I commend max for voting with his feet. We must in the world of investing trust our instincts honed by years of experience and after serious introspection make valid, for us, decisions.
Maxl's action is proper. For the 56 million a year they collect from MAPIX fund's expense ratio, it is incumbent on them to be obsequious to Maxl and courteous in their response. Maxl pays Tito's salary and is justified in being irate. In a tax sheltered account his immediate response to rudeness is correct and my hat is tipped to him.

FYI: Friday’s oil crash laid waste to energy shares, but the gold miners were similarly trampled: the Market Vectors Gold Miners (GDX) just quietly suffered its biggest one-day decline in nearly 1 1/2 years.
GDX, the biggest exchange-traded fund holding precious-metal miner stocks, dropped 8.7% on to close at $18.36 on Friday. Miner stocks, which tend to act like spring-loaded vehicles for trading gold or silver themselves, have been hugely volatile in recent weeks as gold has flirted with multiyear lows
Regards,
Ted
http://blogs.barrons.com/focusonfunds/2014/11/28/gold-miner-etf-suffers-biggest-one-day-loss-in-over-a-year/tab/print/

What does uncle Jeffrey say about this? DLFNX is holding 16.53% in cash. DBLTX holds 13.56% cash. (If we can trust that number from Morningstar.) I do think JG knows what he's doing. I remember an interview on Bloomberg tv a few years back. He simply said that he was "exploiting inefficiencies in the Market..... I wish I could teach it." With that latter phrase, he sounds like me, but I don't claim to know the Markets the way he does, though! I'm what you might call a RANK AMATEUR.

Hi LLJB,
Thanks for the link to J P Morgan’s 4th Quarter 2014 Guide to the Markets. Indeed good and useful information is to be found here. I plan to save the link.
I like your idea and it seems very sound to me. As a matter of fact my late father favored dividend paying stocks over traditional fixed income investments. He did carry some bonds for diversification purposes but felt a good dividend stock the better choice as it would over the years, most often, grow its dividend over time plus, in most cases, provide capital appreciation. And, I have not moved away form this concept either as my spiff is paying me a good dividend while I carry it and more so than a short term bond fund would but not what a high yield bond fund would pay.
One of his favorite strategies was taking advantage of the traditional fall and winter stock market rally which I now have now put in play, during the recent October swoon, and have named this special investment position “spiff.”
Putting this spiff into play has tilted my asset allocation somewhat along with the fact that many of my hybrid funds found in the growth & income area of my portfolio are also a little light in bonds and combined has made me light in bonds within my overall portfolio’s asset allocation ranges that I generally follow. My neutral allocation to bonds is about 30% and with me currently managing bonds at the 25% range has already put me at about 5% light. Now, I am at about 22% to 23% in bonds and wanting to work back towards the 25% allocation which I’ll do over the next few months, or so.
According to my quick review of the “Guide” it seems equities are the place to be.
Old_Skeet

I'm crestfallen, but I'm not going to sell it. Along with JohnChisum, it's my own core Asia fund, too. I certainly will be looking for the next Fund Managers' commentary! That fund is my biggest holding, so getting no 4Q pay-out sucks big. Thanks, everyone, for getting this information to me and to everyone else..... I have noticed through 2014 that the Morningstar ratings for that fund have been reduced from 4 stars to 3, and the risk/reward profile now looks like MACSX--- LOW risk, and (merely) AVERAGE returns. Yet Morningstar's little thumbnail note about the fund on its "quote" page says: don't be distressed. The sub-par performance recently is due to some of its sector overweightings under its new co-lead managers... Bah. .....The fund has done very well for me over the last several years, and I actually DID take an 18% chunk of it a few months ago and put it into MEASX--- which is pleasing me so far, too. But this ZERO 4th Q pay-out is a big pile of nothing. :(
http://quotes.morningstar.com/fund/f?t=MAPIX&region=USA
@InformalEconomist:
I just saw that Morningstar thread. The fellow summarized the reply he got this way: "Reason for the "nothing coming to us" at year-end is, according to their (admitted) talking points, is the tax treatment of passive foreign investment company holdings for US citizens."
Can someone tell me what that means? Thanks.

Hi Guys,
The central theme of the referenced article emphasizes a false choice. When assembling a portfolio, it is never, or more appropriately never should be, a toggle switch either/or singular decision.
Most folks accept that diversification is the key to a reasonable portfolio that will generate respectable returns. As many market wizards have highlighted, diversification may be the only free lunch on Wall Street.
For many investors that diversified portfolio is filled with both Index products and actively managed holdings, all contributing in different ways. The spectrum of options is wide and frequently exploited by informed investors.
Certainly owning a single stock or a single mutual fund is a risky proposition. With a single position, rewards are potentially magnified, but so are painful loss possibilities. There are no free lunches here. Many investors abandon ship because of unacceptable portfolio volatility. Multiple asset class holdings act to dampen that volatility, and thus encourage longer holding periods. This enables compound interest to work its magic.
Besides the emotional harm that portfolio volatility promotes, it also has a real damaging impact on compound return over the years. It is a spoiler to end wealth.
Recall that compound return is reduced below annual return levels by the square of the portfolio’s standard deviation (one measure of volatility). A simple algebraic equation captures that degradation. So a portfolio’s long term return is enhanced when the portfolio is constructed in a way to minimize its overall standard deviation.
You can test the validity of this statement by exploring possibilities for your portfolio on the Portfolio Visualizer website. Here is a Link to that excellent tool:
http://www.portfoliovisualizer.com/
I encourage you to explore various options and outcomes historically by running various “what-if” scenarios. The toolkit is easy to use. Compare your positions against an equivalent all Index portfolio or against an all actively managed portfolio. The tool handles both individual stocks and mutual funds. You can select your historical timeframe for comparative purposes. Have some fun and perhaps even profit from the exercise.
In my own situation, I have a mix of Index funds, ETFs, and actively managed mutual funds. That mix has served me well; it has changed over time. I especially use Index products as my default option when I find no compelling actively managed products.
Safety has different meanings for different folks. Nowhere is it written in stone that it is an either/or, digital Zero or One, world. It is not!
Best Regards.

The nice thing is that if you had purchased pretty much any of these funds 15 years ago you'd be very happy today even if you hadn't chosen the absolute best one. Likewise, if you think you can tell me which one will have done the best 15 years from now, please tell me so I can, well, think about it. :) I own both HQL and PRHSX, have been very happy for a while now and expect to continue investing when there are dips. The one thing I prefer about PRHSX over PJP or IBB, and actually I prefer it over HQL as well but I like the venture capital, is that for a very small increase in expenses you get someone to work for you. Of course that doesn't mean they'll do better, but at least there's some thought to the process, and its cheap management compared to what you have to pay most fund managers compared to a passive alternative.

FYI: Stocks can keep climbing next year, tacking even more gains onto their phenomenal run of the last five-plus years. Just don't expect them to be as big -- or to come with as little heartburn -- as before.
Regards,
Ted
http://bigstory.ap.org/article/daf4168d2e074966bfd5bb898da2cb3e/2015-stock-outlook-good-not-great-and-bumpy

Dear Mark,
Thanks a lot for this reply, it is an interesting explanation. Can you also plot HQH and HQL versus PJP and IBB which you can trade instantaneously? Of course, past performance does not guarantee much, but during the last 5 and 10 years PJP (pharma) and IBB (biotech) performed better than HQL and HQH. Both IBB and PJP are very tax efficient. How about HQL and HQH? I would really like to know it, I could not find this information in M*. Usually closed end funds are very tax inefficient, but maybe this rule does not apply to these funds?

Here I charted FAIRX's performance over the last 12 years along with the equities his presently owns and when he approximately first owned (using green arrows) these equities according to M* data:

The Matthews website does show distribution history for 2013 and foreign tax credits going back several years. A 4Q distribution was paid out last year.
I guess the best thing is to give them a call.

Do you have to pay to be able to post in their forums? I think they are free. You could post a question there. Fortunately, I don't use M* and never have in almost 30 years of fund investing.

Anyone can post in their forums. Morningstar.com-----on the far Right click "Discuss".....that takes you to their Forums.......go to General Forums.....select the Morningstar.com Forum and post there. There is already a topic, see above, "Incorrect Prices on Morningstar.com". M*_Darrin posted his message there....

Do you have to pay to be able to post in their forums? I think they are free. You could post a question there. Fortunately, I don't use M* and never have in almost 30 years of fund investing.

The first recommendation, the Fidelity Investor: "His five portfolios hold funds an average of 1½ years"
The second recommendation holds funds for 4 yrs, and the third one holds them for only two years.
Those newsletter are Losing a lot of return to capital gains taxes by selling the funds so soon, versus buying and holding a market index fund. And that's not even including the typical annual capital gains distributions from the actively managed funds in the first, second and fourth newsletter.
The Vanguard Total Stock Market Index fund has not had a capital gains distribution in the 10 yrs for which data is available on the website. And since the index investors probably are not regularly switching their fund choices as in newsletters 1, 2 and 4, they have an investment with no capital gains taxes until they themselves decide to sell, which could be many years and in some cases decades. So in a taxable account it's like an IRA, except you have to pay taxes on the dividends.....

FYI: Most investment newsletters are worthless. What’s worse, some are dangerous to your financial health. But a handful are first-rate. Thanks to the work of Mark Hulbert, editor of the Hulbert Financial Digest, who has been painstakingly tracking newsletter recommendations for 34 years, it’s possible to separate the gold from the dross.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.kiplinger.com/printstory.php?pid=12993

In terms of Europe, I think the Oakmark fund has done very well most years except 2007 was painful and this year is painful as well. I don't own the fund but that wouldn't make me lose faith in it either. I own OBIOX and its not having a great year either but I like the approach the fund takes and I appreciated David's write-up. I also think OSMAX has a long and great record and I didn't own it previously because I won't pay a load, but I discovered recently that Fidelity has share classes without the load and I'm actively considering whether to add it to my portfolio as soon as Draghi is able to do more than simply talk the EUR down. If the Germans get onboard with stimulating the economy then I think we could see a big rally for Europe generally but hopefully even more so for the small cap fare that depend more on the local economy.

I know this will open the apples & oranges benchmarking can of worms, but I got my info from the WSJ Quarterly Mutual Fund tables which are created by Lipper. The 3 funds had C and D ratings over the last 3 years. If there are better performance comparisons I will gladly look at them. Thanks.

Why not use the Lipper ratings directly instead of using the munging that WSJ contracted Lipper to do?
Three year ratings for VDIGX are 4/4/5/5/5 (Total return/consistent/preservation/tax/expense)

I know this will open the apples & oranges benchmarking can of worms, but I got my info from the WSJ Quarterly Mutual Fund tables which are created by Lipper. The 3 funds had C and D ratings over the last 3 years. If there are better performance comparisons I will gladly look at them. Thanks.

Not to sound like a broken record, but it depends what you want the funds to do in your portfolio and what your risk tolerance is.
Both of the dividend funds are indexed to the NASDAQ Dividend Acheivers Index. I think they're both outperforming that, but that index isn't going to keep up with the bull market we've had. If you go back and compare to the S&P they are going to look mediocre over the last 1, 3, and 5 years.
FSIVX's problem is that it's an index in markets that are lagging. That's when indices look bad. It will lead the way when developed markets come back. Bill Bernstein had some name for the phenomenon which I can't remember.
To your original question, concur with msf and Jerry above. If these are in a taxable account, sell before distribution to avoid cost basis problems. If qualified, doesn't matter one bit.

I know this will open the apples & oranges benchmarking can of worms, but I got my info from the WSJ Quarterly Mutual Fund tables which are created by Lipper. The 3 funds had C and D ratings over the last 3 years. If there are better performance comparisons I will gladly look at them. Thanks.

Is there any doubt?
that:"We're all Keynesians (Krugmans)now."The last two paragraphs from a Bill Gross perspective posted today @ Seeking Alpha
"But now at 500% to 600% of GDP (shadow debt included), it’s a Sisyphean struggle just to stay above water. Inflation, in other words – or in simple math – is required to pay for prior inflation. Deflation is no longer acceptable.
Such is the dilemma facing central bankers (and supposedly fiscal authorities) in 2014 and beyond: How to create inflation. They’ve made a damn fine attempt at it – have they not? Four trillion dollars in the U.S., two trillion U.S. dollar equivalents in Japan, and a trillion U.S. dollars coming from the ECB’s Draghi in the eurozone. Not working like it used to, the trillions seem to seep through the sandy loam of investment and innovation straight into the cement mixer of the marketplace. Prices go up, but not the right prices. Alibaba’s stock goes from $68 on opening day to $92 in the first minute, but wages simply sit there for years on end. One economy (the financial one) thrives while the other economy (the real one) withers.
Perhaps sooner rather than later, investors must recognize that modern day inflation, while a necessary condition for survival, is not a sufficient condition for increasing wealth at a rate necessary to satisfy future liabilities associated with education, health care, and a satisfactory retirement. The real economy needs money printing, yes, but money spending more so, and that must come from the fiscal side – from the dreaded government side – where deficits are anathema and balanced budgets are increasingly in vogue. Until then, Grant’s deflation remains a growing possibility – not the kind that creates prosperity but the kind that’s the trouble for prosperity."
-William H. Gross
http://seekingalpha.com/article/2699545-the-trouble-with-porosity-and-prosperity