I am a past subscriber. The 2 biggest bad changes I see are:
1. The loss of the feature whereby one could compare year by year results of 2 or more funds
2. The loss of the feature whereby one could click and see the day's results of the stocks held within a fund
I can't imagine why they would have eliminated these 2 useful features.

FYI: (This Is A Follow-Up Arrtcle.)
Fisher Investments founder Ken Fisher said there will be no lay-offs at his Washington state investment firm despite some $3 billion in withdrawals by pension funds and others over allegedly sexist remarks he made at an investor conference.
In a local newspaper column published late on Friday, Fisher wrote that most of the firm is growing based on business from high net worth individuals, retirement savings plans and foreign institutions.
He wrote that growing revenue in those areas more than makes up for high-profile withdrawals from state and local pension plans and other clients. The withdrawals totaled more than $3 billion as of Friday as systems in Texas, California and elsewhere withdrew money.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-funds-fisher/ken-fisher-says-no-lay-offs-despite-withdrawals-over-his-remarks-idUSKBN1X71OY?feedType=RSS&feedName=businessNews&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+reuters/businessNews+(Business+News)

That Big Money Poll caught my eye too in this weekend’s Barrons - Bears rise to a two decade high. Last month we saw where worried investors were flocking to money market funds bringing their assets to their highest level since 2009. Lot of trepidation for a market at all time highs. Very bullish from a sentiment standpoint. Meanwhile it appears the most crowded trade of being long bonds is slowly unraveling with long term bonds ( 10 year) on their way to the 2.50 to 3% area over the next year.

FYI: Here are some numbers:
.This will be the 777th intra-day all-time high since 1982*
.All-time highs have happened on just over 8% of all days
.The average 1-year return is 10.2%. The average 1-year return following an all-time high is 22.7%. This does not include dividend
Regards,
Ted
https://theirrelevantinvestor.com/2019/10/28/the-most-bullish-signal-in-the-world/

In prior years I held ADX (Adams Express) in my closedend fund sleeve along with GAM (General American Investors) and USA (LIberty All Star Investor). Another closedend fund that I held from time to time was RVT (Royce Value Trust). One of my favorite was AMO (All Market Opportunity) which is no more.
Some of the oldest open end mutual funds, that are still active, are MITTX, MFS Mass. Investors Fund and, PIODX, Pioneer Fund (1928). There are some others that date back to the Great Depression era.

The foreign dividend payers are a good place to look for yield. My sleeve of global dividend paying equity mutual funds has a higher yield than my sleeve of domestic dividend paying equity mutual funds. With this, and most likely, I'll be putting some money to work in my global dividend paying equity funds come December after my equity mutual funds have made their yearend capital gains distributions
My current investing goal is to not only to grow my principal; but, my portfolio's yield as well. With this, as mutual funds found in the growth area of my portfolio make thier yearend capital gain distributions I plan to buy (with these distributions) in the growth and income area of portfolio thus increasing my portfolio's yield while at the same time allowing for some continued capital appreciation. Over the past rolling twelve months I've increased my portfolio's income stream by 13% mostly due to it's reconfguration which I began late last fall. It will be interesting to see how 2018 yearend statement compares to 2019's. I'm thinking both income generation and valuation will be up over last years closing statement.
I'm also thinking that my asset allocation will continue to bubble somewhere around 20% cash, 40% income and 40% equity. Within the 40% equity allocation I plan to grow my dividend payers and slightly reduce my capital appreciation (growth) funds by redirecting future capital gain distributions into the dividend payers over putting them back into my growth funds.

I agree with the author on this issue. I hold 15-20% of my portfolio in foreign stocks funds for diversification purposes, but see no need for higher percentages. Foreign stocks have been a drag on my portfolio for the past 10 years, but I also remember a time when they outperformed for many years.

https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/mutual-fund-survived-1929-stock-100008800.html
This Mutual Fund Survived the 1929 Stock Market Crash. Here's How Its Managers Invest
We all know investing is supposed to be for the long-term. For Adams Funds that’s meant a lot longer than most.

FYI: U.S. stock index futures were slightly higher Monday morning, as investors prepared for the busiest week of earnings season.
Around 6:30 a.m. ET, Dow futures indicated a positive open of nearly 70 points. Futures on the S&P and Nasdaq were both slightly higher.
Market focus is largely attuned to global trade developments after U.S. and Chinese officials said they were “close to finalizing” some parts of a trade agreement. The world’s two largest economies have imposed tariffs on billions of dollars’ worth of one another’s goods since the start of 2018, battering financial markets and souring business and consumer sentiment.
European stocks wavered Monday as investors wait to see if U.K. Prime Minister Boris Johnson will succeed in his call for general elections.
The pan-continental Stoxx Europe 600 index drifted down 0.2%, led lower by banks. HSBC HSBC 0.15% Holdings was the biggest loser in Europe, shedding 4% after the bank dropped its main financial target and said it would speed up plans to revamp its U.K., U.S. and European businesses.
he U.K.’s FTSE 100 gauge dropped 0.3% as Mr. Johnson urged lawmakers to support his push for a Dec. 12 general election as a way to clear a path to Brexit. EU leaders agreed to a three-month extension to the Brexit deadline, extending the political uncertainty until Jan. 31. The British pound was mostly flat against the dollar.
Meanwhile, U.S. stock futures tied to the Dow Jones Industrial Average edged up 0.2%.
The yield on 10-year Italian government debt rose to 0.991% from 0.948% Friday following preliminary results from local elections this weekend. The results will allow center-right political leaders to campaign against the current administration in a bid to boost their popularity, according to analysts at UniCredit. The FTSE MIB index for Italian equities fell 0.2%.
Asian markets had a stronger start to the week. The Shanghai Composite Index gained almost 0.9% and Hong Kong’s benchmark Hang Seng Index gained 0.8%.
The yield on 10-year Treasurys rose to 1.826%, its highest level since mid-September as investors, anticipate the Federal Reserve will deliver another 25 basis point cut.
Regards,
Ted
WSJ:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/european-stocks-off-to-weak-start-amid-brexit-uncertainty-11572256781
Bloomberg:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-10-27/stocks-in-asia-to-rise-as-u-s-flirts-with-record-markets-wrap?srnd=premium
IBD:
https://www.investors.com/market-trend/stock-market-today/dow-jones-futures-apple-stock-market-rally-test-microsoft-wins-jedi-duel-with-amazon/
CNBC::
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/10/28/stock-market-investors-monitor-busiest-week-of-earnings-season.html
Reuters:
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-hongkong-protests/hong-kong-enters-recession-as-street-protests-erupt-in-flames-idUSKBN1X706F
U.K.
https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-stocks/hsbc-update-sparks-selloff-in-uk-banks-drags-ftse-100-lower-idUKKBN1X70O8
Europe:
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-europe-stocks/hsbc-pulls-european-shares-lower-luxury-stocks-in-focus-idUSKBN1X70OI
Asia:
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/asian-stocks-rise-ahead-of-a-busy-week-for-markets-2019-10-27/print
Bonds:
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/10/25/bond-markets-investors-await-corporate-earnings-economic-data.html
Currencies:
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/10/28/oil-markets-chinas-economy-in-focus.html
Oil:
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/10/28/oil-markets-chinas-economy-in-focus.html
Gold:
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/10/28/gold-markets-us-federal-reserve-in-focus.html
Cuirrent Futures:
https://finviz.com/futures.ashx

D.F. Dent
Father and son work together here. Daniel F. Dent runs the Premier Growth fund (DFDPX) with his son Matthew. Both have over $1m invested. Matthew also co-manages the Midcap Growth Fund (DFDMX) again with over a million of his own money invested. Daniel has been manager of Premier Growth for 18 years and Matthew manager of Midcap Growth for 8 years.
The more I read about this outfit the more I like them and their funds. However, there was a 3 year period of relative underperformance from 2014-16 in both funds but they have shined since. The expense ratios are on the high side and I wonder if this partially explains why the AUM in each fund is still so small. Then again AKREX has grown into a $12bn fund with an even higher expense ratio.

A good list that was, but I memorize only some of your posts over time, not all of them. Davidson is famously good, I shoulda thought of him. GMiller I do not know, but good to be aware of such outstanding work.
Yes, Tilllinghast's penchant for non-US equities, almost 38% as of a few months ago, has often been a drag, especially the last few years, and this has been much commented on. I wonder why FLPSX had less of a drawdown a year ago.
Miller's notable Victory Sycamore has the lowest 15y UI in MFOP, moreover, again probably in part because its mandate excludes foreign equities. A value fund triumph.

I don't look for managers who "rule", just ones whom I reasonably believe will turn in an above average performance over time. However, since we're talking about a MCV fund manager, why not look at my 2012 list of MCV funds?
https://mutualfundobserver.com/discuss/discussion/3176/thoughts-on-mid-cap-value-watch-list
Two of those five funds no longer have the same lead manager. NSEIX (hardly a surprise, longevity was a risk back then), and MSAIX (a fund that promptly dropped into the bottom half each year after my mention, except for its 47th percentile showing in 2018).
But the other three have had the same lead managers for 15+ years. They're all fine; I don't see FLPSX standing out.

Fund    15 year     2008 (Q4)          3Q2015   4Q2018  
FLPSX   9.14%    -36.17% (-20.73%)     -6.20%   -13.54%
ACMVX  10.45%    -24.49% (-18.96%)     -6.34%   -14.96%
JAMCX   8.95%    -33.24% (-21.70%)     -7.38%   -14.88%
VETAX  10.84%    -33.10% (aprox-19%)   -4.44%   -15.29%

JAMCX https://connect.rightprospectus.com/JPMorgan/TADF/339128308/P?site=JPMorgan
ACMVX https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/908186/000090818609000024/pea44-2009.htm
VETAX https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/802716/000110465909013154/a09-4636_1485bpos.htm
These four alone constitute 4% of MCV funds according to M*. They can't all be the rare 3% :-)

I was just looking at 15y return, as LB mentioned, of the rare individual managers I am aware of (I am missing some, I am positive) who have worked that long nonstop, compared w various indexes.
(FLPSX is not easy to compare fairly, prospectus notwithstanding, because of its usual large foreign slug, in some periods thought to be a good thing.)
Tillinghast is only 61yo, so if I were going to invest for 15 more years I would consider his work seriously.
Puglia is a bit younger.
Did not say it screams 'buy me'. Whose work does that for you? 'Absolutely rule' meant outperforms almost all others over that long haul. Whom do you have in mind for top rankings over the long hauyl?
am reading now about DCohen and Scherschmidt, at
https://www.forbes.com/sites/kenkam/2019/02/08/investing-with-the-greatest-mutual-fund-managers-2/#2c08d7db2a71
also these guys. Fried is sometimes mentioned in such articles.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/kenkam/2018/06/08/greatest-fund-managers-redux-4-that-are-keepers/#496a96a3554f
Puglia is not commonly mentioned anywhere that I can see. His big runup is recent, looks like.
All three of the POAGX guys' stints hit 15y end of this week.
Should also do a search of these names on MFO and MFOP.

While I agree that Tillinghast is a fine manager, I'm wondering on what basis he appears to "absolutely rule".
In 2008, FLPSX returned -36.17%, less than the -33.79% return of its chosen benchmark (R2K, per prospectus). Personally, I would have chosen a benchmark such as the Russell Midcap Value index, as was used by JMCVX. That latter index returned -38.44% in 2008, per the JMCVX 2009 prospectus.
For completeness, the R2K value index returned -28.92% in 2008, and the S&P 400 midcap index returned -36.23% (both from the same Janus prospectus). FLPSX returned -20.73% in the fourth quarter of 2008 (from any FLPSX prospectus - that was its worst quarterly return).
Regarding Tillinghast's break, it was for four months, starting in Sept. 2011 and ending in January 2012. Given that FLPSX's best annual performance relative to its peers over the five years 2009 through 2013 was in 2011, it wouldn't appear that Tillinghast's temporary absence had any negative impact. And since both Fidelity and Morningstar report Tillinghast as the fund manager from 1989 to the present, a simple screening for continuous management wouldn't have excluded Tillinghast from consideration of best 10 year managers.
On the positive side, FLPSX did outperform its MCV peers in the 4th quarter of 2018 (-13.54% vs. -15.72%), though over the two quarters including that one and the 1st quarter of 2019, everyone lost the same amount of money: about 5%. The fund did a little better in providing protection in the 3rd quarter of 2015, when it lost 6.2% vs. 9.19% for its peers. Including the slight bounce back the next quarter, FLPSX still did better, losing about 5% overall, while this time its peers lost around 7%.
http://performance.morningstar.com/fund/performance-return.action?t=FLPSX
The figures are okay, but I'm not seeing anything in the numbers that scream "buy me". Is that it, or is there something else that leads you to feel this manager rules?

Agree w/the above --- imho the 10 year chart is meaningless. I routinely look at 15, 20, and max timeframes now. For me a decent rule of thumb would be how much they lost in '08 .... if they didn't do too badly (by comparison to say the SPX) and were not wallowing in a huge cash pile, that implies they don't follow the herd and are thus worthy of my consideration.

I completely agree with Lewis. Similar reasoning is why I've advised caution in looking at 3,5,10 year figures if the market in the last 1 year has been particularly good or particularly bad. That one year distorts all the longer term figures, and creates a bias in favor of very aggressive or very conservative managers, respectively. Likewise, to exercise caution in looking at bond fund performances, both because we've had a four decade decline in interest rates (bond bull market) and because there's been a short term plunge in rates.

@hank - interesting that the article you posted says the same thing as I did about I-bonds being tax-efficient. But with respect to its comment that TIPS are better left to IRAs, that may be true for TIPS, but not for TIPS funds.
From the prospectus for TRBFX:

if you held Treasury inflation-protected securities directly, you would be subject to tax each year on the net inflation adjustments even though you would not receive such amounts until the security matures. By investing in a mutual fund that holds these and similar securities, you will receive distributions representing net inflation adjustments as they are realized by the fund.

@catch22: In the past, on could find "enhanced cash" funds - what I called "secondary cash" above. Post 2008, it's hard to find anything similar outside of Australia.
For me, series I savings bonds serve the same role, and I stocked up before 2008, when purchases were not limited and the fixed rates were significantly higher. Since then, between the fact that purchases were capped and the fixed rates were effectively zero, I've nibbled only slightly.
You are correct in pointing out that even if one likes investing in savings bonds, the impact is limited. That's another reason to think of these more as a cash alternative and less as a major portfolio allocation.
Personally I'm disinclined to invest in inflation-linked products. While there's always the possibility of inflation rising rapidly, I'm guessing that it won't, and if it does that some part of my diversified equity portfolio will provide cover.
My interest in series I savings bonds is not for inflation protection. Rather, I expect them to outperform cash regardless of short term (6 month) inflation fluctuations, while having nearly the same liquidity as cash, plus tax advantages.
That latter point goes to your question of what type of account: taxable, since federal debt instruments are tax-favored (at the state level), and you lose that with IRAs. Besides, the income from savings bonds is deferred anyway. Unlike income from TIPS.
IMHO, to the extent that one does better with TIPS (or any bond) fund, it is because of the longer duration and interest rate risk one is assuming. Over the past several years, they do not seem to have been worth that risk.
Using your funds as examples, STPZ has returned 1.10% (annualized) over the past five years, 1.57% over the past ten. Not much better than cash.
LTPZ has done much better, returning 4.16% and 5.80% over the same time periods. But it has done that with a 20+ year duration in an era of declining interest rates. EDV, which invests in straight treasuries, has returned 7.20% and 9.29% respectively over the same periods. PEDIX's returns are very similar (7.20% and 9.58%). I'm not betting on that long term downward trend continuing.

@Simon and @msf
I'm attempting to determine the value of purchasing the I-bonds vs STPZ , LTPZ or a TIP's fund, be it active managed or ETF.
I-bonds, direct purchase have an annual dollar limit per individual, yes? I suppose an individual question would be whether the dollar limit would have a meaningful impact upon an overall portfolio.
TIP type funds have no dollar limit for purchase.
TIP funds will also follow in capital appreciation (price) in sentiment with yields when moving lower, as with most other bond types. TIP's are part of a safe haven investment along with other Treasury issues. And the investor may buy or sell when the trend changes.

ADD: account type was not noted, so I don't know whether the I-bonds are in taxable or tax sheltered account, if this matters.
Thanks for your time.
Catch

I can’t answer that Catch. But thank you for the opportunity to correct my earlier post above. I mistakenly assumed I-Bonds were the same as TIPS. Of course they aren’t (though I assume the inflation protection works similarly). So it was TIPS funds I was talking about - not I-Bonds.
My guess is that I-Bonds are purchased in the same manner one would purchase regular savings bonds (but I may be corrected). Below is an interesting linked article re the suitability of I Bonds and TIPS as well as TIPS funds for tax sheltered accounts.
My earlier point was to caution against rushing into funds that offer inflation protected bonds on the assumption you can only make money. You should do OK - but not assured for the reasons I noted earlier. BTW - TRP offers at least 2 TIPS funds, one of which is a shorter term version and less susceptible to interest rate movements.
https://www.marketplace.org/2009/04/10/i-bonds-roth/