I hadn't thought about WTIFX in a long time either, Slick; had it on watch for a while but never bought in. A few years ago it was predominately in industrials; now, from a quick look, it's 3/4 or so in industrials, tech, and consumer discretionary, and has been getting killed - close to dead last in the category for 2014 and 2015. No wonder they reopened it.

I came to the same decision point several years back and picked TROW - better long term growth potential.

District: VWINX is slated to be a long-term holding for me -- targeted to be 20% of my portfolio as I near/go into retirement. So I am biased. With that caveat, here is a thought...
Our current bull-market is long in the tooth. There is a high likelihood the stock market will encounter a "bear" within the next 3 years (for all we know, we may already be in one). If this sounds reasonable, I would suggest that purchasing the lower-beta of the 2 funds (VWINX) would make sense. If (when) the bear commences in earnest, and the stock market is significantly off its highs, you could then swap VWINX for VTMFX -- you may be "lucky enough" to realize a modest loss for tax-purposes at that time. -- And taking a position in the higher-beta fund only after investor sentiment (and prices) are less exuberant. ---
The "worst" that could happen if you did the above, is that we would experience no bear market for a prolonged period. -- In which case, you would still be holding a superb fund (VWINX)....

This ties in with my question in another thread regarding the calculation of long-term profit or loss.
I "spent" a certain amount of money investing in RPHYX. Over the years there have been lots of distributions, and unhappily, movement downward in the NAV. So how has that investment done? Do I now have more or less than what I put in, and by what percentage? (And is that more or less than keeping up with inflation?) While I do keep track of all of this on a spreadsheet, there's no way that I'm going to take the time to account for each and every distribution of each and every fund as an additional amount invested. I don't really care about that. All I need to know is do I now have more or less than I put in.
I'm grateful for the responses that I received regarding this question.

Hi @davidmoran,
A couple of the funds I have own since I started investing back when I was a teenager. These two are FKINX & AMECX, let's see I am sixty seven now. Then there are others that I have owned for more than ten years. As yes, I do fire some fund managers from time-to-time should their funds falter. One of the more recent funds that had been faltering, for a good while, and one that I let go was PASAX. Should have done it a year ago.
Thank goodness that the other funds within the sleeve have been performing well and offered production that continued to propel the sleeve. This is one of the benefits of the sleeve system. Should a fund falter then there are the others that can provide support and continue to propel the sleeve. In this case that is exactly what took place.
And, so it goes.
Peace.
Old_Skeet

And if you have no capital gains at all, you also get full credit against your ordinary income.

I understand your point, but this is not entirely correct. :-)
The ability to apply capital losses against ordinary income is capped at $3K. While you might not have any capital gains, you might have capital losses elsewhere bringing your total losses to over $3K. Or you might recognize losses in RPHYX itself above $3K.
That could happen if you let those losses pile up for several years before recognizing them.
Point taken, though.

For those that have a number of accounts along with a good number of mutual funds I formulated a sleeve management system that has helped me greatly. It might also provide you with some ideas that you can incorporate in something you might choose to develop for yourself.
The article speaks to a concern no doubt many have; but, it falls short and fails to offer direction as to how to solve the concern other than to go see a financial planner.
For those interested ... Here is what I did and I it found that it worked so well for me that I have chosen to stay with probally more funds than I absoutely need as I could probally reduce the number down to about thirty (three per sleeve) and still incorporate my system.
The system was derived from a betting system I used at the dog track many years ago. In this system I'd usually bet ten races and in these races I'd bet my three best picks in each race to win, place or show. Folks, I usually left the track with more money than I came with. So, for me, my system worked even better than I first thought it ever would. Even today, I still make an occasional trip to Daytona (visting friends) and bet the dogs using my system ... and, I still wear a smile as I usually come away with more money than went with.
Some ask me ... How you do you do this? If they were readers of the Observer then they would know. My wife knows, but our friends don't. So let's keep it to ourselves.
My Investment Sleeve Management System (09/02/2015)
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 monthly; and, the portfolio as a whole at least quarterly although I do it 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 from or 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 on 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, JNBAX & 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, 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 & VNVAX
Specialty Sleeve: CCMAX, LPEFX & TOLLX
Over the past 90 days, or so, the four most recent additions are AJVAX, GIFAX, JNBAX & VNVAX. The four most recent discards are CFLGX, DEMAX, PASAX & SGGDX. Total number of funds currently held equal fifty.
I wish all ... "Good Investing."
Old_Skeet

This fund has an ER of 2.4. That's a pretty high hurdle to overcome if you agree it's going to be low return scenario for years to come.

Hi Guys,
Like Edmond, I don’t have a horse directly in this race. I select the mutual funds that I own without a Socially Responsible Investing (SRI) criterion. My uniformed overarching belief is that any additional constraints imposed in the selection process reduces the candidate fund list, and could potentially harm performance.
Thanks to the excellent reference that MFOer LewisBraham provided, the accumulated research indicates that my fears were imaginary. In that report, the authors conclude that 9 academic studies find neutral or mixed performance results, and even one instance of outperformance. The models suggest that outperformance is a doable goal from a theoretical perspective, but that optimistic assessment is not executed practically by fund managers. See page 61 for these conclusions.
So, adding a SRI criteria in the selection process does not necessarily hurt returns, although, as in all investment decisions, it must be executed prudently. It might not do an investor any good, but it will not break the back of his portfolio either.
I have a nearby neighbor who actually worked on a solar farm in the late 1970s. He is not a fan of these farms. At that time efficiency was poor. The farm was located in the Southern California desert region. His negative anecdotal assessment was not base on the relatively poor energy conversion efficiency, but rather on the excessive water requirements to keep the solar panels clean. That solar plant has shuttered its panels and has been abandoned.
Solar panel efficiency has improved remarkably since those early days. But even after 40 years and countless tears from working the problems, our primary energy sources have not changed very much. How much? Here is a Link to a superior summary generated by the International Energy Agency:
http://www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/keyworld2014.pdf
I invite you to scan this informative report. On page 7, the document shows the world’s Total Primary Energy Supply (TPES). The presentations graphically display energy consumption from the early 1970s to 2012. A pie chart comparison of the energy contributors in 1973 and in 2012 allows a rapid assessment of trends.
After decades of resourceful trying and skillful engineering, coal, oil, and natural gas remain the world’s primary energy sources. These 3 sources still provide over 80% of the fuel shares. Meanwhile, in the “other” category (geothermal, solar, wind), its share of the energy marketplace has advanced from 0.1% to only 1.1% over this 4 decade timeframe. This is not a brave new world signal. Progress in the “other” category is painfully slow.
There will be no eureka energy source moments in the near future. The fuel sources that govern the marketplace today will also be major factors for decades. The data show that coal production has steadily risen in the last 4 decades. These “other” sources have been experimentally explored for decades and are now respectably mature contributors. Don’t anticipate major innovations or efficiency improvements.
For example, solar photovoltaic cell efficiency can be significantly enhanced (to numbers approaching 30%) by using rare element materials like gallium arsenide. But that is not likely to happen. Why not? Rare element materials are extremely costly, and more importantly, universal scale limitations exist because rare element materials are “rare” (what a shocker).
There is some hope that thin-film gallium arsenide might prove doable. Let’s hope so. At this moment Gallium arsenide costs 1000 times more than an equivalent product made from silicon. The current goal is to reduce that differential from 1000 to 100. That’s still a long way from home.
The International Energy Agency report also shows consumption and production data on a country-by-country basis. Additionally, the document provides future energy projections that just might be useful when making an investment decision. For those of you considering energy investments, this referenced report just might give you an edge.
Progress in the energy field will be made, but only slowly and with many missteps. That’s science. In that context, keep John Maynard Keynes cautionary warning in the forefront: “Long run is a misleading guide to current affairs. In the long run we are all dead.”
Good luck and good research to all MFOers.
Best Wishes.

meconti:
Thanks for note. I think [can you confirm] that you are talking about the table that appears on the bottom of "Page 9", which I agree is a complex mess.
HOWEVER, the linked document ALSO contains a table that appears on the left side of "Page 28". [*]
That table includes performance for 3 months, 6 months, 1 year, 3 years, 5 years, 10 years, and [wait for it] "since inception".
If you look at that table - which compares the Baron Small Cap Fund to the R2000 Growth & the S&P500 indices, it is clear that the fund has under-performed both, *consistently* for the last 3 months, 6 months, 1 year, 3 years, 5 years, and 10 years.
Another way to see this is to look at the M* [Performance] tab for this fund:
http://performance.morningstar.com/fund/performance-return.action?t=BSCFX
for these periods. If you do - as of 09-02-2015 - you will see that the fund has been resting fairly consistently among the bottom (worst) third or so of its peers for the last 3 months, 6 months, 1 year, 3 years, 5 years, and 10 years.
To almost coin a phrase, there is no need to feed this dog. This dog won't hunt. Thanks to the folks at Baron for providing (diligent at least) investors with the table (on Page 28) that shows the weakness of the fund.
[*] Note: If someone knows how to link images and has the time, that would be a great help! Thanks [!] in advance [?].

In response to the original post, I found an even more deceptive depiction of performance in the most recent Baron Funds quarterly report. I don't know how to insert the table from the report (p. 9 of report). I hope this link works.
baronfunds.com/BaronFunds/media/Quarterly-Reports/Quarterly-Report-063015.pdf
When I looked at the table, I said to myself, "Huh?" There are column headers for 10-year, 5-year, and 3-year returns along with average excess returns. I had to study the table and footnotes for 30 minutes to see what they did. At first (and second) glance, one would get the impression that BSCFX has been performing wonderfully. By using the entire history of the fund, they have whitewashed over its "recent" performance. BSCFX uses the Russell 2000 Growth Index as its primary prospectus benchmark. I looked at returns of BSCFX compared to the ETF IWO (iShares Russell 2000 Growth ETF). If you were a new investor, or added to your account in the past 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, or 13 years, you would have trailed the ETF/benchmark, and with a higher tax cost ratio.
Number of Years Cumulative Return BSCFX
Begin Date End Date BSCFX IWO Annualized Underperformance
6/30/2002 6/30/2015 13 226.34% 252.77% -0.66%
6/30/2003 6/30/2015 12 223.88% 250.71% -0.73%
6/30/2004 6/30/2015 11 156.60% 167.07% -0.40%
6/30/2005 6/30/2015 10 120.37% 156.46% -1.65%
6/30/2006 6/30/2015 9 104.96% 124.22% -1.09%
6/30/2007 6/30/2015 8 71.40% 92.24% -1.54%
6/30/2008 6/30/2015 7 99.71% 115.67% -1.22%
6/30/2009 6/30/2015 6 154.73% 186.54% -2.31%
6/30/2010 6/30/2015 5 113.90% 142.93% -3.00%
6/30/2011 6/30/2015 4 51.67% 69.41% -3.11%
6/30/2012 6/30/2015 3 57.98% 73.93% -3.80%
6/30/2013 6/30/2015 2 27.52% 40.43% -5.58%
6/30/2014 6/30/2015 1 4.05% 12.54% -8.49%
I found Baron's report egregiously deceptive. When this fund was new and nimble, it sidestepped the dot.com debacle. Since then, its quacks like an index fund with a grossly high 1.30% ER. Even as assets continue to overwhelm this fund, it continues to charge a 0.25% 12b-1 fee to attract even more assets.

@msf
Thanks msf for your comment. I'll give it consideration. My portfolio was born and grown, for the most part except for my 401k, profit sharing and health savings account, with A share development through the past forty years, or so; and, as such, I can now buy a good number of A shares funds at nav or at a discounted price.
One of the crafty ways I found, years ago, was to buy A shares in a family's fixed income funds that usualy had a lower sales load, hold them for the required period of time (usually 90 days), and then do a nav exhange to the equity fund product that most often had a higher sales load. In some cases, this created a tax loss for me if done in a taxable account. In this way, some or most of the commisions paid became tax deductable if a loss took place as the nav exchange is considered a taxable event if done within a taxable account.
Thus far this form of buying has worked out well for me. I am sure if this method of purchase becomes too widely used then steps will be taken to slow or discourage this type of purchase. However, these purchases, at the time made, conformed to the rules found within the fund's perspectus and current tax laws.
This is one of the "many things" I learned from my late father as how he went about opening his special investment position with a fixed income fund, usually holding it through the summer months, and then, come fall, did a nav exchange into an equity fund for his traditional fall stock market special investment (spiff). Any losses he had incurred thus far which would usually include the commission paid became a tax loss for him when he made the nav exchange. Kinda clever? Yes.
Thanks again for making comment. It is indeed appreciated.

This is a rather tiresome old-fashioned view on SRI and ESG--environmental social and governance--based investing that has been refuted by academic evidence. Click here: https://institutional.deutscheawm.com/content/_media/Sustainable_Investing_2012.pdf
A key excerpt from this report is the following:
"100% of the academic studies agree that companies with high ratings for CSR and ESG factors have a lower cost of capital in terms of debt (loans and bonds) and equity. In effect, the market recognizes that these companies are lower risk than other companies and rewards them accordingly....
89% of the studies we examined show that companies with high ratings for ESG factors exhibit market-based outperformance, while 85% of the studies show these types of company’s exhibit accounting-based outperformance. Here again, the market is showing correlation between financial performance of companies and what it perceives as advantageous ESG strategies, at least over the medium (3-5 years) to long term (5-10 years)."
In fact, I think the idea that "personal beliefs don't belong in your retirement account" actually is a reflection of the personal beliefs of many of the authors who routinely bash SRI/ESG without looking at the academic evidence, revealing their own biases. The fact is trillions of dollars are now invested globally according to some sort of SRI/ESG principles with little negative effects and in many cases positive ones:
fa-mag.com/news/sri-assets-up-76--since-2012--study-says-19953.html

I stopped using stop loss orders also, over the past 3 years used them and got stopped out on about 5 stocks to protect profits only see them go right back up. That won't always be the case, but feel this way is better. I do like limit orders though.

"With the market turmoil, I reduced my stock fund holdings % in my 401K account down to about 50%."
"was able to avoid some of the carnage"
"your advice on a strategy for gradually increasing my stock holdings back to their target allocation"
"Also, please let me know if you have any thoughts on my asset allocation."
---
Ten weeks ago U.S. equity markets were sitting at or near record highs, so if you bailed than it was a precient call. After a 6-year bull market in equities (dating back to March '09) you chose the exact moment to reduce your risk exposure.
If you bailed more recently due to the increasing chaos (mainly over the past 2 weeks) than that's a very short time-frame in which to be considering reallocating back into equities. As others have said, it's impossible to make these kind of week-to-week calls with precision. If using open-end mutual funds, you'd probably run into trouble with frequent trading restrictions as well.
Ted was correct in suggesting that if you have decades until retirement it's best to take a deep breath and stay at your previously appropriate allocation. For me, up until about age 50, that was 100% in a good solid global equity fund.* In hindsight, I'm happy I didn't sell it and move to bonds or cash every time the markets swooned. I'd never have selected the "correct" time to re-invest and would have damaged my prospects for a comfortable retirement.
As you near retirement it does get a bit more complicated for two reasons: (1) your investment time horizon shortens significantly and (2) you likely lose the stabilizing benefits of dollar cost averaging that you enjoyed during your working years. Here, you'll find plenty of spirited debate about how best to allocate during those later years. But ... that's a different subject than what you seem to be inquiring about.
-
* Note: 100% invested in an equity fund is not quite the same as 100% invested in equities. Most of these funds do maintain a bit of exposure to cash, bonds or alternative investments.

Checking the chart since inception ~2 years ago - it survived two dips much better than the S&P, one dip was almost (but not quite) as bad, yet overall returns over the past two years are 1% vs 20% for the S&P. That's a bit lousy, hedge fund or no, especially considering the ER.
So for those of you who hold it - or have held it - are you happy with your investment?

@VintageFreak,
I have two retirement accounts with American Century. I talked to one of their retirement specialists on the phone and he set everything up. I got the paperwork and signed it. One account was a 403b rollover in their funds. The other was my defined benefit pension which I was able to take a lump sum. I opened a brokerage account for that one. That gives me more flexibility in choices. I would suspect the procedure is similar with most fund companies.
I have enjoyed a good relationship with AC over the years and with the amounts in these accounts I was given Priority Investor status which gives me me additional benefits like a personal rep I can call or email anytime for one.

Ten years ago (late 2005) the new manager for Giftrust (who had been appointed early 2004) raised Giftrust's performance (12 month period) to 8th best out of 240 growth funds (as ranked by Bloomberg).
From the time Giftrust started to the time it removed its restrictions on new money (2011), there were 119 rolling 18 year periods (the longer of the lock up periods for the fund). Of these, 70 had double digit annualized returns. For the final five years before "opening up" (2006-2011), the fund ranked in the top 2% of large growth funds (M*).
WSJ, Nov. 7, 2011 Goodbye to Giftrust, a Rare Rund That Locked In Its Holders
So American Century may have done people a favor ten years ago when didn't let them out. The idea of a lockup (to manage cash flows as with hedge funds) is to keep cash flows stable. You don't need a lockup when a fund is doing well; you need it through lean times.
The WSJ columnist opined in that 2011 column: "The strategy mostly has paid off for investors." In 2012 he said unambiguously that "Ultimately, [the lockup] strategy paid off; the fund suffered some rough short-term patches, but was consistently above average when viewed through a long-term lens."
Yet when the fund had hit one of those patches in 2004 he called the fund a stupid investment of the week for the second time, noting that "it takes a rare investment to earn the distinction twice".
That was Chuck Jaffe, who often has some interesting thoughts, but just as often blows with the wind. Which is the point. The wind happened to be blowing cold ten years ago.
For the record, I think the idea was oversold, but that was started in 1983. The lockups were agreed to by the investors years before 2005; ten years ago they did not suddenly become "pacts with the devil".
I have my own gripes with AC concerning their herky jerky migation to being a load family. 1996, 2001, and other changes I can't find now. But that doesn't deter me from looking at their funds so long as I can get no load, inexpensive shares.

Stopped using AC 10 years ago when they screwed anyone who used their Giftrust plan.

We've been using AC for over 20 years...

Have an old 401k I have been wanting to rollover. Do you have a retirement account with them by any chance? What is your experience?