.....And the wonderful young agent was, typically, tripping over himself with multi-syllabic utterances so that he would sound intelligent and informative, grasping at different words in order not to be repetitive, and so that there would not be any "dead air" between us. Jay-zuz, I hate that. I suppose they are TRAINED never to use the word "no," even when "no" is the appropriate, true and correct reply. And if they dare to simply communicate within a common sense framework, they'd earn demerits. I guess the trainer-types have all forgotten the 13th Commandment: ESCHEW OBFUSCATION.
..... That 5 minute conversation should have taken maybe 90 seconds. At least, amid all the pap flapping around me from his end, I was informed that there is no way to figure out or plan for just when that fund may open for business, and no way to let me--- and interested folks like me--- know when it happens.
Interesting summary prospectus, though. Already posted here, and I bookmarked it. Monthly pay-outs. Stock-bond split that is divided more evenly than the PRWCX which we all already know and love. I'm interested because I'm looking to grow my dividends these days, preparing to start taking divs. rather than re-investing them. And TCAPX can hold foreign securities, too, though not in amounts that would make it function like my current holdings, PRSNX or PREMX. Yes, I'm ALMOST married to TRP. I have a good slug in Mairs & Power, too, and then just a couple of very small other holdings. Here's that link, again:
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1689311/000168931117000021/canpta-may35.htm

Hi Guys,
I too suspect that most investors do not fully understand the tradeoff that exists between skill and luck when making investment decisions. Luck is a far more significant contributor then is commonly appreciated.
We are fooled by randomness (that's the title of an excellent book authored by Nassim Nicholas Taleb). The likely reason why we are fooled is that we don't recognize how large numbers of participants contribute to a respectable number of winners.
For example, if 1000 market forecasters exist, after a single forecast 500 are probably correct given an equal interpretation of the likely market outcome. For the successful forecasters, repeat this test again, and the successful number is reduced to perhaps 250. If the challenge is repeated 8 times, a simple probability calculation suggests that maybe 4 forecasters would be correct on all the 8 tests. These fortunate four might be skillful, but they just might be lucky..
These lucky few announce their prescient calls and are now respected as market forecasting wizards. The large number of initial forecasting candidates almost guarantees this outcome and the subsequent misleading interpretation. Indeed, we are often victims; we are fooled by randomness.
Best Wishes

Hi @hank
Bondland: Short duration yields/rates are higher, but.....
http://www.reuters.com/article/usa-bonds/treasuries-u-s-2-year-note-yield-hits-another-9-year-high-flattening-continues-idUSL1N1NK0ZW
Pension funds:
1. Actuaries didn't anticipate the longevity of the "boomers".
2. Perhaps many pension funds never really achieved their goal of 8-8.5% real return adjusted for inflation.
3. At least relative to employee union pension funds; many had/have "cost of living" adjustments built into forward pension payments; including pension benefits that continue to have a "health plan", too.
4. Under-funding of pension plans, over the years. This is a known condition for many pension funds.
I recall over the past several years reading about existing pension funds in Michigan municipalities, though still having contributions to the fund; finding that paying the retired employee pension/health care outflows was consuming 50% of the assets of the fund.
Example: Central States Pension Fund (Teamsters); of which, I read about several years ago. A story of, we may be able to maintain the monetary base of the fund; but ya'll will have to take a 30% decrease in your pension or the fund will crash and burn. Check some of the links in the search below, in particular to "UPS" drivers who were moved into the Central States Pension Plan. The link below is for numerous search items.....read for your choosing.
https://www.google.com/search?source=hp&ei=EBoLWrGHNJuzjwSX9LzgDw&q=central+states+pension+fund+news&oq=central+states+pension+fund&gs_l=psy-ab.1.1.0l10.1146.11288.0.13276.27.27.0.0.0.0.314.3286.1j25j0j1.27.0....0...1.1.64.psy-ab..0.27.3280...46j0i131k1j0i46k1j0i10k1.0.clw8X-GyJ9Q
Side note: Although great to have a pension, the majority of pensions do not have a "cost of living" adjustment. If inflation was running at the "old" annual rate of 3%, or so; after 10 years folks would be loosing about 1/3 of their spending power from a pension, yes? I spoke with a few folks I know a number of years ago about this as a future planning tool relative to their spending habits going forward.
Well, this is my small take on such a big world.
The snowblower is lubricated, gas full and tested. Now waiting for April again in Michigan.
Take care,
Catch

Anyone getting giddy on European Funds?
Europe Heading Toward Golden Period:
from-lost-decade-to-golden-years-euro-economy-picks-up-the-pace
To me, a good managed fund navigates these dynamics better than a broad index. Many here are familiar with risk averse FMIJX.
Using a "European only" fund screen shows:
DFA's (DFCSX),
Brown Advisory's (BAHAX) and
Columbia's (CAEZX) all having higher risk adjusted returns (high Sharpe Ratios).
From a fee expense angle the nod goes to (VEURX), but it is an index approach.
PIMCO's USDollar unhedged (PPUDX) has 97% exposure to Developed EU and uses PIMCO's derivative strategies in an attempt to outperform the index. The USDollar hedged version is PPIDX.
T. Rowe Price's (PRIDX) has International Small/Mid Cap exposure splitting itself between Europe/UK (48%) and Japan / Em Asia (45%).
Fidelity's (FSCOX) has a similar approach with a strong convictions towards Japan (33%), Europe (32%) and the UK (19%).
Under performers with high exposure to Europe include:
AAIPX - 4*, (68%/24%) Greater EU / Greater Asia
TRIGX - 3*, (64/32) Greater EU / Greater Asia
LISOX - 3*, (56/30) Greater EU / Greater Asia
BBHLX - 3*, (65/19) Greater EU / Greater Asia, (17%) cash
THGIX - 2*, (62/24) Greater EU / Greater Asia
USIFX - 4*, (62/33) Greater EU / Greater Asia
CIVVX - 4* (65/27) Greater EU / Greater Asia
MQIFX - 4*, (58/37) US/Greater EU
USAWX - 5* (58/39) US/Greater EU
IVFLX - 1* (28/65) US/Greater EU
An interesting World Allocation fund, BBALX, which is divided pretty evenly into thirds-US Equity, Non US equities, and US Bonds- but over weights Non US equities (50/50 Greater EU/Asia) compared to the category.

FYI: The California Public Employees’ Retirement System, the largest U.S. pension fund, is considering more than doubling its bond allocation to reduce risk and volatility as the stock bull market approaches nine years.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.fa-mag.com/news/calpers-considers-more-than-doubling-bond-allocation-to-44-35690.html?print

@Slick,
You seem to have a fair number of Vanguard Funds. Why not consider moving all of them "in Kind" from Fidelity to Vanguard. I have done that for no charge. This would elevate the $75 TF Fidelity charge to buy/sell Vanguard funds as well as Vanguard does not charge to trade Vanguard ETFs that you trade (Brokerage).

Thanks for your comments guys,I expected the too many funds and too low on some questions. Will try and address your comments:
@Art: Over the last ten years, converted quite a bit from traditional ira to roth. 2/3 of my retirement funds are now in the roth. I treat the roth a bit differently than the traditional ira, as it will be the last to be used, and it much more aggressive.
@Pudd: I only started VWINX this year, and because it is $75 each time I want to add to it, I wait until I sell another fund or stock to fund it more. As I stated, I tend to use a barbell approach rather than allocation or balanced funds, but will add to it over time. I use the staples, utilities, and more value and moderate stock funds as ballast to my more aggressive holdings. I have two general hc funds basically because I cant add to PHSZX at Fido, it was bought when I was with ML I sold the amount I had in the traditional ira and bought SHSAX so I could add to it. I used to have a biotech and a pure pharma etf but sold those to invest in IHI and FSPHX. Regarding the reit, I only bought FRIFX on Friday, selling VNQ after 5 years. I wanted to give a managed fund a try in this sector and liked the Fido offering. It is not a spif, I like having reits as a permanenet part of the portfolio. Not expecting rates to rise very fast anyway. I like how FRIFX is a bit more diversified in its components. Ive had MINDX for over 3 years, but probably would not be buying it now but perhaps a more diversified Asian fund. I have enough diversity in my other foreign holdings that I could risk it. I know I have many funds, primarily because I could not bring some of them from ML and had to find a comparable fund. I brought the traditional ira over first, a year later the rest, so in that year, some I could not bring over, and had to sell, and some closed so had to find alternatives.
@MikeM: I was expecting this comment from someone lol. I love small caps, but the reason they are so low is that I have many funds that have small caps in the portfolio and already at 24% small and mid.
Hope I addressed your comments enough, and no Im not sensitive, many times I think I have too many funds myself, but there is somethng I like about each of them that I hold. And each does have a role, maybe someday this will change :)

Add:
Ray Dalio, Bridgewater Hedge Fund. Buys/Sells related to some of the above regarding etfs inside of hedge funds. Scroll down the article for all info.
https://www.gurufocus.com/news/594584/ray-dalio-buys-ishares-core-msci-emerging-markets-spdr-gold-trust-ishares-20-year-treasury-bond-etf-sells-ishares-msci-south-korea-capped-index-fund-chesapeake-energy-corp-southwestern-energy-co

Myth or realty?
I read somewhere the the "track distance" relates back to the Roman Chariots and the "rut distance" between the chariot wheels as they Romanized Europe and beyond, eventual became "track distance" between railroad tracks.
My advice:
Fogettabout it...Ride a steam train before you or they are all gone.
was-standard-railroad-gauge-48-determined-by-roman-chariot-ruts

High Yield bonds have been in the news this past week, eh? Some folks sense a twitch to the "dark" side of investment land and perhaps a prelude to something else. Tis not pure profit taking as the returns YTD are not in need of a hair cut. Articles have noted the failure to secure loans at a "decent" rate for financing in a few retail sector companies. One may presume there is good reason to "demand" a higher rate.......like, we're not happy with the forward business model. Makes sense, yes?
@bee , I recall, placed a post which included debt burdens of large retailers. This is one sector that indeed may be on shaky ground to pay off the debt, but is not a large percentage of outstanding high yield bond area.
So, are junk bonds just a forward view of the growth potential of the economy in general? My pay grade is not high enough to know the answer. I'll let the technical indicators point the way.
---High Yield below. A few choices on the list have been prior holdings; although we do not currently hold any HY directly. Of the 6 below, one may be able to "see" the value of active management.
1 week and YTD
ARTFX = -.7%, +7.9%
SPHIX = -. 8%, + 7.4%
DHOIX = -.7%, + 6.5%
PRHYX = -.8%, + 6.4%
HYG = -1%, +5%
JNK = -.9%, +5.4%
The below chart for the above from June 2 through Nov. 10
http://stockcharts.com/freecharts/perf.php?ARTFX,SPHIX,DHOIX,PRHYX,HYG,JNK&n=113&O=011000
Lastly, at least related to the etf side of high yield is that etfs are "used" by hedge funds and other similar to help them use the efts as portfolio "insurance" or "adjusters" or whatever phrase/word one prefers. I would not be surprised that the option side of calls/puts has had some effect on HYG and JNK.
Let us keep our fingers crossed that companies make enough profit to pay off the "investment grade bond" debt, too; lest it become junk.
---HY bond $ issued 2016 = $204 Billion; 2017 to date $240 Billion
---IG bond $ issued 2016 = $1.16 Trillion; 2017 to date = $1.2 Trillion
Oh, well.
Good night,
Catch

October marked the 10th year of the current full market cycle, which started in November 2007 (top of last cycle) and bottomed in March 2009.
Here are 10 funds that have delivered perfect scores in their categories across multiple risk and performance metrics since the start of the cycle and consistently within it (click image to enlarge):

By name and symbol:

• Matthews Asia Dividend Fund Inv (MAPIX)

• Artisan International Value Fund Inv (ARTKX)

• MFS International Value Fund A (MGIAX)

• GMO Quality Fund IV (GQEFX)

• Jensen Quality Growth Fund J (JENSX)

• Eaton Vance Atlanta Capital SMID-Cap Fund I (EISMX)

• American Century NT Mid Cap Value Fund G (ACLMX)

• Janus Henderson Small Cap Value Fund L (JSIVX)

• Vanguard Tax-Managed Balanced Fund Admiral (VTMFX)

• Eaton Vance and Diversified Currency Income Fund A (EAIIX)

Eight are MFO Great Owls (five 10-year, three 20-year).

Hi Skeeter!
Thanks for the x-ray. The 40% stocks will rise as money is added. As for the PE of 19.1.....no, I'm surprised it's so high. I have been buying things with low PE which is why overseas has grown so quickly. It is something I look at when buying or adding. As to how I monitor the portfolio, Fidelity has screens to do this. Think of it as a lower class of Morningstar. Also use Yahoo. There are no caps on a position. I try to move where there is value. But saying that, no more will the S&P index be 30% of my portfolio.....nor healthcare, as it once was. I'm less of a gunslinger now.....after all, I'm retired. This portfolio is just my IRA, taxable money is in CDs with Ally and MDISX. Mrs. Pudd's 401 is in TSP (Thrift Savings Plan). We will roll that into an IRA upon her retirement. Where I am positioning looking for value.....I will say most new money will go overseas right now. What would I share? How hard it is to wait for value (i.e., pullback or, better yet, a correction!) to add new money in a market that has parts overvalued, I believe. Returns? I want more than 4% for sure. I did do a primitive back test, but I'm not sure I remember the number, so I won't say.
Hi Derf!
Yeah, it's hard. Value is driving where I'm adding so it's mostly overseas. PARWX was still reasonable at about PE 15 a while back. I started in 7-12-17 with over 50% cash, so it's a journey. Right now, I'm pausing to get some coverage on my buys before adding again.....where is a correction when you want one? lol......
MikeM,
I see what you're saying. But, as I'm adding, things are getting skewed because of where value is. I will say this: the funds that have "done" next to them are core: VWINX, PONDX, FSPHX. These following funds are a core wrap around.....they would have to stumble badly to be sold: PRBLX, PARWX, GIBLX, FMIJX, GLFOX.
Art,
Yeah, you're right. Small caps were sold after the Trump Bump as they then started to deteriorate. In January, I thought them overpriced and still do, as with other parts of the market. As far as real estate, that fund is not typical in its holdings. That's why I like it....but that's just me.
God bless
the Pudd

We thought we’d start catching up with the 130 U.S. equity funds which have passed their second anniversary but have not yet reached their third, which is when conventional trackers such as Morningstar and Lipper pick them up. As Charles has repeatedly demonstrated, the screener at MFO Premium allows you to answer odd and interesting questions. I’ll try to look at several questions over the next week, starting with “which of these new funds might be badly miscategorized?”
That’s an important question, since investors tend to buy the (Morning)stars. In general, that’s an okay decision: five star funds rarely become stinkers, one star funds rarely become gems. Except when a fund has gotten dropped in an inappropriate peer group, so that Morningstar is looking at a banana and trying to judge it as an apple. Our two favorite examples are RiverPark Short Term High Yield (RPHYX) and Zeo Strategic Income (ZEOIX). Both are outstanding at what they do: generate low single-digit returns (say, 2-4%) with negligible volatility. And both get one star from Morningstar because they’re being benchmarked against funds with very different characteristics.
How did we check for miscategorized funds? Simple, we get our screener to identify all U.S. equity funds that had been around for under three years. We downloaded that to Excel, eliminated funds with under two years of history then sorted them by their correlation to their peers. We found that over half of the funds were indexes or closet indexes (correlations over 95, with some “active” funds at 98). Just six funds, three active and three index, had correlations under 75.
Cambria Value and Momentum ETF (VAMO, as in Vamoose?) has the lowest correlation (0.43) with peers of any of the two-year-olds; Lipper thinks it's a large cap value fund. Why should you care? Because a low correlation with the peer group raises the prospect that a fund has been miscategorized and it makes it very likely that any rating it receives – positive or negative – will be unreliable. One illustration of that possibility: 5 of 6 six low correlation funds trail their peer group with VAMO lagging by 14% annually. Does that mean they’re bad funds? No, it means that its strengths and weakness can’t be predicted from its peer group.
The other two-year-olds with peer group correlations under 0.75 so far:
HTDIX Hanlon Tactical Dividend and Momentum Fund (Lipper: Equity Income)
PTMC Pacer Trendpilot 450 ETF (Mid-Cap Core)
BMVIX* Baird Small/Mid Cap Value Fund (Small-Cap Core)
PTLC Pacer Trendpilot 750 ETF (Large-Cap Core)
FSUVX Fidelity SAI US Minimum Volatility Index Fund (Multi-Cap Core)
Note: BMVIX is actually just shy of 2 years through October, but I want to touch on it for December commentary.
Next up: two-year-olds leading their packs.
David

@msf, you're right about the fund but the question is how much reality should we suspend for a decision that isn't very realistic to begin with. There are other funds people would have chosen that are closed to new investors and picking a single fund for the next 15 years isn't really a model for diversification, admitting that some of the choices would be far better than others just in terms of being reasonably diversified. I don't think GPMCX is a bad choice and while I'd agree with you on growth vs. value these guys are GRP guys and that makes me more comfortable. The thing I'd think long and hard about is how big can the fund get before it's a lot more difficult to pursue their stated purpose. The fund was started at roughly $25 million 2 years ago and it's now $41 million according to M*. If it doubles in 7 years plus the contributions existing investors are allowed to make, does $80 or $100 million make pursuing the tiniest of the tiny a lot more difficult. They currently have 187 holdings and the average market cap of their holdings is $326 million. That's $200K on average and suggests to me they could deal with more assets as long as the float isn't a small percentage of the market caps. Nothing suggests a big problem to me in the few minutes I worked on it but that's what I'd be focused on.

There's some ambiguity in the question. Does owning a fund for 10-15 years mean only that one doesn't make changes, or does it also imply that one is investing with the intent to draw from the fund after 10-15 years?
jlev seems to take the former view - starting at age 31, the portfolio could still have many years to go past the 15 year target before getting tapped. In that case, a more aggressive, pure equity fund would be a reasonable choice. No disagreement on that broad perspective.
Ted is hooked on growth funds (we've had this exchange before). Value and growth tend to take turns leading, but the alternations can be glacial. Personally, I wouldn't bet the farm on growth over the next fifteen years considering the long run that growth has already had. So in that sense I'd disagree with GPMCX.
Note that even existing shareholders can't buy much of GPMCX. From the prospectus:
"Fund is closed to both new and existing investors seeking to purchase shares of the Fund either directly or through third party intermediaries, subject to certain exceptions for participants in certain qualified retirement plans with an existing position in the Fund and direct shareholders with existing accounts who may purchase up to the amount of the current IRA catch up limit per year in additional shares, regardless of account type."

"The interesting thing about this kind of lending is that from a legal perspective two mutual funds even if they're run by the same manager are separate investment companies ..."
How deep into the weeds do we want to go? :-)
These days, many funds are structured as separate series of a common trust. For example, Fidelity Contra (FCNTX) is a series of a trust containing FCNTX, FNITX, FVWSX, and FAMGX.
While Fidelity funds are generally organized as Massachusetts trusts, most series trusts are Delaware trusts. Here's a somewhat old (Feb 2009) but likely still accurate description of Delaware trusts. On p. 3 is a section entitled "Is a Series of a Delaware Statutory Trust Functionally a Separate Legal Entity?" The authors note that the law isn't crystal clear, but that various facts they present lead "the authors to conclude that a series of a Delaware statutory trust is not a separate legal entity and does not possess many of the characteristics often associated with separate legal entities."
Of particular note for Delaware trusts is that the "ability to limit the liabilities of a series is not an inherent attribute of a series—it is only available to statutory trusts that comply with the requirements of Section 3804(a)." Of course virtually all mutual fund series trusts do comply with the legal requirements. But this raises the interesting possibility that if fund A (MMF) lends cash to fund B (stock/bond fund) in the same trust, then the lender might not be assuming more risk. It might have already been on the hook for B's debts, even before lending money.
The Delaware doc cited observes that "the limitation of interseries liability provided in Section 3804(a) has not been interpreted by any Delaware court, so whether equitable or other exceptions are applicable is unclear." In plain English, even though funds may comply with the statute to keep each fund's liabilities separate, there may nevertheless be reasons why a court would hold fund A liable for fund B's debts.
You'll find the same sort of formalities for Massachusetts trusts explained in the Contra SAI I linked to above. There it says that "Under Massachusetts law, shareholders of such a trust may, under certain circumstances, be held personally liable for the obligations of the trust. Each Declaration of Trust contains an express disclaimer of shareholder liability for the debts, liabilities, obligations, and expenses of the trust or fund."
Bottom line is the same as in your column: if anything goes wrong, “It will be a bonanza for the lawyers.” That's even before one gets to a fund lending another money.

Hi @Catch22,
Thanks for making comment. I'm thinking I read it correctly because the Schwab fund summary reads as follows ...
KCTMX is shown to be open for purchase with an initial purchase of $100.00 in basic, ira, and custodial accounts. I'm taking the basic account being a taxable account and any ira account being just that and custodial being for minors. How Schwab can make it available with the $100.00 minimum is beyond me because the fund's fact sheet, itself, reads $5,000.00 is the min. which is more in line with my expected purchase. Below is the link with this information.
https://www.schwab.com/public/schwab/investing/investment_help/investment_research/mutual_fund_research/mutual_funds.html?path=/Prospect/Research/MutualFunds/Summary.asp?symbol=KCMTX
Anyway, the fund is on the Schwab platform open for purchase. It will be the after the first of the year before I move on this. So, they have some time to correct the summary information, if wrong.

Hi everyone, I'm 49 for another month or so and I have 5 kids ranging in age from 2 to 17. They have 529 plans that will hopefully cover a decent portion of college costs and I keep contributing, although the youngest 2 could be worse off if the cost of education continues rising faster than inflation. I've basically been retired for almost 6 years because I took a nice package to walk away from my job in a downsizing and didn't find something new, but I'm still interested in going back to work for a decent opportunity.
I have a couple of overriding principles for my portfolio that will help explain some of my allocations. First, I believe that emerging markets, especially in Asia, are the future. I want to be overweight. I'm also a believer in healthcare. Considering the world's demographics are getting older and the developed world's demographics even more so, I want to be overweight. In general I want to be equal weight the US and underweight developed international markets because the demographics are the worst there and they are pretty highly correlated with the US in the large cap space. If I want to make currency bets, which I've done before, I'd rather do it in the futures market. I want most of my exposure to developed international markets to be small cap. Finally, other than healthcare, I'm generally sector agnostic. I don't target any specific allocations but I do monitor them compared to the S&P 500 to make sure I know and am comfortable with the opinions my sector allocations are expressing.
My portfolio currently has two parts and a third part is being reduced. The first is a collection of funds that I rebalance or adjust at irregular intervals but mostly doesn't change. The second is what I'd call a modified risk parity portfolio of my own making that trades monthly based mostly on momentum. The part being reduced is made up of individual stocks that I picked based on a newsletter I used to subscribe to or stocks that M* identified as undervalued. That didn't work very well for me. The stocks currently represent about 12.5%. I plan to keep 2 stocks, which are uranium stocks that I'm still comfortable/happy with. They make up 6% of my portfolio and will stay, so a little less than half of my total stocks.
I normally don't count cash as part of my portfolio except in my IRA and the cash there represents 3% of what I consider my portfolio.
Mutual funds
I'll indicate the current allocation as well as my planned allocation once I eliminate the stocks I hold with a comment or two where relevant.
GPIIX 9.65--->8.5 I would have preferred Global Opportunities to International Opportunities but the original intention was to pair International with their intended US fund, which hasn't come yet, and to manage the allocation myself. At the time I wasn't thinking about hard closes that make managing an allocation difficult so if I ever had the chance to switch this for GPGIX I would.
POAGX 8.75--->8.5
GPEIX 7.75--->8.5
SBIO 3--->2
HQL 2.9--->2
OBIOX 2.75--->3.5
MAPIX 2.5--->2
PRHSX 2.25--->2
IWIRX 2.15--->2
MEASX 1.6--->2
QUSOX 1.45--->2
ARTGX 1.4--->0 I don't dislike the fund, just decided I'd prefer OAKWX
MSCFX 1.4--->2
OAKWX 1.35--->2
PRNHX 1.35--->2
TVRVX 1.3--->2
DSEEX 1.3--->2
PTSGX 1.3--->1
SFGIX 1.3--->2
FSCRX 1.25--->0 This fund was great for me but with Chuck Myers leaving I started switching to the Mairs & Power fund.
KGGAX 1.2--->2
GPMCX 0.8--->2 This won't happen by year-end because of the limited annual contributions they allow but I'll get there.
Trading
The holdings currently make up 25.7% of my portfolio and includes EWX, IJH, IJK and VBR. I expect it will be 34% at year-end. I started this approach 18 months ago because I was concerned about valuations and wanted something that would hopefully protect me when things eventually go south but hopefully participate in most of the upside as long as it continues.
I track my overall portfolio as well as each "bucket" against 12 benchmarks on a monthly basis. Broadly speaking those benchmarks include a few all equity options (like the S&P 500 and a total world etf), a few balanced options that are all 60/40 but with different equity options, and a few risk parity portfolios like @hank's Permanent Portfolio, Faber's Ivy Portfolio and David Swenson's Yale portfolio.
For the individual funds I mostly watch category rankings. I do see 1, 3, 5 and 10 year returns in my M* portfolio but I don't use them to make any decisions. I don't change funds very much but manager changes usually worry me and I occasionally change for something I believe will be better. For instance, I used to hold a number of Wasatch funds that I eliminated and bought Grandeur Peak funds and I'm replacing FSCRX with MSCFX because of a manager change.
There are a few funds I'd be happy to own if they open again one day. They are VVPSX and TDVFX. I know I can buy the Towle Fund direct and I may do that at some point but I'd prefer to keep it in my brokerage account if possible. As mentioned I'll buy Grandeur Peak's US fund whenever it launches.
A portfolio X-ray will show you that I'm around 80% small and mid cap stocks. I understand most people would be uncomfortable with that. One third of that is the risk parity trading I do and that will be into other asset classes when the momentum changes. Nonetheless, I've never been uncomfortable with volatility and I don't tend to make emotional decisions. The risk parity idea was specifically designed to make me comfortable with whatever volatility occurs in the mutual funds. X-ray will also show I'm a little more than 20% emerging markets and overweight healthcare but I'll be pretty close to equal weight healthcare at year-end. This is something I want to keep an eye on because I don't want to end up underweight healthcare. I'm actually underweight the US at about 43-44% but that's okay for now because I'm somewhat, less than many but still somewhat concerned about valuations in the US. And I'm significantly underweight developed international markets except for Asia. I think that's mostly because M* calls Taiwan and South Korea developed while MSCI doesn't.
Oh, one last thing, how could I forget, I have no bonds and haven't for a few years. Friends have argued that I either should already regret that or I certainly will in the future. They may be right but I'm well aware of the bet I'm making and I'm more concerned now about getting hurt in bonds than hurt in equities. Time will tell.
Thanks in advance for your feedback.
Jim

Whew. This started out as a simple exercise and will try and provide commentary on my portfolio in addition to allocations and percentages. I have three portfolios. First one , is a taxable account which has a majority of the bond allocation at 80%, which includes 2 munis I am holding til maturity, also have two stocks in that portfolio, one of which I am getting ready to sell for its gains. That portfolio is 27% of my total. The other two are a traditional ira and a roth, and the roth is the larger of the two. You will notice some duplications in fund characteristics, the result of my moving from Merrill Lynch last year to Fidelity. Some positions I could not add to since they are institutional funds, so had to add similar funds from another fund company. I take a barbell approach to the total, balancing aggressive funds with conservative ones. More people seem to use balanced funds, I chose this method. That said, I am 68% equities, 32% bonds and cash, and 66 and retired. SS provides me about 1/3 of my expenses, rest comes from taxable account, which will be the first to be depleted, but I do have to start taking from the ira in four years. I am trying to follow the basic set up that Pudd used, adding my own tweaks. This reflects iras only. I threw in etfs into the mix. Here goes:
Large and multi cap:
MSEGX 1.5%
POGRX 2.6%
RSP 1.0%
SMGIX 6.4%
TWEIX 2.5%
VIG 3.0%
VDIGX 6.5%
VOO 5.6%
VPCCX 2.9%
VWINX 2.7%
Sector funds
CMTFX 3.1%
PHSZX 1.4%
FRUAX 1.5%
FSPHX 1.3%
IHI 2.0%
JRBFX 1.3%
PRGTX 6.2%
RHS 3.7%
SHSAX 1.4%
VPU 2.0%
FRIFX 2.9%
Small-midcap
CCASX 1%
SMDV 1%
UBVSX 1.3%
Global non sector funds (with a minimum of 30% foreign)
APDGX 3.0%
IWIRX 2.6%
Foreign
FMIJX 4.5%
SIGIX 4.9%
GSIHX 1.8%
OSMYX 2.8%
MINDX 2.5%
Stocks
MMM 2.1%
TRV 1.2%
Bonds and cash are 9.6% of total iras, since taxable portfolio has the high bond allocation. I use PONDX, PYACX, CPXAX, GIBIX.
According to Fidelity, in the iras, I am 76% large cap, 17% mid cap, 7% small. The above small cap funds I have do not reflect total small cap exposure since I have small cap stocks in a number of funds that are multi cap. I usually have more stocks, and use them more for trading than investment.
Im sure I have many more funds and etfs than most, but this is cut down from earlier this year :) All comments welcome, good and bad.

Skeet, I used to have M-Star's premium and used that for x-rays but got tired of paying that yearly cost. Now days I don't bother with the x-ray. I do lean to value funds and small/mid caps but that has not been the place to be the last few years. My biggest positions are in the 401 and I don't have many funds available that I am not using. VIGRX and ODMAX are available and I have used them in the past. Just sold both of these earlier this year. I am in the process of reducing small positions with a goal of 5% or more per fund. Allocation just happened, not planned. When you have go anywhere funds then that is what you get. I have made some bad choices, like selling EM to soon, so no tips for others from me other than save as much as you can.