Thanks @bee. There does seem to be a general thinking that this market will have a good 2015. I think that's true for the first part. The usual tendency when we come off a good year are expectations of another one as the circumstances have not changed. Human optimism I suppose. We shall know in a years time.

I don't pay to read his newsletter, but here's a few excerpts from linked article:
"Veteran stock forecaster Richard Russell, editor of the Dow Theory Letters, predicts the U.S. market is about to enter the third — and possibly the most profitable — phase of an epic bull market.
Russell says his 60 years of experience in financial markets tells him his optimistic outlook is on the mark for 2015.
"Is it too late to enter the market? Investors should remember that stocks often advance as much in their third phase as they did in the first and second phases combined. Like a giant magnet, the US stock market is in the process of attracting money from all over the world," he writes.
Russell-stock-market-bull

I had only 2 that beat the S&P500 this year:
Janus Contrarian JSVAX +17.32%
Bridgeway Aggressive Growth + 14.99%
Now, having dutifully answered the question at hand, I have 2 related questions:
1. Why did the big Vanilla Indexes do so well in 2014?
2. Why have they done so badly over the past 15 years? ( e.g. VOO +4.24% annualized)

Looks like PRBLX (14.48 per Parnassus, 14.49 per M*) beat the S&P but not DSENX (17.70 per M*), but the other Parnassus large cap U.S. fund, PARWX, beat both (18.50 M*, 18.51 Parnassus).
Also, VFTSX, Vanguard's SRI index fund based on the S&P, beat Vanguard's version of the full standard index (15.75 vs. 13.64 per M*), and leads it for 3 and 5 years now too. Lower fossil fuel % and a higher health care % probably account for most of the difference.
I own PARWX but not PRBLX, VFTSX, or DSENX (yet ...).

POAGX is the biggest position in my portfolio and I hold HQL, PRHSX and MEASX as well. Unfortunately, and I think Charles got it right, it was a tough year for the other 80% of my funds, even in the few cases when they were large cap funds.
All in all it was a tough year compared to the S&P, but I'll take some comfort in the fact that I was overweight most of the bad places to be this year, small caps especially, but I beat the category average 75% of the time and was in the top 20% of peer funds 55% of the time. Its the consolation prize that hopefully pays some dividends when we look back a few years from now :)

>> obviously an intelligent, forward thinking, realistic investor ...that wants earnings and PLANS for taxes as every American Should
You are much too kind. I may have a little bit of the first qualities listed, but I have never planned for taxes in my life (okay, maybe I once read an article about December selling against losses, or against gains, or something), and I have seldom or never taken conscious and methodical steps toward reducing them significantly. Usually I have had enough losses not to worry about gain impacts, except for the years of Roth conversions.
In that lesson from my father about actively aiming/desiring to pay a ton of cg tax, I think he also added, for the first time I had heard, the phrase about never letting the tax tail wag the investment dog.

"What if I spend 4% and make 8%, what should I do with the extra money.....
Dumb stuff...Those Guidelines...Forget about it..."
Save it for the years your portfolio goes negative.

Mike said: "It's based on earnings return of 4% plus inflation."
The inflation rate is key here. Whose numbers? We all know the government's are highly suspect. The Social Security Administration put the inflation rate at around 1.4% in determining benefits for retirees in 2015. It's been in that very low area several years now and may be accurate for some.
It's also very situation dependent. If you own a home or make fixed mortgage payments you'll probably experience lower inflation than renters. If you drive an electric car or subcompact or live in a warmer climate, the drop in oil isn't having the same inflation lowering effect as for others. If you've become more health aware in recent years, your food expenses are much higher. Lower cost starches and red meats are out. More expensive veggies , fruits, nuts and fish are in.
-
We've been fortunate to only have to pull maybe 4-5% annually to supplement our pension for many years. But, I wouldn't be adverse to taking up to 7% if the need arose.

Most financial experts are predicting lower total returns moving forward. If that is the case, and I believe it is, the 4% rule can not hold up. It's based on earnings return of 4% plus inflation. That is suppose to keep the retiree solvent for 30+ years.

FYI: For the last 20 years there has been a steadily consistent rule of thumb by America's financial planners when it comes to retirement — the 4% rule.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/columnist/brooks/2014/12/30/retirement-401k-pension/20774021/

Okay, we understand you are in a higher tax bracket than some; you have pointed it out now more than once. I think a general question some are wondering is, What do you care really? Perhaps I should speak for myself. Make as much as you prudently can and then pay the taxes. That's what some of us do anyway. Dog and tail and wagging; you have heard that phrase. No fence-swinging, sure. But no fretting taxes for the most part.
Tb is a businessman with staff, I believe, so was simply analogizing about priorities. (Tb, apologies if misrepresenting you!)
More concretely, have you talked with a savvy cpa or cfp about max funding of Roths and moving all possible non-Roth moneys into Roths and the like? (Yes, tax hits there for sure.) That is what I did many years ago, bit the April bite, and am glad of it.
Maybe none of this sort of thing applies to your situation. Some of us also have 'large' (in some sense) portfolios. Just not seeing how 'tax-adjusted returns do mean something', ultimately.

BIRMX lost 21.54% for the 2014 (as of 12/30/14) based on the transfer agents' records on their web site:
http://www.mutualss.com/currentprices.aspx
Also, the fund has been closed for years to new investors. So if the fund is closed to new investors, where is the new money suppose to come from to grow its asset base?

I am one of those that also likes red and green (if you live in New Mexico it is a must. Has to do with chile.) I have a wide range of holdings that include utilities, reits, health care and biotech, plus the usual suspects of dividend growth and large value, etc. etc. If I had not been diversified this year, would have missed out on the 25% gain in utilities and reits which I normally do not expect to excel in good years. Of course, I am in the red on intl and emerging market, but you never know when they will take off, thats why I leave them alone.
Good conversations, thanks

"John, you're not putting new money into the fund with a reinvestment of a cg distribution. You have exactly the same investment you had before, except that you've picked up early tax liability for some of the fund's gains. "
Agree, but I am talking about after the fact. Money wise, it's a wash but you end up with more shares. As time goes on those added shares help to grow the investment. Granted, you need to hold the fund or investment for a period of time.
A mythical example; Say If you bought 100 shares of a fund and never bought another share, and that fund declares distributions regularly. After 10-15 or so years you end up with 120 shares. While you did not make money on those distributions, those extra 20 shares are working for you, hopefully in your favor.

I worked for 50 years, I guess "interesting' is one way you could describe it!

IMHO, market neutral funds may or may not work in bear markets. Emphases on may not. And they surely do not in any other market. Hence, no need for any fund called market neutral. They all sport different magic and any of the processes used in these funds only work under specific conditions. Any other condition deems them useless. A marketing scheme for the tepid investor. If you don't believe they are a marketing scheme, count the number of these funds today versus 5 or 6 years ago.

HKMNX has been in existence only 2 or 3 years.
Is this some game these fund managers play?
Launch a fund and hope you hit the market "just right" and the fund rockets higher. Hot money pours in and propels it higher still?
But ... should you instead lose a couple % ... they kill you off?
What a sham! From management's standpoint it amounts to simply rolling the dice repeatedly until you hit it just right and "investors" (I use the term loosely) take the bait.
Another reason not to like these go anywhere funds.

"The Board of Trustees of the Birmiwal Investment Trust......has concluded that due to the relatively small size of the Fund, it is in the best interests of the fund and its shareholders that the Fund cease operations."
The fact that BIRMX has lost 55% of its value while the S&P 500 index has doubled over the past five years couldn't have something to do with it, could it ??
Just asking.

You are correct about the foreign holdings in FLPSX and that it doesn't always track exactly with a US mid cap index. In my situation, I have foreign holdings covered in other funds such as ARTGX, FMIJX and a smaller stake in GPROX, which is in a tax-deferred account. PGVFX is a pretty interesting fund with low turnover and low tax cost ratio. It did have two very bad years in 2007-2008 but has turned around nicely since then.

Once or twice a year, I try to find something comparable to FLPSX and fail (at least according to the metrics that matter to me, such as cost, portfolio, etc).
The portfolio is value-leaning, non-large cap, low turnover (12%), 1/3 foreign. IMHO, it's that last factor that explains the relative underperformance the past few years. It's a global stock in all but M* classification. Which is not a bad thing if that's what you want. For that sort of fund, it's doing quite well.
I think I finally did find a possible alternative. Polaris Global Value (PGVFX). But here's the thing - it is classified a global stock, and is somewhat more heavily foreign weighted (60/40 foreign/domestic).
Having more foreign stocks, it doesn't match FLPSX in performance - but it does tend crudely track the same performance curve, and it helps if one wants/needs a bit more foreign exposure. (Since domestic stocks have been outperforming foreign ones, a person's portfolio could easily have tilted "too much" toward domestic.)
It's more tax efficient (both relative to FLPSX, though this may be because it is still sitting on losses from 2008-2009 (per website). On an absolute basis), it falls into the same mid cap value box (though with slightly higher average market cap). Same low turnover (14%).
This has been a fund on my radar for years, but I always considered it too expensive (and in the past have been disinclined to buy global funds). But it has temporarily lowered its ER (it remains to be seen whether the temporary reduction will be renewed).
Finally, unlike FLPSX, one can benefit here from a foreign tax credit. The rule is that if a fund's portfolio is more than 50% foreign, then the fund is allowed to pass the foreign taxes through to you. FLPSX, at 1/3 foreign, can't do that. (Funds are not required to pass through the taxes, but they usually do.)
Just an offbeat thought on a replacement or complement to FLPSX. I'd say it was thinking outside the box, but part of the appeal is that it falls within the same style box.