I don't look for managers who "rule", just ones whom I reasonably believe will turn in an above average performance over time. However, since we're talking about a MCV fund manager, why not look at my 2012 list of MCV funds?
https://mutualfundobserver.com/discuss/discussion/3176/thoughts-on-mid-cap-value-watch-list
Two of those five funds no longer have the same lead manager. NSEIX (hardly a surprise, longevity was a risk back then), and MSAIX (a fund that promptly dropped into the bottom half each year after my mention, except for its 47th percentile showing in 2018).
But the other three have had the same lead managers for 15+ years. They're all fine; I don't see FLPSX standing out.

Fund    15 year     2008 (Q4)          3Q2015   4Q2018  
FLPSX   9.14%    -36.17% (-20.73%)     -6.20%   -13.54%
ACMVX  10.45%    -24.49% (-18.96%)     -6.34%   -14.96%
JAMCX   8.95%    -33.24% (-21.70%)     -7.38%   -14.88%
VETAX  10.84%    -33.10% (aprox-19%)   -4.44%   -15.29%

JAMCX https://connect.rightprospectus.com/JPMorgan/TADF/339128308/P?site=JPMorgan
ACMVX https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/908186/000090818609000024/pea44-2009.htm
VETAX https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/802716/000110465909013154/a09-4636_1485bpos.htm
These four alone constitute 4% of MCV funds according to M*. They can't all be the rare 3% :-)

I was just looking at 15y return, as LB mentioned, of the rare individual managers I am aware of (I am missing some, I am positive) who have worked that long nonstop, compared w various indexes.
(FLPSX is not easy to compare fairly, prospectus notwithstanding, because of its usual large foreign slug, in some periods thought to be a good thing.)
Tillinghast is only 61yo, so if I were going to invest for 15 more years I would consider his work seriously.
Puglia is a bit younger.
Did not say it screams 'buy me'. Whose work does that for you? 'Absolutely rule' meant outperforms almost all others over that long haul. Whom do you have in mind for top rankings over the long hauyl?
am reading now about DCohen and Scherschmidt, at
https://www.forbes.com/sites/kenkam/2019/02/08/investing-with-the-greatest-mutual-fund-managers-2/#2c08d7db2a71
also these guys. Fried is sometimes mentioned in such articles.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/kenkam/2018/06/08/greatest-fund-managers-redux-4-that-are-keepers/#496a96a3554f
Puglia is not commonly mentioned anywhere that I can see. His big runup is recent, looks like.
All three of the POAGX guys' stints hit 15y end of this week.
Should also do a search of these names on MFO and MFOP.

While I agree that Tillinghast is a fine manager, I'm wondering on what basis he appears to "absolutely rule".
In 2008, FLPSX returned -36.17%, less than the -33.79% return of its chosen benchmark (R2K, per prospectus). Personally, I would have chosen a benchmark such as the Russell Midcap Value index, as was used by JMCVX. That latter index returned -38.44% in 2008, per the JMCVX 2009 prospectus.
For completeness, the R2K value index returned -28.92% in 2008, and the S&P 400 midcap index returned -36.23% (both from the same Janus prospectus). FLPSX returned -20.73% in the fourth quarter of 2008 (from any FLPSX prospectus - that was its worst quarterly return).
Regarding Tillinghast's break, it was for four months, starting in Sept. 2011 and ending in January 2012. Given that FLPSX's best annual performance relative to its peers over the five years 2009 through 2013 was in 2011, it wouldn't appear that Tillinghast's temporary absence had any negative impact. And since both Fidelity and Morningstar report Tillinghast as the fund manager from 1989 to the present, a simple screening for continuous management wouldn't have excluded Tillinghast from consideration of best 10 year managers.
On the positive side, FLPSX did outperform its MCV peers in the 4th quarter of 2018 (-13.54% vs. -15.72%), though over the two quarters including that one and the 1st quarter of 2019, everyone lost the same amount of money: about 5%. The fund did a little better in providing protection in the 3rd quarter of 2015, when it lost 6.2% vs. 9.19% for its peers. Including the slight bounce back the next quarter, FLPSX still did better, losing about 5% overall, while this time its peers lost around 7%.
http://performance.morningstar.com/fund/performance-return.action?t=FLPSX
The figures are okay, but I'm not seeing anything in the numbers that scream "buy me". Is that it, or is there something else that leads you to feel this manager rules?

Agree w/the above --- imho the 10 year chart is meaningless. I routinely look at 15, 20, and max timeframes now. For me a decent rule of thumb would be how much they lost in '08 .... if they didn't do too badly (by comparison to say the SPX) and were not wallowing in a huge cash pile, that implies they don't follow the herd and are thus worthy of my consideration.

I completely agree with Lewis. Similar reasoning is why I've advised caution in looking at 3,5,10 year figures if the market in the last 1 year has been particularly good or particularly bad. That one year distorts all the longer term figures, and creates a bias in favor of very aggressive or very conservative managers, respectively. Likewise, to exercise caution in looking at bond fund performances, both because we've had a four decade decline in interest rates (bond bull market) and because there's been a short term plunge in rates.

@catch22: In the past, on could find "enhanced cash" funds - what I called "secondary cash" above. Post 2008, it's hard to find anything similar outside of Australia.
For me, series I savings bonds serve the same role, and I stocked up before 2008, when purchases were not limited and the fixed rates were significantly higher. Since then, between the fact that purchases were capped and the fixed rates were effectively zero, I've nibbled only slightly.
You are correct in pointing out that even if one likes investing in savings bonds, the impact is limited. That's another reason to think of these more as a cash alternative and less as a major portfolio allocation.
Personally I'm disinclined to invest in inflation-linked products. While there's always the possibility of inflation rising rapidly, I'm guessing that it won't, and if it does that some part of my diversified equity portfolio will provide cover.
My interest in series I savings bonds is not for inflation protection. Rather, I expect them to outperform cash regardless of short term (6 month) inflation fluctuations, while having nearly the same liquidity as cash, plus tax advantages.
That latter point goes to your question of what type of account: taxable, since federal debt instruments are tax-favored (at the state level), and you lose that with IRAs. Besides, the income from savings bonds is deferred anyway. Unlike income from TIPS.
IMHO, to the extent that one does better with TIPS (or any bond) fund, it is because of the longer duration and interest rate risk one is assuming. Over the past several years, they do not seem to have been worth that risk.
Using your funds as examples, STPZ has returned 1.10% (annualized) over the past five years, 1.57% over the past ten. Not much better than cash.
LTPZ has done much better, returning 4.16% and 5.80% over the same time periods. But it has done that with a 20+ year duration in an era of declining interest rates. EDV, which invests in straight treasuries, has returned 7.20% and 9.29% respectively over the same periods. PEDIX's returns are very similar (7.20% and 9.58%). I'm not betting on that long term downward trend continuing.

I think there is a real danger right now in reviewing managers by their 10-year returns as the second worst bear market in U.S. history ended in March 2009 and the ten year-returns now exclude that bear market and we instead have returns for a great bull market. What you will end up with is likely some aggressive growth managers who out-beta'd the benchmark to beat it in the last ten years with large concentrations in tech stocks. A 15-year record would be better, but then much fewer managers have that tenure at one fund and may not be around much longer if they retire soon. What I might suggest actually is looking at a 3-year one instead as 2018 was the first bad year we had in a long time. Or simply see in the bad periods 4th quarter of 2018 and I believe--please doublecheck--fourth quarter of 2015--which funds performed well then and then see if those same funds also hold up when markets are good again or are they too conservative during bull runs? Upside/downside capture, ulcer index, bear market return numbers are probably easier ways to look. But articles like this one are dangerous if one simply takes the numbers for granted.

At age 85+ with a cash sale of our home this year, I find it difficult to buy investments that pay a lot of taxable gains. So I have looked at tax managed funds and/ or municipal tax free funds. I would like to stay mostly in the tax rate of 12% . Most of our income is SS, RMD, and some qualified dividends and small amount of capital gains. Any ideas to look for would be so helpful. I thought about CD's, a ladder of bullet bond funds. I own a small variable annuity that could be added to. Thanks for your input.

Hi Guys,
There are a very few rare gem current fund managers who are special. They are special and deserve consideration if they outdistance their benchmarks. Long term performance is perhaps the most significant criteria. I provide a reference that summaries the data in that arena:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/kenkam/2019/02/08/investing-with-the-greatest-mutual-fund-managers-2/#775ebd1e2a71
This is good stuff, but caution must be exercised. From the referenced article: “ Out of about 7000 U.S. equity mutual funds in Morningstar's database only 199, roughly 3%, have fund managers who have beaten the S&P 500 by enough to make a difference and outperformed their category benchmark over the past 10 years. “.
Now that is really special, but unfortunately it measures a fleeting characteristic. Investment management is a tough business. Past success doesn’t always translate into future success. Change happens.
However, it just might be worth your time to visit the reference and examine “The List”. You just might improve your portfolio.
Best Regards.

You got it. Worth highlighting from the article you linked to:

You can redeem them after one year, costing you three months of interest. Or redeem them after five years and pay no penalty, or just hold them for 30 years and cash out.

Note that there is absolutely no way to redeem the savings bonds in less than a year.
I'm looking at swapping some older savings bonds for these higher yielding 0.5% fixed rate bonds before the end of the month. That will start a new clock going, but I hold these as "secondary cash", so I'm okay with that.
Or I may just continue holding the older savings bonds for awhile (as well as buying the new ones). 2.02% tax deferred, state tax exempt is not a bad deal in this low interest rate environment. And that comes with, as your article describes it, "fantastic flexibility."
Some frames of reference: current 3 month and 6 month zero T-bills up for auction are anticipated to yield slightly over 1.6%. (From Fidelity's site.) Vanguard's Treasury MMF ($50K min) has a current SEC yield of 1.85%, APR of 1.87%. That's gradually declining and is not tax-deferred.

Thanks for clarifying, msf. It's all a bit quirky with I Bonds, the fixed and variable combination depending on your time of purchase. So am I right in thinking that if you buy a bond before Oct 31 you will lock in the 0.5% fixed rate but not start to earn the new variable rate of 2.00% until April 1? If so, I apologize for the inaccuracies in my post above. That's still a very sound guaranteed 12 month rate of 2.2% which compares favorably to ultrashort or short investment grade bond funds, where there is always a risk to your principal, no matter how small.
Edit: David Enna (aka Tipswatch) writes very eloquently on US Treasury products. Here is his latest piece on I Bonds:
https://seekingalpha.com/article/4296250-bond-investors-act-now-delay

VTMFX is a great option if you have Vanguard accounts.

I have been doing some research and liked VTMFX as MSF suggested which I can buy at my Schwab accounts. Since most of my cash is in our taxable account and I would like to keep taxes low as possible I would only consider another fund with lower than 30 to 50 percent equities and/or more value than growth.
I appreciate comments from MSF and Tarwheel, very helpful.

I Bonds, paying 2.5% from next month. You are guaranteed to earn 0.5% above the rate of inflation if you buy before Oct 31.

If you buy before Oct. 31, the bonds you receive will pay 1.90% through March of 2020. That's the way Series I savings bonds work. You get the current inflation adjustment (1.4%) for the first six months you own the savings bonds regardless of which month you purchase them in, then the you get the next inflation adjustment (2.0%) for six months, and so on.

The 1.90% composite rate for I bonds bought from May 2019 through October 2019 applies for the first six months after the issue date.

https://www.treasurydirect.gov/news/pressroom/currentibondratespr.htm
The argument for buying now:

The current I Bond fixed rate is 0.5%. That is the highest it has been since early 2009 when it was 0.70%. In this falling interest rate environment with low Treasury yields, I think it’s likely that the I Bond fixed rate will fall. For five of the last ten years, the fixed rate has been zero.
If you buy I Bonds for the long-term, the fixed rate is the most important consideration, and it may be at a peak. We won’t know the next I Bond fixed rate until November 1st when the Treasury announces the changes.

https://www.depositaccounts.com/blog/inflation-treasury-series-i-savings-bonds/
Whether you buy now or buy in November, it's unlikely that the savings bonds will pay 2.5% next month. (I've no complaints with 1.9%, tax deferred, state tax exempt.)

FYI: Warren Buffett may be worth tens of billions, but he still lives simply, and his strategies for investing and amassing wealth aren't too complicated either.
But if it's so easy, you ask, why aren't more people as freaking rich as Buffett is? Because his approach takes the kind of discipline, patience and instinct that many either don't have or are unwilling to develop.
Here are 10 rules that have helped the Oracle of Omaha find and sustain
Regards,
Ted
1. It starts with good communication
2. When investing, innovate — don't follow
3. Always be willing to learn new things
4. Live frugally
5. Look forward, not to the past
6. Never invest borrowed money
7. Dividends are key to long-term growth
8. Think loooooooong term
9. Know when to fold 'em
10. Remember, anything is possible

Hi @rono
Thank you for your redo ink to shadowstats. There are those here who may not have know of the site previous, and the old timers who had forgotten.
I'm absolutely positive inflation is running more than the gov't provided CPI increase (1.6%) for 2020 for SS, etc.
As you've noted numerous times, invest in what you use as a consumer, too.....local utils, etc. A "pay yourself" investment plan, eh?
Neighbor chat indicates that their Plan F supplemental health coverage premium will increase 9.6% in 2020. Insurance is insurance for a reason and they've had a need for this over the years and are pleased they had the extra coverage. I've expressed previous, that to help offset the rising costs of healthcare to invest in the sector. A good example is FSPHX, with an inception date of 1981. The lifetime annualized return is 15.4%. There are plenty of decent healthcare investments from the broadbased to the more narrow sectors, as with an etf of IHI (medical tech./devices).
Take care,
Catch

Heard it all before...countless times. All baloney.
I think the best 100% guaranteed investment right now is I Bonds, paying 2.5% from next month. You are guaranteed to earn 0.5% above the rate of inflation if you buy before Oct 31. So when the doomsters predictions of 12% inflation come true you will be able to sleep at night, knowing you are making 12.5%.
Or just ignore the noise and stay with your long term goals as I intend to do.

FYI: (This Is A Follow-Up Article.)
The latest tally shows more than $3 billion in client assets pulled from Fisher Investments since the Oct. 8 comments were initially criticized in a video posted on Twitter.
Most of those departing assets are represented by public pension plans and high-profile companies like Goldman Sachs that are showing their own PR prudence by distancing themselves from Fisher.
But Fisher Investments, as the nation's second-largest RIA behind Financial Engines Advisors, has over the past few years undertaken an aggressive retail branding campaign and could also be vulnerable on the consumer side.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.google.com/search?sxsrf=ACYBGNQfxbvLiQf4TfPJXK_NCyTHTdBEtw:1572078987192&source=hp&ei=iwW0Xf2UCcjmsAXbk404&q=Is+it+time+for+Ken+Fisher+to+step+down?&oq=Is+it+time+for+Ken+Fisher+to+step+down?&gs_l=psy-ab.3..33i299.4920.4920..6175...0.0..0.93.93.1......0....2j1..gws-wiz.D0GWZyMH8wA&ved=0ahUKEwi9htrMwrnlAhVIM6wKHdtJAwcQ4dUDCAc&uact=5

@MFO Members: The 28th Annual Baron Investment Conference:
Regards,
Ted
https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20191025005479/en/5000-Baron-Funds-Shareholders-Attend-28th-Annual

I used to listen to a very good investment show hosted by legendary Bruce Williams back in the 80s. It was broadcast nationwide.
Bruce often alluded to “The Rule of 72” which the link below explains. He claimed a investor should on average double his money every 8 years. That would work out to a 9% annual return, using the rule of 72. That sounds quite high by today’s standards without taking on a lot of additional risk. In the 80s mortgage rates were still double-digit. Interest rates generally were much higher than today.
https://www.thebalance.com/how-to-use-the-rule-of-72-2388567

@Lewis Braham: Hello Lewis !
Regards,
Ted :)
https://www.mutualfundobserver.com/discuss/discussion/53822/fisher-divestment-tops-3-billion-after-texas-pension-bolts-inside-fisher-s-sales-culture#latest