Here it is, with a bunch of nearby ads:
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/swedroe-ignore-gundlach-forecasts-094700059.html

Reference was made the other day to Source Capital (SOR) in regards to Mr. Braham's article in Barron's about CEF's. Steve Romick and his FPA team took over the fund in Fall, 2015. They must have done some real housecleaning of the portfolio resulting in a huge distribution to shareholders. Here's a quotation from a fund document "apologizing" for how long it took for the transactions to settle:
"Los Angeles (April 22, 2016) – Source Capital, Inc. (the “Fund”) is pleased to announce that the Agent for its Dividend Reinvestment Plan (the “Plan”), American Stock Transfer & Trust Company, completed its purchases of the Fund’s common stock for shareholders participating in the Plan with respect to the distributions announced on February 8, 2016. As you may recall, on March 15, 2016, the Fund paid the $33.65 long-term capital gain distribution combined with the $0.41 regular quarterly distribution announced on February 8, 2016. Due to the large combined size of these distributions and the commensurate number of shares that were required to be purchased for Plan participants, it took the Agent several weeks to complete the share purchases. The Agent will be posting the reinvested shares to your account by Monday April 25, 2016 and statements will be mailed shortly thereafter. Thank you for your patience."
I guess this is one way to deal with the persistent discount which averaged -9.57% for the past three years. It's now -1.69%. Fund price was a bit north of $65 at the time of the distribution. Now it's about $39. I wonder if SOR is going to be a clone of FPACX, albeit on a much smaller scale.

@kevindow You might want to check this one out; MLPs are kind of Simon Lack's thing:
http://www.sl-advisors.com/wrong-mlp-fund/

For those who follow MLPs closely, one of the enduring mysteries must be the mindset of investors in the Alerian MLP ETF (AMLP). Investors who desire MLP exposure but don’t want K-1s have been attracted to AMLP and a whole host of other inefficient ETFs and mutual funds. As we’ve written before (see, for example, The Enormous Misunderstanding About MLP Funds and Taxes), funds such as these convert the K-1s they receive into the 1099s desired by their investors by paying corporate income tax on their returns. The result is that an investor in a C-corp MLP fund such as this earns substantially less than the index – somewhere close to 35% less since that’s the portion ultimately paid to the U.S. Treasury.
[...]
The Mainstay Cushing MLP Fund (CSHAX) is similarly structured and invariably underperforms its benchmark. Portfolio Manager Jerry Swank was asked by Barron’s in June 2012 why the fund had lagged its benchmark since inception in 2010 and he replied, “As a corporation, what a mutual fund gives up is a tax drag on the net asset value, as much as a 38% tax drag on NAV.” CSHAX has an expense ratio of 9.42%, of which 7.94% is taxes. The questioner should have asked, ‘Can you really claim to put investors’ interests first if you design a vehicle like this?’ Instead she moved on, but really; who seriously expects a mutual fund to pay away almost 8% of its clients’ capital in taxes?
[...]
These securities and others like them (we calculate there are around $20BN outstanding) are deeply flawed. They exploit the unfortunate proclivity of many investors towards superficial research and while their shortcomings are disclosed in documents they’re certainly not understood by their investors.

You also might find an article he wrote in January to be enlightening re. how the various tax issues for these investment vehicles came to be. It certainly cleared up some lingering confusions I had.
http://www.sl-advisors.com/2015-mlp-crash-whats-next/

FYI: Regards,
Ted
http://www.etf.com/sections/index-investor-corner/swedroe-ignore-gundlachs-forecasts?nopaging=1

Can anybody access this article?
I'm not able to

@mcmarasco
I totally agree with Ted ! Fewer funds is better, and no more than 10 positions even if you have large total assets. My minimum position is 5-7.5% and maximum is 20% for extremely high conviction funds. We currently have 7 holdings, but they are pretty rock-solid.
Among actively managed funds, there are very few excellent funds out there. And these funds must be slam-dunk excellent, and of course, they must beat their respective lower cost passive funds.
I like to use the standard risk metrics available at google finance and Morningstar: standard deviation, sharpe ratio and sortino ratio. Then I use Barchart Opinion, especially for trading positions. And of course I always follow moving averages, specifically the 20/50/100/200 EMA.
Investing is not easy, and there are too many opinions out there. My best advice is to befriend a few smart investors out there, and have private correspondence by email regarding optimization of your portfolio.
Kevin

Thanks to all for the excellent advice.
As a pure short-term trade, I bought AMLP on 2/18/16 merely because it gave me decent exposure to the MLP space and most importantly, it was very liquid.
I have purchased CEFs before, but I never was comfortable with the discount/premium issue, and felt that smarter investors would game me. And I don't have the time or expertise to carefully research individual MLPs. I really want one mutual fund/ETF/ETN to cover the MLP space.
So after reading THIS and THIS, I am leaning toward owning AMJ or EMLP in my retirement account. Between the two, I am leaning toward EMLP due to the risk metrics, although EMLP is not a pure MLP play.
Kevin

Hi Andy J, my approach is to spend 95% of my time determining which CEF manager to choose or sector?, when is the appropriate time to buy?, why am I buying?, strategy on averaging down and what increments and price?, total return potential derived from the investment?, historical valuations of that CEF comparable to my proposed purchase price(s), institutional seasonal timing etc. If I am lucky and get most of that right, the CEF will bounce higher. There are probably others on this board more qualified to provide a stop loss strategy. I set my stop loss .10c or so above my cost basis. Sorry I do not have a more scholarly answer. I just feel the stop loss strategy doesn't matter as much to me if I can get my cost basis right. If I do not get the cost basis right, then I have other problems.

Besides Lipper, what vehicle do you use to screen for your funds? Do you use a search engine?
How do you determine if a fund is "diversified income" or "between income and balanced", etcetera when searching?? In other words, what do you search on to determine those type of details/characteristics?

@mcmarasco: Good questions. Let me premise by saying that I think allocation, appropriate diversification and an ability to stick with a plan over time influence long term results more than does selecting the very best fund in every category. That may seem a bit sacrilegous, as MFO is highly successful at evaluating funds to the unteenth degree. But I haven't the time or temperament to research continuously and would probably view any performance record under 10 years as suspect anyway.
Most funds I've held 10 years or longer, and some for more than 20. ("Likeable enough" is a phrase that leaps to mind.) Some I first learned of at Fund Alarm or MFO. Some were featured in Barrons. As a long time investor with T. Rowe and Oppenheimer, I uncovered some reading their web sites. An important second step was looking up funds (after they came to my attention) at Lipper, M*, MaxFunds, FundMojo and similar sites to garner their overall impressions. Finally, I studied the Prospectus and recent fund reports to learn how the manager invests (particularily the current holdings). The Prospectus details performance records over the last 10 successive years, helpful in assessing risk.
Re: different categories (balanced, diversified income, etc.), there's a lot of discretion involved. In some cases it was a matter of plugging existing funds into the plan as it evolved. DODBX has been my balanced fund for a long time. RPSIX, a fund of funds, works well for diversified income. I'll occasionally make small tactical changes within the buy and hold area. Added a precious metals fund last September to the inflation sensitive portion but sold it a few weeks ago after it rose 40+% in 7 months (substituting PRAFX in its place). 35% of the international bond segment is now in a Local Currency/EM bond fund - but that's considered semi-speculative and will be vacated at some point.
Thanks for the chance to follow up. I've read your posts before @mcmarasco and know you not to be a novice (far from it). So I suspect there may be a degree of devil's advocacy in the question you pose. :)
Regards

There are criteria, and then there are the application of those criteria.
For example, though it's not a major factor for me, like Hank I do look at fund size. But unlike Hank, I don't have a preference for larger funds; mine is for anything not extreme (not itsy bitsy unless new, and not humongous).
In addition to criteria already mentioned, I look at manager age, experience, and track record. Keep in mind none of this may help. Bob Stansky had a great record at Fidelity Growth Company, but floundered taking over Magellan. That was especially true once the fund doubled in size from the $50B when he took it over. By the time Stansky left, it had fallen back to the $50B size it was when he took it over.
A good example of how the factors I care about interrelate is BTMIX - a fund I asked about several months ago. Baird brought over a team from BMO who had done a fine job there. So even though the fund was (and is) tiny and has no track record, it's in a good family for bonds with very low costs and a proven management team.
Part of looking at a fund family is how they handle management transitions. (IMHO T. Rowe Price is superb at this, taking months or years to do a handoff and with full transparency.) In the past, I might have looked at LSBDX, as it appeared to have a transition plan in place (Gaffney taking over for Fuss, now about 83). That's gone, or rather she's gone. Eagan and Stokes started along with Gaffney, but they hadn't been groomed as Fuss' successor. I'd like a bit more clarity about a transition plan before considering this fund again.

Hold on there Ted. Hate to be the one defending fpacx ( even though I happen to own the fund), but lets compare the 20 year returns, available at marketwatch. Fpacx: $43,123 since 1997. Vwelx: $28,589 since 1997

'cut & paste' from Vang. site compare feature. vwelx 'beats in all time frames shown, except from'inception date !!
Average annual performance—quarter end
FPA Crescent Fund Vanguard Wellington Fund Inv
YTD -0.19% 1.91% — — —
YTD as-of date 03/31/2016 03/31/2016 — — —
1-year -2.39% 1.11% — — —
3-year 5.84% 7.77% — — —
5-year 6.71% 8.51% — — —
10-year 6.55% 7.15% — — —
1-, 3-, 5-, 10-year as-of date 03/31/2016 03/31/2016 — — —
Since inception 10.26% 8.22% — — —
Inception date 06/02/1993 07/01/1929 — — —
SEC yield — 2.53% B — — —
SEC yield as-of date — 04/22/2016
so why should anyone ;hold' fpacx, especially with an ER almost 500% that of vwelx ??
comments appreciated THANKS
RALPH

Wow! You're likely to get a plethora of widely different reactions. Sorry for the redundancy that follows. (I also require 20 minutes to change a light bulb.)
Premise: First, you need some sense of your goals, investing philosophy and the degree of risk you're willing to take.
Than you need a plan.*
Than you select funds that fit the plan.
-
To the heart of the question, here's what I look for:
- Below average fees
- Reputation of the house for integrity, consistency and client service
- A fund's long term performance with a proven track record extending back well over a decade. (I tend to focus on Lipper's category ratings.)
- I like larger funds. They've grown large for a reason. There should be some economics of scale. And the detrimental effects of hot money chasing short term performance and than leaving in droves is likely to be less.
- I also favor larger longer established houses thinking they can afford deeper research staffs.
* For what interest it may hold, here's one plan that might be suitable for a moderate-risk investor 20 years into retirement (like myself).
80% Buy and Hold: (1) 22-25% diversified income, (2) 22-25% balanced, (3) 30-35% hybrids (three uniquely different funds positioned somewhere between income and balanced on the risk spectrum), (4) 7-10% international bond funds, (5) 7-10% inflation-sensitive funds (like real estate and commodities).
20% Flexible Portfolio: Nominally, 50% cash / 50% equity. Since this portion is by definition flexible, the cash could range anywhere from 0% to 100%. Currently, I'm a bit overweight equities and tilted slightly towards an energy/NR fund where I still perceive some value.
I too have trouble limiting the number of funds. Goal is 12. Currently 14. :)

A 5.5% load, 1.58% expenses, and steady underperformance versus the s&p500, definitely not the fund for me.

FYI: Its now Ivy Investments with an ugraded logo.Regards,
Regards,
Ted
http://www.mfwire.com/common/artprint2007.asp?storyID=53886&wireid=2

@Kevin - there are many different types of MLP's:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/advisor/2014/09/30/what-you-need-to-know-about-mlps-and-investing-in-energy/#65d10d5fc4ee
but I think that you will find that most of the funds/ETF's built around them tend to be heavily populated with midstream energy companies. See: GLPAX
I guess that one has to decide what it is they actually want to hold before any specific fund can be either suggested or chosen. Personally I have found them lacking - high er's, low distributions, poor construction/composition and have therefore just invested in certain individual companies.

"The nearly 19-year-old Defined Risk Strategy" - not fund, i.e. private money
Also from the article:
"The $1.5 billion Swan Defined Risk mutual fund (ticker: SDRAX), launched in 2012, hasn’t performed as well, which is largely a function of time and the market cycle. It’s up an average of 4% a year over the past three years, versus 12.9% for the S&P 500. "
Makes one wonder what is "All Seasons" about this fund.

One area I have often pondered (for those who bought those CEF near 15-20% yields) is why so many advisors recommend selling for cap gains (once rebounded) rather than simply holding for the 15-20% yields they provide as long as tolerable? Inference is they will outperform the S&P going forward. You run the risk of reinvesting the proceeds in some form of losing alternative investment.

@ Art ...Thanx for the tip. I will check SOR out. I find it interesting Romick spent considerable time in his recent commentary about junk funds which I translate to mean he considers them worthy of investment.
There have been some interesting recent articles written on CEF's performance. Some believe CEF's rebound much quicker than S&P500 during market crashes supposedly due to the yield they provide (some went to near 20% yields in 2008-2009) for a very brief moment in time at the depth of the panic selling.

Closed end funds provided a rare opportunity in Feb during the oil scare. Discounts went to almost 15% on select funds. I got them at 10.5% yield on average and they are up 10% on NAV from where I got them.

An update ... @Junkster
Through April 22 according to Morningstar Portfolio Manager my three best performing funds year-to-date are FDSAX (+8.9%) ... PGUAX (+8.9%) & PMDAX (+7.8%). My three worst performers ytd are SPECX (-3.3%) ... THOAX (-2.1%) and ANWPX (-0.4%). Overall the investment return on the portfolio as a whole is +3.5% and the ytd return factoring in cash held and profits taken computes to 3.1%. In comparison the Lipper Balanced Index is shown to have a ytd return of 2.8% according to the WSJ.
In addition, my income sleeve is shown to be up ytd @ 2.87% and the hybrid income sleeve is up 3.55% ytd. Last week they were reported at 2.75% and 3.25% respectively.
In review, while the income sleeves were up this past week other parts of the portfolio were down a little from last week reporting where my overall investment return was 4.1% (according to portfolio manager) and when factoring in cash held plus profits put me at 3.4% overall. Last week the Lipper Balanced Index had a ytd return of 3.1% according to the WSJ.