@John Chisum: Let's see now, I think that's only the second mistake I have made in 15 years of linking. On second thought, maybe the third !
Regards,
Ted

FYI: Copy & Paste 7/4/14: Amy Feldnan: Barron's:
I will ask some same question that I have several times in the past, do you own a health care fund ? If you don't you should.
Regards,
Ted
It has been 11 years since the human genome was first mapped, at a cost of $2.7 billion. Since then, the cost of DNA sequencing has dropped to about $1,000, and our understanding of the nature of disease has expanded exponentially. This has created a land rush for biotechnology companies, which use living organisms to develop medical treatments. For the past three years, biotech stocks have risen spectacularly, though this year things have been bumpier.
Eddie Yoon, manager of the $6.3 billion Fidelity Select Health Care Portfolio (ticker: FSPHX) and leader of Fidelity's 12-person health team, compares the innovations in biotech -- and the new companies being created -- to the explosion in technology and digital businesses that happened after Netscape's 1995 initial public offering. "The price point of sequencing the human genome has fallen so fast, and the early-stage pipeline for biotech is exploding right now," Yoon says. "That's what is driving innovation.
There are many ways to invest in that innovation, and the pros take very different views in terms of assessing value and risk. New drugs are altering the way we live, and areas like immuno-oncology hold enormous promise, but getting drugs to market is expensive, time-consuming, and far from a sure thing. With risks high, and valuations no longer cheap, minefields abound.
The best of the health-care funds (and funds with large stakes in health care) all have investments in biotech, but their strategies differ. At one end of the spectrum, Vanguard Health Care (VGHCX), the granddaddy of health funds with $37.7 billion in assets, takes a more conservative approach: It has just 12% in biotech -- a smidge less than the MSCI ACWI health-care index -- while its No. 1 holding is Merck (MRK), the global drug company with a strong pipeline. The fund rarely leads during market rallies, though it suffers less on the downside.
By contrast, the $2 billion Janus Global Life Sciences (JFNAX) has 32% in biotech, including three of its top five holdings: Gilead Sciences (GILD), a leader in HIV drugs, which has recently launched the hepatitis C blockbuster Sovaldi; Celgene (CELG), whose flagship product, Revlimid, fights blood cancers; and Biogen Idec (BIIB), which specializes in drugs for neurological disorders, autoimmune disorders, and hemophilia. Says Janus Global Life Sciences' manager Andy Acker: "We've seen an acceleration of innovation. More drugs are getting approved more rapidly at lower cost." In fact, he adds, since 1999, biotech-drug sales have soared from $5 billion to more than $100 billion, and the number of blockbuster biotech drugs has risen tenfold, from three to more than 30, a level of innovation that he expects will continue.
Matt Kamm, lead health analyst at Artisan and co-manager of the $1.1 billion Artisan Global Opportunities (ARTRX), which has 19% of its assets in health care, sees similar opportunities. He points to Regeneron Pharmaceuticals (REGN), whose drug Eylea treats macular degeneration, and which is the fund's No. 3 holding. As the lines blur between biotech and big pharma, Regeneron has set up a partnership with Sanofi (SAN.France), the Paris-based drug giant, also a holding. "It has allowed Regeneron to act like it has a giant balance sheet and build a pipeline, and it gives Sanofi growth and products for the future," Kamm says. In addition to Eylea, Regeneron (which trades at 26 times next year's earnings) has three drugs in Phase 2 and 3 trials, for cholesterol, rheumatoid arthritis, and atopic dermatitis, and another 11 in development. That diversified drug pipeline appeals to Kamm: "This is a risky business, even for the best companies, so it's important that companies make good, risk-adjusted decisions about research-and-development spending and have multiple shots on goal."
For similar reasons, Kamm likes Biogen Idec, which trades at 23 times next year's earnings. It has a new oral medication for multiple sclerosis, Tecfidera; a new product launching for hemophilia; and other treatments in the pipeline for MS, spinal muscular atrophy, and Alzheimer's -- all squarely part of the firm's focus on neurological disorders. "They're all high-risk as stand-alone opportunities," Kamm says. "But we think it's a broad enough pipeline."
WHAT OF THE WAVE of biotech IPOs earlier this year? Those are riskier. Janus' Acker, who invests in small-company biotech, keeps the holdings to small pieces of the portfolio. "Some of these are pretty early stage," he says. "We saw some frothiness in the market." Artisan's Kamm is steering clear completely. "They're coin tosses or lottery tickets," he says.
The Best Defense Is a Good Offense
With health-care funds returning 37% in the past year, the sector's no longer a defensive strategy. Below are five good options.
Assets Total Return*
Fund/Ticker Manager (bil) 1-Year 5-Year Top 3 Holdings**
Fidelity Select Health Care Portfolio/FSPHX Eddie Yoon $6.3 50.3% 27.6% Actavis, Biogen Idec, McKesson
Janus Global Life Sciences/JFNAX Andy Acker 2.0 45.0 25.7 Gilead Sciences, Aetna, Celgene
Prudential Jennison Health Sciences/PHLAX David Chan 2.5 36.6 28.4 Alexion, Biomarin, Vertex
T. Rowe Price Health Sciences/PRHSX Taymour Tamaddon 9.1 39.8 29.1 Aetna, Agilent Tech, Alexion
Vanguard Health Care/VGHCX Jean Hynes 37.7 37.9 22.4 Merck, UnitedHealth, Forest Labs
*Returns are annualized as of 07/02
**As of 05/31 Sources: Morningstar; fund companies
Fidelity's Yoon trimmed his fund's exposure to small biotech stocks early this year when he saw stretched valuations and decreasing quality. His fund now tilts its biotech holdings toward larger companies with stable free cash flows and encouraging pipelines. Plus, he has been diversifying holdings to areas such as medical devices, specialty pharmaceuticals, and life sciences. Where Gilead was once Fidelity Select Health Care's top holding, for instance, now it's Actavis (ACT), a global drug company with a huge business in generics. It may not be a sexy business, but Yoon argues that its global footprint in more than 100 countries, and its ability to leverage its sales force across multiple categories, gives it advantages. The shares, recently at $222, trade at 13 times next year's earnings estimates. "They are an innovator; they are a consolidator; and they are accessing the global market," Yoon says.
Regardless of the broader economy, Yoon argues, the rising demands of an aging population and an emerging middle class worldwide will continue to drive health care. "Just because the health-care space is up a lot," he says, "doesn't mean there aren't a lot of good opportunities in this business."

Howdy @rick
The below link to stockcharts.com includes up to date data regarding distributions, etc.
I have not found any deviations in accuracy over several years of use and verifying total returns. You will find the same return numbers posted at the Vanguard site as are shown at stockcharts with the selected tickers.
NOTE: I will post this now and then verify how the link opens as to a line chart or bar graph; and also the time frame of the graph. I will note how to view the chart as I use it for return numbers and comparisons.
Equal amounts invested on the first business day of this year indicates a combined return of 6.17% related to your original post.
VTI,BND,VXUS chart
EDIT: The page loads as a line graphic and for a 200 day period.
---place cursor onto the 200 days slider and right click. You may then select from those choices or you may adjust the slider from either end to change the start and end dates of your choice.
---date ranges are at the top left of the chart
---at the far left edge of the slider bar area you will see a green and red square together. Click on this to change the line graphic to a bar graph which will show the return % of whatever ticker(s) you are viewing. This percentage is always accurate for real total return numbers.
---you may chart 10 tickers (separated by a comma) at one time
---If you are unsure of a ticker, the system will attempt to list choices; OR, for example, you are trying to find a ticker with the "$" symbol included, you may type in the $ symbol and then the GO button and you will be taken to a list of all tickers that include and/or start with the $ symbol.
---there are many other features available at the site without having to register.
THE ABOVE, IS AN ACTIVE LINK, so save it and insert your own tickers.
I do believe you will find this site and charting most useful.
Regards,
Catch

By squinting carefully, a writer for the WSJ was able to conclude that Bill Miller's Legg Mason Value Trust had the best performance of any fund for the 15 years before the market's crash and the fund's ultra-crash. The fund flopped around like a fish tossed on the pier, investors left, Miller left, and the fund was rechristened. Now, because Miller is more talented and sees more deeply than any other, his Legg Mason Opportunity fund has the best record of any comparable fund over the past several years. That's the story told in "Mutual-Fund King Bill Miller Makes a Comeback." (Note: not my hyphen.)
David

I don't have access to this WSJ article using the above link.
Does someone have another link? Or can someone copy/paste?

"What's so weird about that. Its BBP"
I have no idea what BBP means. Anyone know?
Regarding FLVCX, M* obviously likes it. They have given it a Silver analyst rating, and say:
"An outstanding fund--for those who can use it well"
I just plotted the return using the M* tool. Better wear your seat belt during a bear market. Looks like from 5/31/2008 thru 3/9/2009, the fund fell 69.4%. The fund tends to give significantly outsized positive returns on the way up.....and significantly outsized negative returns on the way down.
Some comments from M*: "while investors able to withstand the fund's performance gyrations have been well compensated for its risks, many haven't had the stomach for it. An annualized gain of 11.7% in the trailing 10 years through October 2013 ranks in the second percentile of all domestic-equity funds, irrespective of category. Morningstar estimates, however, that the typical investor here has earned just 4.5% per annum--the result of ill-timed purchases and redemptions."
"Despite those disappointing results, there is much to admire here. Long-term performance has been not only stellar, but consistently so, with the fund's three- and 10-year trailing returns placing in the category's top decile and its five-year figure ranking in the top quintile."

Worked for a company for 10 years and they never made much of a profit. Their excuse was that they were growing the company. I invested a lot of money in the company's stock and through company - employee matching plans. When I left I put most of the rollover share proceeds in mutual funds. But still had a bunch of shares left to gamble with - stupid me. During this period there was talk of a merger with Sprint also Federal contracts that were never awarded.
Out of the dark In one fatal swoop Worldcom Bernie took care of that for company stockholders with fraud, bankruptcy and finger pointing. When it happens you will never know till it's too late. Bernie died in prison.
Never invest more than you can afford to loose in your company stock!!!!
For what it's worth.

If you are looking at a moderate allocation fund, I prefer FPACX and OAKBX. Some here also like PRWCX. GAINX does not have bonds. Whether adding bonds to your portfolio is prudent, is a different question. If you are looking only for a stock fund oriented towards dividend-income, take a look at ETFs like HDV or VIG. I have bought HDV almost three years back and have added every year. So far so good.
I have been tempted to buy individual dividend-stocks, but low expenses of HDV (0.14%) are attractive.

So this is what I'm reading.
At the time everyone was touting short term bonds with their reasoning, there is no evidence this gentleman said anything. Few years later if things did not work out that way he is writing "I told you so". Why did he not make the argument few years back if horizon is "long term" (sic) then keep invested in intermediate bonds? Maybe because it was NOT popular opinion back then, but now, after the fact, it might be?
Or is this another case of "invest for the long term bond-style" article? Yes I think it is.
Much is written about investor behavior. About them buying and selling at the wrong time. Yes, I'm sure some people invest without taking time to learn anything about it. I've admitted to doing it when I had hair and possibly losing it because of my mistakes. There is something to be said about making decisions acting on data available in the PRESENT. It is not always about the future. On paper it is always about it, but not in real life.
It is not always about "if you invested 10000 in this fund 25 years back you would have 200.000". That's not intelligent writing. That is putting salt on investors wounds. It would seem all individual investors are stupid idiots. It would be nice to see someone write about intelligence demonstrated by investors. I guess I would settle for "Bill Gross fund has seen 60 billion dollars of outflows" as a sign of investor aptitude because in this case Bill Gross is the target, not the investor. In 5 years if Bill Gross proved right, another article would pop up about how stupid investors were to sell PTTRX. And given short memories, it might even be the same person.
Don't hate me because I'm celebrating my independence today.

Thank you, sir. Ted's greatest strength is his utter commitment to the enterprise. I'm on break, the baseball schedule is light and the worst of the flood of workmen has passed, so I've got time - in Ted's absence - to share a few articles in the morning. When life gets busy, I'll need to back off. He's managed the feat, almost daily, for 20 years.
Perhaps different but complementary ways of supporting the enterprise?
David

By squinting carefully, a writer for the WSJ was able to conclude that Bill Miller's Legg Mason Value Trust had the best performance of any fund for the 15 years before the market's crash and the fund's ultra-crash. The fund flopped around like a fish tossed on the pier, investors left, Miller left, and the fund was rechristened. Now, because Miller is more talented and sees more deeply than any other, his Legg Mason Opportunity fund has the best record of any comparable fund over the past several years. That's the story told in "Mutual-Fund King Bill Miller Makes a Comeback." (Note: not my hyphen.)
Josh Brown's dissection of the article and Mr. Miller's performance, "Here's Everything That's Wrong With Investor Behavior, In One Article" is thoughtful, wry and corrosively critical. You might enjoy it.
David

We've subscribed to both for many years. I find the WSJ reporting to be pretty straight, as opposed to their editorial pages, which indeed favor "unregulated, screw the public capitalism", to put it in the mildest of terms. There's times when it's obvious the editorial writer didn't bother reading the facts as reported on the front page of his own paper.
The Economist, on the other hand, has an unfortunate tendency to editorialize pro-Market "between the lines", as you say, but on balance, is pretty decent. The other irritating thing about The Economist is that they never seem to find a war, military adventure or trouble spot that they don't volunteer the United States to take care of.
As for reporting and analyzing, still two of the best out there.

Right. Your facts were 11 years out of date and accounted for <18% of the performance.
You have to stick with all mutual funds for a period of time or pay to get out. That's the whole point, jeez. They're not ETFs or stocks.

I don't think this is about money laundering. The ability to control money laundering doesn't depend on where you are or what your address is, and there have been more effective restrictions in place for many years. The basic rule was about securities regulation and taxes. Its now about politics and the risk that Europe will retaliate for what the US is doing to their banks and their secrecy rules.
I was an expat for a long time and never had a problem, but I did have a US address. Funny though, if financial institutions are only paying attention to your address while HP wouldn't let me order a laptop a few years ago because my IP address was outside the US and I wanted to buy it from the US website with a US credit card (fraud risk), then something's wrong. Maybe this will change now or eventually, but its really a shame that a bunch of hard-working, tax paying individuals will be penalized because regulators can't keep up with the real world and politicians have never been above tit for tat.

I hate watching videos, so I don't know the details, but the Patriot Act made it very hard for us expats to buy U.S. mutual funds, at least unless you have a U.S. address. Vanguard would not even let me open an account, and this is going back years.
Kind of makes sense, at least from a fighting moneylaundering point of view.

gah, what is this about? Glancy was there for 2.5 years! 2000-03.
Why post this crap? This is like the second or third time on MFO that this factoid has been posted. Did Glancy do something to you two guys??
I am of course talking about Thomas Soviero, who has run FLVCX 11y straight as of yesterday.
No, wanh, me wanna talk about Vinik, not Danoff. wtf?

ROFL! Personally, I think Glancy not doing too shabby job at his Putnam funds.

gah, what is this about? Glancy was there for 2.5 years! 2000-03.
Why post this crap? This is like the second or third time on MFO that this factoid has been posted. Did Glancy do something to you two guys??
I am of course talking about Thomas Soviero, who has run FLVCX 11y straight as of yesterday.
No, wanh, me wanna talk about Vinik, not Danoff. wtf?

Get in, sit down, shut up and hold on it may be a wild ride. Fund has passed the $50 mil mark in assets.
Professionals would not invest in this for at least 3 years - but I am not a professional and have invested a few coins (about 0.5%) in this fund.
FARNX is 6 months old and has $64 mil. in assets and looks like it's gaining traction. It is a small blend fund.
Reviewed past postings and I thank Ted and others for their input, I put it on My possible list some time back .
Would like to see this fund grow to about $400 mil and close.
But what do I know!!!

TAVFX was an outstanding U.S. small value fund coming out of the tech crash. But after MW shifted the focus, it lost its edge, IMHO. I owned it for several years, sold in early 2007, never considered it again. The heavy, heavy losses during the crisis were a real sting for a company that preached 'safe and cheap' at every opportunity.

I subscribed to FundX for a few years before 2008. My experience with the recommendations was generally good, but depending on how you try to follow the newsletter and what your transaction costs are it gets a bit unwieldy. In all the cases I remember I was able to hold funds past the point at which I would be penalized for frequent trading, but there were some cases where my brokerage, E*Trade, didn't offer the funds so I skipped it or bought the next one on the list.
I have seen the same on their more recent performance, which surprises me a little. I think their system should do better in trending markets and if the past 5 years hasn't been a pretty consistent trend I'm not sure what would work better for them.
For my own account, I eventually decided I would rather play the momentum game with individual stocks or ETF's that were liquid and easy to trade so I let my subscription expire.