I've been very distracted dealing with a health insurer, and (after a year of errors) am now filing a complaint w/state regulators - about a dozen pages, spreadsheets, email transcripts and summaries, etc. So I'm just now getting back to other stuff.
Regarding @vkt's question - Congress does not create regulations, it creates laws. Regulatory agencies then create regulations to implement those laws. So I don't see any distinction between Congress "getting rid of regulations" and sending them back to the drawing board. So long as there's a law to be implemented, there will be regulations from the executive branch to implement it.
If Congress doesn't like a regulation, it can change a law (or create a new law) to do as little or as much as it wants. For instance, the ACA created risk corridors to stabilize rates. If an insurer had particularly healthy customers, it would make a bigger profit, and some of that would go into a pool. That pool would be used to cover some (not all) of the unexpected expenses of an insurer that had bad luck. This was also intended to help stabilize rates until insurers got more experience with ACA.
Congress was silent on whether that pool was to be self-sufficient (i.e. not needing extra cash from the government), and the regulators (HHS) did not require it so as to help ACA get launched. Congress didn't like that, and in the 2015 "Cromnibus" bill, required risk corridors to be revenue neutral. Congress did not change the risk corridor law (that it had created in the ACA) in any other way, and did not tell HHS how to write the regulations. It was up to HHS to implement this new requirement (which it did by prorating payouts).
As to Dodd Frank, @BobC has called attention to what I wrote before - that it is up to the regulatory agency to say what the law is (until Congress passes a law that says otherwise). Dodd Frank is a law, not a set of regulations. The SEC creates regulations. As an "independent" agency the SEC is both more and less political than the DOL or other cabinet agencies. It is less political in the sense that it must represent both major parties. It is more political in that this makes it more susceptible to lobbying, since it isn't as beholden to one party's vision as are cabinet agencies.
Depending on an agency's structure, it may be more or less susceptible to lobbying - which is not to say that stops anyone from trying. How much sway have the banks had on Fed rates?

Hi expatsp:
I manage, or mismanage, retirement accounts for 2 kids and their spouses. Bought FAIRX maybe 10 years ago, sold maybe 5 years ago. Why? The 'star' manager phenom. Some of those 'kids' are more attuned than others, but none of them have the level of cynicism I do. I like the team managed stuff, thinking that there might be some continuity over the coming years. I use two you mentioned: Primecap and Dodge & Cox. Tweedy Browne Global has been in their ports for years as well, although I think their ER stinks: they don't trade an awful lot and won't buy anywhere they can't drink the water - so whats the deal with 1.40 ER?
Am taking antacids over Sequoia: thought I had a good one there. We'll see if they can right the ship.
Matthews MACSX requires monitoring now - I have been neglectful of their management changes. Artisan ARTGX can stay for a while and we'll see. Bridgeway B
ridgeway is another concern of

It looks like per M* data, procrastination is hurting you. FAIRX is down about -11% for the month (FAAFX slightly worst), compared to the S&P 500 down about -5%.
In hind sight, it appears that Berkowitz does not fit the definition of a great active manager. Over the last 10 years he has under performed the S&P by almost 3% a year on average. In the last 5 years he has under performed by an astonishing 12% a year.
So, are the chances Berkowitz some how turns things around better than switching to an index or a more stable manager?

One thing that always strikes me about FAIRX is the increase in volatility between its first decade and its second. Just look at the standard and downside deviations (STDEV and DSDEV) and Ulcer Indices across the last two full cycles (denoted Cycle 4 and 5 in table above).
Certainly, part of that can be attributed to value strategies generally getting shellacked during current cycle.
More about this topic from a while back ...
Fairholme Fund – What a Difference a Decade Makes

If you were lucky enough to invest with BB since FAIRX inception, congratulations ... you've received 10.1% per year for the past 16 years! (Through December 2015 anyway.) But the past 5 years, at least, must be testing everyone's patience. FAIRX is now a Three Alarm fund (among lowest absolute return in category the past 1, 3, and 5 year periods) and a below average fund based on Martin across the most recent full cycle (beginning in November 2007). The fund seems to struggle the most during up markets. Anyway, how long do you wait for value? Is it a marathon?

Here are risk/return metrics across various time frames since the fund's inception from MFO's Risk Profile tool:


SMVLX is a dual MFO Great Owl and Honor Roll fund, at least through December 2015.
Here is link to David's Positive Profile of the fund from July 2013.

The folks at Smead were kind enough to permit posting their recent presentation on our board. The call was refreshing, as ever, but especially these days in the face of ubiquitous skepticism about the future of US Equities.
Subtitle of presentation is: 2016 The Year of The Foolish Critic with BRKB Rundown
Smead Value 4Q15 Presentation

Here is the outline for the 61 chart presentation:

Enjoy.

Another bearish article saying the whole world is going to cash :>)
Could be signalling a bottom.
businessinsider.com/bank-of-america-flow-show-going-to-cash-2016-1

"BAML said investors are effectively selling inflation and buying deflation, or the continued decline in the value of asset prices."
That is the key phrase, BUT, I do not think stocks tank as in the immediate past. It could be a long grind down.

If I think the world is going full NIRP (which it would not surprise me if it did, despite the fact that that will likely end very, very badly) then I do not want to be in cash, I want to be in assets. Hence, unsurprising futures ramp.
If we go back to ZIRP (or better yet, NIRP), watch REITs and other productive assets that yield.
Honestly, if we are eventually heading in the NIRP direction in this country, lets just do it now and get the spectacular failure out of the way rather than dragging this out. After what NIRP will cause if we go that route, perhaps we can start anew and try to, I don't know, try to figure out how to rebuild a sustainable economy based around producing things (aside from Facebook posts, although apparently that economy is doing exceedingly well) and not based around financial engineering.
Also, would not surprise me if countries start to move towards electronic transactions and doing away with physical cash.
Some discussion:
http://www.businessinsider.com/how-negative-interest-rates-would-work-japan-switzerland-2015-11

I agree.
Workers will be taking the brunt of the hurt in that situation. Stagnating wages while their basics go up - health care, food and maybe energy.

Pretty much.
"But the punchline is the actual message, in which Janet Yellen tells those mired in debt to build more assets.
In other words, the Fed Chairman has some words of encouragement for the tens of millions of Americans who live at or below the poverty level, including that threatened with extinction class, affectionately known as "the middle."
Her message? It is important to build assets, or said otherwise... get rich." (http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-09-16/janet-yellen-trolls-americas-poor-tells-them-it-important-get-rich)
Should tell one much of what they need to know in terms of what the Fed's priority is. It should be no surprise that the wealth disparity in this country has increased massively and will only continue to.
"In 2015, 62 billionaires had more wealth than half the world’s population – compared to 388 in 2010."
I mean hey, that's the world we live in. Invest accordingly.
As for Japan, "They have an aging population"
Adult diapers outsell baby diapers in Japan. I'm sure that their elderly population is going to be just thrilled going down a NIRP path that Japan will probably never voluntarily get off of.

I invest mostly in actively managed funds, but iShares Core S&P Mid-Cap (IJH), an ETF, seems to do OK, with a low tax cost ratio.
I use a similar, lower cost (.05% ER) institutional version of BlackRock Midcap Index Fund (BRMIX) in my limited choice but decent 401(k) account.

If I think the world is going full NIRP (which it would not surprise me if it did, despite the fact that that will likely end very, very badly) then I do not want to be in cash, I want to be in assets. Hence, unsurprising futures ramp.
If we go back to ZIRP (or better yet, NIRP), watch REITs and other productive assets that yield.
Honestly, if we are eventually heading in the NIRP direction in this country, lets just do it now and get the spectacular failure out of the way rather than dragging this out. After what NIRP will cause if we go that route, perhaps we can start anew and try to, I don't know, try to figure out how to rebuild a sustainable economy based around producing things (aside from Facebook posts, although apparently that economy is doing exceedingly well) and not based around financial engineering.
Also, would not surprise me if countries start to move towards electronic transactions and doing away with physical cash.
Some discussion:
http://www.businessinsider.com/how-negative-interest-rates-would-work-japan-switzerland-2015-11

I agree.
Workers will be taking the brunt of the hurt in that situation. Stagnating wages while their basics go up - health care, food and maybe energy.

FYI:
Regards,
Ted
http://video.cnbc.com/gallery/?video=3000490087&play=1

Art Cashin talking about how this ends on CNBC: "At some point, somebody will push too hard and the currency/ies will start to go." (just on CNBC, and I couldn't agree more.)

Hi Scott - Longer term I don't trust any currency. They're all subject to political manipulation or central bank miscalculation or ineptness. I think that's why we invest. To try to protect against currency devaluation. Think back to what a buck bought you in 1950 or 60 or 70.
Of course longer term is a very long time and hard to relate to while watching Bloomberg's daily stocks, metals, currency or bond tickers. Makes all of us a bit near sighted I'm afraid.
Enough said.

I googled several different combinations to try to find any word at all on the topic, and found nothing.
However, I did run across one interesting site, called glassdoor, where employees post reviews of corporations they work for. AQR has 43 reviews, and they're pretty interesting.

@davfor: The early bird gets the worm. However, the article was worth relinking. Have a nice day !
Regards,
Ted
http://www.mutualfundobserver.com/discuss/discussion/25640/should-you-cash-out-of-mutual-funds-in-a-bad-stock-market#latest

Yup...........some hints here within the article (bottom link) from a few days ago, IMO.
Will take another look at DXJ and DXJH in particular and looking now. The $/Yen.....
Also related, the ongoing purchase program of Japanese etf's by the BOJ.
https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=boj+ownership+of+etfs
http://www.mutualfundobserver.com/discuss/discussion/25662/japan-s-abenomics-minister-amari-to-resign-over-graft-scandal

Given how the Asian markets are rallying and the futures shot up here, at least some people with money seem to think the sky isn't falling.

Is that the smart money or the dumb money?
Or is it the pump and dump?

If I think the world is going full NIRP (which it would not surprise me if it did, despite the fact that that will likely end very, very badly) then I do not want to be in cash, I want to be in assets. Hence, unsurprising futures ramp.
If we go back to ZIRP (or better yet, NIRP), watch REITs and other productive assets that yield.
Honestly, if we are eventually heading in the NIRP direction in this country, lets just do it now and get the spectacular failure out of the way rather than dragging this out. After what NIRP will cause if we go that route, perhaps we can start anew and try to, I don't know, try to figure out how to rebuild a sustainable economy based around producing things (aside from Facebook posts, although apparently that economy is doing exceedingly well) and not based around financial engineering.
Also, would not surprise me if countries start to move towards electronic transactions and doing away with physical cash.
Some discussion:
http://www.businessinsider.com/how-negative-interest-rates-would-work-japan-switzerland-2015-11

meaning you could probably beat a hedge fund with an actively managed no-load mutual fund with an ER of 1% or less and no 12(b)-1 fees.

These funds did just that:

Thanks for your reply gentlemen!
Ted, I do see that US News has two of them them ranked, but they don't give you much analysis. I do like that they are ranked fairly high. Do you have any thoughts about them?
davidrmoran, FLPSX did come up in my search but it is more like a world stock fund (35+% non US), so I eliminated it. I have to look at NICSX and see why it did not make the cut; thank you for the suggestion!
Matt

Some of the criticism is unnecessary. Folks should read what M* is saying before coming to the conclusions. They have already explained why Global funds are categorized under International. I will attach the explanation later when I have time, but they said that they have to add Global funds to one of the existing category as they don't want to create yet another award category. What is best category to include Global than International, as most Global funds hold foreign stocks anywhere from 50 to 70%.
I saw lot of criticism for not giving the award to PRWCX in allocation fund category. They gave the award to that fund mgr just 3 years ago, They can't start giving the award to the same manager again and again, esp. in such short intervals.
As far as why AQR funds not in Alternative category, M* does not look just one year performance while giving this award, though last year is utmost important. They also look at consistent long term performance of the fund and its manager(s). AQR funds/shop is relatively new and that could be reason why they were not considered.