Question: Perhaps I'm wrong, but I was under the impression that Buffet no longer personally made the decisions for the stock holdings of Berkshire. He still works directly on Berkshire's acquisitions of whole companies as well as other special situations, but he's assigned other people to work the stock market for him. Is this so or am I hallucinating again?

Buffett definitely makes decisions, but I believe a fairly significant amount of money has been farmed out to the two newer managers. It remains to be seen who is next in line to replace Buffett, although possibly some hints of that will be in the "next 50 years" letter (which I think was supposed to come this month?)

The trade has been crowded for a while, but that $20 billion is not betting against just one currency. Probably most of it is betting against the EUR and Yen, but there are other currencies people would hedge against the strong dollar. IMO the Euro and Yen are not getting stronger anytime soon. It may be years that the dollar trends stronger and as long as it doesn't weaken then hedged investments will perform the same or better than un-hedged alternatives.
When it does change then it might get ugly, but I don't think that will be soon and the beauty of ETFs is that shutting down positions and knowing where and how big your bets are is a lot easier than with mutual funds.

Hi, Derf.
One simple expedient would be to drop a note to Seafarer and ask. In general, expense waivers are almost never revoked although many contain a "clawback" provision. At base, advisers sometimes subsidize a fund until it hits a breakeven point but then they don't lower the expense ratio further until they've recouped some or all of the money they spent underwriting fund operations. In Seafarer's case, they can recoup expenses for the three years immediately prior to when they turn profitable.
Andrew joked at one point that he and I both run non-profit entities, the difference between that I do it on purpose.
A concern for shareholders is, I believe, part of Seafarer's DNA. They've repeatedly lowered their expense ratio, despite the fact that Morningstar wouldn't give them credit for the move since Morningstar uses the expense ratios from the annual report. Morningstar reports a 1.4% e.r. for Seafarer, which reflects the April 2014 Annual Report's calculation of the fund's 2013 expenses. The September 2014 prospectus commits to a 1.25% e.r. but Morningstar's profile of the fund in 2015 reports the expenses investors bore in 2013 as if they were current.
As ever,
David

Hi Ted,
Thanks for stopping by.
I had to turn to Google to find out who Arch Crawford was. For those interested I have provided a link to his site. It is interesting that our apperance favors along with our voice and speach pattern ... but, I hate to disapoint you .... I am not this person.
http://www.crawfordperspectives.com/
On the portfolio it is what it is and meets my needs. The performance numbers from Morningstar did not include the added return benefit of my special investment positions, spiffs as I have frequently called them. For 2014 my distribution yield was north of five percent and I look at the portfolio as a diverisfied income generator. It has worked well for me through the years and I see no reason to make any major changes at this time. However, I do plan to reduce my allocation to domestic equities over the coming months and raise my allocation to some other assets.
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, and the portfolio as a whole 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 cash the cash area builds cash within the portfolio to meet the portfolio’s monthly cash distribution needs with the residual being left for new investment opportunity. In addition, most all buy/sell trades settle from, or settle to, the cash area.
Here is how I have my asset allocation currently 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 of the portfolio monthly and make asset weighting adjustments as I feel warranted based upon my assesment of the market, my risk tolerance, cash needs, etc. Currently, I am neutral in the cash area, light in the income area and heavy in the equity area. I am thinking that once year end mutual fund capital gain distributions are paid out this will somewhat reduce the equity area and raise the cash area.
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: EVBAX, LALDX, THIFX, LBNDX, NEFZX & TSIAX
Hybrid Income Sleeve: AZNAX, CAPAX, FKINX, ISFAX, PASAX & 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, CFLGX, FDSAX, INUTX, NBHAX, SPQAX & SVAAX
Domestic Hybrid Sleeve: ABALX, AMECX, DDIAX, FRINX, HWIAX & LABFX
Growth Area (Weighting Range 10% to 30%)
Global Sleeve: ANWPX, PGROX, THOAX, DEMAX, NEWFX & THDAX
Large/Mid Cap Sleeve: AGTHX, BWLAX, HWAAX, SPECX, IACLX & VADAX
Small/Mid Cap Sleeve: IIVAX, PCVAX & PMDAX
Specialty Sleeve: CCMAX, JCRAX, LPEFX, SGGDX & TOLLX
Total number of mutual fund investment positions currently held equal fifty two.
Have a grand day, Ted ... and, thanks again for stopping by.
Old_Skeet

BARRINGTON FINANCIAL ADVISORS, INC.
a Registered Investment Advisor
(Celebrating 42 years of Professional Service)
MARKET COMMENTARY
FEBRUARY 2015
King Dollar is a two-edged sword. The very strong dollar has helped to cause the dramatic fall in oil prices. Like oil, all commodities are priced in dollars, so copper, iron ore, coal, grains, etc., are all lower in price, which has given the U.S. a very low inflation rate as well as adding after-tax dollars to the consumers’ pocketbook. Engineers know for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. This does not always occur in financial markets but it has this time. Our strong currency is slowing our exports since other countries need to spend more of their currency to purchase our exports. This causes inflation in other countries, which is slowing their growth and lowering their consumption. Also, the fall in oil prices is causing domestic companies to dramatically lower capital spending this year resulting in announced lay offs in drilling and oil field service companies. This is problematic because the hydrocarbon industry has been the largest provider of high paying jobs over the last five years.
What was initially announced as a 2.6% GDP increase in the fourth quarter, will probably be reduced as more data on our export activity is more available. However, going forward, there are several factors which point to a continued increase in U.S. growth. Back on February 6th the U.S. Labor Department announced a stronger-than-expected increase of 257,000 jobs for January. They also increased the new hires number for December and November by 147,000 jobs. This is the largest labor increase in a three-month period since 1997. The Labor Department also stated wage gains were beginning to see higher growth. Outside of the energy business, labor hires are increasing. Retail, construction, manufacturing, and healthcare all showed an increase in hirings. The lower gasoline prices has allowed consumers to be able to increase their savings without crushing spending. They are also buying larger vehicles again. Truck and SUV sales have increased over the same periods a year ago. These vehicles are more profitable to the automobile manufacturer, which allows them to increase their profit as well as increase hiring.
As we mentioned earlier the strong dollar has contributed to the dramatic fall in the price of oil. However, slower demand from a slowing world economy along with increased production in Canada and the U.S. quickened the fall in price as surpluses rose. We believe there are several factors, which will cause prices to stabilize and start to rise sooner than many analysts are predicting. The Energy Information Agency (EIA) last week announced that gasoline consumption in January showed a dramatic increase over a year ago. The International Energy Agency (IEA) is predicting world-wide consumption to increase to around 94 mm barrels/day by the end of the year, an increase of about 1.5 mm barrels. In addition, political problems around the world are beginning to slow production. Libya has slowed exports by about 500,000 barrels/day over the last two months and the EIA announced domestic production decreased by 33,000 barrels/day last month. For these reasons we believe the price of oil has currently stabilized around the $50 per barrel price and has started to rise back up toward the $70 to $80 per barrel that we think it will reach by year end. This price increase will be aided by a somewhat weaker dollar between now and year end.
The oil price collapse has caused some investors to throw out the baby with the bath water. As a patient investor, there are bargains available in the market. As oil prices have fallen, so have Natural Gas Liquids (NGLs). Ethane had fallen to about $0.40/gallon, down from over $1.50/gallon last year. This gives the U.S. chemical industry a distinct advantage over other areas of the world that use Naphtha to derive Ethylene. One sector of the economy that benefits from lower prices is the chemical industry. Westlake Chemicals (WLK) and LyondellBasell (LYB) are still our favorites in this sector. Their plant expansions are coming on line now thru mid-2017. This added capacity will lower their cost even more and enable them to take better advantage of the abundance of domestic NGL production. We feel both of these companies are still oversold. We do not feel that the price of oil is going to remain low enough for long enough to have any sort of negative impact on their earnings so we will be adding to these positions as cash becomes available.
The mid-stream sector was hard hit as well. These companies derive most of their income from fee-based revenue through their pipelines and NGL processing. They are largely shielded from the price of the hydrocarbon. Several mid-stream companies we follow are building capacity to take advantage of the domestic expansion in production and demand in the NGL space. Our two favorite names in this space are Enterprise Products Partners (EPD) and Kinder Morgan (KMI).
With the large drop in oil prices, almost all of the E&P companies have slashed their capital expansion spending for the coming year by at least 25% to over 50%. They will not ramp back up until oil prices rise and stabilize. As the price of oil gains ground back to the mid-$60s, several producers that have very good leases will again be very profitable. We are now slowly increasing our positions in several players in this area. Names we recommend are Concho Resources Inc. (CXO), EOG Resources (EOG), and Linn Energy (LINE). For an investment in the Marcellus shale, Gastar Exploration (GST) and Range Resources (RRC) are where we are currently adding money.
We are emphasizing investments in companies with good cash flow, good cash distributions and companies that operate in areas where they have a competitive advantage due to much lower energy costs and raw material input costs. We prefer companies with price earnings ratios that are at levels that are attractive compared to the low interest rates on investment grade bonds. BSG&L and BFA are long-term investors and we believe that if you are patient, build cash and buy good companies on pull backs, your portfolio will have good growth over the long term. Author: Ben Dickey, CFP/MBA/CHFC, Chairman of the Investment Committee, BSG&L Financial Services LLC.
We welcome any concerns, or comments you may have. Please feel free to call (713) 785-7100 or email us at any time.
Have a Blessed Day,
William C. Heath, CFP®
Chairman & CEO

I agree with some of what David Winters has said regarding emerging market consumers and still own a significant holding in former Wintergreen top holding Jardine Matheson. That said, the fund has not done terribly well in recent years, partly due to the Macau theme, which has seemingly cooled off quite a bit recently. He also has a few sizable energy holdings, including "forever a value" Canadian Natural Resources.
I don't think the emerging market consumer theme has done all that well in the last couple of years, although there have absolutely been some exceptions (especially the internet stocks - Tencent, for example.)
Keep in mind there has been a crackdown on luxury gifting in China, which has hurt stocks like Diageo and has probably hurt Richemont (http://www.cnbc.com/id/100445071)
The Winters vs Coke battle was ridiculous and he's probably taken losses on the Swiss holdings (Richemont, Nestle, Swatch) lately.
The Genting companies that Wintergreen holds are the most fascinating resort companies, but have done terribly as stocks. They are high on the list of "stocks I would like to like but can't."
I don't think Winters is wrong on the EM consumer trade, but I think his themes have run into problems and I get the sense in interviews that he's long-term in his beliefs/holdings and if you don't want to join him, go.
I completely agree with you regarding the lack of short selling. Not that one has to use that tool constantly or anything, but Winters has often pitched Wintergreen as a "hedge fund" with all manner of tools at its disposal and it's rare he seems to use any of them. He's discussed his ability to go activist - I mean, him going against Coke is literally kind of a David vs Goliath and kind of a waste of time and resources.
Seafarer would not be a bad choice at all, although that's EM vs Wintergreen (world fund), so not an apples-to-apples replacement. Still, at least Seafarer provides a bit of a yield.

First some clarifications
(1) John's reference to "tsp" leads me to think he's a Federal employee. A description of tsp http://www.investopedia.com/terms/t/thrift_savings_plan.asp
(2) His question refers to "401K". While not the same, 401Ks and TSPs operate pretty much the same. According to the description above, one can be converted into the other.
(3) John refers to "distribution" in his question. I suspect he means "contribution."
If John wants respondents to detail how much they invest annually in these plans, I can't answer. We contribute nothing in retirement. In fact, we take distributions of 4-5% annually. While employed, my contributions varied widely. The limit back in the 70s-90s was in the range of $6,000 to $10,000 annually as I recall. We seldom "maxed-out", except during the last few years.
The first article (which I read) isn't very well focused. It mentions the need to save and difficulties that often prevent families from doing so. It touches on RMD requirements. It gives $18,000 as the yearly limit on contributions. And, it notes that some employer plans feature a match.
Like most of these articles, they manage to get the wagon out in front of the horse a little. Before people can save, they have to to learn to manage household expenses through effective planning/budgeting. They also need to get off the credit Merry Go-Round if they're carrying over monthly balances on credit cards or other forms of revolving credit.
Once solvent, families can begin saving. I won't go overboard touting 401Ks. They're a great component to saving. However, as some have noted previously, the tax advantages eventually come back to haunt you in the form of the "ordinary income" tax rates applied on plan distributions. For at least some, 401Ks may not be the preferred method of saving. I once met a fellow who had chosen to invest during his working years in rental properties he was fixing-up and which would provide an income stream during retirement. So, one size does not fit all.
My favorite expression relating to monthly savings - "PAY YOURSELF FIRST."

Acitve managed Moderate Allocation funds list, which vary in balance methodology.
Click upon the 5 year column for the longer view to sort by return percentage.
Note: these funds, not unlike we mortal individual investors have off years, too; as with
VILLX, which fell upon its return face in 2014.

MJG & rjb,
Am I understanding correctly that both of you use a combination of actively managed funds as well as index funds? I've considered the merits of such a strategy in the past and am aware individuals such as Charles Schwab are advocates of the combination.

Hi Roy,
Yes, you are correct. I use a combination of actively managed funds as well as index funds. And like MJG, as time goes on, my percentage of indexed equity investments has been increasing and my percentage of actively managed equity investments has been decreasing.
And I plan to continue this, that is, use an increasingly larger percentage of indexed equity funds rather than actively managed equity funds. I'm particularly disenchanted with the negative tax implications of actively managed equity funds, that is to say, the fact that they distribute taxable capital gains.
And I'm increasingly overjoyed that the Vanguard Total Stock Market Index fund and Vanguard S&P 500 Index funds have not distributed any capital gains in over 10 years, and I only have to pay taxes on qualified dividends.
Last year was particularly distressing with respect to the large amount of taxable distributions from the actively managed equity funds (capital gains distributions........I'm not distressed by dividends, as if a company wants to pay dividends, that's great). To add insult to injury, on top of the generally large amount of taxable capital gains distributions from the actively managed stock funds, they generally underperformed the indexes by a significant amount. If you are going to distribute taxable capital gains to shareholders, at least outperform the indexes.
MJG has been partly instrumental in helping to change my thinking. I have read literally dozens of his posts where he has shown that skill is increasingly difficult to demonstrate in active fund managers, and luck often explains things when they do outperform the market.
I think Jack Bogle was 40 years ahead of his time. They called his S&P 500 index fund, which opened in 1976, "Bogle's Folly". No one wanted an "average" performance. Everyone wanted to pick funds that beat the market. But obviously all funds cannot beat the market, and after fund expenses, some of which show up in the expense ratio and some of which do not (such as brokerage fees, losses due to bid-ask spreads, losses due to the fund itself affecting the market price of the stock, etc), the vast majority do not.
And Bogle once speculated that taxes alone possibly subtracted about 2% per year from the returns on actively managed mutual funds versus index funds. I don't have a follow up on that, or data to know the true figure.
It's difficult to pick actively managed funds that are going to beat their respective index funds, in advance. It's very easy to pick them after the fact, retrospectively!! Even the pros can't do it well. And even equity mutual fund managers cannot do a good job picking funds that will beat their respective indexes.
Even Morningstar can't do it, in my opinion. Morningstar has a newsletter that may be called something like "Morningstar Fund Investor", and they have model portfolios. They have not beaten their respective indexes, and that newsletter is written by probably the top fund picker at Morningstar. He can't beat the market by choosing a portfolio of actively managed stock funds.
Anyway, yes, I own both actively managed and indexed equity funds, but am generally disenchanted with active management, primarily due to the fees involved. If there were no fees to actively managed funds, they would beat their respective indexes. Expenses are the reason they underperform as a group. It's not that the managers don't know what they are doing.......it's the fees involved, the expense ratio plus the other fees not found in the expense ratios.

take care Roy,
Happy Investing

For investors who desire a moderate allocation portfolio who do not desire to put in the effort to identify funds that have a history of doing better.......

Does investing in funds that have a history of doing better result in a portfolio that performs better in the future?
John Bogle is fond of saying that "past is not prologue"
And MJG has frequently posted about the lack of persistence in mutual fund performance, in other words, invest in a list of the best performers over the past 10 years, and it is not likely they will be in the list of best performers for the coming 10 years.
https://www.bogleheads.org/forum/viewtopic.php?uid=50214&f=10&t=156573&start=0
What Experts Say About "Past Performance"
Frank Armstrong, financial author: "Rating services such as Morningstar's 'Star Awards' or the 'Forbes Honor Roll' attest to the futility of applying past performance to tomorrow."
Barra Research: "There is no persistence of equity fund performance."
Jack Bogle: "The biggest mistake investors make is looking backward at performance and thinking it’ll recur in the future."
Burns Advisory tracked the performance of Morningstar's five-star rated stock funds beginning January 1, 1999. Of the 248 stock funds, just four still kept that rank after ten years.
Wm. Bernstein, author of The Four Pillars of Investing: "For the 20 years from 1970 to 1989, the best performing stock assets were Japanese stocks, U.S. small stocks, and gold stocks. These turned out to be the worst performing assets over the next decade."
Jack Brennan, former Vanguard CEO: "Fund ranking is meaningless when based primarily on past performance, as most are."
Andrew Clarke, author: "By the time an investment reaches the top of the performance tables, there's a good chance that its run is over. The past is not prologue."
Prof. John Cochrane, author: "Past performance has almost no information about future performance."
S.T.Coleridge: "History is a lantern over the stern. It shows where you've been but not where you're going"
Jonathan Clements, author & Wall Street Journal columnist: "Trying to pick market-beating investments is a loser's game."
Eugene Fama, Nobel Laureate: "Our research on individual mutual funds says that it's impossible to identify true winners on a reliable basis, even if one ignores the costs that active funds impose on investors."
Gensler & Bear, co-authors of The Great Mutual Fund Trap: "Of the fifty top-performing funds in 2000, not a single one appeared on the list in either 1999 or 1998."
Ken Heebner's CGM Focus Fund was the top U.S. equity fund in 2007. In November 2009, it ranked in the bottom 1% of its category.
Arthur Levitt, SEC Commissioner: "A mutual fund's past performance, which is the first feature that investors consider when choosing a fund, doesn't predict future performance."
Burton Malkiel, author of the classic Random Walk Down Wall Street: "I have examined the lack of persistency in fund returns over periods from the 1960s through the early 2000s.--There is no persistency to good performance. It is as random as the market."
Mercer Investment Consulting from a study of over 12,000 institutional managers: "Excellent recent performance not only doesn't guarantee future results but generally leads to under-performance in the subsequent period."
After fifteen straight years beating the S&P 500 Index, Bill Miller's Legg Mason Value Trust (LMNVX) is now (1/25/2015) in the bottom 1% of its category for 10-year returns .
Ron Ross, author of The Unbeatable Market: "Extensive studies by Davis, Brown & Groetzman, Ibbotson, Elton et al, all confirmed there is no significant persistance in mutual fund performance."
Bill Schultheis, adviser and author of The Coffeehouse Investor: "Using past performance numbers as a method for choosing mutual funds is such a lousy idea that mutual fund companies are required by law to tell you it is a lousy idea."
Standard & Poor's: "Over the 5 years ending September 2009, only 4.27% large-cap funds, 3.98% mid-cap funds, and 9.13% small-cap funds maintained a top-half ranking over the five consecutive 12-month periods."
Larry Swedroe, author of many finance books: "The 44 Wall Street Fund was the top performing fund over the decade of the 1970s. It ranked as the single worst performing fund of the 1980's losing 73%. -- If you are going to use past performance to predict the future winners, the evidence is strong that your approach is highly likely to fail."
David Swensen, Yale's Chief Investment Officer: "Chasing performance is the biggest mistake investors make. If anything, it is a perverse indicator."
Tweddell & Pierce, co-authors of Winning With Mutual Funds: "Numerous studies have shown that using superior past performance is no better than random selection."
Eric Tyson, author of Mutual Funds for Dummies (2010 edition): "Of the number one top-performing stock and bond funds in each of the last 20 years, a whopping 80% of them subsequently performed worse than the average fund in their peer group over the next 5 to 10 years! Some of these former #1 funds actually went on to become the worst-performing funds in their particular category."
Value Line selected Garret Van Wagoner "Mutual fund Manager of the Year" in 1999. In August 2009, Van Wagoner's Emerging Growth Fund was the worst performing U.S. stock fund over the past 10 years.
+++++++++++
along with MJG, I also hold actively managed funds. But I think one thing that needs to be talked about much more is the tax implications (the drop in performance) of all the taxable distributions that actively managed funds tend to make.
The Vanguard Total Stock Market Index fund and the Vanguard S&P 500 Index fund have not had a single capital gains distribution in more than 10 years. The only taxes you pay are on qualified dividends. This is a HUGE issue.
In the typical performance figures we see before tax returns. Would be interesting to see after tax returns, given a specified tax bracket. As we all know, you only keep the after tax returns.

MJG,
I appreciate your insightful post.
The funds I chose for the comparison were based on the fact that I have held two of them for nearly a decade and in combination with the others listed comprise many of the most widely held no-load moderate allocation/balanced funds. I used moderate allocation funds because that is the category that Mr. Burns was comparing his Couch Potato portfolio too without accounting for the difference in equity allocation among the funds in that category which generally ranges from 50-70%.
There are certainly many, many moderate allocation funds (probably a majority) that come up short verses the Couch Potato portfolio no matter their equity allocation. My main point was to show there are a number of actively managed moderate allocation funds that have both been around for many years and have consistently performed very well in comparison to the Couch Potato portfolio that utilizes low cost index funds.
For investors who desire a moderate allocation portfolio who do not desire to put in the effort to identify funds that have a history of doing better or are not available through workplace retirement plans, a couch potato portfolio is certainly a good option...not arguing that in the least bit.
Regards.

Hi Roy,
Thanks for your brief list of current superior Balanced mutual funds. Fortunately, I have owned two of them for over two decades. Given my meager financial knowledge at my entry date, I was more lucky and less skilled when making those decisions.
Your survey demonstrates that superior (defined as generating positive excess returns) active fund managers exist, although numerous global studies such as the semi-annual S&P Persistence Scorecards strongly conclude that the persistency numbers are fewer than would be statistically expected. There are exceptions for a subset of investment categories.
Three issues came to mind while reviewing your list: (1) hindsight bias, (2) benchmark selection, and (3) data clutter. Allow me to expand on these elements sequentially.
I’m sure the list you posted was not assembled randomly; it was generated with returns as the primary sorting mechanism. Investors typically use past returns as their number one ordering criterion. But that’s based solely on ephemeral past performance. It is an excellent candidate for a creeping Hindsight bias. The real test is how well this list performs over the next extended timeframe. Studies of this issue paint a dark picture.
Many studies conclude that a returns approach is just too simple; Alpha (excess returns) persistence is an unreliable fund trait. Additional fund attributes such as low holdings turnover rate, low fee structure, long-term manager tenure, policy stability, and low Price/Earning ratio positions are likely to enhance the odds of positive Alpha retention.
Your selected 50/50 mixed benchmark is reasonable, but not quite correct for the funds listed. The basic policy for my two funds in that list do not practice a 50/50 asset allocation; both those funds deploy a nominal 60/40 mix standard philosophy. Any meaningful comparison with an Index benchmark should properly reflect a precise asset allocation distribution.
Finally, given that short-term outcomes are mostly noise that should be minimally weighted, comparisons of YTD, 1 year, and 3 year results are not as definitive as results recorded over the longer timeframes. The more recent data is clutter. I actually prefer 10 year and longer performance data since these are more likely to capture full cycle performance, both good years and bad years.
Active fund managers are hardly ever made to pay for their investment engineering missteps. That’s too bad since that failure to account for mistakes goes against ancient traditions such as Hammurabi’s Code of Laws.
In those ancient days, if a house wall failed or a dam broke and flooded a field, the builder was required to make restitution. In Roman times the builder of an arched, elevated roadway was required to stand under it when the first load crossed it. Today’s fund managers do not face that test of fire. That’s too bad.
Thanks again for your submittal, but an investor must be constantly alert to the huge empirical mutual fund performance gap between past and future results. Always remember the strong regression-to-the-mean pull that exists in the investment marketplace.
Best Wishes.

I gave up on PRLAX a buncha years ago. Andrew Foster at SFGIX seems to think highly of Valid Solucoes eServicos de Seguranca em Meios de Pagamento e Identificacao. It's in Brasil, best I can figure. It may no longer be a value-play. Over the past year, it's come from 28 up to over 40. (Is that dollars? It's a M* chart.) In SFGIX, it's the 3rd-largest holding. Morningstar dates the SFGIX portfolio to 31st December, 2014. In SFGIX, Latin America = 16.3% of holdings. SFGIX is up over the past year by +10.24%.
I don't have any money in Latin America at all. I've just "cleaned house." In my own portf. I'm now holding 7% cash, 29% USA equity, 25% foreign, 37% bonds. "OTHER:" 2%. Japan, hardly a thing. 29% is in Asia. In US/Canada, the number is 54.25%. No more Matthews at all. Asia is covered with PRASX.

@Old_Skeet May I ask a more discrete question? How are your finds doing relative to their benchmark indices?
I used to own a lot of funds. I seemed to buy at the peak of the managers' performance, watch his/her performance fall off, then wonder what to do with the fund (which all too often was to sell after the manager was underperforming for 3 years or so)

Reply to davidmoran:
Ahh - Thanks for clarifying that your move out of DODGX was in 2003. So you missed their horrible period of '07-09 entirely. My first experience there was with the Income Fund beginning around 2005. That's what drew me to them. Mostly, the move into equities was during 2008 and early 2009. No complaints. Typical MO is to buy when things are falling.
To clarify: I interpreted your use of "...its ensuing performance" earlier as a reference to the post-2008 period. That's what sparked whatever interest I had in your earlier comment. If we look only at that period (post March 9, 2009), I believe you will find DODGX has done quite well relative to GABEX & YACKX.
It was during the dark years of 2007-08 for D&C that I recall all the vocal hand-wringing about how bloated they had become. It amazed me than that the hot money pouring in earlier had seemed oblivious to the issue. Hello?
-
I really do hate discussing returns & comparing fund performance - even though I understand that's the primary mission of a site called "Mutual Fund Observer." Very old-school. Came up in the 70s when most stayed with just one or two houses. So, spreading $$ around among 5 different families is a big leap. Am entirely comfortable limiting holdings to a few well established families that I feel I know well. The approach imposes a kind of discipline on me that I feel Is sorely needed.

@Charles: Thanks. Sorry I did not realize that they were in different tabs of same excel sheet. I am able to see them now. The issue is that I have been adding to the same 9 equity MFs in taxable a/c, month after month, in rotation that I thought I will get some new prospects.(btw, I used to browse thru the fundalarm honor roll few years ago quite frequently).

Unfortunately, there's really not much on the company (no SeekingAlpha articles or anything of the sort. It's largely limited to presentations on the company website or brief articles on Bloomberg and elsewhere. Additionally, it was a Wintergreen (WGRNX) holding for a while, not sure if it still is (Winters discussed Cielo in a "Wealthtrack" video interview not that long ago part of his play on emerging market consumers.)
The interview is here:
http://www.wintergreenfund.com/news/2013/0719-wealthtrack/
The Cielo discussion starts at about 16 minutes in.
I think my "issue" is that I'd like to invest a little bit in Brazil. My problem is that I like to do so in a way that I can get my head around. A fund can be volatile, too, but if I can have a thesis for something like Cielo (which goes along with the larger holdings that I have that are payment-related), it's easier for me to hold through the volatility than a fund that I don't have a real connection to/thesis for and may just dump if things get rocky (well, with how Brazil is now, rockier.)
I definitely like the payments space (a lot) and Cielo has a very large share of the market in Brazil. Cielo also bought US company Merchant E-Solutions (https://www.merchante-solutions.com/about-us/overview/)
Also, Cielo is an ADR where I can actually reinvest dividends. It varies by brokerage, but I've found that DRIP/reinvesting is usually no problem with US shares. When you get into ADRs or foreign ordinaries, then it becomes possible much less often and seems almost random as to what can/can't (possibly depends on which bank is the adr depositary?) Additionally, Cielo has also split twice in the last four years or so.
Anyways, it's not something that I'd recommend for a conservative investor at all. It's my way of investing in Brazil in a manner that I can feel comfortable with longer-term. Most people COMPLETELY UNDERSTANDABLY (and again, they're certainly not wrong) feel more comfortable if they were to invest in something like Brazil investing in a fund. I'm weird though and feel more comfortable investing in one company whose business I can wrap my mind around and feel fairly strongly about long-term.
For me, investing in the last few years or so has become, how can I structure my investments in a way that allows me to feel comfortable with a long-term view point and far less concerned about the day-to-day. The funny thing is, for most people, that would likely involve being less in single names and much more in funds. I feel more comfortable more in single names than funds because I feel strongly about various themes, sectors and companies. Plus, nearly everything I own pays a dividend.
Again, I'm weird - most people would understandably feel more comfortable in funds and probably rightly so. Older and/or more conservative investors should go the fund route.
Again, Ambev (ABEV) was the other name that I often thought about in terms of Brazil, but ultimately was more interested in the payments space. As I also noted above, Femsa (FMX) is something that I've thought about a lot, but I think the issue that I had with Femsa is its investment in Coca-Cola Femsa and the obesity problems in Mexico. There was a terrific hour-long presentation by a futurist in front of Femsa execs on Youtube and one of the major topics of discussion was in regards to health issues. (edited to add: found it)

Mexico ultimately decided on a soda tax to combat one of the world's highest obesity rates (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jan/16/mexico-soda-tax-sugar-obesity-health) and it's apparently been successful.
While the conglomerate nature of Femsa is appealing, as is its reasonably solid track record, the problem that I have is: what's the future? The company's Oxxo stores are very compelling, but I have no interest in investing in Coca-cola in this country or any other (Asian conglomerate Swire is a Coke bottler, another company I want to like but can't.) Bill Gates was a large shareholder in Femsa for a while, but I believe he sold his shares not that long ago.
Although, that said, there was an interesting article on "The Most Successful Company in the World" the other day, and it wasn't a company that makes things that are good for people. (http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2015/02/13/the-extraordinary-story-of-americas-most-successfu.aspx)
I certainly don't own all things that are good for people. I own a liquor stock, although it's not a large holding. People do drink in good times and bad, but I think what's really kind of compelling is that you have this enormous industry where the big public names are now down to a few (and one less after Beam was recently bought.)
Long, rambling story short,
1. If I'm invested in a single name, the intent is a long-term holding with reinvesting dividends. It may have periods of under-performance, but I'm definitely diversified.
2. Most people should go with a fund and if I were to go with a fund, I'd likely go with T Rowe Latin America.

@davidmoran
I can't really speak to DODGX which is the topic of Charles' post. But, I've done well with this company in general. Converted a bunch of their Global (DODWX) to a Roth near the bottom in 09 and rode it back up for about 3 years. Paid off very well. The past 2-3 years that money's been tucked. away in their Income Fund (DODIX) and their Balanced Fund (DODBX). Very pleased with the 5 YR numbers for the Balanced - 13.35% annualized.
Heck, it's lagging the S&P by only a little over 2% for that period. The funds you list look like equity funds rather than balanced. They appear to be fine funds. They'd running 1-2% ahead of DODBX over the 5 year time frame from what I can observe.
In a way I hate touting good numbers like those for fear there will be another stampede of hot money into the funds. Folks than yank it back out when markets start correcting and it makes it really tough for those of us who are in for the long term.

It may have been pronounced dead of bloat but its ensuing performance put another nail in the boat, or whatever a good phrase is. Glad I bailed and dove into GABEX and later added YACKX. Years of suboptimal decisions, seemed to me. I had been in it for decades prior.

Hi,
I'm starting to do some research on Latin American funds -- particularly interested in Brazil as the market has taken a substantial hit over the last 5 years. I'd greatly appreciate it if folks on the board could steer me to: 1) good funds in the category that I can read up on more. 2) Good research that I can read on the Latin American market as a whole. This will be for just a small portion of my funds and I understand that there is risk here. Would value your thoughts. thanks.