Hi @Maurice
Yes, the wonderfully simple and easy to read Bloomberg fund ranking category page. That tool went bye-bye about 4-5 years ago. I used to link that page, and its listings results quite a bit at FundAlarm.
I did query Bloomberg about that tool, noting that is the best available for ease of use.....the quick view. I did not have a reply to my question of why the tool was pulled.
I have not found anything else to replace it; at least to the point of being so easy to use with very readable listings.
Too bad for us.
Regards,
Catch

Hey, I resemble that remark.
Many years ago, Citibank had a discount brokerage (Citicorp Investment Services), and provided a decent suite of bank services if you had a few $K in combined accounts, including their brokerage account.
They had a very limited, mostly high ER set of NTF funds. But they did offer TRP Advisor class shares (the ones with 12b-1 fees) NTF. I did a mental calculation and figured that it was costing me just a few bucks a year (I kept just the min required for the bank services).
Seemed worth it at the time. Since then, I've left Citibank and transferred the shares to TRP. Price did a tax-free exchange of the shares into Investor class shares (no 12b-1 fees).

I have been looking for a replacement for MFCFX (Marsico Flexible Capital) recently. The departure of D. Roa, 7/2012, seems to have had a signifcant affect on the performance of this fund. In fact, according to M*, it DOES NOT have one stock holding from Mr. Roa's tenure; all stocks were bought in 2013 or 2014.
I have researched and compared various replacements and POGRX is high on my list. But when I compare it to MFCFX and other LCG funds it's metrics and returns are not usually at the top.
What is it that so impresses everyone about Primecap Odessey Growth? I'm not saying it is not a solid fund, it certainly is, but how good is it?
I have to admit, I do like the sector concentration a lot!
Bottom line, I think the near three years after D. Roa left MFCFX is enough time to determine if the new Mgmnt team is doing a good job. I don't think so; there are too many other All-cap/Large-cap Growth funds to choose from.
I am looking for some suggestions, opinions and insights!!
Thank you,
Matt

http://blogs.barrons.com/emergingmarketsdaily/2015/03/13/emerging-markets-markets-sink-2-5-for-week-unloved-but-resilient/?mod=djemb_dr_h
This linked blog post from Barrons with analysis of performance and prospects of various EM economies from Deustche Bank has me wondering about my own allocation to emerging markets. For the last several years I've been reading about how this year is going to be the one for EMs, that dough is flowing into EMs, that valuations are favorable, and so forth. Fact of the matter is, my EM and FM funds (all the usual MFO suspects from Matthews, Grandeur Peak, Aberdeen, Morgan Stanley, and Lazard) haven't done squat since 2011, relative to my US holdings. I have reduced exposure in recent months, but haven't closed out any positions. Wondering how members are dealing with EMs. What are you taking for queasiness?

FWIW: I bought HAP some years ago, an index of companies that deal in commodities. It basically went nowhere so I sold it 2-3 years later.
I know a properly diversified portfolio should have some commodities, but aside from doing good during the worst of times, the idea seems rather pointless.

@MJG
You noted: "Well, humans get tired and focus drifts. We are subject to household and health problems. We are influenced by current events and the medias selective hype on these events. We are also guilty of overconfidence in our own skills. We trade too often. Several studies have shown that equity accounts that are more or less dormant for years outdistance others that are frequently traded.
>>> Yes.
Investors also abandon our well crafted rules and policies when the going gets tough. That’s true of both individual investors and professional money managers. Our market timing decisions are often a catastrophe. We are inconsistent in choosing and navigating our selected stars.
>>> Yes.
John Hussman is a prime recent example of a mostly successful wizard who failed to continue his planned march without introducing a disastrous route change. He added historical data sets to make his model forcibly agree with his predetermined decision; the facts be damned in this instance. That’s a classic, first-order sin when doing forecasting work.
>>> Yes.
What to do? John Bogle has it right: just stay the course. Don’t junk your rules and process just because an outcome has been a disappointment. Nobody is ever 100% correct with the possible exception of MFO’s Ted (am I having fun at Ted’s expense?).
>>> Yes.
When change is justified as the investment world constantly evolves, change slowly and incrementally. That’s applying Kahneman’s System Two deliberate slow thinking advantage. When investing, our System One fast response heritage gets us into deep water far too often.
>>> Yes.
It requires near perfect timing to be either all In or all Out of the marketplace for periods, and still recover long term market returns. Not many of us are successful at this process. We vacillate. This is not the coward’s approach, but it is the prudent approach."
>>> Yes.
If a person chooses to be their own investment adviser (an investor); they must know who they are, to the fullest extent; and to maintain the conviction that they must and will maintain a standard of introspection to continue to be fully flexible and adaptable to learning and required changes. Understanding that as the world and their world continues to change, that they too are likely changing, and thus the need for ongoing self assessment.
Two of the most honest investors (although I don't know about their successful profits) I have known for 40 years both wanted to save for retirement, did save and admitted that they had no desire to learn about investing. But, they did hire an advisor. Others I have known for many years had the same desire to save for retirement, but were not willing to learn and also not willing to hire someone to help with direction. I consider these folks as not really being honest with themselves about investing and probably other aspects of their lives.
As to other comments, I don't know what "trade to often means". Relative to what? Yes, we all are bombed with outside forces that may affect our health physically and mentally which can add to problems with mental focus and drift problems.
Perfect timing is not required to have a decent percentage return on a portfolio. Keeping the other football team from scoring more points is all that is needed, if one's team can only score field goals. A lot of investing profits may be obtained without scoring touchdowns with every investment play. One is not likely to buy at a bottom and sell at a top; but there is much to gather to the favorable side of monies in between these two areas.
As to what you noted above: If an investor can be aware of and understand some of the traits listed; they must continue to monitor who they are or are becoming, relative to investing skills and knowledge.
Lastly, the percentage of very profitable investors; based upon their measure of risk and reward is likely also a small percentage of the available population.
Regards,
Catch

There was a time when M* put the information out on a timely basis. That is how they built their reputation as the go to service for investment research. Reputation can be fleeting however.
US car companies built their reputation on well built cars that lasted. But in the 70's, they blew that reputation by producing crap and unfinished products. Many cars were missing key items as they sat on the showroom floor.
It's called complacency. While I admire Lizzie's coming on at MFO to explain the issue, it is the same PR that has been put out over the past few years on this same subject. M*Darrell has been posting the same thing over on their forums.
I can afford the premium service too but I do expect service in exchange for my money. M* is going on the assumption that they are the only game in town so you can either put up with their errant service or stay away. I prefer the latter.

This plot does not show the standard deviation. For example, if EM will grow 2.9% per year during 7 years, one will get approximately 20%, in average. But what if the average gain of 20% means (approximately) that one may either lose 50% or gain 90% ? (These estimates are a gross simplification of what may happen.) For many of us this would be a very dangerous game to play. Previously they were giving the standard deviation in their predictions, but they no longer do it now.

Hi Guys,
In a 1997 6-game chess challenge, IBM’s Deep Blue computer program beat Grand Master Garry Kasparov in a tipping point match between man and machine. The machine won. Was this the harbinger of a machine takeover, especially of the decision making process? Maybe, maybe not.
After all, man might just use these programs to supplement his decision making process. Kasparov, armed with access to the Deep Blue program, should logically whip Kasparov without that tool. I suppose that would be true if Kasparov slavishly accepted Deep Blue’s analysis. However, being human, Kasparov would likely succumb to compromising behavioral biases and reject the computer’s advice under some circumstances.
Today, mathematical algorithms are outperforming human decisions in several disciplines. That’s a little surprising given that these same algorithms are formulated by curve fitting decision factors used by the same humans that they subsequently defeat. Decision consistency is not a strong human attribute.
Phil Tetlock, of Hedgehogs and Foxes fame, has been conducting a 5-year Intelligence Advanced Research Projects Activity (IARPA) forecasting study for over two years now. In a second stage, he formed 5 teams of 12 men each from his best expert forecasters from a first stage test series. A fundamental commitment here is a belief in the wisdom of informed crowds.
His research unit also developed algorithms using factors that his experts identified as influencing their decision making and forecasts. At present, these algorithms are slightly outperforming the expert teams. The study continues. Here is a Link to a Tetlock 2012 video interview on his IARPA work titled “How to Win at Forecasting”:
http://edge.org/videos/year/2012
The text from this Edge interview is also available.
In Daniel Kahneman’s “Thinking Fast and Slow” book, he references a huge body of studies that continue to demonstrate that algorithms outdistance expert human judgments in a diverse group of disciplines like medicine and investing.
In medicine, machine diagnosis, on average, are more accurate than on-site doctors. In investing, hedge fund manager Ray Dalio admits that when he and a computer analysis that he trusts make a disparate forecast in an investment decision, the computer program is right two-thirds of the time. Why is the machine superior?
Well, humans get tired and focus drifts. We are subject to household and health problems. We are influenced by current events and the medias selective hype on these events. We are also guilty of overconfidence in our own skills. We trade too often. Several studies have shown that equity accounts that are more or less dormant for years outdistance others that are frequently traded.
Investors also abandon our well crafted rules and policies when the going gets tough. That’s true of both individual investors and professional money managers. Our market timing decisions are often a catastrophe. We are inconsistent in choosing and navigating our selected stars.
John Hussman is a prime recent example of a mostly successful wizard who failed to continue his planned march without introducing a disastrous route change. He added historical data sets to make his model forcibly agree with his predetermined decision; the facts be damned in this instance. That’s a classic, first-order sin when doing forecasting work.
What to do? John Bogle has it right: just stay the course. Don’t junk your rules and process just because an outcome has been a disappointment. Nobody is ever 100% correct with the possible exception of MFO’s Ted (am I having fun at Ted’s expense?).
When change is justified as the investment world constantly evolves, change slowly and incrementally. That’s applying Kahneman’s System Two deliberate slow thinking advantage. When investing, our System One fast response heritage gets us into deep water far too often.
It requires near perfect timing to be either all In or all Out of the marketplace for periods, and still recover long term market returns. Not many of us are successful at this process. We vacillate. This is not the coward’s approach, but it is the prudent approach.
Your comments are solicited. Thank you.
Best Wishes for your continuing investment success.

I hold my collected stuff in a self-made portfolio at M* via their "Portfolio Manager." I certainly do not need the price quotes by 5:00 p.m. But by 8:00 p.m., they ought to be there. I certainly do check other websites, which somehow manage to update much quicker than Morningstar, which HAS BEEN The Gold Standard for how many years, now? But the thing is, it's very easy to find day-end updates for each individual fund elsewhere, but to see the Big Picture, I need to see my total over at Morningstar in its Portf. Mangr. I would not be DOING anything at that point in the day, surely, just after the Markets close. ....Also, I'm a brand new "premium" member by virtue of my holdings with TRP. It's a perk offered at X number of dollars in your account(s) under management with them. Premium users, especially those who actually PAY for the prem. Morningstar service, are certainly NOT getting their money's worth, waiting until the wee hours to check to see IF M* has finally updated, and correctly. (Note: I do seem to see that Double Line is slow to report. They are in L.A., but not their Transfer Agents, US Bank: Milwaukee, yes? Anyhow, it's always the last of mine to update, and I wonder what THAT'S about? SOME things MIGHT not be Morningstar's fault.)

GMO just released their February 2015 projection of asset class returns over the next 5-7 years. It may be the glummest, if not the grimmest, I've seen. At this point, they project negative real returns for nine of the 12 asset groups they track.
(3.5%) Int'l bonds (currency hedged)
(3.4%) US small cap
(2.4%) US large cap
(1.0%) US bonds
(0.5%) TIPs
(0.3%) Cash
(0.2%) Int'l small cap
(0.1%) US high quality
0.0% Int'l large cap
2.6% EM bonds
2.9% EM equity
5.4% Managed timber
Three notes: (1) short-term events can dramatically change these medium-range projections, a 25% correction in April or a 20% upswing through June would each make big differences in these numbers, (2) they assume 2.2% long-term inflation so 2.2% nominal is 0.0% real. (2) their method uses a fairly simple regression to the mean for two factors: profits and prices. That is, they assume that aggregate corporate profitability in the future will be about equal to aggregate corporate profitability in the past and that investors in the future are willing to pay about as much for $1 of profits (earnings) as investors in the past did.
If you assume that things are different this time (because of the internet, the Chinese, emerging markets consumers, fracking or benign uses of financial engineering) and that we're reached a "permanently high plateau" in corporate profitability and investor comfort, then their projections would obviously be reduced to readings from a Ouija board.
It does, I think, feed the ongoing discussions here about the future of 60/40 portfolios as safe havens and how to think about positioning your portfolio.
For what interest it holds,
David

I dunno if it's necessarily a good thing that the DL stable has been adding not just one or two new funds. MY DLFNX is a basic building block in my portfolio. I guess uncle Jeffrey is smart enough to see that there's a big pile of money wanting to get in. People are hearing good things about the fund-family. I have the impression that he is extremely and "deeply" smart. He can be concrete with analysis and be correct. But there's more going on in Jeffrey Gundlach's brain. I remember watching a Bloomberg interview that is at least a couple of years old by now, in which he said: "I wish I could teach it." And yet, that does not in the least scare me away. People have told me that I can put my finger on something right quick, but then I can't explain how I found it!
"SPOCK'S BRAIN."

BAC has to resubmit cap plan. Just great.

Chris Whalen on CNBC: "My gosh, they have been struggling for years, we still haven't seen a change in management. It's really quite incredible to me that the board of Bank of America tolerates this kind of performance from senior management. I really think you need to see a change there." Bill Smead comes up with a disagreement, although it's not much of a case (I think he rambled something about Warren Buffett liking it.)
Whalen again: "We've turned this into a circus where we control dividends and equity market expectations instead of benchmarking safety and soundness, which is what we're supposed to be doing here."
You still have banks in this market that trade significantly under book value. I'll contend that banks in this country have only gotten less transparent and seem to have not learned much from 2008. However, maybe views on the sector change if rates go higher.
Morgan Stanley, Discover and BNY Mellon announcing multi-billion repurchases. Wells Fargo raising dividend. American Express with a dividend boost and large buyback.
Note: despite being known as credit card companies, Discover, Capital One and Amex are effectively considered banks and have to submit capital plans to the Fed. Visa and Mastercard are networks only and therefore do not.
Edited to add: BAC announcing $4B buyback, but dividend maintained at a nickel. Citi ups divi to a nickel from a penny, plus $7B buyback.
Edited to add: JPM with a $6.4B buyback and div raise to 44c. JPM down a bit as buyback and div raises are under expectations.

FYI: What will it take for large-cap stock mutual funds to overcome the drag of the 2000-02 bear market and their lagging ways in the 2002-07 recovery?
Because they fared so much worse than small- and midcap funds in those periods, large-caps have lagged far behind in the past 15 years.
How far behind? A $10,000 investment in the average large-cap fund on Dec. 31, 1999, would have grown to just $16,882 as of March 6 this year, according to Morningstar Inc. data. The same investment would have swollen to $37,912 in the average small-cap fund, $35,431 in the average midcap fund and $18,834 in the S&P 500.
Regards,
Ted
http://license.icopyright.net/user/viewFreeUse.act?fuid=MTkwODI4OTE=
Enlarged Graphic:
http://news.investors.com/photopopup.aspx?path=webLV0310.gif&docId=742700&xmpSource=&width=1000&height=1063&caption=&id=742732

@AndyJ Same here.I always forget which day to put the "string around my finger".
Have come to enjoy Mr. Gundlach's presentations.Gets me laughing at times with the irony I think he excels at.
Take a ways:
Janet Yellen- Time spent with foreign central bankers and the White House?
Negative yields in Euro Zone?
Central Banks purchases of gold? Possible $1400.00 this year.
Retest low $40's in W T I crude.Too early to buy beaten down debt in oil patch which has rallied ytd.
Long term demographics very scary in the next 15-35 years,especially Japan,most of Europe,and China.
Trend is your friend,especially in fx markets.$$$$$.All DoubleLine's funds,including E M's are $$ dominated.
Waiting for an Indian stock market correction to deploy more capital there.Long term investors-Buy India,put it in a safe for 20 years-Enjoy your foresight! Very compelling demographics.
When will the "Block Head" game end? 2019-22 shows extreme bond maturities.Interest rates at that time ??? Government debt service?
Despite asset/product expansion,Gundloch expects to continue DoubleLine's out performance.He appreciates the concern for his well being though !
Higher taxes coming,especially the very rich.Has 15% percent of his personal assets in muni's, especially California.Very comfy with that asset. Puerto Rico's debt will get across the goal line.Very compelling for high tax bracketeers.(he implies these tax advantages may be reduced in the future) I R A's ???.
@Scott Skeptical of old line auto manufacturers.The urban Millennials embrace a carless future with an on demand driverless car available in 30 ?? seconds.Mentioned Uber. Tesla,Apple??
Housing weakness? At least not very strong.
I own DLENX.

Hi Hank,
Thank you for reading my post. Sorry it is so negative with respect to your earlier submittal, but I believe some of your comments are prompted by your unfamiliarity with the annual DALBAR Quantitative Analysis of Investor Behavior (QAIB) report.
Keep in mind that DALBAR is just one investment agency that has examined the issue of individual investor shortfalls relative to the mutual funds that they own. Morningstar, Vanguard, and Academia have completed similar studies with roughly comparable conclusions. Investor shortfalls have been pervasive for decades, mostly associated with poor timing and wealth destruction crowd herding behaviors.
The DALBAR report is designed for consumption by financial advisors. They have been publishing it for 30 or so years. It has improved over these decades. Here is a Link to the 2014 edition:
http://grandwealth.com/files/DALBAR QAIB 2014.pdf
I don’t read it each year since the findings seem to be fairly repeatable and predictable. The report does address your first two questions directly, and I’ll summarize them here. I’ll also address your third question from my general interpretation of their data collection and processing methods.
Your 1. The DALBAR methodology incorporates dollar weighting with its monthly measurements of fund inflows and outflows. From an engineering perspective, it’s comparable to a mass balancing assessment.
Your 2. Quoting from the referenced report: “QAIB 2014 examines real investor returns in equity, fixed income and asset allocation funds.” DALBAR makes the requisite adjustments to correctly judge investor performance relative to proper investment categories.
Your 3. DALBAR merely manipulates numbers. It makes zero distinctions with respect to an investor’s motivations or investment proclivities. Its data sets do not and can not contain that very personal information which is illusive and likely not stable for any investor. Most investors probably can’t reliably recall their specific trading reasons. That’s okay; it would be scary otherwise.
I’m answering your questions without much updated research. Please access the referenced DALBAR document. Reviewing a primary report is always better than a secondhand source.
I hope this satisfies your curiosity. I really don’t have a test for accuracy, but the distinction between climate and weather is substantial and should be understood and respected. Regardless if individual investors are sophisticated or clueless, they are at a disadvantage when competing against resource rich professionals. Most investors are not especially sophisticated.
Best Wishes.

@MJG
Sorry the illustrations I put up from an online article did not meet your test for accuracy. The point I hoped to make was that statistics, generally speaking, can be misleading. However, I'm still puzzled about who these average investors are and how Dalbar reached their statistical conclusion.
To be clear, here's the quote I referenced from Ted's linked article: "The average investor in stock mutual funds made 3.8% a year over the past 30 years, according to Boston research firm Dalbar Inc".
MJG, with your expertise in statistical analysis perhaps you would clarify the following.
1. Was the study dollar weighted? In other words, if I had invested $100,000 in funds over that period and you had invested $10,000, was my degree of success (or lack thereof) weighted 10 times more than yours in the study results?
2. What percentage of "stocks" held constitutes a "stock mutual fund" by Dalbar's definition? I own a fund that by design holds about 40% equities and 60% fixed income. Would Dalbar consider that a "stock mutual fund"? If not, than what was their cut-off point for inclusion of a fund in this category?
3. Does the study group investors according to goal or purpose for investing? Were all those studied investing for retirement? Or were a significant number short term "speculators" throwing money at an already "hot" equity market? If the second group was included in the study, than it would tend to greatly exacerbate the degree to which investor returns lagged fund returns.
For the record MJG, I do believe a great many individual investors harm themselves by moving in and out of funds in an attempt to time markets - and that this tendancy contributes to a large percentage of them badly lagging their funds over time. I've mentioned this before in some of my own posts. What I try not to do is throw out terms like "average investor in stock funds" unless I can somehow quantify that term for my reader.
Regards

This article should be dedicated to MJG. In the article " The average investor in stock mutual funds made 3.8% a year over the past 30 years..." I am skeptical on the methodology used to determine that tidbit.
And why some aging investor with a large nest egg should embrace a 20% and more decline in his portfolio is beyond me. My poor old Dad never recovered from the bear of 73/74 because of the timing of his retirement. Albeit, I would love a bear market about now.

Thanks Junkster. I'm more than skeptical of these "averages" that get thrown around. Twain said "Between Kipling and myself we corner all knowledge." He didn't mean to say both were equally brilliant. So WTF is the average investor? Does that have to be U.S. currency - or does it include the stash of "foreign" currency we keep on hand for our visits to Ontario? How about the wife's gold and jewelry collection? She considers it an investment. Does that count? The widow across the street puts her retirement money 100% in insured bank accounts. Is somebody like that included in that "average investor" statistic? Are FDIC insured deposits even counted?
If you include all the people "defaulted" into workplace retirement accounts - and a great many of them contribute very little and care even less about investing - I'd imagine you could skew those averages about as dramatically as the Twain quote does.
Three Ways To Lie With Statistics
http://m.wikihow.com/Lie-with-Statistics
Illustration: "For example, imagine you survey 50 households in a neighborhood for their income. Most households make between $40,000 and $60,000 a year, but one household makes $5 million a year. When you compute the mean average, the number will be significantly higher than the “real” average income in that area, because the $5 million number is so much bigger than the others.
"In a similar way, if you had data showing that 9 people each had $1,000 in their bank accounts, but a tenth person only has $1, the median average would work out to $900.10 – almost 10% less than the most common amount."
I really think step #1 in any article like this should be (meaning "ought to be and not necessarily will be") to DEFINE THE TERMS.

This article should be dedicated to MJG. In the article " The average investor in stock mutual funds made 3.8% a year over the past 30 years..." I am skeptical on the methodology used to determine that tidbit.
And why some aging investor with a large nest egg should embrace a 20% and more decline in his portfolio is beyond me. My poor old Dad never recovered from the bear of 73/74 because of the timing of his retirement. Albeit, I would love a bear market about now.

Terrible name. When these (target date) funds were originally conceived, interest rates were still in the near double-diget range - so the concept of increasing bond allocations over time made some sense according to the than conventional wisdom. Unfortunately, that may no longer be the case with the historically low rates of recent years. The "news" is nothing new, Experts have been sounding the alarm about this for some time.
I don't understand why any savy investor would choose these over, say, a good conservative allocation fund, and perhaps allocate his own desired amount into cash or bonds. However, as a default option for those who either don't know very much about money or don't care, I guess they still make sense. They're far better than not saving at all or letting the money collect moss in a 0 interest account.
I use Price's TRRIX (Retirement Balanced) as part of my overall allocation. It's part of their retirement fund lineup. But, unlike the others, it doesn't increase its allocation to fixed income over time. Essentially, it remains around 50-60% in fixed income indefinitely. Has low fees and gives you a nice slice of many of their other funds.