When I look at the portfolio for MGGPX/MGGIX I see that their tech component consists of primarily those 'disrupters' many managers have taken a liking to. I'm just thinking that could be part of the reason the fund has hit a recent rough patch. I'm not all that impressed with their current top 10 holdings.

Food for Thought
Edited to add: Pay attention to the chart of dividends paid out over time. It goes without saying I hope that the biggest dividends are not always proof of the best investments.

Jan 14th Episode:

+1

Not sure there's any point to discussing politico-economical issues where someone can write 'Far left government paid people to sit at home and is still trying to hand out freebies', but this was enlightening, about "socialist" (har) gov and loafers and layabouts and QoL elsewhere:
https://messaging-custom-newsletters.nytimes.com/template/oakv2?campaign_id=116&emc=edit_pk_20220114&instance_id=50392&nl=paul-krugman&productCode=PK&regi_id=22268089&segment_id=79774&te=1&uri=nyt://newsletter/2506423f-8181-5221-97e3-1080724eb062&user_id=83d45440ead1d14c2a89a1e7221337d1

This is a good reminder for all of us.
The Ritholtz Wealth Management gang produces some useful content.
A Wealth of Common Sense
The Big Picture
Of Dollars and Data
The Irrelevant Investor

Hey, thank you for those links. I'd forgotten.

Since we are discussing about the future, I figured I would post it here.
Byron Wien's Ten surprises for 2022 -
https://www.yahoo.com/now/byron-wien-joe-zidle-announce-170000559.html

The Smead Value Fund has performed very well in the Large Value category.
It will interesting to see if Smead Capital can produce similar results in the International Value category.
When Smead Capital was headquartered in Seattle, Bill Smead was a regular guest on a local PBS business/finance program (2008 - 2011?).
Mr. Smead was very articulate and his investment philosophy resonated with me.
However, I could not get past Smead Value Fund's high expense ratio so I didn't invest in it.
In retrospect, perhaps I should have taken the plunge?

@yogibearbull, I think you have a very narrow view of what market timing is, 100% in or out. That is not what this interview with Barry Ritholtz is about at all. It's about the person who reacts to current news, thinking they can time-tweak their holdings to gain an extra buck. These are some of the comments Barry makes:
- making these little course corrections in you portfolio because you think you know whats going to happen next is a fools errand.
- for the vast majority of amateur investors and a significant majority of professionals, market timing is all but impossible.
- the typical mom and pop investor... for the most part, the more they do the more worst-off their returns are.
Those were his words paraphrased a bit.

@LewisBraham has a piece in Barron's on this. My summary (advance preview):
"FUNDS. Post-Financial-Crisis reforms are not working for some MONEY-MARKET FUNDS. GOVERNMENT money-market funds are doing fine (AUM grew to $4.1 trillion). But PRIME money-market funds have shrunk to $831 billion. These invest in commercial paper and CDs, can have redemption fees and/or gates and/or floating NAVs (institutional prime). When issues developed in 2020, these prime money market funds were reluctant to use their available tools and the FED had to step in with some liquidity backstops. So, now, the SEC has proposed new rules that will ditch redemption fees and gates in favor of SWING-PRICING (a form of floating NAV related to redemption level). The fund industry is opposing these new rules (Fido, Federated Hermes, Blackstone, BNY/Mellon, etc)."
https://www.barrons.com/articles/money-market-funds-sec-regulations-51642183815?mod=hp_DAY_9

There was more than one round of government hand outs during Trump time. He was disappointed that the last round was less than what he asked the Senate for ($1,200 vs $2,000 per person?).
I think as intelligent beings we need to get away from labels, personalities, and the need for a sense of belonging (or tribal affiliation), and discuss ideas if one were looking for entertainment.
Milton Friedman was a Univ of Chicago faculty from 1944 until the end of his academic career, spanning many decades, and was one of the lead proponents that rejected Keynesianism. He was also an economic adviser to Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher, a rare distinction not too many economists have. He was also the economic advisor to Barry Goldwater. His market based ideas influenced many governments around the world. As to his Republican party affiliation, he was not a blind squirrel and rejected the party label.

Without analyzing the market cap and liquidity of the stocks Wood was invested in, this asset-size analysis seems incomplete to me. It think the speculative nature of the companies the ETF invests in and their extraordinarily high valuations may have been more to blame. This from a different Zweig article is significant however from a liquidity perspective though:

ARK is already a big owner of some small stocks. At Israeli biotech company Pluristem Therapeutics Inc., with a total stock-market value of $219 million, ARK holds 15.5% of the shares outstanding. That’s three times as much as all other institutional owners combined. At a French biotech, Cellectis S.A. , with a $900 million market value, ARK owns 11.5%—more than the next 11 largest holders combined.
Although those two positions make up barely 0.5% of ARK’s total assets, they reflect the firm’s style.

But I wonder if investors still could've gotten burned pretty badly buying the same stocks in a smaller fund at 2021's speculative peak.

It appeared that international value funds are leading their growth counterparts this year. They trail growth style for over 10 years. Will they persist in the near term?

If you're not a WSJ subscriber Mark's link may not work. If not, try this one:
Link to Article

The original economic impact payments (aka "stimulus checks") were part of the CARES Act that passed Congress by votes of 419-6 in the House and 96 to 0 in the Senate before being signed into law by the Donald.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/748/actions
These payments were actually tax refunds. In effect, taxpayers with zero income started with a negative income tax rather than a zero tax. Of course as their income increased, so did their income tax. But the net amount owed was still computed by subtracting out this initial credit.
Negative income tax - an idea introduced by that radical leftist, Milton Friedman, in 1962.
https://mitsloan.mit.edu/ideas-made-to-matter/negative-income-tax-explained

IMO, mistakes with TAA are not disastrous. In retirement, I try to maintain 40-60% effective-equity with TAA. And I have made mistakes in these markets - should have had 60% when had 40%, and vice-versa. But still, I did OK vs pure market-timers (100% or 0% equity). I guess I could just leave it in the middle at 50% but that wouldn't be as much fun.

* May be pay-walled.
By Jason Zweig, The Intelligent Investor at the WSJ.
"The ARK Innovation ETF posted big returns, and big money followed. Now it’s the latest example of what happens when a fund becomes too large for its own good."
Read Article

Here is the summary prospectus and the prospectus:
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1614370/000119312522007437/d229344d497k.htm (summary prospectus)
https://www.sec.gov/ix?doc=/Archives/edgar/data/1614370/000119312522007433/d229344d485bpos.htm (prospectus)

Pure timers are completely in or out based on signals.
On the other hand, tactical asset allocation (TAA) involves changing allocations suitably according to market assessments, and rebalancing simply adjusting to strategic/fixed asset allocation.

Thank you @yogibearbull
Makes sense. I added a 5-10% “Speculative” sleeve several months ago. It’s currently just under 8% of my holdings. Others might call that a tactical position. It’s a place where my overall assessment of where various markets are can be counted into the otherwise static allocation format. I realize this is not for everyone and all circumstances.