@hank, the way I look at things everyone has their own preferences and I have no issue with that. Like you, there are things I prefer reading on paper and other things I'm happy to read on a laptop or tablet. But if I was a guy who was happy reading everything on a computer screen I wouldn't want to subsidize all those who want everything on paper and if I was a guy who wanted everything on paper I don't think others should have to subsidize me. Essentially I figure the expense ratio has to cover all those expenses in one way or another and I'd rather pay lower expenses and manage my own costs for whatever I want to print.
I think I get things fastest if I can just log in to a website for my statement, but email shouldn't be far behind and the mail tends to take a good amount longer. I'm not an environmentalist but I do think about all the paper that gets mailed to people only to be thrown away and for me personally I think archiving the things I want to keep is a lot easier when it comes electronically rather than in paper.
I understand what you're saying about printing being a pain in some cases. I was lucky enough a couple of years ago to replace my printer and got one where I can send an email to the printer and it prints whatever is attached. That's made it so I almost never have to connect anything to the printer, but I'm not sure how long that technology has been around or how pervasive it is among different manufacturers.

Most readers here are of course MF investors, although many hold ETFs and stocks. I reviewed Barron's quarterly fund issue today and found that the tables of fund performance, good and bad, over periods of years have become useless because they are populated by ETFs on steroids, at least the last 10 years studied. For 15 and 20 year periods, MF performance can be gleaned, but soon enough ETFs will crowd out the MFs. I wonder if Barron's has given any thought to how skewed the presentation of data has become. The tail seems to be wagging the dog. I for one pay no attention to what a 3X bear sector ETF has done for the past five years, yet my subscription dollars pay for tabulation of data of little application.

Hi @Paul
While these longer (rear view) time frames may be of interest for review; IMHO, one needs to attempt to place what other events were taking place at the time of whatever particular money flow was being reviewed.
Since the markets melt in 2007/2008 there have been many "special situations" that would have provided any number of reasons for why the "big/hot money" was traveling to a particular area.
We try to view the current functions of the market place to establish investment postions.
To the circumstance of only one effect of market movements/cash flows may be reflected from the actions of central banks attempting to support "growth" and a "2% inflation rate". The result, of course; became and still exists today with a hugh boatload of very low yields for government and other investment grade bonds. Cheap money for financing.........whatever.
So, as to the flows of money into particular areas; from a review of past actions, needs to accompanied by and with "what was taking place" at the time.
We held IG and HY bonds much past the time frame of what the "economists and forecasters" kept telling us would be "healthy" for a decent return on the investment. I don't recall how many annual forecasts I have read during the past 5 years regarding that "the U.S. 10 yield was going to x percent upward in the next 6 - 12 months."
How many times has the EuroZone gone through the shakes of the market place in the past 5 years? My answer would simply be, a bunch !!!
However, I/we do use pricing of various market areas for a reflection of "money flows" at the time. If one were reviewing U.S. equity and bonds for a "funds flow" during the second half of 2011, the consideration that the U.S. had a debt quality downgrade in July would have to be accounted as a partial reason for the changes during this period. Pricing for equity went to hell for a few months and most IG bond pricing was very happy during this period.
Numerous other examples could be provided strictly related to central bank actions, regardless of any other events.
Obviously, this particular area of thought (funds/money flows) for a market guage is very complex; past the simple notes I have written.
I don't offer any particular judgment about investing in emerging markets at this time. We are "full up" with other areas that are doing well at this time.
As Mr. Snowball has noted in the blue box text along the left, top edge of this page; this is just my 2 cents worth. My only "formal" education regarding investments is from 35 years attending the "school of hard knocks". :)
Take care,
Catch

@Paul It wasn't clear from your request: did you just want net weekly and monthly flow figures, or did you want these totals broken down into (a) outflows (smart money) and (b) inflows (dumb money)? There are few EM countries that have a tailwind behind them; most have increasing headwinds, and the winds on every continent are headed south, so to speak. Currency wars, inflation, domestic consumer market undeveloped, sharp declines in foreign demand for exports. So why now, what's the rush? Just my take.

Hi heezsafe, I was looking for longer term flow numbers. For instance, let's say Domestic Equity has had more total inflows by tens of billions over the past 5 years and Emerging Markets (overall, no specific region) had outflows (or low inflows), it could be an interesting space to add exposure.

I'm glad there's no real change, especially since GPEOX seems the better vehicle to really go after frontier markets. I wrote to Eric a couple years ago and asked if they might consider eventually launching a frontier markets fund and the answer was a kind 'no'. The irony in all this is to wonder how much it's costing those of who own shares for some lawyer to earn his keep this way. I'm not a big supporter of ambulance chasing, but in this case I think it would be a much better use of his/her time.

FYI: It’s been about 40 years since John Bogle created investor-owned Vanguard Group and the first index fund. In the intervening decades, Vanguard has become the biggest mutual fund company in the world, and the humble index fund has become the centerpiece of the ETF revolution.
The implications are profound, as the 85-year-old legend made clear when ETF.com caught up with him in a recent telephone interview. In the first installment last week, Bogle extolled the fact that politicians and regulators are giving the pursuit of a unified fiduciary standard serious attention
Regards,
Ted
http://www.etf.com/sections/features-and-news/bogle-investors-are-now-driving-ethics?nopaging=1

"How we react after liftoff will depend on how the market reacts."
- FOMC vice chairman and president of Fed Bank of NY Bill Dudley
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-04-08/feds-bill-dudley-ignore-march-jobs-its-weather-live-feed
Market clearly not a priority in their decision making.
"but I'm pretty certain that they factor in a whole lot of variables other than that"
When your priority is to ramp asset prices in the hopes that that leads to a sustainable recovery and not another bubble/bust, wouldn't markets likely be a large focus?
Beyond that, whenever the market has gone down a few % in the last few years, a Fed governor inevitably pops up to soothe the markets. They're entirely reactionary to even smaller tantrums by the market.

Hi Guys,
Thank you all for your replies.
Given these replies, I presume you, on balance, favor actively managed mutual funds for at least a portion of your portfolios. So do I.
When I initially morphed into a mutual fund portfolio, I exclusively bought the active products. Over the years, mostly as a cost containment effort to retain market rewards, I migrated into Index holdings. I suppose I’m roughly 40% active positions today, with a goal towards the 30% level.
Given that I’ve diversified sufficiently to control risk, the primary, likely the singular, purpose of my active funds is to generate a little Excess Returns (Alpha). In your postings, you did not identify why you prefer active funds.
To steal a line from a haunting Jimmy Rodgers song : “Please tell me if you can” – what are your primary goals when investing in actively managed funds? My answer is simplicity itself: Alpha.
The Rodgers song is a highly emotional reflection of veterans returning home after WW II. Here is a Link to a YouTube video of it:

The song captures the sadness of a blind-man coming home from war. Rodgers sudden death has similar tragic elements. At this moment, I’m blind as to why you invest in expensive actively managed funds if not in the expectations for an exceptional profitable payday. That’s my incentive; what’s yours?
Best Wishes.

Time is probably the key here

A functioning government would be rather helpful. The idea of spewing money at any problem that comes along isn't really fixing anything - it's spending money to delay problems in the hopes that they will eventually be someone else's problem rather than fixing them. In this case, it's also to bail out left and right and ramp asset markets, which has lead to record amounts of stock buybacks, but not a whole lot in the way of factories built and other such economic activity.
Shareholders are happy until they're not, just as homeowners were happy until they weren't. Of course this is more popular than forcing rot from the system until the rot spreads and isn't.
It's not that I think things should be fixed in a hurry in the slightest, my mere request is that underlying problems actually be fixed and addressed in an attempt to create a recovery that is sustainable rather than in need of one QE drug after another.
QE and financial engineering is the definition of "wanting things fixed in a hurry" (no one wanted to address any issues in 2008, it was "how much money will it take to reboot us to a few years prior" - people wanted it fixed yesterday. Actually clearing the system of rot is not wanting things fixed in a hurry, it's wanting things fixed in a manner that is right and ultimately leads to a sustainable path.
The first one is taking a long time because it's not really fixing any underlying problems as much as creating another asset bubble. Only this time we're at the zero bound and the economy is faltering again, so we find ourselves in the new "QE" normal.
I said a couple of days ago, if the market gets rocky, just stay calm and continue to own assets because the Fed will inevitably start talking up something else. A couple of days later, you already have a Fed governor trial ballooning QE4 - and hey, the market didn't even have to go down 10-15% first.
I'll refer again to Scott Minerd's excellent "The Monetary Illusion". http://guggenheimpartners.com/perspectives/media/the-monetary-illusion

Yes, "the results are lackluster considering the sheer size and duration of easy monetary policy this time." No argument.
How many years did it take to escape the Great Depression?
I'll happily accept "lackluster" in lieu of another World War to revive an economy.

It appears that the key words were "IF ECONOMY FALTERED". With respect to "theories of insanity", the word "theories" is at least correct, as we are still seeing where this particular theory will take us. We do know, though, where the Austrian/University of Chicago Business School theories took us in 1929.

"is at least correct, as we are still seeing where this particular theory will take us."
I tend to wonder if devotees of current economic theory would ever admit that the results are lackluster considering the sheer size and duration of easy monetary policy this time.
The fact that there is even the mere discussion of another round of asset purchases after three rounds and several years of easy monetary policy - is laughable, although particularly laughable if we get QE 4 is the notion that "we are still seeing where this is going." I tend to think that something has "worked" when you don't need another and another and another of it.
If "we are still seeing where this is going" after QE4, then those saying that I think do not care to truly admit where this is all going. At what point do we all get to see where this is going, QE5? QE10?
Additionally, at some point "we are still seeing" becomes "have seen" unless you believe that, much like many devotees of current monetary policy, it "wasn't enough" - "wasn't enough money", "wasn't enough time", etc. Can something ever be wrong if you just keep giving it more and more time to be right? Can something be wrong if every time the problem was that "there just wasn't enough" of it? Theoretically we can be at this forever if the problem every time was that "it needs more time" and there "wasn't enough" and the people behind it never admit that it isn't creating a sustainable result.
Problems are transitory, goalposts (it's not wrong because we're still seeing where it's going after several years..., we need another QE because the last one just "wasn't enough" AGAIN....) moved when they don't fit the desired result, etc.

Hi @Ted
I don't recall that bet; but I would not bet against you regarding a rate hike anytime soon. But, if I did; I would want to choose a restaurant on Milwaukee Ave.
Hey, speaking of Chicago and food. Back in the late 70's through the early 80's I had the good fortune of being in the Chicago area numerous times related to week long business trips. A fellow company aquaintance I had known for several years had an apartment on N. Milwaukee Ave., which lead to the "food feast" for me. Having traveled a good deal in my younger years, including internationally, and wonderful home cooking as a child; my food palate was very diverse. I recall the wonderful discovery of the many restaurants along Milwaukee Ave.; a block at a time, being the Greek, Polish, Italian, middle eastern, etc. During my stays I would always venture around the entire area (except S. Chicago) to get to know the community in and around greater Chicago.
Milwaukee Ave. always brought me into "food heaven".
Do you know whether this area of restuarants still exists, as such?
I found this listing, but I don't know if these are still some of the long standing, old restaurants; or new versions.
https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=milwaukee+avenue+chicago+restaurants&rflfq=1&tbm=lcl
Thanks, Ted.
Catch

Hmmm ... it delivers a 7.4% yield with a 6.45% total return, annualized over five years. Negative alpha and high beta against its "best fit" index over the past three years; Morningstar doesn't provide the five-year best fit data.
In a move that only Morningstar could love, they rate it as "high risk" within its category; then note that the category holds a total of four funds.
David

I filed my tax using TT in the past few years without any problems with K1, the major issue i have this year is that my accountant don't feel comfortable to file the return with estimated K1 from Oaktree and want me to file the disclosure form.

FYI: In a few weeks, two mutual funds that I have owned for at least 20 years will no longer be part of my portfolio.
That’s by circumstance, not by choice, but it leaves me with questions to answer and decisions to make. Moreover, even if you never face the same challenges, the exercise I must now go through will help you update, refresh and refocus your portfolio.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/which-investments-would-you-buy-if-you-had-to-do-it-all-over-again-2015-04-06/print

"Price" and Dividends are the Game.....Market increases and Decreases mean What?
I predict the Market will go up and Down and I (we) will Make money in the future...
See....Predictions are easy....and I'm correct....Eisenstedt is (probably) wrong after 63 years of Research......

@ Catch & John - I found the list of Googled articles to have some fairly misleading titles. However, once one starts reading the articles the truth starts to surface. The only tax issue to holding an MLP in an IRA account has to do with UBTI or UBIT (unrelated business tax income) in excess of $1000/year. If your MLP reports UBTI greater than this your IRA, not you, will have to declare and pay the required tax. Your brokerage firm completes the required forms and may charge you for this service.
Having owned multiple MLP's in my retirement IRA's for over 10 years now I have never seen a positive UBTI much less one over $1000. In fact, as one article mentioned, TurboTax actually kicks the K-1 out of tax reporting if you state that the MLP is held in a retirement account. Do consult with your accountant or tax preparer and you should find that there are no issues.

JMCVX is a conservative (M* rates it low risk), broadly diversified (almost 100 securities) fund that sits on the value/blend border (oscillating from year to year), tending toward large cap. It is not focused on midcap value, it just averages out that way.
How much of this is important to you in seeking a replacement? FSMVX matches most attributes - its portfolio leans a bit more toward large cap, and a bit more toward value, but both in minor ways. More significant is that its risk is rated average - still not a very risky fund.
VASVX is also slightly more value oriented, though with an average market cap matching JMCVX. M* rates its risk as below average - not quite as low as JMCVX, but in the "next" ballpark. Mona is correct that Vanguard recently added Penza Investment Management recently, but Donald G. Smith and Richard L Greenberg (of Donald Smith & Co.) came on board a decade ago, just three years after Mark Giambrone.
If you want to get a sense of how Barrow/Giambrone work with Penza and his team, you might look at American Beacon Mid Cap Value (AMPAX). From the fund inception until 2014, these two teams were responsible for the day-to-day management of that fund. ISTM that this is a respectable, though not awe inspiring fund - good risk/return, similar attributes to JMCVX, average risk and a bit pricy (compared with the other funds mentioned). Not a fund I'd look at to purchase, but one to see how these teams work together in a co-managed fund.
HIMVX isn't as close a match as the other funds. Its risk is higher (above average per M*) which IMHO goes along with a deep value leaning (vs. sitting on the value/blend line as do the other funds). On the other hand, it has somewhat more securities in its portfolio (about 175). Overall, it gives a bit greater variety in company cap sizes, and a bit less along the value/growth axis. While it has done well in the past few years (with markets soaring), its ten year record is almost identical to AMPAX - and management has been pretty stable for both funds over that period of time (making the comparison valid). Another indicator that the fund is more risky/volatile than the others - better in good times, worse in bad ones.
All of this gets me back to the question - what are you looking for in a replacement? If you're looking for a fund that spans a broad swath of companies, then a fund narrowly focused on mid cap value, whether active or index like VOE/VMVAX isn't going to do it.
Are you willing to look outside of Fidelity, or are you at least open to the idea of doing a move all at once (to facilitate purchasing TF funds at Fidelity)? In that case, you might also consider DHMIX (TF at Fidelity, more compact portfolio, leaning more toward small cap), or VETAX (NTF at Schwab, and a somewhat more focused market cap range, though not nearly as narrow as VOE/VMVAX).
Or if all you're looking for is a better fund, nominally labeled MCV, you might even look at FLPSX. A bit of a contrarian play in the sense that the fund is nearly a world fund, and the US market has been doing much better over the past few years.

Someone is going to have to do more than "Research Work" for 63 years to claim Guru Status with me, But everyone has the privilege to pick their "Gurus":
His previous six-month forecast, for example, was that the S&P 500 by the end of March (this past Tuesday) would be between 2,160 and 2,200 — representing an increase of at least 9.5% over where it stood at the end of last year’s third quarter. As fate would have it, the S&P 500 rose “only” 4.8% over that six-month period.
not my kinda of Guru....tb

Indeed, guru designation is often placed upon those who just happen to get it right more often than wrong. Guru's come and guru's go.
However if you had bothered to read the article you would have learned that Mr. Eisenstadt is the former research director at Value Line Inc. with 63 years at that firm. I'd say that he might have earned the street credit's to be listened to over Timmy boy who offers nothing other than he's a blog writer with no credentials he cares to mention.