I was a commodities broker 40 years ago. Their returns (funds) since the 70s (allowing for the ones that vanished) is woeful. One glance at Morningstar's Commodity Broad Basket category for the past 3 and 5 years tells it all. Over the intervening years since I was a broker I heard all about shortages of this and that commodity but overall shortages always seemed to turn into surpluses and vice versa with the net result being a terrible long term investment vehicle. Probably the worst of the worst is silver. I remember how it was manipulated to over $50 an ounce in the spring of 1980. Look at it now.
Edit Just looked at a chart of GCC back to 2008. Again, pretty much says it all.

@bee: From U.S. News & World Report (Copy & Paste)
Regards,
Ted
As of July 03, 2014, the fund has assets totaling almost $256.35 million invested in 31 different holdings. Its portfolio consists primarily of shares of large companies.
Relative to its large-cap value peers, this fund is aggressive in a number of ways. First, as of the end of January, the fund owned shares in just 29 companies. This concentrated, high-octane portfolio pushes the fund's performance, for better or worse, toward the extremes in any given year. The fund also has a fairly large part of its portfolio invested in small-cap names, which tend to be more volatile than their large-cap counterparts. And it is heavily invested in the technology sector, in which stocks are more commonly associated with fast growth than deep value. Meanwhile, the fund's turnover ratio exceeds 200 percent. This points to an opportunistic management team that is willing to trade quite frequently. Lately, this strategy has paid off extraordinarily well. The fund launched in 2007, and finished 2009 and 2010 in the top percentile of Morningstar's large-value category. Through the first quarter, the fund was once again in the top percentile of its group for 2011. Its returns over that three-month period beat the average for its Morningstar group by 13 percentage points. Its trailing three-year returns, as of the end of the first quarter, beat those of the S&P 500 by a whopping 18 percentage points per year.
Another distinguishing characteristic is the fund's exposure to international companies. One of its top holding, Flextronics International, is based in Singapore. Another big holding, Bombardier Inc., is based in Canada. As for U.S. companies, the fund's largest domestic positions are Apache and United States Steel Corporation. The fund has returned 50.79 percent over the past year and 11.34 percent over the past three years.
Investment Strategy
The fund follows an aggressive strategy. Management looks for companies whose prices are artificially low, often due to short-term losses of momentum. Management follows a highly compact strategy, which tends to push the fund's returns toward the extremes. The fund is heavily invested in foreign companies and, relative to its peers, in small-cap stocks. Management does quite a bit of trading, as is reflected in the fund's high turnover ratio. Meanwhile, when management doesn't see opportunities, it is willing to sit on a fairly substantial cash stake.

"CGM Focus Fund is for investors who believe that a smart manager can beat the market by picking stocks"
"I've never found a manager or a fund that consistently beats the market, although many certainly try."
"Back in 2009, Morningstar's Christine Benz looked at the reported returns and investor returns for CGM Focus, which had produced off-the-charts performance for years. She calculated that in the 10 years ended July 31, 2009, an investment of $10,000 would have grown to $51,633.
But when she studied the fund's investor returns, she found that an initial $10,000 investment would have shriveled to $1,585.
The fund could legally report a 10-year gain (not annualized) of more than 400%. Actual investors, on the other hand, lost more than 84% of their money in that same 10 years.
This discrepancy, while it is extreme, isn't limited to this fund. It's typical of investor behavior in general, as a research company named DALBAR has reported over and over.
Over 10 years, this difference between $51,633 and $1,585 was all due to investors' performance chasing while they repeatedly mistimed their purchases and sales, Benz wrote.
As this shows, impatient investors who are intent on beating the market can turn a mutual fund manager's superb 10-year performance (17.8% annualized) into awful returns for themselves (annualized losses of 16.8% over 10 years!)."

Umm, Bee, lack of volatility??? Volatility is typically measured by standard deviation, and CAMAX stdev is almost 3x higher than YACKX, 26 versus 9 over the last 3 years. It does have a winning upside/downside capture ratio, but boy are the ups and downs magnified.

Interesting to chart china-centric funds or ETFs over the last three years. Here's FXI and MCHFX charted. They seems to be stuck in a sideways range with cyclical lows edging higher from previous cycle lows, but bump up against resistance on the high side:

Within three three year period the highs and lows seem to be consistently a little higher each cycle.

If this persists the next cycle high would be about 15% from today's price.

This fund, CAMAX, has always intrigue me with its agressiveness and relative success. I have notice some shorting going on in the portfolio,

and would like any insight readers have on shorting as a strategy for a mutual fund or an overall portfolio.
CAMAX seens to be using SSO as it's largest short position (-5.38% of portfolio wt). I would imagine there is some secret sauce to this strategy which again certain fund managers (in this case, Brain Barish) implenent.
Finally, CAMAX recent lack of volitility and performance over the last two years is impressive when compared it to funds like YACKX:

FYI: One of the most fascinating mutual funds to watch over the past 15 years has been CGM Focus Fund.
I disagree with most of the things this fund does. I don't recommend it to anyone. And yet sometimes CGM Focus (MFD:CGMFX) is an amazing performer.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/top-funds-shareholders-missed-the-party-2014-07-23/print?guid=58338099-4139-4521-8BD8-0B535591F0C6
M* Snapshot Of CGMFX: http://quotes.morningstar.com/fund/cgmfx/f?t=cgmfx
Lipper Snapshot OF CGMFX: http://www.marketwatch.com/investing/fund/cgmfx
CGMFX Is Ranked # 248 In The (LCB) Category By U.S. News & World Report:
http://money.usnews.com/funds/mutual-funds/large-blend/cgm-focus-fund/cgmfx

If you believe, as MFLDX manager Michael Arronstein does, that the Fed has screwed up again and that we are overdue for a correction, or even if you do not agree, the fund is designed to be a contrary holding. There are times it will underperform (like the last 12 months). Arronstein is net short on bonds, short emerging markets, consumer staples, utilities, and the euro. A very high "cash" position, too. I am not one who expects all of my holdings to perform in a similar manner. MFLDX has been a terrific long-term hold, and I would not be too hasty in bailing just because it is underperforming now. The manager has made some pretty incredible calls over the years, and the fund uses a macro-economic overlay in helping to make decisions. While I am not a fan of the big inflow of dollars to the fund, I am willing to give Mr. Arronstein considerable time. If he is right, the fund will look darned good in a correction.

Hmmm... We don't seem to want to give Hussman considerable time. Or how much time is considerable? Looks to me MFLDX is where HSGFX was at one time, and we all know how that has turned out.

First link, zippo !!
2/nd link , it brings tears to my eyes, to think of all the extra I paid in fees over the years. Good read if you're just getting started in 401-k's
Have a great week, Derf

While the study's general conclusion is correct (few funds land in the top 25% every single year), it has from my perspective four serious problems.
1. The baseline period is March 2009 to 2010, which is to say they looked at the funds that had the greatest returns coming off a profound market bottom. The broad market return in those 12 months was 56%.
2. By picking a mid-year measurement period, they make it hard to test their conclusions since few public data sources allow you to screen for periods other than calendar years and trailing periods
3. There's no explanation for why the metric is reasonable. Few funds land in the top 25% every year, without exception. (a) Duh. (b) Who cares? If, hypothetically, a market is frothy and valuations stretched, do you really want a fund that's at the top of the heap? If you "win," by whatever standard you use with your portfolio, more often than you lose, does the "not every year" thing have any meaning?
4. S&P, author of the study and writer of indexes, uses the paper to justify investing in index funds. And so, we ask, how many index funds satisfied the researchers' criteria? That is, if the test is "top quarter every year," which of their preferred vehicles meet the standard? I suspect I can count the winners on the thumbs of one foot.
Just grumbling,
David

Maybe I can say this better than what I posted and deleted over the weekend. If you held this fund since inception you are ahead of the S&P. But besides being -4.54% YTD it has also underperformed the S&P by 8.12% and 6.65% per annum over the past three and five years respectively. Yes, I know its benchmark is not the S&P and I realize we have been in a long term bull since March of 09. But retirement and old age comes quicker than you might think and looking back in my younger years I would have hated to have been stuck in such an underperformer to the overall market over the past many years. Not my idea of building long term wealth. Then again, I admit to be biased against all these alternative/bear, and long/short funds that have sprung up out of nowhere since 2000.

A lot of dire forecasts for junk bonds in the various links of Ted original link above. Here's some more negative comments, these coming from Michael Aneiro's column in this week's Barron's. Mr. Aneiro has been a regular Cassandra on junk bonds for well over a year now. You know the broken clock analogy, so maybe Mr. Aneiro's time has finally arrived.
>>>Among current pockets of risk, as I've warned in this column before, is the corporate bond market. Not only are corporates rich, but they can also be harder to sell than they were just a few years ago. Since the financial crisis, banks have cut their corporate-bond holdings to keep pace with regulations. Inventory is down by 40% to 75%, according to various estimates, and if there's ever a rush to sell, fewer willing buyers could mean steeper losses, affecting bonds, mutual funds, and ETFs alike.
"THERE'S NO QUESTION that liquidity has decreased," says Gershon Distenfeld, director of high yield at AlianceBernstein, who says increased capital requirements have curtailed risk appetite among banks and dealers and made it more costly to maintain bond inventories. He adds that Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers, and Merrill Lynch used to represent more than a third of U.S. high-yield trading volume, and none of them exist as a stand-alone entity today.
Fixed-income trading at banks "is evaporating," says James Swanson, chief investment strategist at MFS Investment Management. He sees corporate bonds, particularly high yield, as increasingly perilous for investors. "Are those markets, given how low yields are, compensating you for the risk of illiquidity?"
Corporate bonds are often pulled in two directions: When equity prices fell amid last week's turmoil, riskier corporates slid, too, but the losses were tempered by gains in underlying Treasury bonds. That pattern can hold up for short periods but will be challenged during more protracted downturns, especially if nobody really wants to buy.<<<

If you believe, as MFLDX manager Michael Arronstein does, that the Fed has screwed up again and that we are overdue for a correction, or even if you do not agree, the fund is designed to be a contrary holding. There are times it will underperform (like the last 12 months). Arronstein is net short on bonds, short emerging markets, consumer staples, utilities, and the euro. A very high "cash" position, too. I am not one who expects all of my holdings to perform in a similar manner. MFLDX has been a terrific long-term hold, and I would not be too hasty in bailing just because it is underperforming now. The manager has made some pretty incredible calls over the years, and the fund uses a macro-economic overlay in helping to make decisions. While I am not a fan of the big inflow of dollars to the fund, I am willing to give Mr. Arronstein considerable time. If he is right, the fund will look darned good in a correction.

Balanced is good. Contrarian has done very well with the new manager. The Perkins funds are fine. Overseas was hugely successful for a while but has tanked in recent years. Other than that....?

I sold it 3 months ago. I was concerned about asset bloat affecting its performance. Asset bloat or bad macro moves, either way it was performing poorly and I lost confidence in the fund. It was a tough decision, as I have had it for several years, but I began to see little reason in keeping it and I think I made the right decision.

Hello,
I am a holder of MFLDX and I have been pleased with its performance up until the last twelve months where it has now returned less than 1% positive over this period. I am wondering ... Has the fund become too large for its manager to make good macro moves? Or, has he just made some bad macro moves? I have been thinking of letting it go ... but, wanted to poll what the thoughts of others might be. I let IVY Asset Strategy go several years back because I felt it had become too large to effectively position. So what be your thoughts?
Old_Skeet

Hi JohnN,
Thanks for posting. Being retired I am now finding myself away form my computer more often and for longer periods of time. I have, through the years, found good value in Mr. Rowland's newsletter and use it as an aid, at times, to help position part of my equity allocation within my portfolio.
Please take over and continue to post it weekly.
I wish all ... "Good Investing."
Old_Skeet

VF,
I've held CIPSX since 2006, and I was happy for a while (especially in '08!) but I have been thinking of selling as part of a general move to lower my equity exposure a little and consolidate into fewer funds. Could you give me the reasons why you're a Champlain fan? I'm sure your reasons are excellent, which is why I'd like to hear them in case they convince me to hold on and sell off another fund instead.
I haven't minded that CIPSX underperformed the wild bull over the past few years, but I am disappointed that in this year's mild downdraft for small caps it hasn't held up better. Downside protection is what it's supposed to be a good at. But hey, no one's perfect, and a few months and a few points of underperformance isn't a biggie in you believe in the management.

@MFO Members: Sorry to hear about the passing of James Wang, but the sad truth is the fund also died over the last three years.
YTD: 100 Percentile
One Year 100 Percentile
Three Year: 93 Percentile
Regards,
Ted
OSFDX Returns: http://performance.morningstar.com/fund/performance-return.action?t=OSFDX&region=usa&culture=en-US
MFO Slant;
http://www.mutualfundobserver.com/discuss/discussion/7886/oceanstone-fund

MAPIX is 60% developed markets (ie Japan, Ausralia) so IMO it's rather weak tea for an EM holding.
No one has mentioned FNMIX, which has done very well for me.

I track FNMIX and concur that it is a great choice. I keep forgetting that MAPIX has morphed into a more developed-Market look and feel over the years. But if it works, don't fix it.