Good info, Thks for posting. A couple of observations - he says this is a list of 199 funds but it contains only 144 funds. EDIT - I see 24 load funds on the list END OF EDIT. Also the article says these funds beat the S&P 500 (by some unquantified amount) and their benchmarks but the list is just based on beating their benchmarks, which seems fairer than having to best both. The funds 10 year performance runs from BFOCX at 21.42%/yr compounded down to PVMIX at 13.56%/yr.
I would like to know each funds category. Sorting by how they have beaten their categories over the past 10 yrs, MWATX is on top (19.2%/yr), topping it’s category (roughly 13.2%/yr) by 6%/yr down to TWCIX (14.85%/yr) which beat its bogey by 0.17% /yr (a bogey of about 14.6%/yr).
I will say, I don’t think I own any of the funds, will have to chk. And I don’t think this list will change that. ;~))

Here is an interesting look at this topic that adds an average trailing earnings P/E ratio to the market peak chart. The article's author calculates that the current P/E ratio was about 10% above average at yesterday's market peak.

Here is the article's takeaway thought about current market conditions.

To me, this analysis suggests that the current earnings multiple with the market at an all-time high is fair to slightly elevated. Given still low rates and monetary accommodation and political capital being spent to forestall an economic downturn, the economy may once again manage to extend its historic expansion. High equity multiples, low interest rates, and perhaps slower earnings growth all suggest lower forward returns on average. I would expect market participants to continue to reprice the stage of the business cycle, which will create episodic volatility.

https://seekingalpha.com/article/4299923-p-e-ratios-market-peaks

FYI: In part two of our three-part special report on value investing, our analysts share insights gleaned from fund manager interviews.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.morningstar.com/articles/950560/value-managers-on-why-the-strategy-has-underperformed

FYI: U.S. stock index futures were lower Tuesday morning, amid the busiest week for earnings.
At around 0454 a.m. ET, Dow futures fell 40 points, indicating a negative open of more than 23 points. Futures on the S&P and Nasdaq were mixed.
Wall Street ended Monday’s session on a strong note after the S&P 500 hit a record high. Strong earnings and news of further progress in trade talks between the U.S. and China helped boosting prices.
Stocks ticked lower as investors look ahead to corporate earnings and fresh U.S. data for cues on the health of the global economy.
The Europe Stoxx 600 declined 0.4%, led by losses in financial services and the oil and gas sectors. U.S. stock futures linked to the S&P 500 index was mostly flat a day after the gauge hit a record.
Major U.S. businesses reporting Tuesday will include private-equity giant KKR, drugmaker Pfizer, food-manufacturer Kellogg, auto maker General Motors and financial-services firm Mastercard.
Investors with interests in U.K. assets will be watching Parliament closely again for Brexit developments Tuesday. Prime Minister Boris Johnson is poised to try once more to secure an early general election on Dec. 12 to break the parliamentary deadlock over his divorce deal with the European Union.
The pound dropped 0.4% against the U.S. dollar, while the FTSE 250 index declined 0.4%.
Across Asian markets, the picture was more mixed, with the Nikkei 225 index up 0.5% while the Shanghai Composite gauge was down 0.9%.
Brent crude, the global oil benchmark, fell 0.6% to $60.88 a barrel following data showing rising U.S. inventories Monday. Investors will look at American Petroleum Institute data due out later Tuesday
Regards,
Ted
WSJ:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/global-stocks-slip-as-investors-look-ahead-to-earnings-11572341316
Bloomberg:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-10-28/asia-stocks-to-gain-after-u-s-record-bonds-drop-markets-wrap?srnd=premium
IBD:
https://www.investors.com/market-trend/stock-market-today/dow-jones-futures-google-stock-falls-beyond-meat-grubhub-dive-sp500-hits-high/
CNBC::
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/10/29/dow-futures-earnings-china-trade-talks-in-focus.html
Reuters:
https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-usa-fed/three-peat-fed-copies-1990s-playbook-in-bid-to-avert-a-downturn-idUKKBN1X80EZ
U.K.
https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-stocks/bp-pulls-down-uk-bluechips-as-brexit-uncertainties-mount-idUKKBN1X80T1
Europe:
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-europe-stocks/european-shares-take-a-breather-focus-shifts-to-fed-idUSKBN1X80T5
Asia:
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/asian-markets-little-changed-as-investors-weigh-trade-war-developments-2019-10-28/print
Bonds:
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/10/29/us-bonds-treasury-yields-tick-lower-amid-trade-optimism.html
Currencies:
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/10/29/forex-markets-us-china-trade-war-federal-reserve-in-focus.html
Oil:
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/10/29/oil-markets-us-china-trade-war-in-focus.html
Gold:
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/10/29/gold-markets-us-china-trade-talks-federal-reserve-in-focus.html
Cuirrent Futures:
https://finviz.com/futures.ashx

@ Old_Skeet,
I’m glad you find this particular thread useful each morning. I think @Old_Joe ‘s point, which I agree with, is that Ted’s morning brief should remain in the Discussions segment of the board along with his other 25-50 daily posts until another member comments on it.
As I understand the rules @DavidSnowball has established, only those threads that have received comment from other board members shall be moved from the Discussions section of the forum into the Discussions+ section. I think it’s a great rule. Ted is flaunting that rule and working to defeat its purpose when he “self-bumps” his own posts into the Discussions+ area.
Since you (and likely many others) find the thread useful, what’s the problem with your continuing to access it every morning in the Discussions area? What difference does it make if all you want to do is to read it? And should you find occasion to add a pertinent comment to Ted’s substantial body of information, than please add such comment. That will automatically bump it over to the Discussions+ section. I for one read everything you post and would delight in reading your usually well informed insights related to Ted’s lengthy list of stories every morning. You could perhaps “fine-tune” the thread so those of us without hours to spend reading all the articles would be aware which readings you found particularly useful.
But as for individual members deciding on their own that what they submitted is somehow more relevant or important than what other members submitted - and giving their own posts a self-bump - I beg to disagree.

That Big Money Poll caught my eye too in this weekend’s Barrons - Bears rise to a two decade high. Last month we saw where worried investors were flocking to money market funds bringing their assets to their highest level since 2009. Lot of trepidation for a market at all time highs. Very bullish from a sentiment standpoint. Meanwhile it appears the most crowded trade of being long bonds is slowly unraveling with long term bonds ( 10 year) on their way to the 2.50 to 3% area over the next year.

I agree with the author on this issue. I hold 15-20% of my portfolio in foreign stocks funds for diversification purposes, but see no need for higher percentages. Foreign stocks have been a drag on my portfolio for the past 10 years, but I also remember a time when they outperformed for many years.

FYI: U.S. stock index futures were slightly higher Monday morning, as investors prepared for the busiest week of earnings season.
Around 6:30 a.m. ET, Dow futures indicated a positive open of nearly 70 points. Futures on the S&P and Nasdaq were both slightly higher.
Market focus is largely attuned to global trade developments after U.S. and Chinese officials said they were “close to finalizing” some parts of a trade agreement. The world’s two largest economies have imposed tariffs on billions of dollars’ worth of one another’s goods since the start of 2018, battering financial markets and souring business and consumer sentiment.
European stocks wavered Monday as investors wait to see if U.K. Prime Minister Boris Johnson will succeed in his call for general elections.
The pan-continental Stoxx Europe 600 index drifted down 0.2%, led lower by banks. HSBC HSBC 0.15% Holdings was the biggest loser in Europe, shedding 4% after the bank dropped its main financial target and said it would speed up plans to revamp its U.K., U.S. and European businesses.
he U.K.’s FTSE 100 gauge dropped 0.3% as Mr. Johnson urged lawmakers to support his push for a Dec. 12 general election as a way to clear a path to Brexit. EU leaders agreed to a three-month extension to the Brexit deadline, extending the political uncertainty until Jan. 31. The British pound was mostly flat against the dollar.
Meanwhile, U.S. stock futures tied to the Dow Jones Industrial Average edged up 0.2%.
The yield on 10-year Italian government debt rose to 0.991% from 0.948% Friday following preliminary results from local elections this weekend. The results will allow center-right political leaders to campaign against the current administration in a bid to boost their popularity, according to analysts at UniCredit. The FTSE MIB index for Italian equities fell 0.2%.
Asian markets had a stronger start to the week. The Shanghai Composite Index gained almost 0.9% and Hong Kong’s benchmark Hang Seng Index gained 0.8%.
The yield on 10-year Treasurys rose to 1.826%, its highest level since mid-September as investors, anticipate the Federal Reserve will deliver another 25 basis point cut.
Regards,
Ted
WSJ:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/european-stocks-off-to-weak-start-amid-brexit-uncertainty-11572256781
Bloomberg:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-10-27/stocks-in-asia-to-rise-as-u-s-flirts-with-record-markets-wrap?srnd=premium
IBD:
https://www.investors.com/market-trend/stock-market-today/dow-jones-futures-apple-stock-market-rally-test-microsoft-wins-jedi-duel-with-amazon/
CNBC::
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/10/28/stock-market-investors-monitor-busiest-week-of-earnings-season.html
Reuters:
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-hongkong-protests/hong-kong-enters-recession-as-street-protests-erupt-in-flames-idUSKBN1X706F
U.K.
https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-stocks/hsbc-update-sparks-selloff-in-uk-banks-drags-ftse-100-lower-idUKKBN1X70O8
Europe:
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-europe-stocks/hsbc-pulls-european-shares-lower-luxury-stocks-in-focus-idUSKBN1X70OI
Asia:
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/asian-stocks-rise-ahead-of-a-busy-week-for-markets-2019-10-27/print
Bonds:
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/10/25/bond-markets-investors-await-corporate-earnings-economic-data.html
Currencies:
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/10/28/oil-markets-chinas-economy-in-focus.html
Oil:
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/10/28/oil-markets-chinas-economy-in-focus.html
Gold:
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/10/28/gold-markets-us-federal-reserve-in-focus.html
Cuirrent Futures:
https://finviz.com/futures.ashx

A good list that was, but I memorize only some of your posts over time, not all of them. Davidson is famously good, I shoulda thought of him. GMiller I do not know, but good to be aware of such outstanding work.
Yes, Tilllinghast's penchant for non-US equities, almost 38% as of a few months ago, has often been a drag, especially the last few years, and this has been much commented on. I wonder why FLPSX had less of a drawdown a year ago.
Miller's notable Victory Sycamore has the lowest 15y UI in MFOP, moreover, again probably in part because its mandate excludes foreign equities. A value fund triumph.

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.