I thought I’d comment on a few things. They follow.
Item 1) In reviewing IRNIX which was presented by the Vintage Freak although it is a fund of funds it does carry a four star M* rating and has a duration on 3.35 years. So with this it appears good performance can be had form a fund of funds just as good performance can be had form my sleeve system that holds a number of funds … usually three to six. I expect this fund to continue to perform well and if one or even a few of the funds that it holds falters then there are the others that can still propel the fund. Its turnover ratio is 43% so it appears some active trading and positioning occurs. In 2008 it lost about one half of what its category lost.
Item 2) Some say I have way too many funds … perhaps so, perhaps not! In comparing my portfolio’s performance to Morningstars Moderate Target Risk as a benchmark … well I have handily bettered the benchmark. The results follow listed by period with the portfolio being listed first within the results and then the benchmark for a market close of August 1, 2014 in its current configuration.
1 Week) Portfolio -1.8%, benchmark -1.8% … 1 Month) -2.1%, -2.0% … 3 Month) 1.5%, 1.4% … YTD) 5.0%, 3.7% … 1 Year) 11.9%, 9.6% … 3 Year) 10.7%, 9.4% … 5 Year) 12.5%, 10.9% … 10 Year) 8.4%, 6.6%.
Closing comment: With this, there seems to be some added value by using the sleeve system along with selecting only quality funds and when one of them does falter replacing it with another. Seems this is what IRNIX might be doing and it seems to be doing it just fine as it only lost about one half of what the average strategic income fund lost in 2008.
I think one needs to ask themselves this question ... Does your portfolio meet your needs? And, if it does, from my thoughts, then the rest really does not matter if you are happy.
Have a good day … and, most of all I wish all … “Good Investing.”
Old_Skeet

I thought I’d comment on a few things. They follow.
Item 1) In reviewing IRNIX which was presented by the Vintage Freak although it is a fund of funds it does carry a four star M* rating and has a duration on 3.35 years. So with this it appears good performance can be had form a fund of funds just as good performance can be had form my sleeve system that holds a number of funds … usually three to six. I expect this fund to continue to perform well and if one or even a few of the funds that it holds falters then there are the others that can still propel the fund. Its turnover ratio is 43% so it appears some active trading and positioning occurs. In 2008 it lost about one half of what other funds in its category lost.
Item 2) Some say I have way too many funds … perhaps so, perhaps not! In comparing my portfolio’s performance to Morningstars Moderate Target Risk as a benchmark … well I have handily bettered the benchmark. The results follow listed by period with the portfolio being listed first within the results and then the benchmark for a market close of August 1, 2014 in its current configuration.
1 Week) Portfolio -1.8%, benchmark -1.8% … 1 Month) -2.1%, -2.0% … 3 Month) 1.5%, 1.4% … YTD) 5.0%, 3.7% … 1 Year) 11.9%, 9.6% … 3 Year) 10.7%, 9.4% … 5 Year) 12.5%, 10.9% … 10 Year) 8.4%, 6.6%.
Closing comment: With this, there seems to be some added value by using the sleeve system along with selecting only quality funds and when one of them does falter replacing it with another. Seems this is what IRNIX might be doing and it seems to be doing it just fine. After all, it caught the Vintage Freaks attention and carries a four star rating by M* ... and, it only lost about half of what other strategic income funds lost in 2008.
Have a good day … and, most of all I wish all … “Good Investing.”
Old_Skeet

I agree the commentary is worth more than one pays for it, but the Gross and Double-Line sections could have been covered by a link to one of the many articles in the past month covering the issues, although I did check out the Disneyland employee link. I suppose I should have skimmed them, as suggested above, but I assumed if it was worth writing, it presumably was worth reading.
HOWEVER, a listing of the 17 5* funds for the past 1-10 years would have been appreciated, perhaps even worth a subscription. Did Ted link this when I wasn't looking? (Or did I miss the link in the commentary?)
I have found that the talks I spend more time preparing are shorter than the rush jobs, and the audience is more likely to stay awake. Suggesting tighter construction is not a personal attack.

@VintageFreak,
I have been doing the same thing. American Century made it easy for me by opening a new fund ASDVX. Short duration of less than 3 years. Investment grade and high yield instruments from anywhere including emerging markets. Preferred stocks. I had been looking at Schwab but since this was in a rollover account the paperwork was a consideration.
I was 80/20 stocks to fixed, now after a couple of moves including the above I am about 65/35.

For some reason, and I can't find the information anymore, but I thought I had read they believed their firm-wide capacity was $3 billion. With $2.3B already in their current funds, and I believe 3 more funds to come, they are either going to have to be tiny funds or they must have decided they could manage a little more money. Luckily I have investments in 2 of the 4 funds so far and I will invest in any others that they launch because I think these guys are fantastic, but at such small sizes its conceivable that most of these funds may not be available even to existing investors for many years to come. Although I'm a big fan of the way they're managing their business, it doesn't make life easy when it comes to asset allocation.

Hi Guys,
A few days ago I was shocked by the number of mutual funds owned by a wise and loyal MFO member. I didn’t examine the incremental diversification benefits accrued by the overall funds or their individual investment philosophies; I simply counted.
I’m sure the owner had excellent reasons and logic when these funds were originally added to his portfolio. I’m equally sure that the styles and the strategies deployed by such a competitive group tend to cancel each other out and neutralize a potential high excess returns.
Diversification is a cardinal investment rule; it is the stuff of successful investing. Well maybe, but more likely it must be exercised prudently; it has its own set of limits. Safety in numbers is a residual human characteristic from our hunter-gatherer days.
J. Paul Getty opined that “Money is like manure. You have to spread it around to make things grow”. Warren Buffett proffered the other viewpoint with “Buy two of everything in sight and you end up with a zoo instead of a portfolio”. Economist and financial advisor Mark Skousen summarized both sides with this wealth-linked compromise: “To make it concentrate, to keep it diversify”.
Assembling a huge number of actively managed mutual funds in multiple categories is almost a 100% guarantee of underperformance relative to any reasonable benchmark. That failure guarantee is mostly tied to active fund management fees. It is true that some superior fund managers do overcome the fees hurdles, but these are few in number and even this minority subset is further eroded by persistency problems over time.
A recent study that illuminates this issue was released by Rick Ferri a year or so ago. It is a Monte Carlo-based parametric study that has been referenced on MFO earlier. Here is a Link to it:
http://www.rickferri.com/WhitePaper.pdf
You can use these study results to estimate your likelihood of selecting a group of active fund managers that potentially might outdistance a passive portfolio, and importantly, by how much.
The overarching findings from this extensive analysis is that the odds are not especially satisfying, and that the likely excess returns are negative. Notwithstanding these unhealthy findings, they do not completely close the door for active portfolio elements. However, these results do put a hard edge on the low probabilities and the negative expectations.
To illustrate, assume that an investor has somehow increased his likelihood of choosing a positive Alpha fund manager to 70 percent by applying an undefined meaningful fund manager selection process. That’s actually quite high given the poor historical record of individual investors. Using Ferri’s numbers for a 3-component portfolio (40% US equity, 20% International equity, 40% Investment grade bonds), the likely outperformance median return is 0.52% while the underperformance median is -1.25%. That asymmetry reflects cost and fee drags.
The prospective excess returns coupled to a 70% chance of selecting a superior active manager is (0.7 X 0.52) + (0.3 X -1.25) = -0.011. So, an investor needs to have a higher than 70% active fund manager selection probability before he can anticipate a net positive excess return for his efforts. That’s a tough task.
The situation deteriorates rapidly as more active managers are added to the mix within each investment category. In the sample scenario, the likelihood of hiring two successful active fund managers is simply 0.7 X 0.7 = 0.49 without impacting the median expected excess return numbers.
The probabilities of generating excess rewards from active management falls from neutral to bad to worse very rapidly. The bottom-line is that hiring a ton of active fund managers adds to investment risk without substantially enhancing the rewards side of the equation. Charles Ellis might well characterize this as a Losers game.
Twenty years ago the investment game was a lot easier to play. Market efficiency has improved over time and has reduced the opportunities for excess profits just like improvements in baseball pitching staff depth has improved to lower overall batting averages.
At that time, it was investor against investor on trades; today the trades are much more commonly executed on an institution against institution basis. And these institutions are populated by well educated, smart professionals who are supported by extensive research staff and super computers for numbers crunching. The chances for an individual investor to outplay these titans has dimmed over the decades.
I don’t mean to say that it can’t happen because it does happen. But it’s not an easy chore. Institutional agencies have their own set of hobgoblins to battle. Since retirement, I have been benchmarking my private portfolio against an Index benchmark that I vary as my asset allocation changes, and against a nice pension that is tied to a portfolio maintained by a highly regarded financial service organization.
Anecdotally, over most of my retirement, my personal portfolio was dominated by active fund holdings. I slightly underperformed the Index benchmark, but I frequently outperformed my pension portfolio. I don’t have access to the pension portfolio’s specific allocations, but I suppose they are more widely and more conservatively distributed than my personal portfolio. They have access to alternate investment products that I can not touch.
One takeaway from all this is that some active managers can deliver the goods, but they are a rare breed. So choose carefully, monitor diligently, and very definitely limit the number of active managers that you hire for your portfolio(s). That’s just my amateurs opinion.
Simplifying is wonderful. It will certainly add to your free time; it will likely enhance your portfolio returns, especially if you use active fund management.
Best Regards.

Good piece, backing up the clear tendency of market-cap indexes to be great on the way up and very un-great on the way down. It's amazing how something as simple as the clearly documented record of those indexes in up- and down-markets escapes the cognition of the 'indexes are all you need, now and forever' commenters.
I'd been thinking the reason there's been so much of that sentiment flying around the finance sphere is that many of those making said comments must be thinking only in terms of the standard return periods, and any of those from 1-5 years show market-cap indexes as brilliant choices because the last 5y neatly coincides with the latest bull market - clearly the sweet spot of a market cap index.
One of the best analyses of an optimal stake in stock indexes in a long-term portfolio came from, believe it or not, Gus Sauter, former bigwig at Vanguard (sorry, no link, haven't been able to find it recently), which took into account many years of data and concluded that something like 30%, but no more, of a stock portfolio in index funds made an optimal contribution to long-term returns.

To say again:
This country has been in some form of default for at least the last 50 years.
The government(s) continues to trample the citizens and their monies.
Any hedge fund or others who assume to be enlightened towards investing in this country apparently have not studied and do not understand or have knowledge of the modern history of the country; and perhaps think they know how to work the system of investments there or just feel lucky.
Without a doubt, some of the folks who are on the losing end of these investments right now are just pissed about their skills and judgements.
Numerous articles are readily discovered regarding these circumstances.

@JohnChism Depending on which Arnott funds you are talking about, you may have not liked them for the past 5 years (March 9, 2009) or so, up until a few days ago.

Vintage, I agree regarding Chuck Jaffe. His Marketwatch articles are usually selling something. One of his latest was about the death of buy and hold investing, something he had been promoting for years. What changed his mind all of a sudden?

Some excerpts from a Memo written by John Bogle July 9, 2014
http://johncbogle.com/wordpress/category/memos-to-principals-and-veterans/
July 9, 2014
To: My Fellow Vanguard Veterans and Principals
My 63rd Anniversary
Monday, July 9, 1951, was the first day of my long career in the mutual fund industry. I vividly remember walking into the Wellington Fund offices on 1420 Walnut Street in Philadelphia
Little could I have imagined that I would remain with Wellington/ Vanguard for 63 years
Much of what was to follow was due to the ethical values and financial wisdom of my great mentor and friend, Walter L. Morgan, who did his best to impart them to his heir-apparent.
Walter Morgan was the founder and chief of Wellington Fund and Wellington Management Company, and (as I once wrote to him) he gave me his confidence when I had little confidence in myself. Then, Wellington employed maybe 75 people, and supervised $150 million of assets for the shareholders of its single mutual fund. (Tiny by today’s standards, but then one of this industry’s ten largest firms.)
You all probably know about how my career at Wellington ended (I was fired from my position as chief executive in January 1974), fortuitously opening the door to my creation of Vanguard only seven months later
It was, as they say, the opportunity of a lifetime—a chance to build something new and better for our mutual fund shareholders. The three pillars of our fledging firm were our unique mutual structure, the world’s first index mutual fund, and the unprecedented conversion to a distribution system without a sales force
Still strong, if perhaps diminished (your call on both!), I continue to use those powers to speak out for giving all mutual fund shareholders a better chance to accumulate wealth; for reform in an industry that has come to emphasize marketing over management; for the requirement that every firm that touches other people’s money be subject to high standards of fiduciary duty and trusteeship

Hi Paul,
Mr. Marcus managed or co-managed Mutual Series funds for less than 2 years, so I doubt that he earned any "pedigree" during such a brief period. And if you look at the record of MEURX, the only fund he managed by himself, it trailed the category average until the last month of his tenure. So like many new funds, I usually recommend that folks watch until some track record develops and refrain from being an early buyer.
In the World Stock space, my short list of funds to consider would be DODWX, PGVFX, OAKWX and THOIX (per test trade, THOIX is apparently available in Fidelity retirement accounts for a $500 minimum with a $49.95 initial transaction fee).
Kevin

You had to ask :)
Whitebox and Hussman.
This is a good time to note which of your fund are truly "long/short" or "market neutral" or "tactical allocation" or "absolute return". It is days like today that confirm once for all whether a fund is really worth it.
Take a look at JAZZX. Did so well over past 3 years. Today drops 2%. Tells you this fund is really net long. PMHDX drop is surprising. I expected it to drop, but not that much. CLSVX is another that dropped big.
OTCRX, CGVAX are up.

Maybe Price's PRHYX is really the best. At least they were smart enough to close it to new investors two years ago.
These types of questions bug me. Best fund? Best wine? Best vacation spot? Best spouse? All depends on situation, risk tolerance, and time horizon. For some there may not even be a best junk fund. They'd be better off in a low cost hybrid that varies exposure to junk and other assets.
Article mentions some great funds. However, there's no guarantee either manager or current attractive fee structure will still be there five years from now. And when you hype a fund like this $$ pours in (unless they've already closed it). Resultant flood of $$ (bloat) creates problems not all managers deal with effectively.
Junk article? No. Not quite. However from many posts I'm beginning to suspect there must be a robo-writer out there (maybe gifted by Steve Jobs). Punch in 10 minutes worth of data and head for the links (not Ted's). Robo-writer finishes off the article pulling catchy lines from a stored bank of time worn cliches as necessary and publishes. Regards

scott, that's the only reason I thought it was interesting - his pedigree. Expenses are on hte high side and performance has been pretty dismal.

I haven't looked at the portfolio over time, but if it has been anything like the current one, I'm guessing high exposure to Europe has been problematic and I'm guessing was behind the fund's significant decline around mid-2011 (around the Greece-related Europe decline, I believe? The investment years run together.)
Still, the fund's performance - despite the pedigree - is dismaying. I'd say watch it, see if things continue (although you have problems in Europe again and a fund that continues to have heavy exposure to it) and hopefully improve. I wouldn't invest at this point (although I wouldn't really add to much of anything at this point aside from a few things that I intend on holding for years.)
Edited to add: I think the other thing to consider would be what is the manager saying - I haven't read the letters, but does the manager have a long-term view, what's the reasoning, etc? I've held funds that may have been underperforming in the short-to-mid term if they have a very defined vision as to themes, predictions and have displayed an understanding that the bet is currently not working and why.
Long story short, I'll hold an underperforming fund if they display an understanding of the reasons why, display some flexibility and a vision as to how their current bets/themes may pay off. If a fund is underperforming and a manager's like, "We're very happy, everything's great" or "well, it's a bad quarter.', then I'll consider ditching the fund.

FYI: If Vanguard had a family tree, its roots would be Vanguard Wellington Fund. Now the nation’s largest balanced mutual fund¹, Wellington Fund began operations on July 1, 1929, 85 years ago this week.
Regards,
Ted
http://vanguardblog.com/2014/07/02/wellington-fund-and-the-vanguard-family-tree/print/

As David noted several months ago Marcus was one of Mike Price's boys (Max Heine's grandkid?) and their "deep value" strategy seems to be less successful when markets only go up. We'll see how successful their style is when the market reverses (soon perhaps?) But as Junkster has advocated for years, get off the boat to nowhere and if for some reason you're attached to that boat, get back on when it starts to move in the direction you want to go.

I think I used to own that one in a 403b years ago. Got out before the '08-'09 Crash, for which no one has gone to jail.
http://quotes.morningstar.com/fund/f?t=ARYVX

You might be thinking of another fund? This one started up in 2011. I was in on the initial trading day. American Century does have another real estate fund REACX which is a much older fund.

...Yes, it must be so.

What Junkster said. Hussman is clearly smart and hardworking and cares about his shareholders, he's just not making them any money. 10 years is a full market cycle. He's been tested.
If you think the market is overvalued, hold cash and high quality short term corporates, maybe through an etf like VCSH. No need to get fancy.

I think I used to own that one in a 403b years ago. Got out before the '08-'09 Crash, for which no one has gone to jail.
http://quotes.morningstar.com/fund/f?t=ARYVX

You might be thinking of another fund? This one started up in 2011. I was in on the initial trading day. American Century does have another real estate fund REACX which is a much older fund.