Hi @Graust. I'm curious if your Fidelity order for RPHYX went through. The fund still can't be purchased at Schwab. I inquired by email and got the following response today. So far, not available.

Thank you for reaching out to Charles Schwab eServices with your inquiry on RPHYX last week. While the website for RPHYX may report that this fund has been re-opened to new investors, it is not guaranteed to be made available for purchase at Schwab. That being said, the Mutual Fund Support Specialist still advised that you reach out in about a week to see if any updates have been made to the availability status of RPHYX at Schwab. You can chat in, or call our General Customer Service Line at 800-435-4000 and we will be able to research that for you.

https://www.napa-net.org/news-info/daily-news/money-still-fleeing-active-funds
Money Still Fleeing Active Funds
Despite the S&P 500 gaining 31.5% in 2019, active U.S. equity funds experienced a sixth year of net outflows during the decade-long bull market, a new report notes.

I own about 1/3 of these funds and also held Magellan which I sold at one point. THe only way to avoid these funds if you have invested for a long time would have been to decide that if a fund was written up it was too late to invest in. I guess I performance chased at a good time. Most of these funds have surely been written up often and I might argue on merit. Of course most are too big these for those who visit the site though I suspect a good fraction are closed to new investors because many are shareholder friendly

Good points. Magellan under Lynch is legendary. Nuf said. Being largely with TRP past 25 years, I’m no stranger to PRMTX, a great fund that jumped on the technology revolution early and rode it. A good friend has owned it as long as I can remember. To my disadvantage, I’ve never fully trusted the tech sector. But I did hold PRMTX for about a year following the drubbing it took in 08. Can’t stand success. Bailed out after some crazy 25-30% gain in rapid time.
Would guess Jerry’s success more related to being a patient long term investor rather than jumping into every high flying fund he hears of.

but finpr0n articles like this don't make that distinction too often, or clearly.

Sad but true. Sundays (when this went up) tend to be “lighter” reading days. That said - the article is badly (and misleadingly) titled. Being perhaps the “hottest”, “juiciest”, or “fastest moving” funds of the past few decades in no way makes them the “best.” I think readers here are smart enough to figure that out on their own.
I’d liken reading this to gazing at some photos of $200,000 sports cars you’ll never own, tropical vacation spots you’ll never visit or gorgeous women (or men, as the case might be) you’ll never meet - let alone marry. I don’t see the harm in looking - especially if you’re older than 18 and presumably competent to make decisions for yourself and to discriminate between “fluff” and serious financial journalism.
-
I’ve rechecked to make sure @equalizer posted the title correctly. He did. The article’s author is John Waggoner. His work often appeared here and on FA when he wrote for USA Today prior to retiring several years ago. Waggoner endured his share of slings and arrows back than, as many writers do, but was by and large recognized as a serious and accomplished financial writer.
“John Waggoner ... was a senior columnist for InvestmentNews and, prior to that, USA TODAY's personal finance columnist for 25 years. He has written for Morningstar, The Wall Street Journal, and Money magazine. Waggoner has also written three books on finance and investing. He has an undergraduate and graduate degree in English literature and is working on his Certified Financial Planner designation. He lives in Vienna, Virginia.” https://www.kiplinger.com/fronts/archive/bios/index.html?bylineID=532

My value sleeves have yet to catch my growth sleeves for the past rolling twelve months. The results follow: Small/Mid Cap (Value) +18.84% ... Domestic Equity (Value) +19.04 ... Global Equity (Value) +23.66 ... Global Growth +26.50% ... Large/Mid Cap Growth +28.44% ... Other Growth +30.34%.
I have bookmarket this thread and will make a comparison between the sleeves every quarter, or so.

See numbers from PortVis(link) of PIMIX,JGIAX,JMUTX,PUCZX
1) PIMIX + JMUTX have similar volatility=SD but JMUTX performance is better and why JMUTX Sharpe+Sortino is better.
2) JGIAX + JMUTX have similar performance but JMUTX volatility is better and why JMUTX Sharpe+Sortino is better.
3) PUCZX has the best performance but volatility is a bit higher(worse) and why PUCZX Sharpe+Sortino are the best.

(link)
See quotes below:
Recession risks, which had been elevated during the middle part of 2019, have diminished in recent months...As a consequence, we are now more confident in our baseline forecast that the current window of weakness for global growth will give way to a moderate recovery during 2020.
We will tend to favor U.S. duration over global alternatives, given the relative value and potential for capital gains in U.S. Treasuries and the scope for further Fed easing in the event of a weaker-than-expected macro outcome. While we are broadly neutral on the U.S. dollar versus other G10 currencies, we generally will favor long yen positions in accounts where currency exposure is appropriate
In addition, in asset allocation portfolios, we will look to be overweight large cap over small cap equities.
We favor both U.S. agency mortgage exposures and non-agency exposures. We believe agency mortgage-backed securities (MBS) offer attractive valuation, reasonable carry, and an attractive liquidity profile in comparison with other spread assets. We see non-agency mortgages as offering relatively attractive valuation along with a more defensive source of credit and carry and better market technicals than generic corporate credit exposure. We will also look to have select commercial MBS (CMBS) exposures. U.K. residential MBS (RMBS) also looks attractive on a relative valuation basis.
In currency strategy, we look to be overweight a basket of emerging market currencies versus the U.S. dollar and the euro.
We will tend to favor curve steepening positions in the U.S. and in other countries. U.S. Treasury Inflation-Protected Securities (TIPS) look attractive on a valuation basis
we continue to expect real U.S. GDP growth to slow to a 1.5% to 2.0% range in 2020, from an estimated 2.3% pace in 2019...We look for a modest U.S. reacceleration in the second half of 2020. China’s commitments in the Phase 1 trade deal to purchase $200 billion of additional U.S. exports over the next two years should also support growth in the second half of 2020.
We see euro area growth at around 1.0% in 2020. On balance, we see core inflation remaining close to 1.0%.
The U.K. is set to formally leave the E.U. at the end of January...we expect U.K. GDP growth of 0.75% to 1.25% in 2020,
Japan: We expect GDP growth to slow to a 0.25% to 0.75% range in 2020 from an estimated 0.9% this year...Inflation is expected to remain low in a 0.25% to 0.75% range
China: We see GDP growth slowing into a 5.0% to 6.0% range in 2020 from an estimated 6.1% in 2019.

End of Quote.
======================
What the above means to me?
1) Load on securitized bonds which I have been doing for years (PIMIX,VCFIX,IOFIX,EIXIX. For cash sub use SEMMX)
2) Continue to use US LC as my main equity position which I have been doing for years already
3) If you want to invest in equities abroad go with EM.
4) I will not use TIPS and I don't believe that curve steepening will affect my Multisector funds that much.

One thing about Scott Burns is he has been singing the 2 fund portfolio for years. See here from 2006 - https://scottburns.com/four-milestones-for-successful-investing/. My impression is that the Boglehead philosophy is now a 2 fund portfolio - but back in 2006 it was at least 3 funds, or maybe 5 with a REIT, SV & V lean.

"I dare say a "cyclical" bull market has little meaning to a retiree or anyone within 5-10 years of retirement. 20% pull backs are what people worry about when you use your savings for income or are planning on a retirement date."

@MikeM- This "cyclical bull market" concept with major unspecified pull-backs strikes me as so much baloney. Viewed from that perspective, there has never been anything other than a "cyclical bull market", as long as you adjust the time frame to whatever you need to make that appear to be true.

“It will be surprising if the print edition lasts a year”

@davidrmoran. Thanks. Based on that, I’ve cancelled my new subscription to Kipplingers print and will reinvest the $23.95 in a bottle of Cutty Sark - selling for about the same price here in Michigan. That’s a pretty pedestrian brand. Nothing special. As with magazine subscriptions - there’s not a whole lot available in scotch in the $20-$25 price range.

I like cutty fine, the poor man's J&B, light, sweet, only with a bit more cerealy note, as befits michigan perhaps
do try old smuggler if you can find it there, the very best of the value blends, also, for a little bit more money, duggan's dew, another light sweet high-value highland-oriented blend

@VintageFreak, when @Simon says the bull market will last another 15 years I believe he refers to a 'cyclical bull market'. A confusing play on words I think. There can be numerous bear markets within this cyclical bull.
I'm with you. We are do for a "secular" bear market (a 20% or more drop) because of valuations. Whether this happens in a month or a year, it will happen. Just needs some catalyst to start the trend. I dare say a "cyclical" bull market has little meaning to a retiree or anyone within 5-10 years of retirement. 20% pull backs are what people worry about when you use your savings for income or are planning on a retirement date. IMHO

There’s two separate themes running here, seems to me.
One theme is the long running debate: Active vs. Passive management. That’s been thoroughly debated / raked over the coals here and elsewhere over the years. I have nothing to add.
The other theme seems to be the “gouging” of fund investors by way of “advisor” fees, management fees and operating expenses. Geez - How many here pay an advisor to oversee their fund holdings? He tosses out a 1% figure for management fees (but doesn’t cite it as an average). Even though I’m in actively managed funds, only two (both classified as “alternative investment”) breach the 1% expense ratio: TMSRX and QVOPX. All three from D&C carry ERs under .50%. At TRP my ERs range from .25% for TRBUX to .94% for RPGAX (excluding TMSRS mentioned earlier).
I also think the author may be confused. He references “fund operating expenses” but seems to equate them with a fund’s management fee. As I understand it, operating expenses include trading costs, record keeping and the like. They do exist - but aren’t part of the ER that you and I see. Further, he appears to view the 12b-1 fee as outside the expressed ER, whereas it’s actually part of the expressed ER.
Than there’s this : “ Management fees, on the other hand, pay the salaries of the analysts and other personnel who actually run the fund. They are not capped by law, but investors should be suspicious of funds with fees above 1%.“ ? Those costs would seem to fall under “operating expenses”.
Having a degree in journalism doesn’t seem to get you much now days.

“It will be surprising if the print edition lasts a year”

@davidrmoran. Thanks. Based on that, I’ve cancelled my new subscription to Kiplingers print and will reinvest the $23.95 in a bottle of Cutty Sark - selling for about the same price here in Michigan. That’s a pretty pedestrian brand. Nothing special. As with magazine subscriptions - there’s not a whole lot available in scotch in the $20-$25 price range.

Such articles look very good at top of bull market. Why did this not get published in 2008-2009 or 2002?

Top of the bull market? Are you kidding? We're about 1/3 the way through it. This a Wave 3 Supercycle which will last another 15 years.
A correction is coming very soon. It will be a superb buying opportunity to load up on growth funds for the coming decade. But it will be fast and furious so have your cash ready.

https://www.wealthdaily.com/articles/overpaying-for-your-investments-a-guide-to-mutual-fund-fees/94713
Overpaying for Your Investments: A Guide to Mutual Fund Fees
__Would you feel comfortable with giving up a third of your annual returns in exchange for basic portfolio management?
No?
Well, unfortunately, there’s a good chance you’re already paying that much without realizing it. After all, the average advisor charges an annual fee of roughly 1% of assets under management (AUM), and the average actively managed equity fund has an expense ratio of 1.2%. __
We usually buy index funds for these reasons, you get the average return but you don't pay much in fees, and only ~ 15% of funds do better than you year in and out

ALL CAPS SUBJECT LINE, well; OK !
We're biased at this house; so this will show in the write.
Understanding that value investing is a "buy it low"; we prefer a buy it low, when present into the growth sectors. However, I'm sure decent money has been made with the more stellar value funds.
The below chart compares two active managed funds in the value and growth areas. I can not vouch for the quality of the value fund relative to other similar funds. And the growth fund is a proxy look only, as this fund is closed to new money, with exceptions being inside of retirement plans, existing owners and such.
From Sept. 5, 2008 to March 9, 2009 the following losses were in place for these two funds:
FSLVX = - 49.2%
FDGRX = - 41.9%
Value may yet have a sustained period of superior performance, vs growth. There is much investment ground to be made up.....by value I won't be there to enjoy.
The chart below is a longer view of total return performance.
Chart of FSLVX v FDGRX , begin Nov. 2001 to date.
As always, be curious in life.
Catch

@hank, I subscribed to Kiplinger for a longtime, maybe 30 years, and it was always pay a year or 2 or 3 upfront for the subscription and then it ended. They would send warnings that your subscription was ending and offered preferred pricing before it ended, but never carried it over without your ok. Price was always in the $10-15 per year range over that whole time. They raised it to $20 this year and I opted out. Can't blame them. Even at $20/year they still must be losing money. But, I started subscribing to Barrons this summer and decided I didn't need both. As you said, Kips isn't in the same league as Barrons. Take care and enjoy the magazine.

https://magviral.com/value-stocks-are-making-a-comeback-and-heres-how-to-get-started-early/
VALUE STOCKS ARE MAKING A COMEBACK AND HERE’S HOW TO GET STARTED EARLY
The US stock market now appears to be risky as valuations are rich as sentiment moves higher. But there is a solution for this: Top up unpopular, cheap stocks.
Stocks are expensive or not but it's very difficult to pick winners these days since many pundits are predicting prepare for *near end of cycle* slowdowns and melt downs
Think dji may go up 5 _10% from here for another 12 or 24 months but we ever know

Thanks for sharing @equalizer.
For the price, I’m impressed with some of the things Kiplingers does. Can’t compete with Barron’s of course. Two different leagues. (And it’s easy to access Kiplingers free online.) If anyone’s interested in the print edition, Kiplingers’ site offers it at $19.95 for a year (12 copies). https://personalfinance.kiplinger.com/pcd/Order?iKey=I**W03. Amazon is offering one-year print for $23.95. https://www.amazon.com/Kiplingers-Personal-Finance/dp/B008YJXZLK.
Don’t know if the above offers auto-renew at a higher price - but likely. Amazon’s good at allowing cancellation of subscriptions thru their website. Don’t know about Kiplingers. In the past I’ve had a lot of trouble getting some publishers to stop auto-renew / quit billing my card. Hope this doesn’t come across as a sales pitch. Just trying to share some useful information. Recently subscribed to the Kindle edition - and for $1 monthly (ad-free), quite happy to receive it.
As for the list of funds - an impressive lot. I’m sure many here own some of them. However, I’m not about to dump my much more conservative bunch (suitable for mid-late retirement) to load-up on these high flyers. Brings to mind the old, “Shoulda, Woulda, Coulda” .
Wonder how many of these are closed to new investors anyway or have high minimums?

Healthcare and tech funds dominate.
Vanguard health care #3. Wish they offered it in 529 college plan.
Does anyone have the Wasatch Micro-cap fund?
Which funds do you still like from the list?
https://www.kiplinger.com/slideshow/investing/T041-S001-the-25-best-mutual-funds-of-all-time/index.html