Sounds as though a mutual fund that utilizes this strategy along with a few other strategies mixed in might indeed be worth while to develop as a niche type fund that would be designed to complement a well diversified portfolio incorporating it with some special investment strategies.
It's ticker might become SPIFX meaning that it centers itself around certain S&P Indexes (S&P 500, S&P 400 & S&P 600) ... and, if X applies then it follows a certain mandate that incorporates the Sell In May Strategy along with perhaps a few other well known strategies such as the Dogs of the Dow and maybe some others mixed in like a thermostat strategy (CTFAX) in which if the S&P 500 Index falls a certain percent then it will increase its allocation to equities and and reduce its allocation to cash or bonds. Doing this would help diversify it away from a single investment strategy.
Heck, I'd probally invest in it as it would simplify things for me as I usually follow the Sell In May Seasonal Strategy with a small part (up to about 5% to 10%) of my equity allocation anyway. This strategy is not new and has been around for a good number of years and one that my late father utilized many, many years ago. And, even today the family still follows it within family portfolios. However, we usually switch stocks out for bonds or cash and vice versa. I currently use FDSAX to gain exposure to the Dogs of the Dow strategy as about one third of it's holdings come form the strategy.
In addition, my engineer buddy (that I made a post about a while back) utilizes a modified model of the Sell In May Strategy as he follows the calendar as a timing guide but uses technical analysis as to when to enter or exit the strategy over exact calendar dates. I have provided a link back to this discussion for those that would like to reference it. He also, utilizes a thermostat type strategy wherein if the S&P 500 Index drops a certain percent in what he believes is a mere pull back within a bull market he will reduce his cash and/or his bond position and raise his stock position.
http://www.mutualfundobserver.com/discuss/discussion/22938/my-engineer-buddy-is-now-crowing-but-we-both-have-smiles#latest
Does anyone know of a mutual fund that currently employes a seasonal type trading strategy along with maybe a few other strategies mixed in such as the "Dogs of the Dow" and even a thermostat strategy to help diversify it away from one single strategy?
I'd most likely be a buyer of it if it's fee structure was reasonable as it would simplify things for me that I am currently already doing; but, this would put it in an auto mode for me and also get me away from having to follow the markets as closely as I currently do.

As I recall @David_Snowball said something about three bad years in a row being a good indicator that things weren't going to come back. But it seems to me that the fund is performing as advertised. As is RWGFX.

Please clarify if you mean both funds are keepers or otherwise.

Hi Davidrmoran,
I do read every reference that I post on MFO. You are absolutely correct that I should not have written "recent exchange". Instead, I should have reported it as a "recent 25iq release". Sorry for the error.
I owned the Gabelli Small Cap Growth fund for a long period. About 5 years ago, I concluded that he lost some of his market mojo and mostly replaced it with an Index product. I surely agree with you that market interactions are "mixed" and full explanations are complex and multidimensional.
Over time, MJG has not lost his market smarts, and I believe he remains loyal to his methods and styles. The competition has improved. The pitching staff that he is batting against is both stronger and has a deeper bench.
Thanks for your comments.
Best Wishes.

Hi Guys,
Mario Joseph Gabelli is one smart stock picker. In many ways his research and style mimics the methods of Munger and Buffett. Here is a Link to a recent exchange he had on the 25iq website:
http://25iq.com/2015/06/13/a-dozen-things-ive-learned-from-mario-gabelli-about-investing-and-business-2/
Although Gabelli just might be the more better known, and just might be wealthier, he is not the original MJG. Since I’m 8 years older, if seniority rules dominate, I am.
More seriously, Gabelli demonstrated superior stock picking talents over a decade ago. His mutual funds generated positive Alphas in those decade old days. More recently, that apparent advantage has eroded.
Like so many other fund managers, that Alpha erosion might be caused by the changing investment environment. A decade ago, Gabelli and his cohorts were investing against opponents like you and me. Today, they are challenging each other since north of 70% of all trades are now between institutional investors. These talented and resourceful investment teams neutralize one another.
Is Gabelli worth his paycheck? My personal answer is “No”. Just like it would be if the question was asked about Big League ballplayers. But the marketplace has given another answer. So, I’ll just take a deep breath and move ahead.
Best Wishes.

As I recall @David_Snowball said something about three bad years in a row being a good indicator that things weren't going to come back. But it seems to me that the fund is performing as advertised. As is RWGFX.

As a shareholder of BB's FAIRX, I feel he has done a poor job of communicating his value vision to his shareholders. I understand a desire to keep your cards close to your chest, but an occasional confident wink would do wonders for my morale as I sit wondering what cards he holds and may play.

He has offered up thesis papers for things like SHLD but I've found they don't make much of a case/offer some broad positive points while neglecting to discuss some obvious concerns regarding specific details. They're basically happy talk papers.
I think what Fairholme hasn't done is provide some realistic views on how the Sears journey has gone and what the destination even vaguely looks like.
Fairholme was buying Sears well North of $100. You can say he was early, but years later and a significant % lower (although there have admittedly been some spin-offs, albeit crappy ones), I think there needs to be some honesty and insights as to what the next steps may look like for SHLD.

My experience was the same as Art's. You can not roll over any part of a 401k if you are still with that same employer, plan options change or not. You are stuck with the options they offer and those options can and do change from time to time. My plan's options have changed numerous times over the years.

Hi @Vert,
Thanks for the insight from Andrew Foster! There certainly seem to be a good number of "value" emerging markets fund because a lot of them were coming up on the screens I did for low P/E, P/B and such. I'm not sure how that works out on M*'s style box because I didn't check all of them but they seem to be going for low valuations.
Do you worry at all about reversion to the mean with these guys? Even though value has been trailing for a few years now, PVFIX, TDVFX, BISMX and QUSOX have all had pretty nice runs. In theory when value comes back into favor these guys should do very well but at some point I worry that they won't keep up anymore. A few good things on their sides is that none of these guys have grown a big asset base and the "deep value" approach doesn't seem flooded with competition either.
I think it is possible to get into at least mid-cap territory as David Iben has done with his Kopernik Global All-Cap fund. It's also true that a lot of these values come because of a fairly big fall in price which also has an impact on market cap. In the case of the international funds, the strong dollar is hurting too.

As for reversion to the mean, I try to think of it this way: A mediocre baseball pitcher might pitch a no-hitter one night; he might even have the best record in baseball for a month or so, but if you can see that he doesn't really have all that much stuff you can bet that he'll come back to earth. On the other hand, a really good pitcher can be depended on to pitch well, with rare exceptions, for his entire career. As for mutual fund managers, I just try to judge if their statements about what they've been doing make sense to me. If they don't, I'll assume they've just had a lucky streak. If they do make sense, I'll take the educated guess that they're really talented. Admittedly there's the danger that they're more talented writers than they are stockpickers, but...
But it is hard to pull the trigger on a one or two star fund, isn't it?

Hi @Vert,
Thanks for the insight from Andrew Foster! There certainly seem to be a good number of "value" emerging markets fund because a lot of them were coming up on the screens I did for low P/E, P/B and such. I'm not sure how that works out on M*'s style box because I didn't check all of them but they seem to be going for low valuations.
Do you worry at all about reversion to the mean with these guys? Even though value has been trailing for a few years now, PVFIX, TDVFX, BISMX and QUSOX have all had pretty nice runs. In theory when value comes back into favor these guys should do very well but at some point I worry that they won't keep up anymore. A few good things on their sides is that none of these guys have grown a big asset base and the "deep value" approach doesn't seem flooded with competition either.
I think it is possible to get into at least mid-cap territory as David Iben has done with his Kopernik Global All-Cap fund. It's also true that a lot of these values come because of a fairly big fall in price which also has an impact on market cap. In the case of the international funds, the strong dollar is hurting too.

Hi Guys,
Please note that the referenced Bill Bernstein article was written in 2001. There has been a lot of water both through and over the dam since that time.
To make a quick visual update to the data sets that Bernstein referenced, being lazy, I defaulted to the Periodic Table of Asset Returns format. That’s a much easier task than plowing through a complex set of numerical tables and statistical analyses. Here is a Link to a Prudential presentation that covers the last 20 years:
https://investment.prudential.com/util/common/get?file=1D065355D2CC360385257B7D00536F8A
These charts are terrific for a general overview of the marketplace’s random walk character.
If you perceive a pattern in this data, “you’re a better man than I Gunga Din”. I don’t see patterns, I see complete chaos. The situation is normal. Sometimes the Value groups outdistance the Growth holding strategy. Sometimes the reverse is true.
During the last 20 years the annual inflation rate, on a decade by decade perspective, has dropped from about 3.1% to roughly 1.9%. Since 1913, the long-term average annual inflation rate has been 3.2%. We’ve learned to somewhat control its variability.
Given the chaotic character of the various asset classes over the last two decades, I choose to ignore the Bernstein study, and will remain invested in both Value and Growth oriented mutual funds. Good luck on trying to project a winner based upon inflation rate change subtleties.
Best Wishes.

Both of those look like good funds. I own GAOAX and have considered RPGAX. I also own QVGIX, which you might want to look at also.

I was looking at the Oppenheimer fund and noticed that the fund managers have been there for about 3 years or less. I wonder how that fund would do in a downturn.

The fund managers use what they call return shaping strategies, which allow them to hedge and to partially protect principal in environments of heightened volatility. They can buy VIX call spreads to protect downside.

Are you aware if this is a strategy used by these particular fund managers or something that has been done by managers of this fund in the past as well?

FYI: Pity the poor value investors. Nurtured on the elegant prose of Benjamin Graham, the folksy humor of Warren Buffett, and the daunting statistical elegance of Fama and French, they’ve languished in the wilderness with fifteen years of excruciating underperformance. What went wrong?
Regards,
Ted
http://www.efficientfrontier.com/ef/701/value.htm

Both of those look like good funds. I own GAOAX and have considered RPGAX. I also own QVGIX, which you might want to look at also.

I was looking at the Oppenheimer fund and noticed that the fund managers have been there for about 3 years or less. I wonder how that fund would do in a downturn.

The fund managers use what they call return shaping strategies, which allow them to hedge and to partially protect principal in environments of heightened volatility. They can buy VIX call spreads to protect downside.

FYI: Investors have been rushing into high-yield exchange-traded funds (ETFs) for years. But have they been getting their money’s worth? A look at the performance numbers offers a clear answer,“No.”
Regards,
Ted
http://wealthmanagement.com/print/etfs/no-contest-high-yield-active-funds-beat-etfs

I wouldn't say they were stinking up the place, but my holdings in general are so valuey I worry about not getting enough growth (suddenly, those terms lost meaning). Current look-away funds:
YAFFX
VVPLX
TBGVX
Haven't heard anyone mention SLASX in years; it used to be a darling.
(And let's not talk about Asia tonight. I'll think about it tomorrow. Or next Tuesday.)

Both of those look like good funds. I own GAOAX and have considered RPGAX. I also own QVGIX, which you might want to look at also.

I was looking at the Oppenheimer fund and noticed that the fund managers have been there for about 3 years or less. I wonder how that fund would do in a downturn.

@msf, here's a recent article from Advisor Perspectives that confirms growth has been outperforming value recently but that value eventually has its turn. Over time based on their comparison of the cheapest 20% of stocks on a book value basis compared to the most expensive 20% of stocks on the same basis, value handily beats growth.
advisorperspectives.com/articles/2015/08/11/why-you-should-allocate-to-value-over-growth
I suppose it would be interesting to know how well those cheapest P/B stocks do compared to the other 80% or to "blend" stocks because it could be that the deep value stuff suffers a lot more volatility or a bigger drawdown but doesn't outperform by nearly as much over time.
Thanks for the thoughts about cash! That seems at least as reasonable and how I was thinking about it and I guess it means I'd have to look at the details of those funds before drawing any conclusions about their approach. I do find it interesting, however, that Longleaf is pretty clear about their "deep value" orientation but the style box says large blend and their portfolio statistics don't lead me to the same conclusion. Obviously it hinges on what they determine the intrinsic value to be but it seems they've had a lot of difficulty keeping up with any of their peers for the last 10 years.
The Timothy Plan Emerging Markets fund you mentioned is pretty remarkable. They're really what I would expect to see in "deep value". Lots of Brazil, Russia, basic materials, utilities, industrials and very small P/E, P/B and P/S. The expense ratio is really high considering they have a 5.50% front-end load, but I guess that's what's necessary to earn any money when you only have $7.8 million of AUM.

Just like to mention that TPEMX is managed by Brandes and you could get pretty much the same thing a lot cheaper with BEMIX.

That doesn't surprise me. A couple of years ago I went to a fund shareholder meeting and JPMorgan didn't send a single board member or manager - just their lawyer and a couple of other people.
In contrast, at the only other fund shareholder meeting I've gone to - T Rowe Price - I got to meet Brian Rogers, talk with people involved with their health care fund, etc.

Hi Guys,
Like Ted, I made some money investing in Peter Lynch and Magellan. Unlike Ted, I only invested small amounts, and only after Lynch had piloted Magellan for a half dozen years. The percentage returns were impressive, the dollar amounts much less so. During that phase of my investment learning cycle, I was still heavily committed to individual stock positions. My bad decision, and also bad timing.
Like Lewis Braham, I question if Lynch would be as successful in today’s marketplace as he was in yesteryear’s investing world. I doubt it.
Peter Lynch's record is unarguably outstanding. There can be no debate over his superior 13 years of active Magellan fund management. Today’s investing environment is significantly different. In his hay-day, Lynch enjoyed several advantages that do not currently exist.
His Fidelity boss (Ned Johnson) allowed him to go anywhere; today, a manager is more tightly constrained by a discipline to stay within prescribed box styles. Lynch was permitted to invest internationally, a rare option in the late 1970s and early 1980s. He invested in countless stocks, some after merely visiting a busy store; one wonders about the sagacity of that tactic. It is often said that Lynch never saw a stock that he didn’t want to buy.
Thirty-five years ago, Lynch was mostly investing against Joe Six-Pack. The competition was definitely inferior when contrasted against today’s fully trained money managers. This is the most common explanation for the disappearing Alpha phenomenon. It is tough to build long winning streaks when nobody owns an advantage for very long. Information exchange quickly erodes any such advantage.
I’m sure Lynch would do a competent managerial job today. Given the highly sophisticated and competitive environment that currently exists, becoming a superstar fund manager is far less likely. This is not a knock specifically aimed at Peter Lynch. The financial field is presently loaded with talented, deeply supported folks.
Institutional agencies carefully research and hire successful active fund managers. It is a laborious process. These institutions are finding that a much more challenging task. The selected management’s performance records are deteriorating. Alpha is more elusive. In response, these same institutions are now punting, and are presently hiring more passively managed sub-units. Things change.
Best Wishes.

@msf, here's a recent article from Advisor Perspectives that confirms growth has been outperforming value recently but that value eventually has its turn. Over time based on their comparison of the cheapest 20% of stocks on a book value basis compared to the most expensive 20% of stocks on the same basis, value handily beats growth.
advisorperspectives.com/articles/2015/08/11/why-you-should-allocate-to-value-over-growth
I suppose it would be interesting to know how well those cheapest P/B stocks do compared to the other 80% or to "blend" stocks because it could be that the deep value stuff suffers a lot more volatility or a bigger drawdown but doesn't outperform by nearly as much over time.
Thanks for the thoughts about cash! That seems at least as reasonable and how I was thinking about it and I guess it means I'd have to look at the details of those funds before drawing any conclusions about their approach. I do find it interesting, however, that Longleaf is pretty clear about their "deep value" orientation but the style box says large blend and their portfolio statistics don't lead me to the same conclusion. Obviously it hinges on what they determine the intrinsic value to be but it seems they've had a lot of difficulty keeping up with any of their peers for the last 10 years.
The Timothy Plan Emerging Markets fund you mentioned is pretty remarkable. They're really what I would expect to see in "deep value". Lots of Brazil, Russia, basic materials, utilities, industrials and very small P/E, P/B and P/S. The expense ratio is really high considering they have a 5.50% front-end load, but I guess that's what's necessary to earn any money when you only have $7.8 million of AUM.