Thanks @Ted
Russo discussed the value of investing in family owned businesses
US List:
businessinsurance.org/the-10-biggest-family-businesses-in-the-u-s/
International List:
https://businessinsider.com/the-worlds-21-biggest-family-owned-businesses-2015-7
The World's Top 750:
https://famcap.com/the-worlds-750-biggest-family-businesses/
and,
5 Mutual Fund that are holders of BRKA and /or BRKB:
https://investopedia.com/articles/investing/090215/5-mutual-funds-hold-berkshire-hathaway-stock.asp
Why Own Berkshire Hathaway rather than a Mutual Fund:
4-reasons-to-buy-berkshire-instead-of-a-mutual-fund-and-buffett-aint-one-of-them/

Overall, a piece with lots of factoids, but no description I can find about how they scored the brokerages or features. Various Kiplinger comments about brokerages are also rather odd.
Here are some weird statements made about E*Trade. I'm not picking on E*Trade in particular, it's just that it was the first brokerage listed.
"More than 3,900 mutual funds you can buy with no sales fee or fee to trade".
It looks like Kiplinger chose this arbitrary number and didn't bother to report actual figures. E*Trade claims over 4,400 NTF funds. Fidelity, which Kiplinger also says offers the same 3,900+ NTF funds appears to offer "just" 3,593, according to its fund screener. Kiplinger says the same of Schwab, though I haven't checked its true figure.
"the highest percentage of no-transaction fee funds with three-star ratings or better from Morningstar."
Does percentage matter? ISTM what is important is the selection (quantity) of high quality funds (I use that term loosely), not the fraction of funds offered that fit that description.
"E*Trade’s Max Rate Checking Account comes with unlimited ATM reimbursements on charges that other financial institutions levy (though you may be subject to charges from the owner/operator of the ATM). "
That's a curious way of saying simply that foreign ATM fees "will automatically be credited to your account."

FYI: Investors are piling into an exchange-traded fund that appears to promise protection at a time when stocks, and the economy in general, look to be their most vulnerable in years. The problem: The fund may actually be one of the riskiest investments in the market right now.
Related Data
The iShares Edge MSCI Min Vol U.S.A. ETF (ticker: USMV) has attracted nearly $9.5 billion this year, second only to the broader and much better known Vanguard S&P 500 (VOO). The iShares ETF has swelled 42% in the past eight months to $32 billion, and is now the largest of the low-volatility ETFs, more than twice the size of its next largest rival, the $12 billion Invesco S&P 500 Low Volatility (SPLV), which has also been attracting assets.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.barrons.com/articles/how-to-choose-a-volatility-etf-51567200240?refsec=funds

FYI: “I have been involved in the investment business for over 50 years,” reader Dave Goebel of Damascus, Ore., led off his letter in last week’s Mailbag, “and I can make absolutely no sense out of what is going on in today’s markets. Having lived through the years of double-digit inflation and interest rates in the early 1980s, it makes no sense to me how we can have over $16 trillion in worldwide bonds with negative yields, and 2) how the Federal Reserve can be concerned with pushing inflation up to 2%.”
That makes two of us. A 50-year man myself, I wonder what impulse leads the same human brain that spurned a 15% bond yield in 1981 to chase a subzero bond yield in 2019.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.marketwatch.com/articles/living-with-negative-intrerest-rates-51567187649?mod=investing

FYI: As investor needs and preferences change, brokerages must adapt. Brokerages’ mobile apps have grown more sophisticated as more clients have demonstrated that they like to do business on the go. And as investors have demanded lower costs, brokerages have trimmed commissions and fees across the board.
But brokerages also need a keen ear for clients’ particular needs. Some clients want to be left alone to do their own thing, while others want their hand held. Some want to pay as little as possible to invest, and others are willing to pony up enough in assets to gain access to their own personal planner
Our 2019 online broker ranking recognizes that no brokerage can hit the bull’s-eye for every type of client, and that the firm with the broadest appeal may not meet your specific needs. But ultimately, we favored firms that could do the most for most investors.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.kiplinger.com/slideshow/investing/T052-S002-best-online-brokers-2019/index.html

FYI: Lazy, hazy, crazy days of summer?
August certainly was crazy for the global financial markets, and the outlook is unquestionably hazy as the season unofficially ends with Monday’s Labor Day holiday. Lazy might have been the best investment strategy, however, if that meant setting and forgetting a diversified stock-and-bond portfolio.
August saw wild swings in the U.S. markets, buffeted by the three Ts: tweets, trade, and Treasuries. Through Thursday, the SPDR S&P 500 exchange-traded fund (ticker: SPY), which tracks the U.S. large-capitalization market, had a total return for August of minus 2.85%, according to Morningstar data. That surely stings most readers.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.barrons.com/articles/when-the-stock-market-is-this-crazy-you-should-just-invest-lazy-51567213413?mod=hp_INTERESTS_funds&refsec=hp_INTERESTS_funds

B-b-b-but Obama wore a tan suit once. (I think Fox Noise ran 3 prime time specials about it.)

Could you imagine the reaction if Obama had done this:
https://thinkprogress.org/trump-hosts-ted-nugent-white-house-c0da4b94c51/

Could you imagine the reaction if Obama had done this:
https://thinkprogress.org/trump-hosts-ted-nugent-white-house-c0da4b94c51/

Well, yes. That is because different sectors exhibit different levels of volatility. The objective of a min-vol product is...(gasp) reduced volatility, not "maximum total return" (which often exhibits higher than average volatility). It therefore follows that a min-vol product would underweight more-volatile stocks and overweight less-volatile stocks. Certain sectors are "pro-cyclical" and more prone to more pronounced moves up and down. Other sectors are more "defensive" based on their fundamental business models.
Portfoliovisualizer.com is a great tool, for people thinking about structuring their portfolio. Relative to this thread, one could choose SPY (the market) as the benchmark, then choose sundry SPDR sector ETFs in alternative portfolios... Punching in XLU (utilities) and Technology (XLK) for example... XLU exhibits a beta of 0.43 vs the S&P. OTOH, XLK exhibits a beta of 1.35. If a min-vol product is NOT overweighting utes and underweighting tech, then its not a min-vol product... I see nothing to "be wary of". Utilities once (in a simpler time) were viewed as "Widow & orphan" stocks -- people seeking relative safety and predictable income.
These min-vol products generally use "algos" to constantly assess betas on their securities are changing. If stocks in the portfolio start to experience increasing levels of volatility, they get replaced. Min-vol products are not for Bogleheads!
Min-vol products often will assess how the collection of stocks assembled in the portfolio behave in concert. So, far example, I noticed very recently, one of the min-vol products (USVM) recently included a gold-mining stock as ONE of its top holdings. Now gold-mining stocks are VOLATILE by themselves, but they tend to make a great hedge --"zigging" when most normal stocks are "zagging" -- thus, in small doses, they help to tamp-down the portfolio volatility. I thought when I saw that "brilliant"!

One thing to be wary of with low vol funds is to look at their over concentration in certain sectors like utilities and real estate.

Actually, it very much is Vanguard's business: https://forbes.com/sites/karstenstrauss/2018/01/25/more-evidence-that-company-diversity-leads-to-better-profits/#790fe7db1bc7

Update:
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/751173/000119312519234806/d93664d497.htm
497 1 d93664d497.htm MANNING & NAPIER FUND, INC.
MANNING & NAPIER FUND, INC.
(the “Fund”)
Equity Income Series – Class S, I, W and Z
Income Series – Class S, I and Z
International Series – Class S, I, W and Z
(the “Series”)
Supplement dated August 30, 2019 to:
·the Summary Prospectuses dated March 1, 2019 for the Series (“Summary Prospectuses”);
·the Prospectuses dated March 1, 2019 for the Series (“Prospectuses”); and
·the Statement of Additional Information dated March 1, 2019, as supplemented June 4, 2019, for the Series (“SAI”)
This supplement provides new and additional information beyond that contained in the Summary Prospectuses, Prospectuses, and SAI, and should be read in conjunction with the Summary Prospectuses, Prospectuses, and SAI.
This supplement supersedes the supplement dated August 22, 2019.
The Board of Directors of the Fund has voted to terminate the offering of shares of the Equity Income Series, the Income Series and the International Series and instructed the officers of the Fund to take all steps necessary to completely liquidate each Series. Accordingly, effective immediately, each Series will be closed to new investors. Effective November 6, 2019, each Series will stop selling its shares to existing shareholders and will no longer accept automatic investments from existing shareholders.
Each Series will redeem all of its outstanding shares on or about November 20, 2019 and distribute the proceeds to its shareholders (subject to maintenance of appropriate reserves for liquidation and other expenses).
As is the case with other redemptions, each shareholder’s redemption, including a mandatory redemption, will constitute a taxable disposition of shares for those shareholders who do not hold their shares through tax-advantaged plans. Shareholders should contact their tax advisors to discuss the potential income tax consequences of the liquidations.
As shareholders redeem shares of each Series between the date of this supplement and the date of the final redemptions, and as each Series increases its cash position to facilitate redemptions, a Series may not be able to continue to invest its assets in accordance with its stated investment policies. Accordingly, a Series may not be able to achieve its investment objectives during the period between the date of this supplement and the date of the final redemptions.
The Equity Income Series and the Income Series, which generally pay dividends quarterly, will each suspend its dividend scheduled for September in anticipation of its liquidation.
PLEASE RETAIN THIS SUPPLEMENT FOR FUTURE REFERENCE
Supp EI_INC_INTL 8.30.19

FYI: Top fund manager Vanguard Group Inc will ask companies about the gender, age and race of their directors, adding pressure on U.S. companies to diversify their leadership.
Vanguard gave the guidance in its annual stewardship report scheduled to be released on Friday morning and seen by Reuters. With about $5 trillion under management and known for products like the Vanguard 500 index fund, (VOO.P) the firm wields much influence over executives and directors at major U.S. companies.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-vanguard-boards/vanguard-seeks-more-boardroom-diversity-and-wants-details-idUSKCN1VK1FU

FYI: Over the last decade, the largest asset managers have gotten bigger and more powerful. Just five — Vanguard, BlackRock, Fidelity Investments, American Funds, and T. Rowe Price — control 55percent of the $19.3 trillion in total assets of U.S. mutual funds and exchange-traded funds.
But that concentration partly reflects the juggernauts that dominate passive investments, which are all about volume and keeping costs down. Indeed, BlackRock and Vanguard alone oversee $12 trillion in assets, if mutual funds tracked by Morningstar are included as well as institutional mandates.
A deeper dive into the data shows that competition in the U.S. asset management industry remains healthy. According to research done by Morningstar Direct for Institutional Investor, the top five active managers controlled only 22 percentof mutual fund and ETF assets as of the end of 2018. These figures have been fairly steady for at least the last five years. That’s a far cry from the 55 percent run by the top five when both active and passive are included.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.institutionalinvestor.com/article/b1gxz8xcd0vms3/Fears-of-a-World-Domination-by-a-Handful-of-Asset-Managers-Are-Overblown

FYI:
Regards,
Ted
August 29, 2019
Dear WEALTHTRACK Subscriber,
Volatile U.S trade relations with China are immediately reflected in the financial markets but what about the economic impact? Could they push the U.S. into recession? On our website this week we have a podcast on the topic with leading global economist and strategist Nick Sargen.
On the television program this Labor Day weekend we are revisiting a recent Great Investor show with a global value manager. He is a long time holder of Berkshire Hathaway, even though the stock has badly lagged the S&P 500 so far this year. It’s basically flat vs. the market’s around 15% gain. On a total return basis Berkshire’s stock has trailed for the past decade. Berkshire doesn’t pay a dividend. The S&P 500 does which makes a difference. Berkshire’s stock has risen by nearly 260% versus the market’s more than 300% total return advance in the decade ended in 2018.
Despite Berkshire’s stunning record since 1965, 21% compounded annualized gains, this is not the first time that the company’s shares have underperformed the market for a decade. It has happened several times in recent years.
Berkshire has outperformed the market by double digits in every trailing ten year period since 1978, but it hasn’t had a double- digit advantage since 2002, and in recent years it has underperformed the market in three ten-year spans.
Even Warren Buffett himself admitted the company’s glory days of outperformance might be over. In an interview in the Financial Times his response to the question: if Berkshire would be a better investment than the S&P 500 he said “I think the financial result would be very close to the same.” He went on to say “…if you want to join something that may have a tiny expectation of better (performance) than the S&P, I think we may be about the safest.”
At a $507 billion market capitalization and few places to deploy it in enough size to make a discernible difference to the bottom line, is Berkshire just too big?
Over the years Berkshire Hathaway has benefitted from sizable stock buybacks in some of its major holdings. In Berkshire’s 2018 annual report Buffett cited American Express where its holdings “remained unchanged over the past eight years,” but our “ownership increased from 12.6% to 17.9% because of repurchases…”
In the same his 2018 Letter to Shareholders, Buffett said the company itself “will be a significant repurchaser of its shares…at prices… below our estimate of intrinsic value.”
What else does Buffett have up his sleeve to enhance shareholder returns?
The company has never purchased a tech stock. It recently bought Amazon and Buffett heaped praise on CEO Jeff Bezos. Berkshire has also never paid a dividend. Could that be next?
We’ll hear from Tom Russo, an avid student of Buffett’s style of value investing with no intention of changing his approach. Russo is Managing Partner of investment advisory firm, Gardner Russo & Gardner where he oversees around $11 billion including his Semper Vic Partners fund which he launched in 1984 after hearing Buffett address his class at Stanford. Semper Vic has generated 14% compound annual returns since inception, handily outperforming the S&P 500’s 11% returns.
The global value manager focuses on owning a small group of exceptionally well managed brand name firms - 19 at last count - with dominant, almost unassailable positions in their mostly consumer-oriented businesses and then holding them pretty much forever. Berkshire Hathaway has consistently been one of his largest positions.
On this week’s show I asked Russo, given Buffett’s modest expectations for the stock’s future performance, if he is rethinking the position.
Don’t forget, if you are away this weekend, it’s easy to take WEALTHTRACK with you! The WEALTHTRACK podcast is available on TuneIn, Stitcher, and SoundCloud as well as iTunes and Spotify.
Thank you for watching. Have a great Labor Day weekend, and make the week ahead a profitable and a productive one.
Best regards,
Consuelo

Nick Sargen Podcast:
https://wealthtrack.com/trade-war-impact-the-markets-economy/

@GREGT
If you come to think that a fund which automatically sells and value-buys within the SP500 world every month might be sort-of defensive (not like low-vol funds and ETFs, though), you will want to take a look at DSENX/DSEEX and the etn they are based on, CAPE. There is much deep diving on them within this forum.

If you want to study and eat and digest and get your head around all the "sadistics," be my guest. I put a lot of weight on past performance, current valuations, PEG, my own ethical filter--- which is well-nigh impossible to implement, and the reputation of the Fund Manager. I try to steer clear of what's "hot" and what's currently most popular. After that, I want to have at least a bit beyond the USA border. Large, small caps. And now, at 65 years of age, I'm heavier in bonds than I am in stocks. Bond funds have been on a big run-up. Valuations are stretched. The time to get in is... already. But don't dismiss some great "balanced" funds, holding both stocks and bonds. Most pay quarterly. My favorite is closed to new investors: PRWCX. Check out T Rowe Price Balanced fund: RPBAX. Check out MAPOX, up in Minnesota.
You're looking for a defensive portfolio. I don't know your age, you didn't tell us. "Defensive" will look different, depending on age. If you just want to minimize volatility, check out VMVFX. Vanguard is famous for low fees. Client service leaves something to be desired. So I hear. I don't own Vanguard. The bond funds I own are PRSNX RPSIX and PTIAX. If "defensive" to you--- in terms of bonds--- means high-quality bonds, go with a gov't bond fund with mostly Treasuries. But the old reliable and stalwart DODIX should not be overlooked.

For screening (ER under 1%, top quartile for 1,3,5 years):
Conservative Equity Allocation Funds
https://screencast.com/t/rPUmyOlq
Moderate Equity Allocation Funds:
https://screencast.com/t/mugBYO4y
Aggressive Equity Allocation Funds:
https://screencast.com/t/QzdxjX9jkV
You might like to back test some of these choices using Portfolio Visualizer
https://portfoliovisualizer.com/backtest-portfolio

FYI: It's tough when a fund's top selling point is we lost less money than the index.
But that's the strategy one buys into with a defensive mutual fund like a balanced fund. The balanced fund is a portfolio that holds both stocks and bonds so that investors can get both growth and income in one vehicle.
Most financial advisors recommend a portfolio of both stocks and bonds for diversification. That's because stocks and bonds typically moved in opposite directions. When stocks rise, bonds fall in price, and when stocks fall, bonds rise in price. The theory is one asset should temper the losses in the other, resulting in lower risk and volatility.
So, if you want diversification, but don't feel like researching a whole bunch of funds to make sure you have the appropriate asset allocation, you can buy a balanced fund and get the whole thing in one package, such as the Hennessy Equity and Income Fund (HEIFX).
Regards,
Ted
https://www.forbes.com/sites/lcarrel/2019/08/29/hennessey-fund-is-well-positioned-for-choppy-market-offering-lower-risk-and-volatility/#956d3da7accc
M* Snapshot HEIFX:
https://www.morningstar.com/funds/xnas/heifx/quote

Hi guys: From my perspective most income type securities are at premiums due to investor's strong demand for yield. The preferred securities fund that I track is CPXAX and it is now selling at it's 52 week high. With this, I am not a player on it until I see it selling, at least, 5% below it's 52 week high. I guess I might have a while to wait due to the strong demand for yield which has pushed the price for income generating securities skyward. Seems, to me, most things are now over priced. I've been watching preferred's for a long while and should have made my move on this fund about a year ago. Presently, for me, it is currently a sucker's buy due to valuation.
Generally, I don't buy, or add to, positions that are selling at, or near, their 52 week highs.
This is one of my "Take Heed" motos. And, another one is "When the Yields Get Thin ... It's Time to Trim."

I hope there is a correction. A big one. Seasonally, September is often a weak month for equities.
I jumped in a 'tad' on the down 800-point day last Friday -- because I figured there would be follow-through down days, and did not want to go "all in" in a single day. But, despite all the financial bloggers who suffer from Trump Derangement syndrome, the buyers came right back in to bid up stocks. --- Including UP 250 points today, the day after the article provided by the OP). Sigh! --Too much optimism can be very depressing!
Frankly, I like select divd stocks (not quite at these prices, but if/when we see some pricing weakness) with a sub-2% 3-year Treasury. In fact, I like them more, as other investors become more pessimistic.... But I really need to see some follow-through ACTION on the pessimism. "Talking gloomy" is one thing; panic-selling is what we need. But, maybe we will finally get there in September. Hey, I'm a "glass is half full" kinda guy.
In a sustained depressed interest-rate environment, quality enterprises may have an opportunity to refinance even more debt at even lower debt-servicing costs. A more slack employment market would ameliorate wage pressures, and companies might "clean house" on some unnecessary costs that have crept into corporate P/Ls over the past 11 years. I see it every day at my "day job". And my employer is just like a lot of other big companies -- fat, happy, distracted with "stakeholders" & "sustainability" & millenial-friendly "happy talk" media nonsense.
But a crash is coming. It's been coming for 11 years. We've had crashes before. We will have many more. It's just part of the business cycle.