Do Yahoo or Fidelity show total return for mutual funds? I know only Morningstar, that provides such data.

Yes, like Ted linked above, but not several funds on a single page like you can set up with M* Portfolio Mgr. I still keep watchlists at M* for comparing returns for different periods, P/Es, P/Bs, standard deviation, etc., but do price and account return tracking mostly through the Fidelity account.
M* would be fine for all of it if they could manage timely, consistent price reporting -- but it's past time to give up on them for that -- the "portfolio manager not updated" thread on the M*.com discussion forum is several years long at this point.

That is for sure with the declining quality of journalism. Both WSJ and Barrons have been reducing their senior editor headcount and one have to select what to read (and forget the rest). I no longer keep my subscription to Barrons years ago.

I don't know how Ulli came up with his TTI system. However, there's any number of ways one could develop a long-term market-timing system with moving average(s), curve-fit to a stock index for a given period of years of price data. One could use intersections of an MA with the price line, or crossings of 2 MAs themselves, all based on either daily, weekly, or even monthly data. Further, the MAs could be SMAs or EMAs.

Yeah, but my point is he seems to be suggesting "When my TTI says BUY, look for funds above the cutline" and the cutline is 39 Week SMA. I'm reading this as, "Buy the funds that are strong" or "Buy the fund as long as they are above the cutline" or "Best to avoid funds that are below the cutline" OR...whatever. Why the farce of the TTI then, is my question.
Let's see when he generates a signal whether it matches with 39-week SMA crossover.

I don't know how Ulli came up with his TTI system. However, there's any number of ways one could develop a long-term market-timing system with moving average(s), curve-fit to a stock index for a given period of years of price data. One could use intersections of an MA with the price line, or crossings of 2 MAs themselves, all based on either daily, weekly, or even monthly data. Further, the MAs could be SMAs or EMAs.

I think I've commented on this particular writer before. So many writers come in with a cliche point of view but fail to martial their facts.
"The expenses are higher (and returns lower) for other share classes of the [PIMCO] Total Return fund, such as B-share class (PTTCX)"
He's writing about something that doesn't exist (anymore). PTTBX (not PTTCX) vanished around the end of 2014, when the last of the B shares automatically converted to A shares. (Nov. 2009 prospectus closed this share class, and the shares purchased in the years preceding that closure converted 5 years from purchase. That's why Shadow won't - I think - find any explicit termination of PTTBX.)
"Looking at performance, ABNDX loses to the index in the one-, three-, five-, 10-, and 15-year returns.
"Furthermore, the holdings for ABNDX average out to be intermediate-term bonds with an A credit rating. This type of bond fund fills the space of a core holding, which is the same for VBMFX.
"Why not just hold a bond index fund?
Perhaps because looking at performance, VBMFX loses to ABNDX in the YTD-, three-, and five-year returns? Or perhaps because, as John Bogle points out, bond index funds hold too much in treasuries?
I'm not saying that one couldn't reach the same conclusions in spite of the amended facts I provided. Just that there are lots of financial "writers" who seem more intent on making points (or filling space) than backing them up with accurate facts.

Morningstar's portfolio tracker has had real problems updating properly for years now. They can't seem to fix it. Where is the best alternative place to set up a portfolio of mutual funds that will update as promptly as possible each day?

PNM is my local utility, thought I would post this for your interest in PNM. I really like PNM, they are very generous with nonprofits and a good public servant. Besides, since I have solar panels, I don't pay for my electricity - usually its $0 after balancing out the months I pay (winter months) vs the generating months (March - October). I get 300 days of sun each year, thats when it really works. After having lived in Cleveland for 13 years in 70s and 80s where its cloudy 300 days each year, it's nice :)
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/n-m-supreme-court-dismisses-231100416.html

Any thoughts on Foreign Developed Markets US Hedged options?
Maybe PIPDX
Short Term Bonds?
Maybe VSTBX, MWLDX, ACSNX, FMEQX, FSHBX, WSHNX (most with Manager Tenure of 15+ years)
High Yield Bond:
Maybe BUFHX, FAGIX, CIOZX

"Doubleline has been in the right places at the right times over the last several years. However, that doesn’t make them infallible to an incorrect call on interest rates or underperformance as bond market trends change. As with any active strategy, it’s important to regularly monitor the fund’s performance versus its peer group and benchmark to ascertain that they are achieving returns in line with your goals and realistic expectations."
Article:
fmdcapital.com/why-i-still-like-doubleline-total-return-as-a-core-bond-holding/

Thanks to @Ted for the post and @Old_Skeet for the comment. I have been considering an investment in SVCAX for 3 or so years. Hearing the interview makes me more comfortable with the manager (but I am not ready to commit to this particular fund). His current perspectives on the Treasury and Corporate bond markets were particularly interesting.

FYI: The BRIC era is coming to an end at Goldman Sachs Group Inc.
The bank’s asset-management unit folded its money-losing BRIC fund, which invests in Brazil, Russia, India and China, and merged it last month with a broader emerging-market fund. Goldman Sachs pulled the plug on the nine-year-old product because it doesn’t expect “significant asset growth in the foreseeable future,” according to a filing to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-11-08/goldman-s-bric-era-ends-as-fund-closes-after-years-of-losses

Howdy @heezsafe
Hmmmmm. Yes, to the aging brain thing. Do think about this at this house and have a plan.
Recalling a few discussions with a 90 year old several years ago regarding items that had been structured into a "living will" and a trust that was set in place with an attorney. The discussion was an after the fact. I performed my normal "why and what if" with this person; not unlike we do at our house regarding investments.
The first discussion resulted in anger towards me; as I was told that I'm not an attorney, and what did I know. Although the questions I asked were standard reasonable questions as to why was such and such established in this fashion.
After several months and a few more discussions, there was an admission by the 90 year that they should have included their daughters in the whole thought process before any papers had been signed by her for the "trust" account. Only one daughter was involved with the process, with the other three being notified about what had taken place after finalization. The living will portion was altered two times within the next two years to reflect a more proper thought process; versus a "let's get this done today" approach.
The 90 year old is a very sharp thinker and can recall more of their life than I every will be able to do for my own life. But, they thought more along the line of I know what I am doing and didn't feel a need to place their thinking to a "devils advocate" circumstance of bouncing their decisions for a Q&A with the daughters.
Aging isn't the only potential problem with the brain and investing. I'm sure we all know those who are quite sure they know everything and don't need to discuss their investment choices with anyone else regardless of age.
I've never been in that "place". I at least understand my limits of knowledge. But, my stupid day may/will arrive at some future date, eh?
Thanks for the article link.
Take care,
Catch

FWIW, I bought OSTVX near it's inception and used to be very happy with it, but it has been subpar for the last 2 years, so I finally sold it.

@heezsafe
I noticed the spillback information prior to the CG information being posted. I am glad I don't have to deal with the accounting for that.
Years ago I held Fairholme. After I filed my taxes, months later, I received an amended tax 1099 from Fairholme. I had to filed an amended tax form. Was not too happy about that.

FYI: When fear was pumping through the stock market this summer, most retirement savers kept their cool.
So say figures from Fidelity, which could see how individual investors in general behaved by looking at its 13.5 million 401(k) and 6 million IRA accounts as stocks tumbled in New York, Shanghai and places in between during the turbulent third quarter. The Standard & Poor's 500 index sank more than 10 percent within a week during August, driving the index to its worst quarter in four years.
Regards,
Ted
http://bigstory.ap.org/article/72fb3bd726b24e36b1f28aa047e2c8a9/while-markets-tumbled-summer-many-savers-held-tight
So far the linkster has held tight in 2015, with the same five fund that I began the year with.
QQQ= 11.96%
PRHSX= 10.38%
FBTCX= 8.78%
SPY= 3.69%
PFF= 3.37%
7.636% YTD

Does Seafarer offer to issue certificates as an alternative to book entry? How quaint and charming.
I still have a mutual fund certificate (from a very old fund that has gone through several name changes as well as fund family changes). I couldn't find it a few years ago after a move, so I contracted the fund company. Just as with a stock certificate, they said they'd replace it if I'd pay something like 2% of the value to ensure that it really was lost (or something like that). I declined.
Not much later, the fund company decided that it didn't want to deal with certificates any more, so it converted all certificates regardless of whether they were returned. So I now have book entry, and I finally found the certificate for my scrapbook.
If Scottrade (or any brokerage) were to abscond with street name assets (which are segregated and held by DTC), SIPC would kick in. "Street name" is equivalent to how banks hold your cash. It's not your cash - it's the bank's cash, which it is free to lend out and keep an IOU for you on its books. If the bank goes bust, or someone steals "your" cash, FDIC kicks in.

@msf Thanks for the factoids; they were "in there," but I wouldn't have recovered them without your assist. Several years ago, when I found myself standing on my head repeatedly to try to explain why data on different pages didn't match up, and when they would say one thing and do something else (or not do it), I decided not to use M* as a go-to source, so I don't much care what they do, or when they do it, or how many stars they see, or what kind of metallic glaze they choose for different shiny objects.

Why people are surprised with the change in stars of the fund ? Star rating is purely on mechanical calculations based on the risk-adjusted performance of the funds and a reflection of their aggregate past record (3, 5 and 10 years) with more weightage long term record than short. Periodically star ratings are caluculated every year and I am not sure how frequently they do that and publish the new start ratings of the funds.
If M* mentioned this fund is under review, that is for their qualitative rating (Gold, Silver, Bronze, etc.) based on their Analst analysis of the fund

Yeah, once I get my 1st $ 1 BILLION I will consider a 90/10 allocation...!
I have in my possession an old (~1960s era) edition of "The Intelligent Investor", written by Buffett's one-time mentor, Ben Graham. In it, he discusses the topic of asset allocation. He wisely admitted that there is no optimum allocation advice for all investors, but as a general guideline that a 2-asset (equities, US Treasurys) portfolio should generally contain no more equities than 75% and no less than 25% for most investors. Graham described that investors younger and more risk-tolerant might have as much (but no more) than 75% equities; older and less risk-tolerant investors should still have at least 25% equities. Basically any extreme allocation outside the 75/25 to 25/75 was not recommended.
Graham's counsel always seemed to me to be simple -- and thus easy for an individual to implement-- and wise.
(Several years ago, I paged through a modern edition of Graham's book in a Barnes & Noble, looking for that passage, but it seems to have been posthumously excised, perhaps replaced by "newer, enlightened" thinking during the great 1990's bull market).
An aside: I doubt Graham would have much positive to say regarding the current excitement with "alternative strategies" -- especially given the expense ratios in vehicles available to retail investors.

Ya know, Charles adds some clarity with the data. Recent performance hasn't been so hotsy-totsy. Add to that the (reasonable) supposition that their huge Valeant holding is a dead man walking, do the math, and M* pretty much had to knock off some stars. A cautionary tale for those who believe that concentrated MFs and high active share numbers hold to the virtuous path, in and of themselves. When one goes with concentration anywhere inside the portfolio, I think it's important to mine a little deeper on the screening before making choices, and to look at other stats we rarely talk about on the Board: tracking error and information ratio.
[I think it was @MJG who made this point in a comment over a year ago]
Anyone know how those figures have moved for SEQUX, over the past 5 years?