I was thinking about buying this fund early in the year. Fortunately, I never pulled the trigger. YTD performance is in the 98th percentile (only up 0.26% compared to S&P 500 up 8.27%), 1 year performance is in the 95th percentile, and 3 year performance has fallen to the 66th percentile. Prior to 2016, this fund had stellar returns. Since 2011, the fund beat the S&P 500 every year and was at or near top percentile wise for each year. It's value or contrarian style has hurt it lately.
My question is: would this actually be the right time to buy this fund? It holds stocks that as a whole have not gone up with the rest of the market this year, so should be undervalued and may be more likely to outperform if the market is deemed to be expensive or remains flat and people look for bargains. The fund has had an excellent history prior to this year, so surely the managers know what they are doing and have just run into a rough patch. Or is this a case where one should stay away from this fund, as it has finally lost its magic and might not get it back, like other funds have in the past.
I'm also curious if any current SMVLX owners have become frustrated with this fund and are thinking of selling it, or if anyone has recently sold it because of it's poor performance over the last year.

Gosh, I don't know. Does the following go your case's way, since it includes bonds?
From 1961 inception to 1/1/2000, MAPOX beats DODBX in $10k growth by $59k, $446k+ to $387k+. 15% cumulative, maybe not a lot for almost 40y, but not nothing.
So regional bonds too, not just stocks?
From inception to date, almost 55y, it's been 8% edge to MAPOX (cume).
Somehow I don't think anyone has ever thought of M&P like Safeco or Golden Gate. Maybe they shoulda.

Because of, or in spite of, localization?
From M, via SFGate: The main argument for regional funds is that managers gain an edge by being close to the companies they own.
But from CS Monitor (1998): Many years ago, regional investing might have made sense. ... But with the proliferation of data sources and telecommunication, I can be just as close to a company in California as I can to one down the street.
It went on to observe that out of thousands of stock funds, there were only "about two dozen [regional funds] (whose combined assets total $3.3 billion)" . At least back then I could name a handful of those two dozen - Safeco NW, Franklin Calif. Growth, M&P Growth, and Golden Gate Fund GGFDX (SF Bay Area). Name any regional fund management company today other than M&P. I can't (which doesn't mean they don't exist).
All these regional funds falling by the wayside. I think that qualifies as odds stacked against the genre. Which brings me back to my lead sentence - is M&P doing well because of, or in spite of, its regional focus?
Most might indeed agree that M&P trounced the odds decade after decade. I suppose it did in the sense that it managed to survive while most regionals didn't. But in terms of performance, it was decidedly mediocre for the three decades between 1970 and 2000. (From 1/1/70 to 12/31/99, a $10K investment in MPGFX grew to $349K, compared to $345K for the average LCBlend fund, and $513K for the S&P 500.)
This lends credibility to the thesis that it is the fund's management and not its regionality that had given it more recent success.

no, it's crap:
https://azizonomics.com/2013/06/01/the-trouble-with-shadowstats/
or just google
shadowstats bullshit
and read the next several hits
also
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/07/19/always-inflation-somewhere/
Whatever you "used", just doublecheck this:
What $10k bought in 1979 costs $33k today, $29k if you start in 1980. Say in your own case inflation was higher, so $10k from whatever start point you like is now $40k. VOO growth with divs reinvested went from $10k at the end of 1979 to $512k --- well over a half-mil.

Here are the inflation adjusted returns for VFINX since 1986 (last column):

I used this.
http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl?cost1=27&year1=1988&year2=2016
If VFINX was $27 in '88 it's 2016 value would be 54.92 and now it is 201. So it increased 4X in CPI adjusted number. But if you used the $27 it looks like 8X.
Maybe the official CPI is low. Should it be double?
http://www.shadowstats.com/alternate_data/inflation-charts

IMHO it's all about culture and attitudes, not state lines. How do people act, vote, shop? By these metrics, I tend to view cities like Buffalo and Pittsburgh as midwestern cities. And then there's how people talk:
Pop vs. Soda (vs. Coke): http://www.popvssoda.com/
More to the point on regional funds: Who remembers Franklin California Growth Company (still FKCAX)? It gave up its 80% California growth mandate in 2002 (reducing it to 50%, i.e. majority), and then in Oct 2004 dropped California from its mandate altogether.
I figure if a growth fund can't make it in tech-rich, large economy, California (note that Franklin Templeton is based in California), then the odds are stacked pretty high against funds in smaller regions.
Northwest-focused funds gave up the ghost also around the same time. I was familiar with Safeco Northwest, which expanded into Canada (BC) in 2002, and gave up the regional focus entirely Oct. 2003.

@Paul_Katseff, thanks for the contributions! It appears both articles are pushing IBD's Comp rating so I wondered if you have any statistics about how well those ratings have done over time and in different markets? The articles say one should look for stocks with a rating of 95 or higher. If someone had bought all stocks that reached that rating how would they have done? What's the expected holding period or the trigger to sell?
I'd also suggest being careful with data from Morningstar. In the second linked article your table includes the top 10 funds since the June 27th lows but it doesn't include Primecap Odyssey Aggressive Growth (POAGX), which I believe had a 17.5% return from 6/27-8/28, or Primecap Odyssey Growth (POGRX), which I believe had a 16.1% return during that period. I only checked 5 or 6 funds that I own or keep track of and know have done well so I wouldn't be totally surprised if M* left out a few others too but who knows, maybe I just got lucky.

A chart comparing an investment starting in 1980, for example, should have an inflation component to it to reflect the decline in purchasing power.

Here are the inflation adjusted returns for VFINX since 1986 (last column):

@DanHardy
>> A chart comparing an investment starting in 1980, for example, should have an inflation component to it to reflect the decline in purchasing power.
Not quite following the point. Inflation "applies" to all investments. What $10k bought in 1979 costs $33k today, $29k if you start in 1980.
While VOO went from $10k at the end of 1979 to $512k --- well over a half-mil.
That's why we all invest.

Look back at the last 5y of, say, DVY or TWEIX and check both the size and the number of the "corrections."
You can wait a long unprofitable time waiting for a supposedly better moment to invest.

I always keep the Japanese experience in the back of my mind. And many charts do not take into account inflation. A chart comparing an investment starting in 1980, for example, should have an inflation component to it to reflect the decline in purchasing power.
http://finance.yahoo.com/quote/^N225/?p=^N225

Look back at the last 5y of, say, DVY or TWEIX and check both the size and the number of the "corrections."
You can wait a long unprofitable time waiting for a supposedly better moment to invest.

I like MCRDX for bonds and VMVFX for stocks. Both reviewed here in past issues. Read the analysis and do as you wish. I did buy PONDX recently, however, which many would view as a "sell" signal.
If you are in your early sixties, unless you have serious health issues, your life expectancy is probably over 25 yr (if you exercise regularly). Send your nephews and nieces clever cards for their birthdays and hold on to your money.

"If a shareholder closes an account in the Fund due to redemption or exchange, the shareholder will no longer be able to make additional investments in the Fund."
If I have two accounts in the fund (say an IRA and a taxable account) and I close the taxable account, I should still be able to add investments to the IRA - even though I was a shareholder who closed an account.
The more interesting question is whether I could take then a distribution in kind from that IRA and open up a new taxable account with those shares. Likewise, could I do a Roth conversion in kind, if I originally had no Seafarer Roth IRA?
These are not merely hypotheticals. I've gone through these exercises with Vanguard and with T. Rowe Price. At Vanguard, no new account means no new account, even for in-kind transfers. T. Rowe Price is happy to move shares around for you, even if it means opening new accounts for a closed fund.
I've even had problems (ultimately resolved) converting from investor shares to institutional shares in a third family's closed fund. Also relevant here, since Seafarer just dropped the min on its institutional class shares from $100K to $25K.

The closing was hidden in the Summary Prospectus:
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/915802/000139834416017861/fp0021369_497k.htm
Excerpt:
Purchase and Sale of Fund Shares
The Fund offers two classes of shares, an Investor Class and an Institutional Class, each of which is offered by this Prospectus. The minimum initial investment for the Investor Class is $2,500 for all accounts, except that the minimum initial investment is $1,000 for retirement and education savings accounts and $1,500 for automatic investment plan accounts. The minimum initial investment for the Institutional Class is $25,000 for all accounts. Investors generally may meet the minimum initial investment for the Institutional Class by aggregating multiple accounts within the Fund. If a shareholder invests in the Fund through a financial adviser or intermediary, the minimum initial investment for the Institutional Class may be met if that financial adviser or intermediary aggregates investments of multiple clients to meet the minimum. The minimum investment for subsequent purchases is $100 for both share classes.
Effective immediately after market closing on September 30, 2016, the Fund will close to most new investors. The Fund will be available for purchase only by the following investors:
· Existing shareholders of the Fund;
· Financial advisors, consultants and discretionary programs with existing clients in the Fund (i.e., they can continue to add new clients in the Fund);
· Retirement plans or platforms with participants who currently invest in the Fund;
· Model-based programs with existing accounts in the Fund; and
· Employees of Seafarer and their families.
Please note that some intermediaries may not be able to accommodate the conditions set out above.
If a shareholder closes an account in the Fund due to redemption or exchange, the shareholder will no longer be able to make additional investments in the Fund.
The Fund reserves the right to make exceptions to any action taken to close the Fund, or limit inflows into the Fund, and delegates such authority to Seafarer.

@MFO Members: For those of you who missed Chuck Jaffe's interview of Andrew Foster, on Auguat 25. 2016.
Regards,
Ted
Scroll & Click On Download)
http://moneylifeshow.com/highlights.asp

Both share classes, on September 30. It's a soft-close and it's one of several strategies for flow control that Mr. Foster had been noodling over.
Seafarer hit $1.5 billion, which was at the lower end of the possible-closure range, but flows into EM equities generally are picking up which might have made this seem the opportune moment.
For what that's worth,
David

BobC and VF each highlight interesting questions, as there are at least two different perspectives on each of their issues.
What is the responsibility of a corporation? Corporations owe their legal existence (shielding shareholders from personal liability, etc.) to the state, and as such have traditionally been regarding as having some public obligations. Over the past 30 years or so, that perspective has shifted toward viewing corporations as answerable solely to their shareholders.
The two perspectives are not entirely incompatible, as VF suggests by mentioning an obligation to do right by their employees. Either because that's part of an implicit agreement with the state that grants corporations legal status, or because companies that treat their employees well tend to be more profitable and thus benefit their shareholders.
Either way, there is a third leg to this stool - the customers. Corporations have an obligation to do right by them as well.
Which brings us to spin - a question applicable to all media companies, not just Morningstar. There is one line of thinking (implicit in BobC's comment) that all publishers pander - so let's give up on any pretense of objectivity. You see this in some press internationally, and it was widespread in the US a century ago.
The pendulum may be swinging back that way. Not just Fox News, but CNN where the "talent" has to add disclaimers on air that they are still on outside payroll.
But that doesn't mean objectivity is a fool's errand. Some publishers build firewalls between content and advertising departments. Never 100% effective (IMHO), they nevertheless do (or at least can do) a good job in keeping the content fairly objective.
M*'s firewall: http://discuss.morningstar.com/NewSocialize/forums/t/251837.aspx
(I readily acknowledge that M*'s 2010 statement that it was investing in its infrastructure undermines its credibility regarding its firewall.)

Hi @jerry
I recall the choices for the TIAA Michigan 529 were limited 10+ years ago and the fees were much higher for a direct purchase (which we use, no advisor stuff).
I checked MI 529 today and find the fees are now competitive.
NOTE: Much has changed during the past 10 years in the 529 marketplace. I recall quite a few vendor changes in numerous state plans; as well as significant fee reductions.
MICH 529 TIAA This links to multi-fund choices, with single fund choices clickable on the right side page edge. The multi-funds (I read) are funds of funds. These appear to be suitable enough for most folks.
UTAH 529 plan choices, individual selections This is the "build your own" list. The recent adds of the DFA funds have "high" expenses, relative to the Vanguard choices.
'Course the bugger with any of the choices are the restrictions on changing the investment choices; which, until 2015 was limited to 1 switch per calendar year and is now 2 allocation changes each year. This is now sufficient, IMHO.
Anyhoo..........Utah's plan was more appealing to us a number of years ago, and still is; and we find no need to transfer from this into Michigan's current offering. Don't know that I implied a negative towards TIAA, just not the best choice at the time and wouldn't likely be the choice today.
K...........back to house painting here.
Regards,
Catch

Regarding bond funds - Vanguard funds will always merit consideration, because for bond funds the correlation between cost and performance is quite strong. Why another bond fund? Because one rarely gets an actively managed bond fund at this low a cost and this small a size.
What makes me queasy about the fund (at least going by the description) is that this sounds like what Vanguard did with its total bond index fund in 2002 (when it managed to underperform its benchmark by about 1%). See this old M* thread:
http://socialize.morningstar.com/NewSocialize/forums/t/69530.aspx
Regarding the equity funds - M* star ratings provide objective summaries of past (risk adjusted) past performance. 4* and 5* performances may not indicate future results, but they do say that these funds have done well relative to their peers. HRSRX (4*), MVSGX(4*), DPIEX (5*), WCMRX (5*). Likewise, these funds' returns (not risk adjusted) over 3, 5, and 10 years are all above average (4) or high (5).

Yes, if feasible do push back SS start date; indeed, any CFP or CPA or similar would almost certainly tell you to live on this $250k instead. If you can push it back to age 70, all the better. The cashflow difference is very large.
That said, I would put at least some of the nut into div-paying US LC equities, as others have promoted, the usual suspects being DVY, NOBL, OUSA, SCHD, SPHD, HYD, and there are others of course. I also like the value etn CAPE and the fund based on it, DSENX / DSEEX, which includes special bond sauce.
For diversification, add FRIFX. I see no need to look overseas.