I've always been an admirer of Romick but I've never been able to justify the fees. In 2000 I was 50 and could still bench 400 lbs. Times have changed for me and I suspect Romick as well. 'Course that's what makes a horse race.
The thing about IVV is one can swap for voo, vti etc and reap the tax loss instead of paying more taxes for people that bail out of the fund. Those years you mention it seems like I had funds that lost money and I paid taxes too.

@msf
Thanks for the background links.
Here's another article focused on early cellphones. No desire to detract from Lewis' article. But suspect cell phones and their modern variant smart phones play a critical part in today's investing, be it tracking current investments or (as was often the case with the Fido Selects) actively trading. Since my Fido investments in the early 80s probably amounted to a couple K, plunking down $3,995 for an early cellphone (1984 price) probably would have been imprudent. :)
"Somewhere in either Chicago, Baltimore or Washington, someone plunked down $3,995 to buy the Motorola DynaTAC 8000X, the first handheld cellphone, on March 13, 1984 — 30 years ago today."
http://mashable.com/2014/03/13/first-cellphone-on-sale/#uyYq9kRydaq6

Hi @expatsp,
Interesting question and one that I have explored myself in looking for an answer. I am not sure my findings will fully answerer your question but I'll share my discovery. To begin, I looked at what an index bond fund's weighted price was and found it to be around 108. To me, this suggest the index is selling at about an eight percent premium over par. Then I looked to see what the average weighted price was in my income sleeve of my portfolio and found it's average weighted price for the bond funds that it holds to be about 95. With this, I took it that the bonds held in the funds found in my income sleeve were priced, on average, at about 5% below their par value.
This amounts to about a 13 point spread between the index and the bonds found in my income sleeve. And, with this, I am thinking, some upward price appreciation might be expected. Naturally, there are some influences and factors that I did not mention that will effect bond prices. However, this was my down and dirty quick look. The return, five percent price appreciation if held to mauturity plus interest.
Perhaps, the above information might be helpful in you finding an answer, you seek, to the question.
For me, I think, I found mine.
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Additional comment: In addition, I found that the index fund I used as my proxy to have an average maturity of 7.6 years with a duration reading of 5.4 years while my income sleeve has an average maturity of 4.8 years with a duration reading of 2.9 years. With this, I am thinking there is more downside risk for the index over my income sleeve in a rising interest rate environment. Please note, not all the funds contained within my income sleeve have great exposure to junk bonds although some representation to the sector can be found in most of them. For information purposes their ticker symbols are as follows: GIFAX, LALDX, LBNDX, NEFZX, THIFX and TSIAX.

@MFO Members: "The funds were sold with a 3% load, plus a 0.75%" The load only applied to the first select fund you bought.
Regards,
Ted

The instant AT&T divested itself of the RBOCs (1/1/84), it started marketing its 3B line of minicomputers, developed at Bell Labs. Coincidence?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3B_series_computers

Nice point in Lewis' article about dispersion.
Many years ago I posted in misc.invest.mutual-funds opining that Fidelity's use of inexperienced managers in its Select funds really didn't matter, because they were effectively buying bunches of similar stocks (i.e. no skill needed). It seems I was half right - correct only for sectors where companies tend to move together, not for all sectors.
A few bits of inconsequential trivia:
- Fidelity Select Funds started in 1981(if there was anything older, it hasn't survived)
- Those funds appear to have been FSENX (Energy), FIDSX (Financials), FSPHX (Health), FSPTX (Technology), FSUSX (Utilities), and Precious Metals and Minerals (merged into Gold in 2000)
- The funds were sold with a 3% load, plus a 0.75% redemption/exchange fee for equity funds held under 30 days, and a flat $7.50 for shares held 30+ days
- Daily pricing started in 1986
- There are still funds priced more than once daily, viz. some Rydex funds are priced at 10:45 and 4PM
- Cell phones were invented before Fido Selects. Bell Labs' Advanced Mobile Phone Service ("advanced" being handoff from cell to cell) was invented in the mid 1970s. There was trial service in 1978, and the first commercial service was in 1982.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/2377716_Advanced_Mobile_Phone_Service_-_An_Overview
(Years ago I spoke with people from Bell Labs who had worked on AMPS. They felt that but for regulatory issues, cellphones would have been deployed earlier.)

Per -- US news & world report Money----FPACX ranks # 31 in Mod Allocation
= cut & paste
#31
FPA Crescent Portfolio Fund (FPACX)
Performance (1-yr.): 5.18% Expenses: 1.11%
Performance (1-mo.): 5.05% Total Assets: $18.12B
See all details for FPACX »

Hi Catch,
Yes, I remember playing with Fido's Select Funds too. Way back in the 70s or early 80s. Minimums weren't very high. Maybe $500 or $1,000? Closest thing to legal gambling in our state than.
Must have been a lot of fun. Remember pulling off I-75 on the way north one Friday afternoon to phone in a trade at a coin-operated pay booth. (Cell phones hadn't been invented yet.) :)

Value investors generally have had a tough go the past couple years.
Here's good post by the folks at AlphaArchitect ...
Update on the Valuation Metric Horserace: 2011-2015
and even better ...
Has the Value Investing Pain Train Ended?
c

If anyone wishes to hold cash in large amounts, I'll be happy to hold on to it for you at only 0.5%.
Note: In the event of unanticipated requests for withdrawal of large amounts of cash ($10 or more), management, in it's sole discretion, reserves the right to make such payments in Monopoly scrip.

@Ralph
Dr. Snowball very politely exposed the weaknesses of FPACX, and the responses from the FPACX reps were essentially "FundSpeak" as far as I am concerned. I honestly do not care how actively managed fund managers justify huge cash positions, as such allocations objectively represent market timing -- or market guessing -- which has never worked over long periods.
One question I have for the FPACX team: Why has the management fee remained a constant 1% despite the ballooning of AUM ? The answer, unfortunately, is that FPACX is the cash cow for the firm, and asset gathering is in their best financial interest, but obviously not in the best interest of investors. The cow must be milked.
I would avoid FPACX solely for fund stewardship, which is poor in my opinion.
Instead of FPACX, I would consider using the Backtest Tool of Portfolio Visualizer to construct a viable alternative.
Two attractive combinations would be an 80/20 mix of VWIAX with either VIG (preference) or VYM. Since 2007, each of these combinations would have had higher total returns, lower standard deviations, lower maximum drawdowns, higher sharpe ratios and higher sortino ratios than FPACX. And both combinations have an average expense ratio of 0.15%, as compared to 1.11% for FPACX.
At this time, I would never, ever recommend FPACX to friends or family.
Kevin

Latest Update.I continue to own the fund.
FPACX 1st Quarter Update
TOTAL CASH & EQUIVALENTS 6,183,252,260.14 36.25%
TOTAL NET ASSETS: $17,059,264,885.05
Activity:
o Sold out of Anheuser-Busch, Jardine Matheson, Joy Global, Orkla, and Walgreens
Boots Alliance.
o Added to several names, including Alcoa, American Express, Bank of America, CIT
Group, and Citigroup.
o Top contributors for the quarter were Oracle, Aon, Yahoo/Alibaba pair trade, United
Technologies, and Cisco. Citigroup, an undisclosed equity position, AIG, Bank of
America, and Esterline were the largest detractors for the period.
Positioning:
o Gross exposure to equities is 60.9% and net equity exposure is 57.6%. Corporate Bond
exposure increased to 4.9%.
o Cash and cash equivalents allocation is 36.3%.
Outlook:
o We continue to research financials, high yield, cyclicals and various commodities-related
businesses.
http://www.fpafunds.com/docs/fpa-crescent-fund/q1-2016-crescent-update.pdf?sfvrsn=2
Full Schedule of !st Quater Holdings
http://fpafunds.com/docs/funf-holdings/crescent-03-31-16-for-website.pdf?sfvrsn=2
You can attend this event and ask for your self.
Southern California in Early June ? F P A Investor Day on the Pacific !
t
http://fpafunds.cvent.com/events/a-day-with-fpa-2016/agenda-66af952dc057428fbafd4a90b856dcb7.aspx
From David Snowball
The better question is, can the fund consistently and honorably deliver on its promise to its investors; that is, to provide equity-like returns with less risk over reasonable time periods? Given that the management team is deeper, the investment process is unimpaired and its size is has become more modest, I think the answer is “yes.” Even if it can’t be “the old Crescent,” we can have some fair confidence that it’s going to be “the very good new Crescent.”
But....Beware the Siren Song ?

http://www.sirensongwetsuits.com/home

Also:
Gundlach: Swap Corporate Bonds for Mortgage
J. Gundlach, bond King, Doubline, is suggesting to blow out of your corporate bonds, especially junk, that were purchased at the height of panic when everyone thought the Fed was crazy enough to hike rates four times this year.
Wait, aren’t they still saying that?
Gundlach quote from Tuesday:
“The junk market was scared to death that the Fed was actually going to go forward with their suicide mission to raise rates four times this year, four times next year and four times the year after,” Gundlach said. “It’s not surprising that the same burst of enthusiasm for Treasury bonds, once the Fed seemed to abort their suicide mission, it also helped junk bonds. I don’t think that can continue any longer.”
Government-backed Ginnie Mae mortgage-related securities “are cheap relative to Treasuries,” the fund manager said. “That’s been a good buy point for the past six years.”
http://ibankcoin.com/flyblog/2016/04/12/gundlach-swap-corporate-bonds-for-mortgage/
From Ted's link
"The easy money has been made," Gundlach said.
Seemed to be his general theme not only with "junk" but oil and C E F's.Harder to get to $45 oil than from $30 to $40. Many C E F nav discounts have narrowed .Good way to
participate is RNDLX/RNSIX .Likes the Puerto Rico Municipals for high income individual/family taxpayers.Likes C M B S '( Principal Real Estate Income PGZ up near 2% today ). Continues to stick with his now 2 year old prediction of $1400 gold.Bond investors at least 25% defensive posture which of course would be comparable to his own managed (DFLEX/DLINX).
Also
Try this asset allocator
http://bluerockfunds.com/asset-allocator/
And questions or comments besides WHY?
TI+ is a fund for individual investors that seeks current income, low-volatility, capital preservation and long-term capital appreciation. In the three+ years since its inception through February 29, 2016, TI+ has delivered a total annualized return of 8.93%, including 12 consecutive quarterly distributions at an annualized rate of 5.25%. Significantly, the Fund has achieved risk-adjusted returns of five to seven times higher than leading stock, REIT, and bond market indexes, underscoring the Fund’s low volatility.
As of 4/14/2016 NAV
TIPRX $28.79
TIPPX $28.37
TIPWX $29.00
http://bluerockfunds.com/documents/

--Morning Star has recently upgraded FPACX from 4 star to 5 star
--Kiplinger on line- has removed Fpacx from it's 'Kip 25' =best funds by catagory - and replaced with VWELX .
-Here on MFO David suggested replacing FPACX with Lcorx . and then suggested a 'wait & see' hold position.
- Any further analysis will be appreciated.
Thanks
Ralph

I believe those were not actually money market funds, but other MMF-like vehicles including short term investment funds (STIFs) and enhanced cash funds. Extensive quotes from an ICI paper explaining these are below (after --- break).
The ICI also has a two pager: Money Market Funds in 2012, History of Money Market Funds
It says:
- Money market funds were created in the early 1970s ...
- In 1994, the Denver-based Community Banker’s U.S. Government Money Market Fund reported a NAV below $1.00 and ultimately investors recovered approximately 96 cents on the dollar.
The reason why I quoted the second item is that the first MMF to fail was an institutional MMF, not a retail one. That shows that in this paper, the ICI is talking about institutional as well as retail funds when it writes that MMFs were created in the early '70s.
FWIW (can't verify, I don't know anything about the firm other than it makes the same claim on its own webpages):
"Drinker Biddle & Reath's lawyers are nationally recognized as pioneers in the bank-related mutual funds market dating back to the mid-70s. The firm developed the country's first institutional taxable and tax-exempt money market funds"
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Drinker+Biddle+&+Reath+ranked+No.+1+mutual+fund+counsel+in+the...-a016805468
---------------
From the 2009 Report of the Money Market Working Group:
(Section 3.1) "Money market funds were developed in the early 1970s as a way to allow retail and other investors with modest amounts of assets to participate in the money market. ... Previously, market rates of return had been available only to wealthy individuals and large institutions with sizeable amounts to invest.
[Note "market rates of return", not "money market funds"]
It goes on to describe STIFs in Section 5.1.2:
"Bank trust departments offered a short-term investment product (STIF) several years before the first money market fund appeared. These cash pools amortized cost to meet client and fiduciary demands for low-risk investments that function much like money market funds."
The only mention of an investment vehicle available to wealthy individuals in the paper is the enhanced cash fund (Section 3.1):
"These funds seek to provide a slightly higher yield than money market funds by investing in a wider array of securities that tend to have longer maturities and lower credit quality. ... Enhanced cash funds target a $1.00 NAV, but have much greater exposure to fluctuations in their portfolio valuations. Enhanced cash funds are privately offered to institutions, wealthy clients, and certain types of trusts."

I must be having a bad hair day. Don't get confused, as I did, by the phrase "classified two company investments as passive", thinking that this might have something to do with passive mutual funds. Or that mutual funds have different disclosure requirements (as do ETFs) depending on whether they are passive or active.
The "passive" here has got nothing to do with a fund's investment style. It has to do with buying shares and just sitting back and enjoying the ride. Which makes me wonder whether even voting for board members is at some level "active". Or something only slightly less extreme - a fund voting on a shareholder initiative to limit executive compensation. The cited article references executive compensation in the context of "activism".
I think this Bloomberg opinion column sheds a lot more light on what's going on:
http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2016-04-04/shareholder-activism-might-have-antitrust-issues
That has a lot of facts about the ValueAct case, including a link to the Bloomberg news article:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-04-04/valueact-sued-by-u-s-over-halliburton-baker-hughes-purchases
It also discusses a possible impact on mutual funds. It suggest that the underlying action (saying that a hedge fund owning competing companies in an M&A was being "active") moves a step toward saying that mutual funds (which sometimes own competing funds in concentrated industries) may likewise be illegal. It links to an older column:
http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-07-22/index-funds-may-work-a-little-too-well
That column in turn suggests that maybe funds are safe if they don't vote, which curiously brings me full circle to my speculation at the top of this post.

Isn't that the whole idea of ETFs? That APs generally redeem in kind (thus providing the tax efficiency that is purportedly lacking in open end funds).
Admittedly there are some types of ETFs that typically trade in cash, but they're the more esoteric ones (inverse and leveraged, and I believe commodities). But for the most part, the expectation (as marketed) when shareholders (i.e. APs) redeem (not sell) shares, the sellers get the underlying securities (or whatever is in a Creation Unit).
For example, from BOND's prospectus: "Except when aggregated in Creation Units, shares of a Fund are not redeemable securities. Shareholders who are not Authorized Participants may not purchase or redeem shares directly from a Fund."
There is a potential tracking problem with ETFs that hold illiquid assets (e.g. bonds in a credit crunch, to use your example). When normal (not AP) shareholders try to bail on an exchange, the market (not NAV) price gets depressed. APs may decline to step in, because they know they'll get illiquid assets they can't dump at a profit (the spread between the supposed NAV of the underlying assets and the market price of the ETF).
So the market price of ETFs can go into free fall. That's a related but different issue.

Response from Sequoia's David Poppe:

For many years Sequoia Fund has clearly disclosed that we can and do pay large redemptions with securities rather than cash, and we have done so thousands of times before this year without incident. So we were puzzled by “Sequoia Clients Get Stock Shock” (Business & Finance, April 9) questioning the practice as a “shock” to investors and trying to tie recent in-kind redemptions to our Valeant stake. This policy isn’t new, is unrelated to the ups and downs of our fund and, specifically, is unrelated to our holding in Valeant.
We redeem with shares to benefit our continuing shareholders, who might otherwise pay capital-gains taxes on the sale of appreciated stock that might be required for redemptions. By redeeming in kind, our 20,000 continuing Sequoia shareholders will pay lower capital-gains taxes in the future. Our goal is always to be tax-efficient and to do what is right for continuing shareholders. For a departing shareholder, there is no tax or other consequence to receiving stock instead of cash, aside from the minor inconvenience of having to sell a security upon receipt. We take care to always deliver stocks that trade in sufficient volume so that the exiting shareholder can sell them immediately without depressing the market for a particular security.
David M. Poppe
President
Sequoia Fund
New York

http://www.wsj.com/articles/sequoias-redemption-with-securities-is-tax-efficient-1460583731

FPACX 1st Quarter Update
TOTAL CASH & EQUIVALENTS 6,183,252,260.14 36.25%
TOTAL NET ASSETS: 17,059,264,885.05 100.00%
Activity:
o Sold out of Anheuser-Busch, Jardine Matheson, Joy Global, Orkla, and Walgreens
Boots Alliance.
o Added to several names, including Alcoa, American Express, Bank of America, CIT
Group, and Citigroup.
o Top contributors for the quarter were Oracle, Aon, Yahoo/Alibaba pair trade, United
Technologies, and Cisco. Citigroup, an undisclosed equity position, AIG, Bank of
America, and Esterline were the largest detractors for the period.
Positioning:
o Gross exposure to equities is 60.9% and net equity exposure is 57.6%. Corporate Bond
exposure increased to 4.9%.
o Cash and cash equivalents allocation is 36.3%.
Outlook:
o We continue to research financials, high yield, cyclicals and various commodities-related
businesses.
http://www.fpafunds.com/docs/fpa-crescent-fund/q1-2016-crescent-update.pdf?sfvrsn=2
Full Schedule of !st Quater Holdings
http://fpafunds.com/docs/funf-holdings/crescent-03-31-16-for-website.pdf?sfvrsn=2
Southern California in Early June ? F P A Investor Day on the Pacific !

http://fpafunds.cvent.com/events/a-day-with-fpa-2016/agenda-66af952dc057428fbafd4a90b856dcb7.aspx
From David Snowball
The better question is, can the fund consistently and honorably deliver on its promise to its investors; that is, to provide equity-like returns with less risk over reasonable time periods? Given that the management team is deeper, the investment process is unimpaired and its size is has become more modest, I think the answer is “yes.” Even if it can’t be “the old Crescent,” we can have some fair confidence that it’s going to be “the very good new Crescent.”
Beware the Siren Song ?

I chose Seafarer (SFGIX), but in my 401(k), Capital Emerging Markets Growth Fund (EMRGX) chose me, as the plan swapped out American's (NEWFX), for Capital's (EMRGX), which has a lower (.80) ER.
On paper, the EMRGX managers look to have more experience than nearly any foreign/emerging markets operation - its partners have in the range of 15-to-40-years. Apparently, they were "chosen by the International Finance Corporation, a World Bank affiliate, to manage the world’s first global emerging-market fund."
But their long-term results (and the emerging markets category) are uninspiring. If those markets ever catch a sustained rally, I would expect EMRGX to be rewarded for the risk - a la GMO's forecast on a mean reversion for the category.
Right or wrong, I consider such exposure a diversifier, without getting crazy with more esoteric, alternative options.