raw data, I could probably write a script in less than an hour to do it but don't have any access to raw pricing data from multiple years and with corrections for distributions.
@expatsp, given that all market sectors go through cycles, one could have pretty much have an opinion on any combination of sectors as the place to be and they will be proved right some time. But what does that do to the investor portfolios meanwhile? Hussman is still waiting for his bear market to make money he has been losing. How can a retail investor evaluate whether a strategy will pay off or not? If they did, they wouldn't need a professional manager!
In baseball terms, it is the difference between a hitter that looks for a specific ball to hit and strikes out if he doesn't get it and one who takes the balls as they come and manufactures hits. I would much prefer my fund manager to be of the latter type even though the former might hit one out of the ball park much more dramatically when he gets the ball he is looking for and prepared for. The team might lose while he is waiting for it.

I remember reading some opinion pieces Smead posted (on Seeking Alpha, I think) soon after he opened the fund in 2008, and he made what at the time was a bold call: commodities were a poor investment and the U.S. consumer was going to bounce back. He invested appropriately (consumer cyclical, finance, and health are over 90% of his portfolio) and outperformed as a result, though it took a couple of years for him to be proven right.
Whether or not he was brilliant or lucky in making that big call I don't know (and I don't own the fund) but that big call explains both his early underperformance and subsequent recovery.
Which makes me think that there's no metric out there which can substitute paying attention to a manager's strategy. You all know what Mark Twain said about statistics, I'm sure...

@lljb, you are right. My first reading of those slides was wrong. He was badmouthing the critics not Bill Miller by quoting the badmouthing of Bill Miller by the critics. So, I take that part back and apologies to Mr. Smead for that mischaracterization.
The critics weren't doing anything other than echoing the sentiments of the passive indexing over active indexing crowd that saw the fall of Bill Miller as validation of their long-held views. I don't see this is necessarily foolish because there are good reasons for criticizing the performance of active managers as a whole.
Ironically, his argument against the criticism relies on the same calendar year metric that I show above can hide the performance real investors may see in the funds relative to the index.
Just to note, I am not doing an indexing vs active argument here. My point is that bad metrics make it difficult to select good active funds that may exist from bad/lucky ones.
Here is an idea for the site owners since they seem to have the data and the computing capability.
What if you computed a metric that calculated the 1yr, 3yr, 5yr returns as an average and variance to the index over multiple runs of the fund each with a single purchase at the beginning of each month since inception and held for that period of time? Right now, the metrics say what happens if investors purchase only at the beginning of the year which is very artificial and subject to gaming by fund managers.
Wouldn't this be a more valid indicator of what an investor coming across a fund and purchasing without paying attention to the calendar can expect from the fund? This would make explicit any destructive effect of the fund's volatility if they tend to be volatile and can burn investors. Would the great owls be still be great owls using this metric? If a fund had a long and distributed poor performance periods with some lucky short spikes then this would expose the destructive power of such underperformance even if the fund managed a tiny gain in enough years from such spikes to look great in current metrics.
The second metric would be adding a fixed investment every month for each run above as might happen in a retirement fund or a disciplined investing plan. This is for investors in the accumulation phase. The complement would be withdrawing a fixed amount each month during that run.
Isn't it worth doing this experiment if the current metrics have the potential of misleading investors setting false expectations of what a fund is likely to do even when future performance mimics past performance? Is it feasible or such metrics already available?