Hi Josh!
Good to see you posting. Just my 2c or your port in the tax sheltered account. Use the S&P 500. You're young.....use that to your advantage. In the taxable area, it gets tougher. You need to put a percentage in and divulge how long you have had your holdings. It's a tax thing....
You say you will buy a house in a few years. Are you sure? FPACX I would cut; MANKX also. You want to make money, they don't. They're for when you're old. If you look at the port, POGRX and OAKIX is where I would put money for the future. As far as small and mid caps, I think this way trouble is coming. But long term looks good. I would say indexes, but with taxes and house coming soon, stay the course. As far as bonds, you're too young. Just my 2c.......
God bless
the Pudd

Interesting idea, albeit with a biased presentation.
The article says "Sure, a couple of funds will ...rise above the benchmark, but for most the result will be far less than the average. "
The average of the losers will be less than market performance (by definition of "loser"), but not that far less. That's because there are more of them than there are winners.
Think about dividing funds into outperforming and underperforming buckets. Assuming the funds are of equal dollar size, the larger bucket's average must be closer to market performance than the small bucket's. That's just simple arithmetic.
For example, suppose there are twelve funds covering the market. Suppose two outperform by $5 (total excess return of $10). Then the other ten funds will underperform (on average) by just $1.
We can invert the 5 poker chip example in the article. Instead of having funds pick two chips out of a market of five, as the example in the article does, suppose all funds pick two stocks to exclude. Just as 6 out of 10 funds miss the big winner if they pick only two chips, 6 out of 10 funds will miss excluding the big winner if they exclude two chips. So 6 out of 10 funds will be winners (but not big winners).
All just a little fun with numbers. It gets back to Sharpe's observation that the average dollar must get the average return before subtracting fees.

FYI: Putnam Investments plans to introduce three new alternative types of mutual funds that will be managed by PanAgora Asset Management, a Boston firm that typically manages money for institutions and is majority-owned by Putnam.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.bostonglobe.com/business/2017/05/24/putnam-unveils-three-new-alternative-mutual-funds/LiuZDWWbKt9bF9HCfWk54L/story.html

FWIW, the number three holding according to Bloomberg is Sberbank.
The fund began just three years ago, Jan 1, 2014. The inception date reported by Bloomberg appears to be the "strategy" inception date of Jan 1, 1990 (also reported on the fact sheets).
https://www.orbisaccess.co.uk/our-funds/global-equity-fund/
I've been reading through the prospectus, and while the 50,000 foot level description by Bloomberg is okay, the details seem significantly different from what's in the article. For example, the performance fee (or refund) is assessed daily, not semimonthly as Bloomberg writes. The amount is 50% of the excess (shortfall), not 33%. And so on.
I suspect that the fund would have problems registering in the US because the performance fee structure is not perfectly symmetric. Given that the fund's base fee is zero, I think it would be required to return fees in case of underperformance. The fund does not return performance fees if the reserve set aside is depleted, i.e. the management company does not make up this shortfall. Unlike Bridgeway, which actually paid into one of its funds for underpeformance at one point.

For disclosure purposes... I do own OAKIX, WAIGX and TAREX. Some of my domestic equity mf's have anywhere from 0-20% international exposure. My portfolio currently sits @20% international equity... enough??? Do I need 8-10 mf's dedicated to international/Asia??? Just saying...

I will let someone else attempt to give you a definite answer. I will give you mine.
IMHO, you have demonstrated you have a sound head already. You have already concluded you do not, or you wouldn't have asked the question. Because it is quite clear it does not make sense to you. Or sense FOR you. Don't let anyone convince you otherwise. If it indeed has to be so then YOU in time will figure it out, and that is good enough. I have learnt from my mistakes. I never learnt from OTHER people's mistakes.
If you listen to "expert" telling you US is dead, International reigns supreme, you could go 100% international. Whatever you decide one thing to remember is that you don't make a living the same way as this "expert" does. HE (and I don't say SHE because we know gender diversity does not exist in the field of "expertise" we are talking about) has already made his money shoving his "expertise" down your throat. Those are HIS earnings. What you do makes no difference to HIM. It will make a difference to YOU.
YOU decide. And once again, when I say "expert" I meant the financial pron stars. MFO "experts" are not experts, they are your well wishers and your "teachers". That's how I see it.
Happy Anniversary to ME. No, REALLY. Now let me sell some of my international holdings and show my wife a good time.

FYI: The New York Yankees. The New England Patriots. The UCLA Bruins. The Vanguard Group?
Regards,
Ted
https://www.bloomberg.com/gadfly/articles/2017-05-26/vanguard-is-king-because-mutual-funds-aren-t-jeans

See
http://portfolios.morningstar.com/fund/summary?t=DSENX&region=usa&culture=en-US
Last year style was deemed LC b/w G and V, and this year MCV, deep value actually.
Is that because the lower SP500 holdings are typically 'smaller' companies?
M* category remains LV. Benchmark = Russell 1k Value.
fwiw, M* CAPE entry has almost no data. LV is category.

I caught just the last couple of minutes of the interview portion when flipping channels. One of them was saying that you should invest in active bond management because you can't buy a bond index - too many securities for full replication as with the S&P 500.
I guess they've never read the disclaimer: you cannot invest directly in an index, period. Nor do they understand that sampling works just fine for funds like FSTVX, or many other total stock market index funds.
There are lots of reasons one can give for choosing active bond management. But saying that there's no such thing as a real bond index fund because they all sample is pure sales talk.

@MCPO. God incarnate John Bogle has often proclaimed most investors do not need any international exposure. The logic is you are "exposed" to international economy because stocks in the S&P 500 index derive a large portion of their revenues/profits through overseas sales and operations.
First and foremost, stop overthinking. Don't Analyse, but ANALyse. Who cares what anyone else is writing. You do what you think is right. I may be wrong about my thoughts on Education being overrated, but Investment Expertise is most certainly overrated. Remember, that over the "long term", which starts and ends based on when one wants to write an article you will find whether you invest internationally or domestically, you will get your number between 8% or 15% to proclaim victory over the other.
I'm not making living writing anything, but here and now I can offer you advice. You should only invest in internet stocks. Below is the proof. Now pay me.

fb upload image

FYI: The advantage of active management in bond investing with two top performing mutual fund managers from Thornburg Investment Management.
Regards,
Ted
http://wealthtrack.com/high-risk-bond-markets-give-active-management-the-edge/
M* Snapshot THFIX:
http://www.morningstar.com/funds/xnas/thifx/quote.html
Lipper Snapshot THFIX:
http://www.marketwatch.com/investing/fund/thifx
THIFX Is Ranked #17 In The (S-T B) Fund Category By U.S. News & World Report:
http://money.usnews.com/funds/mutual-funds/short-term-bond/thornburg-limited-term-income-fund/thifx
M* Snapshot TSSAX:
http://www.morningstar.com/funds/XNAS/TSSAX/quote.html
Lipper Snapshot TSSAX:
http://www.marketwatch.com/investing/fund/tssax
TSSAX Is Ranked #57 In THe (MNI) fund Category By U.S. News & World Report:
http://money.usnews.com/funds/mutual-funds/muni-national-interm/thornburg-strategic-municipal-income-fd/tssax

75, it says
I made quite a lot with him and feel extremely lucky to have gotten out when I did

@VinetageFreak,

Supply and demand should work for bonds just like it is for stocks. So simply saying the inverse relationship exists is IMO not good enough. There needs to be substantial availability of higher yielding bonds of same maturity out there to meaningfully depress the prices of the lower yielding bonds.

Great point!
Some additional 'gurgitation.
An Individual 30-yr bonds doesn't act any differently in year 29 than they did in year 1. You still get your coupon...and, you eventually get your principal back (in year 30). A bond fund is a mix of 30-yr bonds which were bought at different times with a variety of yields and are blended together to provide a coupon at a relative share price. Its the movement of this bond fund share price comparison that is made with other blended bond fund that has some concerned. If rates drop, yesterdays 30-yr bond fund is more valuable in price (if you were to sell). If rates rise, yesterdays 30-yr bond fund is less valuable (again, if you sell).
If you don't sell and just live off the dividends (yesterday it was 4%...tomorrow it may move to 5%), irregardless to the bond fund's share price you have less concern about the direction of interest rates. I believe the typical fix income investor is spending down shares of their bond fund as well as spending the coupon. This may be what AJC is concerned about. If you never sell your bond shares the individual securities will eventually mature out of the 4% yields and it will be replaced with new, potentially higher yielding contracts. Selling shares is what 'fixes the price" and obviously you don't have control over other investor's selling. This could be at a loss compared to what the shares were first bought at.
This is the price of admission to get at the bond coupon in a bond fund. Price appreciation and coupon yield are what we have enjoyed for the last thirty years with bond funds. A Bond fund share price can rise and fall significantly even when interest rate move just a small amount.
I wonder if it might be easier to think of a bond fund like an annuity. If you invest in an immediate annuity you give up principal for a stream of income. Think of a 30 year bond fund or any other bond fund the same way. If you discipline yourself to only collect the coupon from the bond fund you have "an annuity" that will always have a cash value. The 'cash value" (share price) changes as a result of its comparative value to other bond funds (and their underlying coupon).
Also, if you reinvest your dividends you are nudging your cost basis lower (buying additional shares at lower share price) if that share price did indeed dropped.

I have almost 25% of my portfolio and two-thirds of my international exposure in Asia while I'm underweight Japan and the other developed markets, so I completely agree with Matthews on this one. I own the usual suspects as others have mentioned- GPIOX, GPEOX, GPMCX, MEASX, MAPIX and SFGIX all have big if not total allocations to Asia, but I also own KGGAX, OBIOX, QUSOX, EWX, TVRVX and WAFMX which each have 30% or more in Asia. That might be too many funds but I'm not uncomfortable at all with the large allocation because the stats on all these funds in terms of P/E, P/B, ROA, ROE and expected EPS growth seem very good pretty much across the board. Since I've built several of these positions over the last couple of years as emerging markets have suffered, I would also eventually reduce holdings if and when emerging markets/these funds have higher valuations. I'd expect that could ultimately reduce Asia to less than 20% of my portfolio with pretty much all of that coming out of emerging markets when it happens.

FYI: "Sell in May and go away" is perhaps the oldest saw on Wall Street, but it appears there's no shortage of U.S. mutual funds doing exactly that this year.
After all, the S&P 500 .SPX has delivered a total return, including reinvested dividends, of 10.8 percent over the last six months, essentially capturing all of the average rolling 12-month total return on the index since 1990, so why not cash in?
Regards,
Ted
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-stocks-weekahead-idUSKBN18M2DW

Reminds me of "Trouble in River City" from a favorite musical. I think the warnings about trouble in fixed income have been running now for almost as long as The Music Man.
A kid born when these "warnings" first began must be about ready to enter college today. If the fixed income was invested in longer dated bonds or high yield bonds the parents probably did well in saving for college. Equities however likely out-performed fixed-income over the past 15 years (but turned many stomachs during the '07-'09 time-frame).
I like Abby Cohen a lot. A regular on Rukeyser's old show. But if you're not aware, Abby is a perma-bull. Can't ever recall her being negative on equities. FWIW

@expatsp , thank you for sharing your learnings. I also bought the fund at inception but had a much shorter leash. I don't remember the exact timing, but I believe I sold it after a couple years.
Berkowitz was heralded as a great fund manager being able to run a focused fund given his success early on with FAIRX. But as Charles points out, that fund was actually very well diversified by having the bulk (and if memory serves, close to 30-50%) of his money in BRK and LUK. When he relied on his own "value" stock picks, he chose nothing but value traps. So in retrospect, his only genius was riding the coattails of other well diversified, great stock picking masters.
My leanings from owning FAAFX:
- deep value managers are a huge gamble not worth taking.
- managers with huge egos who can't adjust or admit mistakes are a huge gamble (I would lump Berkowitz and Hussman in that same category for non-adjustment).
- If a fund has not kept up with peers or it's index over 3 years - find a better choice.
- Don't worry about the fund turning around the minute you sell. Remember you re-invested with another option. Be confident you made your best decision at the time.

What funds are you using for international exposure? Thanks.

Like I said whatever is available in my retirement accounts. I only do such ANALysis in my tax deferred accounts. My core is Vanguard 500 Index which happens to be in all my 401ks and I add international exposure at the border based on quality of fund available to me.
In one 401k have Europacific growth. In another I have a smattering of PASDX and MALOX. At TRP I am using some TRRLX. At Scottrade I bought more OAKGX and OAKIX. I also bought more MACSX and MAPIX.
Not sure that helps. Basically I'm not married to any fund or manager who run traditional funds. In my taxable accounts, I just look once every quarter and decide where to send money. This I do to manage asset allocation. In my 401ks I'm not really doing asset allocation. You can say I'm doing trading. I have models I run that tell me how much to be invested in the markets. 0% - 100%

@VF
Yes, my largest equity MF, CFIMX, owns a large slug of AMZN and GOOG! ...and Davis were once "value" investors!

I made comment on Weitz on another thread, likening him to Miller. Sorry, but I think Davis and Co might fit the same mould. Managers, you should stick with your style. People should decide if they want to invest and stay invested in you. Your style needs to stick. Hussman sucks but he is consistent.
It is very important for me for my managers to have courage of their convictions. Changing definition of "value" to market your fund is sheer hypocrisy. Amazon has a profit margin of less than 2%. Biggest hypocrite, M* has fair value estimate of $1050. WTF? Compare with Walmart's numbers. COBYX owns Walmart. Another consistent fund PVFIX. So are CGMFX and FAIRX. They are investing exactly how they say they will and what I expect.
CFIMX has no business owning Amazon. FCNTX is supposed to be contrarian. HTF is Amazon contrarian? I don't get why people don't just buy QQQ if they want to play high flying growth stocks. Or buy Profunds Leveraged fund.

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1041673/000119312517184532/d394774d497.htm
497 1 d394774d497.htm NUVEEN INVESTMENT TRUST II
NUVEEN NWQ JAPAN FUND
SUPPLEMENT DATED MAY 26, 2017
TO THE PROSPECTUS DATED MARCH 31, 2017
Nuveen NWQ Japan Fund will be liquidated after the close of business on July 24, 2017.
Effective June 19, 2017, the fund will stop accepting purchases from new investors and existing shareholders, except that defined contribution retirement plans that hold fund shares as of today may continue to purchase fund shares until July 17, 2017. Existing shareholders may continue to reinvest dividends and capital gains distributions received from the fund. The fund reserves the right to modify the extent to which sales of shares are limited prior to the fund’s liquidation. After the close of business on July 24, 2017, the fund will liquidate any remaining shareholder accounts and will send shareholders the proceeds of the liquidation.
PLEASE KEEP THIS WITH YOUR PROSPECTUS
FOR FUTURE REFERENCE
MGN-NWJP-0517P
NUVEEN NWQ JAPAN FUND
SUPPLEMENT DATED MAY 26, 2017
TO THE STATEMENT OF ADDITIONAL INFORMATION DATED MARCH 31, 2017
Nuveen NWQ Japan Fund will be liquidated after the close of business on July 24, 2017.
Effective June 19, 2017, the fund will stop accepting purchases from new investors and existing shareholders, except that defined contribution retirement plans that hold fund shares as of today may continue to purchase fund shares until July 17, 2017. Existing shareholders may continue to reinvest dividends and capital gains distributions received from the fund. The fund reserves the right to modify the extent to which sales of shares are limited prior to the fund’s liquidation. After the close of business on July 24, 2017, the fund will liquidate any remaining shareholder accounts and will send shareholders the proceeds of the liquidation.
PLEASE KEEP THIS WITH YOUR STATEMENT OF ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
FOR FUTURE REFERENCE

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1257927/000089180417000422/wz71390-497.htm
497 1 wz71390-497.htm RESEARCH FUND
WEITZ FUNDS
(the “Trust”)
Research Fund (WRESX)
(the “Fund”)
Supplement dated May 26, 2017
to the
Summary Prospectus, the Statutory Prospectus and the Statement of Additional Information
each dated December 16, 2016
Proposed Liquidation and Termination of the Fund
The Board of Trustees of the Trust has recently approved a Plan of Liquidation and Termination relating to the Fund pursuant to which the Fund would cease operations and would be liquidated on or about June 30, 2017. The Board considered the recommendation of Weitz Investment Management, Inc. (“Weitz Investment”), the investment adviser to the Fund, to liquidate the Fund based upon the Fund’s current small asset size and small shareholder base. After careful consideration of the proposal of Weitz Investment to liquidate the Fund, the Board concluded that it is in the best interests of the Fund and its shareholders to liquidate the Fund and cease its operations.
Shareholders may continue to reinvest dividends and distributions in the Fund, redeem their shares, or exchange their shares for shares of any of the other Weitz Funds offered by the Trust until the effective date of the liquidation.
It is currently anticipated that the Fund will liquidate and cease operations effective as of the close of business on June 30, 2017. Any shareholders of record holding shares of the Fund on that date will receive a check representing the total net asset value of their proceeds held in the Fund as a final liquidating distribution as of that date.
In connection with carrying out the liquidation, it is expected that in advance of the liquidation date the Fund will depart from its stated investment objective and strategies in order to increase its cash holdings in preparation for effectuating its liquidation.
For shareholders holding their shares in taxable accounts, the liquidation may result in a taxable event. Shareholders should consult their tax advisers regarding the tax treatment of their shares in the Fund resulting from the liquidation.
Investors should retain this supplement for future reference.