By March of 2009, Miller's flagship had drawn down about 80 percent. He only drew down half that 11 years later. How does he get the new capital to take advantage?

That is a sure way to fund his yacht while his investors stay poor. Glad I never invest with Bill Miller. He still paddles his investment view on WealthTrack.

Thank you for the education. To confirm, I took the average of the growth (+37.23%) and Value (+25.82%) for 2019 and get an average of +31.5%, which equals the return of the 500 index.

Mark +1
Stay Safe, Derf

The S&P 500 is designed by committee to be "representative" of the US market. So it is not a collection of the 500 largest companies, though it resembles that list.
Given that the objective of the S&P Committee is to represent the market, to the extent that it meets that objective, your question could be rephrased: is today's market growthy (are most companies, where "most" means more than 50%, growth companies)? Hard to disagree with that.
My point was just that by design, growth index + value index = total index; further, the partitioning is effectively 50/50 so one gets little insight by seeing how many stocks fall where.
Another way to address (ore evade) your question is: essentially by definition cap weighted indexes are (slightly) growth oriented, since they add more weight to companies that have grown faster.
https://www.morningstar.com/articles/967411/is-market-cap-weighting-a-momentum-strategy-in-disguise

Anyone who wants to condemn today’s democrats because southern slaveholders were democrats 150 years ago is not really a serious person.

Generally and simplistically speaking, index providers (e.g. S&P) simply rank stocks from 100% value to 100% growth, and put the "left" half into value and the "right" half into growth. It's all relative and they're agnostic as to where an objective absolute line would be drawn between growth and value.
So there's no value in asking how many stocks are in the growth index vs the value index. They're evenly divided.

For example, the S&P MidCap 400 constituent with the highest Value Score would have a Value Rank of 1, while the constituent with the lowest would have a Value Rank of 400.
The index constituents are then sorted in ascending order of the ratio Growth Rank/Value Rank. The companies at the top of the list have a higher Growth Rank (or high Growth Score) and a lower Value Rank (or low Value Score) and, therefore, exhibit pure growth characteristics. The companies at the top of the list, comprising 33% of the total index market capitalization, are designated as the Growth basket.
The companies at the bottom of the list have a higher Value Rank (and Value Score) and a lower Growth Rank (and Growth Score) and, therefore, exhibit pure value characteristics. The companies at the bottom of the list, comprising 33% of the total index market capitalization, are designated the Value basket. ...
The middle 34% of float market capitalization consists of companies that have similar growth and value ranks. Their market capitalization is distributed among the Style indices based on their distances from the midpoint of the Growth basket and the midpoint of the Value basket ... [That is, S&P puts stock in the middle third of the universe into both value and growth indexes, with proportions determined by where among the "blend" stocks they sit - closer to value or closer to growth.]

https://www.spglobal.com/spdji/en/documents/methodologies/methodology-sp-us-style.pdf
The Vanguard index funds mentioned, VIGAX and VIVAX, are based on CRSP indexes. While CRSP uses its own formulas for scoring value and growth attributes of stocks, ultimately it too ranks stocks based on their relative scores and partitions according to their rankings. Here's CRSP's methodology (start at page 30 for growth/value partitioning).
http://www.crsp.org/files/Equity-Indexes-Methodology-Guide_0.pdf

I see:
VIFAX. VIGAX. VUVLX
M CAP 161.b 223. 50.4
PE. 27.6. 42.4. 16.7
PB. 3.8. 9.2. 2.0
ROE. 19.6. 21.1. 13.0
Also, if you put 10k in growth & 10k in value 3 years ago, you’d be 64% growth & 36% value now. So you would rebalance - but if investing today, would you overweight value? By how much?

For the top 10 holdings in VIFAX, I see 23.1% growth and 5.1% value. Don't think I'll go through all 509 names tonight.

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/887210/000110465920137326/tm2038055d13_497.htm
497 1 tm2038055d13_497.htm 497
ABERDEEN INVESTMENT FUNDS
Aberdeen International Sustainable Leaders Fund
(formerly, Aberdeen Select International Equity Fund)
(the “Fund”)
Supplement dated December 18, 2020 to the Fund’s Prospectus and Statement of Additional
Information, each dated February 28, 2020, as supplemented to date
(the “February 2020 Prospectus and SAI”)
Effective December 1, 2020, the Aberdeen Select International Equity Fund changed its name to the Aberdeen International Sustainable Leaders Fund and changed its principal investment strategies and portfolio managers as set forth in a separate prospectus and statement of additional information dated December 1, 2020 (the “December 2020 Prospectus and SAI”). The Aberdeen International Sustainable Leaders Fund is currently offered pursuant to the December 2020 Prospectus and SAI. All references to, and information with respect to, the Aberdeen Select International Equity Fund are hereby deleted from the February 2020 Prospectus and SAI.
This supplement is dated December 18, 2020.
Please retain this Supplement for future reference.

"As of Dec. 1st DODFX results:
YTD -{3.0%}, 3 years -{0.1%}, 5 years +4.5%. Negative returns for 3 years is "Gold?"!
"Compare that blow out performance to the Category (Foreign Stock Funds):
YTD +7.1%, 3years +3.7%, 5 years +7.3%"
Compare that to the Category (Foreign Large Value Funds):
YTD -{4.1%}, 3 years -{0.7%}, 5 years +3.8%
(My data are from M*'s performance page for the fund, as of month end Nov. 30th. The category performance was calculated by taking the fund's performance and subtracting its category outperformance as given on that page.)
Morningstar stars are given for (risk adjusted) past performance. Gold (and other medal) ratings concern prospective performance. While past performance informs, "past performance does not guarantee future results."
If you want to say that FLV has done lousy over the three years, all well and good. However, medal ratings are relative to peers, and the fund does perform well relative to its peers. At least on an absolute (not risk adjusted) basis.

+1 Mark I might try that with the VG etf index funds.

+1

DODFX is a perfect example of why one should ignore M* recs. Lousy picks. DODFX still has as of today M* "Gold" status. I can think of another color - it ain't shiny metal.
As of Dec. 1st DODFX results:
YTD -{3.0%}, 3 years -{0.1%}, 5 years +4.5%. Negative returns for 3 years is "Gold?"!
Compare that blow out performance to the Category (Foreign Stock Funds):
YTD +7.1%, 3years +3.7%, 5 years +7.3%
Translated: avoid, its a bum fund, you lost money for years. Of course, your mileage may differ should you choose to fork over hard earned cash today. Much better options elsewhere...Vanguard Intl Growth or Fidelity Intl Discovery perhaps?

@SomeoneWhoIsNotWhoHeClaimsToBe You should be ashamed for using Honest Abe Lincoln's face on your post. And your forebears if they were truly coal miners and knew what's what would know there isn't a more significant union busting, labor hating party in the U.S. today than the GOP. No new coal jobs were create during Trump's presidency and in fact they hit an all-time low at the end of 2019--https://spglobal.com/marketintelligence/en/news-insights/latest-news-headlines/us-coal-mining-employment-hits-new-low-at-the-end-of-2019-may-go-lower-in-2020-57173047 Coal is a product that is killing the planet anyway. Instead of saving those 50,000 remaining coal mining jobs, the federal and state governments should provide financial support and re-training for those workers and give them first crack at green jobs under the Green New Deal, which would create a lot more than 50,000 jobs if the GOP and Dixiecrats or today's Blue Dog Dems weren't hell bent on killing it by any means necessary.

AbrahamLincoln marty stopped running the fund and it was almost a revolving doors of managers. I think that assets under management are in the $200 million now and that is after merging with their international fund. Very sad.
Dryflower i think that morningstar drops coverage of funds below $1 billion which fairx was at before recent bout of outperformance. Fairx reached $18 billions in assets under management at some point followed by scary level and pace of outflows.
I also owned third avenue credit after it started to struggle thinking that turnaround is in the cards. That was a mistake.
A lot of people in the past bailed on all these value funds. People like me where left to hold the bag.
I think that there is a lesson here.
Ted before his passing mentioned unfortunately that mfo is not what fund alarm was. I disagree with him. God rest his soul. I am not trying to be mean. I think that now the cat is out of the bag and people started to believe facts that index funds are way to go and active management is a loser game (charlie ellis words not mine). I think that people no longer view a site about mutual fund as important maybe.
I do follow mfo and i am grateful to David and all the mfo team members. I also still only own active funds. Someday i will learn my lesson.
Stay safe.

Dec 18th Episode - Part 2 with Ed Hyman

Here is something for both CEFs under "news" from November:
https://www.gabelli.com/funds/closed_ends/-123 (Bancroft)
https://www.gabelli.com/funds/closed_ends/-124 (Ellsworth)

"DODFX is a mediocre FLV stock fund that has only kept pace with IC+ bond fund DODIX for the past ten years.
ISTM that you're rolling up multiple factors into a single number. Over the past ten years, DODFX has turned in four star performance. It is rated three stars for risk adjusted performance.
While it's more than fair to consider risk since that's @hank's main concern here, it's not quite fair to mix raw performance and risk adjusted performance in the same sentence: "mediocre" (risk-adjusted) and "kept pace" (raw performance).
We can take a closer look at those ten year performances. DODFX has outperformed its category by an average of 1.03% over the past decade (through Sept. 18, per M*). DODIX has outperformed its category by 0.40% over the past decade. Based on these figures, which is the mediocre fund?
Sure, DODIX has kept pace with DODFX. But that's because a mediocre core plus fund has outpaced a mediocre FLV fund over a decade, 4.26% to 3.95%.
"What about BND vs RBIN??"
Okay, what about it? Seriously.
Is it your thesis that a portfolio consisting of these two funds and others shouldn't be periodically rebalanced? Because current rebalancing would effectively take some money from BND and add it to RBIN. Of course that would be within the larger scope of an entire portfolio.
There are certainly many people who think rebalancing is overrated. I had asked the same question: "should [we] take money out of cash and bet it on foreign large cap value funds [that have lost value]?"
To put it another way: should rebalancing be a one-way street? Should we move money out of (long term) riskier categories into (long term) less risky categories when the former have done well, but we shouldn't rebalance the other way? That would mean we don't move money from bonds to stocks even though core plus bond have had a better ten year run (even the mediocre ones) than foreign large value funds.

I just noticed this. M* is counting the number of page views that funds (including ETFs) get and grouping funds accordingly into thirds: high, middle, and low. I can't tell whether there's any distinction made between types of funds beyond the fact that M* is doing this only for domestic funds.
M* considers this "attention" to offer some sort of "signal". M* also shows, month by month, whether attention is rising, stable, or falling. Finally, on the same "crowd source" page for a fund, it summarizes the fund's medal rating (regardless of whether it is a true analyst rating or one done by machine): high (bronze or better), medium (neutral), low (negative).
You must be logged in to see this, and probably a premium subscriber. It seems fairly useless to me because well known funds will get more attention, period. And while their analyst write-ups tend to have some useful information, I find their medal ratings useless.
Here's M*'s two page description of "Crowd Sense Signals".
https://www.morningstar.com/content/dam/marketing/shared/pdfs/Research/1014981.pdf
If it is available to you, you'll find "crowd sense" next to the "parent" tab under the fund name.

Sad what is still happening to the actual coal miners . As a descendent of multiple men who worked the mines in NE Pennsylvania it is sad that so few actually care about these men , especially from a certain political spectrum . My fore-bearers always voted a strait democratic ticket and now that party has left these men behind- very sad but that is loyalty in 21st century America.