Hi, Elie.
I was invested in Artisan Small Cap Value, virtually from the day it launched until the day it merged into Mid Cap Value. Many good years, some bad ones but I tend to stick with managers through thick and thin. (A recent Morningstar study looking at funds with great 15 year records concludes that many will trail their peers for 12 or 13 of those years.)
I don't know what the Artisan folks are up to. That's not a slight on them, it's just a report that we haven't talked. In general, I'm told that the senior Artisan partners had an equity stake in the firm and that stake became exceedingly valuable when the firm went public. One number bandied about, but not verified, from one of the most senior folks was $100 million.
Mr. Satterwhite left in 2016 after 32 years in the investment industry and 19 years at Artisan. He is, I believe, 60. I could easily imagine someone in those circumstances deciding that it was time to move to life's next adventure, whether as entrepreneur, philanthropist or vacationer.
For what that's worth,
David

If one gets past the political rhetoric, it's a bit more complicated than that.
"Paying taxes" makes it sound like Amazon, Wayfair, Overstock.com, and Newegg are required to pony up tax money for their business. It is better to say that they they are required to act as tax collection agents for the state - collecting sales appropriate sales tax and remitting what they collect to the states.
Even the Fortune article says that Amazon does not always do this, so it is not "paying" its fair share. Though the amount of underpayment is relatively small, since it is only failing to collect local (not state) taxes in a limited number of locales.
The Fortune article adds its own bit of confusion. One the one hand it says that that if the Supreme Court overrules Quill Corp. v. Heitkamp (which it called Quill v. Wayfair, conflating two different cases), states will have an easier time collecting internet sales tax. In that case, the SC said that states couldn't require companies to collect tax on internet sales unless a company had a physical presence in the state. On the other hand, Fortune says that pointing out that there is no general internet sales tax (which it just did itself by referencing Quill) adds misdirection.
The current law is that individual states have "Amazon Laws" - where they require companies doing a certain level of business in the state to collect sales tax for the state. Rather than requiring a physical "nexus" (connection) to the state, these laws require only a significant economic nexus (level of in-state sales). Amazon substantially complies with these laws.
There's an irony here. The SC case mentioned in the Fortune article that will be heard April 17 is South Dakota v. Wayfair, Inc. (That's the case Fortune conflated with Quill v. Heitkamp.)
South Dakota is the state that facilitated Citibank and other banks charging outrageous interest rates on credit cards, by doing away with its usury laws. Banks with credit card divisions in SD were, and are, able to charge whatever SD allows.
https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/07/how-citibank-made-south-dakota-the-top-state-in-the-us-for-business/425661/
SD took advantage of the fact that other states could not impose their own laws (protecting consumers) on these out of state, South Dakotan bank entities. Now it is suing to impose its own sales tax laws on retailers in other states. It wants to extend its own arm into other states (taxing their retailers), but doesn't want other states extending their arms into businesses based in SD (limiting what interest they can charge).
Also, hasn't Trump been saying that the federal government should stay out of state and local issues? Collecting regional sales taxes, protecting unarmed people from getting shot by local police. All politics is local.

Dow at 10K would be almost -58% haircut from here. That would be shocking. Trump can help pull that off, though. Keep the tariffs coming and keep putting up various "walls". Box ourselves in.

@MFO Members: When you live but the sword, you die by the sword ! Thanks, POTUS
Regards,
Ted :(
TRBCX:-(2.53) %
MSOPX:-(2.24)% %
QQQ:- (2.96) %
PONCX: .16%
IVV: - % -(2.32)%

FYI: Amazon.com Inc., down about 6 percent on Monday after a fresh round of political attacks, has fallen 15 percent since reaching an all-time high March 12. A lot of U.S. mutual funds are feeling the retail giant’s pain.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.bloomberg.com//news/articles/2018-04-02/stock-mutual-funds-feel-amazon-s-pain-as-retail-giant-plunges

Noonish:
The S&P 500 Index declined 2.3 percent as of 1:13 p.m. New York time.
The Nasdaq 100 was off 2.9 percent and the Dow Jones Industrial Average fell 2.2 percent.
The MSCI Emerging Market Index increased 0.2 percent.
Derf

This anti case is dated but I believe the author still more or less advocates the stance:
https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2015/01/16/investing-international-funds/21825245/

Taking a quick look at my Schwab robo (down 1.35%) just now and noticed all the ETFs getting whacked pretty good Domestic worst than EM and International. All the bond ETFs down too. Every ETF EXCEPT IAU. Up 1% today. I guess that's the reason to hold gold. (though I'm still not a fan over the long run).

Sure.
Case for: (1) reduces home country bias and (2) forces you to rebalance periodically. Our tendency is to invest a lot in the US, especially with the seemingly unending rise of the market here while there have been entire decades when the US lagged. For those not good at tactical reallocation, having a strategic target such as 50/50 gives a visible target for acting.
Case against: (1) the exact values are arbitrary - in simple market cap terms, the US is closer to 36% of the global equity market - and (2) they don't account for earnings exposure; some British firms derive almost all of their earnings from the US market, some American firms derive almost all of their earnings from the emerging markets. As a result, the location of the headquarters is less relevant than ever.
David

Would anyone care to make the case for or against having 50% US AND 50% International for the stock allocation of your portfolio?

FYI: Investors have flocked to the $539 million InfraCap MLP ETF (AMZA), pouring more than $475 million into the fund over the past 12 months. The question is, why?
Regards,
Ted
http://www.etf.com/sections/features-and-news/mlp-funds-yield-reels-assets?nopaging=1
M* Snapshot AMZA:
http://www.morningstar.com/etfs/arcx/amza/quote.html

Isn't April historically one of the better months of the year?
I'll play. I think the market will continue to tread water but will be down slightly at the end of April. But this year, go away in May. I think it will be down 10-15% by end of August.

My portfolio has roughly 15% allocated directly to international and 30% directly to the US. I also have a global stock fund for another 20% which i figure allows the managers who hopefully know more than i to figure out where tree best values are and to adjust my overall weighting

Well, I can’t argue with the premise that if you’re in the market for a LONG period, B&H has worked and should (we hope) continue to work.
The author says that “… a buy and hold strategy will put me ahead.”
Ahead? That’s it? Ahead?
Roughly 70% of the money that I earned in the stock market came from trading.
I don’t suggest that people should trade. It’s just that I think that these articles
are intended to make you feel less like a dope when the market is crashing and sucking away a sizeable amount of your hard-earned money.
Sure, if you have 20 or more years before you retire, you can watch as the bottom falls out and plan on buying at a lower price point – sometime in the future.
But if you’re 50 or more, you must be aware of the sequence of returns.
If you’re nearing or in retirement, and you don’t have a healthy fear of losing money, then you’re open to losing your money and kissing a secure retirement goodbye.
If you lose money when you’re 60, you haven’t merely lost money; you’ve lost
your edge – edge being your money’s time value, which is all the income that your lost money could have generated.
When retirement is in sight, you’ve entered a new investment challenge. That challenge is the preservation of your money. So it’s primarily an age thing.
Sequence of returns
https://www.thebalance.com/how-sequence-risk-affects-your-retirement-money-2388672
http://abovethecanopy.us/sequence-of-returns-biggest-risk-to-a-successful-retirement/
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/sequence-risk.asp

PDI +2.64%; everything flat or down
Some of those growth funds cited did remarkably, should check their holdings ...
ah, TRP Blue is one-quarter in Amz, F/b, MS, Alphabet, and Apple; good on them
http://portfolios.morningstar.com/fund/holdings?t=TRBCX&region=usa&culture=en-US
FDGRX (e.g.) is a hair under TRBCX for the quarter.
In the last 4.5y FDGRX has beaten DSEEX by 6% and TRBCX has done so by a smidgen. Go, growth.

MSEGX was my best at +9.72%, worst was RHS at -4.93%. About 50% were above water, rest below

I never understood why 403(b) plans were offered to non-profits when 401(k) plans were the preferred offering in the private sector.

I never understood why employer-sponsored health plans were offered in the US when government-sponsored health plans were the preferred offering globally.
Same reason - historical accident.
403(b)'s history goes back about 3/4 of a century before the advent of 401(k)'s - to Andrew Carnegie, who created the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, with the an objective "to remedy the disparity between the great value conferred on society by higher education faculty and the miserly financial benefit society gave faculty in return." The focus was on providing pensions for educators.
This led to the Carnegie Foundation creating TIAA using annuities as the best way to provide pensions. It required no employee contribution for many years. As TIAA grew larger, that became unsustainable. TIAA was spun off, and employee contributions were added. As market returns became more important post WW2, TIAA created CREF. Finally, in 1958, Congress enacted legislation covering these plans. Thus 403(b).
401(k)'s come from the private sector, where gold watches and pensions were unfunded gratuities that employees couldn't count on. (See Studebaker, 1963.) While the Studebaker failure was the impetus for ERISA, the private sector had had CODAs (deferred compensation plans - cash or deferred arrangements) for decades, and these led to 401(k) plans.
While 403(b)s and 401(k)s are much more similar than they were in the past, they have different histories and different quirks.
Regarding the story linked to by Bee, what it doesn't say is that the company used, Aspire, charges participants $40/year and skims 15 basis points off their investments, which add their own ERs. Many of TIAA's 403(b) participants can do a bit better, e.g. VFIAX at 14 basis points, all in.
https://www.aspireonline.com/resources/faqs/-in-category/categories/categories/fees

Also @Sven, if and when you separate service from your employer(s) you can roll over your 403(b) to a traditional IRA. I did this midway through my career because I change school systems. I also did this when I retired. Both qualified as separation of service.
Article on the Topic:
https://investopedia.com/advisor-network/articles/what-do-your-403b-funds-if-you-change-jobs/
One reason to keep your 403(b). If you are planning on retiring after age 55, but prior to 59.5, you can make 403(b) or 403(b)(7) withdrawals without incurring early withdrawal penalty (usually 10%). A traditional IRA would not be available for penalty free withdrawals until 59.5.
Both plans can be accessed penalty free for hardship reasons and other reasons (medical expenses, down payment of first home, tuition expenses, etc)
Article:
time.com/money/4535619/retirement-withdrawals-age-55-401k-403b/

I may need to go on a fund diet, but here is a snapshot of my funds and how they collectively "added to" or "subtracted from" the portfolio for the quarter on a percentage basis.

@bee, what if you has no option in your pension plan other than an annuity? Taking a lump sum is often calculated a reduced value. I still has 10-15 years to go.

If you are participating in a 403(b) plan, ask your plan sponsor if there are 403(b)(7) options. If there are no 403(b)(7) options, you have a right to petition for these options. This usually requires a lot of work (on your part) and a little bit of luck, but is well worth the effort.
403(b)wise is a good source of information on 403(b) plans and has a discussion board where you can post questions. Might be a good place to gather information.
https://403bwise.com/
A Story:
https://403bwise.com/k12/story/129