I respectfully disagree. While much of the content superficially resembles motherhood, the column is supported by references and encapsulation that is seen too infrequently.
Mr. Zweig reports on the acceptance status of a professional code of conduct. Did you know that most firms won't sign on? Were you even aware of this code? I wasn't.
If investment firms are already as ethical as you feel, why do they fight so hard against putting that in writing? Whether that is being held to a fiduciary standard, or to the loyalty standard in this code: to "place client interests before their own".
Asset managers competing on costs or dying? Too many high cost families thriving to support that. Which gets us back to ethics - these high cost funds exist in part because advisers sell them as "suitable", they're just not the best for their clients.
I do find that Mr. Zweig may be pining a bit too much for the "good old days". Around 1960, it is true that the vast majority of equity funds charged 0.50%. But rather than representing competition, this uniformity was viewed by an SEC study as evidence of lack of competition.
That study (The Wharton Report) also noted that many funds were actually owned by brokerages (e.g. the Dreyfus Fund). My suspicion, though I'm still wading through all of this, is that brokerage commissions (which were much higher in 1960) is where a good chunk of the profits came from. Total fund expenses (including trading commissions) were possibly as high as today.
Asset management companies have always gotten their fees. They've just moved them around from one form to another as the industry has changed. Schwab gets rid of load funds but continues to increase the fees it collects on NTF funds. Advisers charge wrap fees instead of collecting loads. Different structure, similar cost.

It's not looking so good for farmland; some similarities to the picture of the mid-1980s, when a lot of family farms got overextended and were crushed and lost everything. But not that dire (yet), so I don't anticipate that much calamity. It's just gonna take some time for the fundamentals to improve.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-05-14/american-farmer-its-death-1000-knives”-us-farmland-values-plunge-most-30-years
https://www.chicagofed.org/~/media/publications/agletter/2015-2019/may-2016-pdf.pdf?la=en
Nonetheless, many of the TBTF banksters went into farmland in a big way in the mid-00s and bought up what they could (and, of course, "financialized/securitized" it), so I'd hesitate investing in anything publicly-traded because I'd be concerned I'd be encouraging the corporate farming trend and hastening the demise of a way of life I think is very important to preserve (not to mention the loss of local control and good environmental stewardship).
On the other hand, there are a number of farmers in the Midwest who are continuing to pool their needs into some rather substantial cooperative businesses, and I've seen several interesting preferred stock offerings, with good yields and very ample dvd coverage, if you wanted to invest for income with a margin of safety. However, I haven't pulled that string because it was my impression, the deeper I went in researching them, that they are very tightly-held, and one would have to put in many buy orders, over time, to ever get lucky and have one filled. Not my territory.... could be dead wrong about it. Anyone who knows something about how to buy stuff so off the beaten path, please take me to school!

Hi Guys,
I like Jason Zweig. He is at or near the top of my ranking of all financial writers. Indeed, I like Jason Zweig a lot.
Although I’ve never kept score, I probably agree with 95% of his writings without reservation. But I do take exception to his current WSJ article. I believe that it is far off target.
Sure, asking financial advisors and analysts to be “prudent, honest, and ethical” is equivalent to motherhood, but I believe many more are so inclined than are commonly credited. Those who are not so dedicated are eventually discovered and they disappear from the landscape. Should standards be higher? Of course they should, but that too is pure motherhood.
Just a little due diligence allows us to choose those who satisfy our needs and to discard those who are suspiciously self-promoters. I’m not alarmed that only about half of those asked risk recommending anyone as a financial guru. What satisfies me will likely not satisfy someone else, given our disparate timescales, investment styles, education, and investment goals. Why run that risk?
All of Zweig’s 4 main points in his article are weak arguments and fail to make his case.
Costs always matter, and every investor is fully aware of that crippling handicap. If asset managers overcharge for their services, they will simply not survive the fierce competition.
Many fund managers fully recognize market size constraints and adopt appropriate strategies to navigate these limitations. Again, if they fail to do so, their returns suffer and they ultimately fail. The marketplace is a cruel disciplinarian.
I don’t believe financial firms try an endless array of investment strategies to select one that statistically worked in the past. That approach is putting the cart before the horse. It’s recognized as a losing method. I believe these firms formulate an investing idea, a concept, a candidate strategy first, and next they challenge its worthiness using backtesting approaches for verification and selling purposes.
A firm is not long for this world if it does not invest in its own product. Savvy investors always check that item early in their down-selection process.
I would have closed the article with yet another “ethical acronym”. Permit me to add WWWB to the article’s short list. In this instance I mean What Would Warren Buy? I trust his wisdom more than my Mom only when investing is the issue.
This is just one man’s opinion. Zweig must have been hard pressed to complete this column facing an eminent publishing deadline. What is your assessment?
Best Regards.

Seems every year or two a thread along this line comes up, discussing how much funds pay the supermarkets to participate either NTF or TF. I ran across a sizeable M* column from two years ago that goes into detail.
Morningstar, NTF Platforms Can Mean Higher Costs (November 6, 2014)
Highlighting a bit of the column: "Oddly, those fees have gone up since the 1990s ... despite the fact that technology has made servicing fund accounts much cheaper. ... Indeed, NTF fees may have risen to compensate for declining trading revenues".
Let me quantify that a bit. Schwab OneSource (NTF) started in 1992. At the time, Schwab charged 0.25% (sometimes as much as 0.35%) That actually made economic sense for boutiques that couldn't service directly sold accounts for less. Not for Vanguard of course, but for many smaller funds.
Over time, the rates rose. According to the WSJ, in 2003 Schwab's typical fee, which had already risen to 0.35% was raised to 0.40%. In addition, Schwab started charging TF funds for the first time. The original fee was $20/account/year. The article goes on to note that families like Longleaf and Yacktman balked (so they were closed to new investments). But Schwab didn't impose the fee on Fidelity or Vanguard.
WSJ, Schwab Fees Steer Some Funds to the Exits, Others Get a Pass (May 5, 2003) - link is google search, pick first result.
Today, the fees are even higher. NTF fees are typically 0.40%, but can go as high as 0.45%. TF funds now typically pay 0.10% (but as high as 0.25%) per year in addition to the aforementioned $20/account/year (which can go as high as $30).
Schwab Compensation Disclosure
IMHO this is a lot to pay for convenience. These days, I'll buy what's cheapest, with convenience being secondary. How hard is it to purchase/sell via ACH? So that might mean buying directly from the fund or paying a TF to come out cheaper in the long run. The only time I buy NTF funds is when I like the fund and can live with the ER (and the fund can't be purchased more cheaply by buying direct).
Older thread on same topic:
http://mutualfundobserver.com/discuss/discussion/15542/how-much-do-fund-companies-pay-to-be-on-fund-supermarket-platforms

FYI: It’s high time that individual investors had their own equivalent of a Bill of Rights.
Regards,
Ted
http://blogs.wsj.com/moneybeat/2016/05/13/an-investors-credo-to-live-by-what-would-mom-buy/

FYI: (This is a follow-up article)
The roller coast ride continues for investors in commodity-focused funds, as witnessed Wednesday with the announced liquidation of the 19-year-old Oppenheimer Commodity Strategy Total Return Fund (QRAAX).
Regards,
Ted
http://www.investmentnews.com/article/20160513/FREE/160519957?template=printart

@DanHardy: Sorry Dan, but the Linkster already touched this base.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.mutualfundobserver.com/discuss/discussion/27546/baml-investors-dump-stocks-at-fastest-rate-since-aug-2011#latest

Dig a bit deeper on Royce -- look at how many of their funds have significant stakes in international stocks (say, above 5-7% or so). Some have topped 25% or more. Look at how many of them regularly hold mid-caps (hence the reason Royce refers to themselves "small-er cap" specialists).
Yet their benchmark is always one of the US small cap index. That is, when they list a benchmark. You see, in Royce's annual and semi-annual reports for funds that are having a bad stretch, they suppress some rolling intervals, as well as the benchmark returns and other performance metrics. And, no, its not just for the newer funds which don't have a sufficient track record. Nearly every single report for the past several years has done this -- and they're not consistent in which funds' data they suppress.
Don't let the bow tie fool you. Royce only wants your money. And if they don't have a fund that suits you, they'll re-name or create a parallel copy-cat fund to suit.

Thanks David. What's so interesting is that it seems the fund has been given the OK as of May 3rd.
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/915802/000139834416012748/fp0019074_485bpos-xbrl.htm
There was a previous prospectus approved by the SEC on April 15th.
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/915802/000139834416011997/fp0019019_485bpos.htm
Strange. Thanks for checking into it. We'll just have to wait until it launches.

FYI:
Regards,
Ted
May 13, 2016
Dear WEALTHTRACK Subscriber,
Bankers, financiers or money lenders, as they have been called derisively at various points in history are currently at one of their reputational low points. Presidential candidates from Bernie Sanders to Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump have all taken their shots. Sanders has introduced the “Too Big to Fail, Too Big to Exist Act” which would break up the big banks.
Dislike of banks and bankers is not a modern phenomenon.
Thomas Jefferson once stated: “I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies.” You can see why he and Alexander Hamilton, who created the first national bank and was the first Treasury Secretary, had their disagreements!
Even some titans of industry have been critics. Henry Ford, the Founder of the Ford Motor Company was one of them, stating: “It is well enough that people of the nation do not understand our banking and money system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning.”
Luckily, that revolution never came. For the record, banking and Wall Street provide the essential fuel for economic growth, mainly money and credit. They enable individuals, companies and governments to raise capital, buy goods and services, build, expand and invest. As this week’s guest points out, the vast majority of us are bank customers!
Investing in financial stocks in recent years has been challenging. Over the last decade the S&P 500 Financials Index has delivered negative annualized returns whereas the S&P 500 has not. And although their annualized performance over the last five and three year periods has been close to 10%, the group has continued to underperform the market.
This week’s guest is Christopher Davis, a third generation value investor whose family has a long history of investing in financial stocks and continues to do so today. Davis is Chairman of Davis Advisors, Portfolio Manager of the Davis large cap portfolios, and Co-Portfolio manager since 1995 of the firm’s flagship Davis New York Venture Fund, which was founded by his Dad in 1969. Chris has also been the Portfolio Manager of the fund’s no-load equivalent, Selected American Shares since its launch in 2004. In 1991 he created the Davis Financial Fund, now celebrating its 25th anniversary.
Rated 4-stars by Morningstar, the fund has far outperformed its benchmark and the market since inception with better than 11% annualized returns. I began the interview by asking Chris why he created a fund focused on financial stocks in the first place.
If you’d like to see the show before it airs, it is available to our PREMIUM subscribers right now. We also have an EXTRA interview with Davis about how his approach differs from his grandfather’s and father’s. It is available exclusively on our website.
WEALTHTRACK is also available on a YouTube Channel. So if you are unable to join us for the show on television, you can watch it on our website, WealthTrack.com, or by subscribing to our YouTube Channel.
Thanks for watching. Have a great weekend and make the week ahead a profitable and a productive one.
Best Regards,
Consuelo
M*: Davis Family Of Funds:
http://quicktake.morningstar.com/fundfamily/davis-funds/0C00001YWZ/fund-list.aspx
Selected Funds Website:
http://selectedfunds.com/funds/

The "best" fund in any category can be a moving target, but especially so with actively-managed EM funds. YTD vs. 3 Yrs? Does 10 years even matter? Some say yes, some say no. Because EM stocks carry higher volatility than developed international stocks (for the most part), there may be a reason to make relatively low volatility a key screen. If that is the case, Seafarer SFGIX is worth a look, even though it only has a 4 year record. Its 3-yr Sharpe ratio is ahead of the other EM funds we track. If you value management that separates itself from the index, Driehaus DREGX and Wasatch WAEMX might fit the bill, since they are small-cap focused. If high Sortino ratio (performance compared to downside risk) is important, SFGIX once again comes through. Just because an entire asset class tends to have high volatility does not mean you have to accept that in the funds you select. ODYMX has the best 10-year record (Leverenz having run the fund for 9 of the 10 years). American New World NWFFX has a darned good record, too. But understand it only has about 35% in EM stocks. And Seafarer is only 57% EM stocks, both of which explain the lower volatility. So there you go.

@MFO Members:
Rank in Category: Government Securities Portfolio (STGSX)
89 84 99 99 98 94 98 99 92 97
1Day, 1-Wk, 1Mo, 3Mo, YTD, 1, 3, 5, 10, 15 Yrs.
Rank In Category: Growth Portfolio: (STWAX)
81 23 74 66 13 49 60 77 89 76
Regards,
Ted

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/870156/000087015616000085/s497.htm
497 1 s497.htm
STRATUS FUND, INC.
Supplement dated May 11, 2016 to the Prospectuses, dated October 31, 2015,regarding the Retail Class A Shares and the Institutional Class Shares, respectively, of the Government Securities Portfolio and Growth Portfolio (the “Portfolios”) of Stratus Fund, Inc.
The Board of Directors (the “Board”) of Stratus Fund, Inc. (the “Fund”) has determined that it is in the best interests of the shareholders of the Fund to liquidate and terminate the Fund. The laws of the Fund’s state of incorporation require the approval of a majority of the shareholders of each Portfolio to effect such a liquidation and termination. As such, the Board intends to call for a Special Meeting of Shareholders to be held on or about June 7, 2016.
If the liquidation of the Fund is approved by a majority of the shareholders of each Portfolio, the Fund will cease accepting purchase orders from new or existing investors, except for the reinvestment of dividends, effective as of the close of the New York Stock Exchange on that date. The liquidation is expected to be effective on or about June 10, 2016, or at such other time as may be authorized by the Board (the “Liquidation Date”). Termination of the Funds is expected to occur as soon as practicable following liquidation.
The Fund anticipates making a distribution of any income and/or capital gains of the Portfolios in connection with its liquidation. The liquidation distribution may be taxable. The tax year for the Fund will end on the Liquidation Date.
Purchasers of Fund shares who purchase from the date of this notice and before the liquidation date may be subject to liquidation expenses that they would otherwise not bear, and also may incur short-term capital gains on losses on those shares upon liquidation.
Shareholders of the Fund may redeem their shares at any time prior to the Liquidation Date.
If a shareholder has not redeemed his or her shares as of the Liquidation Date, the shareholder’s account will be automatically redeemed and proceeds will be sent to the shareholder at his or her address of record. Liquidation proceeds will be paid in cash for the redeemed shares at their net asset value.
If a you are a retirement plan investor, you should consult your tax advisor regarding the consequences of a redemption of Fund shares, or the receipt of a liquidating distribution. If you receive a distribution from an Individual Retirement Account or a Simplified Employee Pension (SEP) IRA, you must roll the proceeds into another Individual Retirement Account within sixty (60) days of the date of the distribution in order to avoid having to include the distribution in your taxable income for the year. If you receive a distribution from a 403(b)(7) Custodian Account (Tax-Sheltered account) or a Keogh Account, you must roll the distribution into a similar type of retirement plan within sixty (60) days in order to avoid disqualification of your plan and the severe tax consequences that it can bring. If you are the trustee of a Qualified Retirement Plan, you may reinvest the money in any way permitted by the plan and trust agreement. If you have questions or need assistance, please contact your financial advisor.
If the liquidation is approved by shareholders, the Fund’s portfolio managers will likely increase the Fund’s assets held in cash and similar instruments in order to pay for Fund expenses and meet redemption requests. As a result, as of the date of shareholder approval of the liquidation, the Portfolios...
(more information on the link)

Awesome ! They'll probably list him as lead or co-manager on 5 new funds. Now, when I say "5 new funds", do I mean 5 brand-new copy-cat funds Royce will roll out this summer, or do I mean 5 funds for which Chuck wasn't previously listed as a portfolio manager?
No matter, the street, and the small(er) cap universe can't get enough of Chuck ! The bow-tie, cashmere sweater crowd is going nuts !!! A return of the true fiduciary (...um, kind of, but not really...).

FYI: Small-company stockpicking legend Charles “Chuck” Royce announced Thursday morning that he is stepping down as CEO of the eponymous asset management firm he founded in 1972. Co-chief investment officer Chris Clark will succeed him in July.
Regards,
Ted
http://blogs.barrons.com/focusonfunds/2016/05/12/charles-royce-passes-ceo-baton-to-clark-will-continue-stockpicking/tab/print/
M* Royce Fund Family:
http://quicktake.morningstar.com/fundfamily/royce/0C00001YTG/fund-list.aspx

@MFO Members: For your information.
Regards,
Ted
FYI: (Click On Article Title At Top Of Google Search)
Money management firm OppenheimerFunds Inc. is shutting down its nearly two-decade-old commodities fund, the firm said, following years of losses and underperformance.
Oppenheimer plans to liquidate the Commodity Strategy Total Return Fund “on or around” July 15, the firm said last week in a supplement to the fund’s prospectus.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.google.com/#q=OppenheimerFunds+to+Shut+Down+Nearly+Two-Decade-Old+Commodities+Fund+
M* Snapshot QRAAX:
http://www.morningstar.com/funds/XNAS/QRAAX/quote.html

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1018862/000072888916002536/commoditystrategysticker.htm
497 1 commoditystrategysticker.htm
Oppenheimer Commodity Strategy Total Return Fund
Supplement dated May 2, 2016 to the Supplements dated April 29, 2016 to the
Summary Prospectus, Prospectus and Statement of Additional Information
This supplement amends the supplements dated April 29, 2016 to the Summary Prospectus, Prospectus and Statement of Additional Information (the “April Supplements”) of the above referenced fund (the “Fund”), and is in addition to any other supplement(s).
1. The Liquidation Date, as defined in the April Supplements, is changed from on or about June 29, 2016 to on or about July 15, 2016.
2. The third sentence of the second paragraph of the April Supplements, regarding the date the Fund will no longer accept new investments, is deleted entirely and replaced with:
Effective as of the close of the New York Stock Exchange on April 29, 2016, the Fund no longer accepts new purchases, except that existing shareholders can continue to purchase in the following types of retirement plans: defined contribution plans including 401(k) (including “Single K”), 403(b) custodial plans, pension and profit sharing plans, defined benefit plans (including “Single DB Plus”), SIMPLE IRAs and SEP IRAs. The Fund reserves the right, in its discretion, to modify the extent to which sales of shares are limited prior to the Liquidation Date.
May 2, 2016 PS0735.047

FYI: If you manage fixed income investments or have them as part of your portfolio as most investors do, you may have a hard time keeping track of what’s going on across the extremely large and diverse universe of fixed income products. To help, we publish our Fixed Income Weekly on Wednesdays to Bespoke Institutional subscribers. The 6-page report features a page of ad hoc commentary on topics related to fixed income, charts of major fixed income returns, yields, prices, and spreads, and a weekly update on a variety of yield curves including the Bespoke Global Yield Curve, our PPP-GDP weighted benchmark for the 15 largest local currency bond markets. We also summarize fixed income trends via ETF performance. This week’s ETF grid is presented below. Recent performance has been driven by duration, with long-term corporates and Treasuries outperforming. Since bottoming in February high yield bonds and bank loans have also done well on a total return basis. The only way to lose so far in 2016? Being short. Inverse ETFs that short Treasuries are deep in the red
Regards,
Ted
https://www.bespokepremium.com/think-big-blog/keeping-track-of-fixed-income/

FYI: There’a an ominous looking chart going around the internet that shows a stock market on the verge of collapse. As with many scary market charts, what you choose to show–or leave out–can change the picture immensely.
Regards,
Ted
http://blogs.wsj.com/moneybeat/2016/05/10/sometimes-moving-averages-are-just-lines-on-a-chart/

Thanks Ted,
Here's another 1 year chart that is a little more global:

reference:
sps-seasonal-change-value-china-vietnam/