FYI: Vanguard Group’s new bond fund would pave the way for the fund giant’s in-house portfolio managers to buy or sell junk bonds for the first time.
Regards,
Ted
http://blogs.barrons.com/focusonfunds/2015/12/21/a-milestone-for-vanguard-new-fund-could-include-junk-bonds/tab/print/

@ heezsafe & MFO Members: Mutual Fund Wire.Com slant on American Century.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.mfwire.com/common/artprint2007.asp?storyID=53157&wireid=2

Time and again, you see mutual fund families reach a certain size and they become, what seems to me, "investment vehicles" for others. Whether this is a bad thing is often hard to tell, but I'm hard-pressed to recall an instance where a mutual fund operation showed evidence where large outside investment proved to be a good thing. Or maybe it doesn't really matter--- hey, somebody's gotta hold the shares--- as long as the outside stakeholder remains a minority stakeholder.
At what point should it be concerning? Are there red flags that should raise concern; if so, what are they? My thinking on this is pretty fuzzy. What say others?
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-12-21/american-century-sale-proceeds-seen-helping-cibc-on-other-deals
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-12-21/nomura-agrees-to-pay-1-billion-for-41-american-century-stake

Below is a description of my portfolio sleeve management system along with my new portfolio asset allocation targets for 2016. In short, the cash target was raised by five percent from fifteen to twenty percent while the growth area target was reduced by five percent from twenty percent to fifteen percent. The income and growth & income area targets remain the same at thirty percent and thirty five percent respectively.
Old_Skeet's Portfolio Sleeve Management System (12/18/2015)
Here is a brief description of my sleeve system which I organized to help better manage the investments that were held in five accounts. The accounts consist of a taxable account, a self directed ira account, a 401k account, a profit sharing account and a health savings account plus two bank accounts. With this I came up with four investment areas. They are a cash area which consist of two sleeves … an investment cash sleeve and a demand cash sleeve. The next area is the income area which consists of two sleeves. … a fixed income sleeve and a hybrid income sleeve. Then there is the growth & income area which has more risk associated with it than the income area and it consist of four sleeves … a global equity sleeve, a global hybrid sleeve, a domestic equity sleeve and a domestic hybrid sleeve. An finally there is the growth area, where the most risk in the portfolio is found and it consist of five sleeves … a global sleeve, a large/mid cap sleeve, a small/mid cap sleeve, a specialty sleeve and a special investment sleeve. Each sleeve consists of three to six funds (in most cases) with the size and the weight of each sleeve can easily be adjusted, from time-to-time, by adjusting the number of funds and amounts held. By using the sleeve system one can get a better picture of their overall investment picture and weightings by sleeve and area. In addition, I have found it beneficial to xray each fund, each sleeve, each investment area, and the portfolio as a whole quarterly. Again, weightings can be adjusted form time-to-time as to how I might be reading the markets and wish to weight accordingly. All funds pay their distributions to the cash area of the portfolio with the exception being those in my 401k, profit sharing, and health savings accounts where reinvestment occurs. With the other accounts paying to the cash area builds the cash area of the portfolio to meet the portfolio’s monthly cash disbursement amount with the residual being left for new investment opportunity. In addition, most all buy/sell trades settle from or to the cash area with some nav exchanges between funds taking place.
Here is how I have my asset allocation broken out in percent ranges, by area. My current target allocations are cash 20%, income 30%, growth & income 35%, and growth 15%. I do an Instant Xray analysis on the portfolio quarterly (sometimes monthly) and make asset weighting adjustments as I feel warranted based upon my assessment of the market, my risk tolerance, cash needs, etc. Currently, going into 2016, I am about 20% in the cash area, 30% in the income area, 35% in the growth & income area and 15% in the growth area.
Cash Area (Weighting Range 15% to 25% with target being 20%)
Demand Cash Sleeve… (Cash Distribution Accrual & Future Investment Accrual)
Investment Cash Sleeve … (Savings & Time Deposits)
Income Area (Weighting Range 25% to 35% with target being 30%)
Fixed Income Sleeve: GIFAX, LALDX, LBNDX, NEFZX, THIFX & TSIAX
Hybrid Income Sleeve: CAPAX, CTFAX, FISCX, FKINX, ISFAX, JNBAX & PGBAX
Growth & Income Area (Weighting Range 30% to 40% with target being 35%)
Global Equity Sleeve: CWGIX, DEQAX & EADIX
Global Hybrid Sleeve: BAICX, CAIBX & TIBAX
Domestic Equity Sleeve: ANCFX, FDSAX, INUTX, NBHAX, SPQAX & SVAAX
Domestic Hybrid Sleeve: ABALX, AMECX, DDIAX, FRINX, HWIAX & LABFX
Growth Area (Weighting Range 10% to 20% with target being 15%)
Global Sleeve: AJVAX, ANWPX, NEWFX, PGROX, THOAX & THDAX
Large/Mid Cap Sleeve: AGTHX, IACLX, SPECX & VADAX
Small/Mid Cap Sleeve: PCVAX, PMDAX & VNVAX
Specialty Sleeve: LPEFX, PGUAX & TOLLX
Spiffs: None
Total Number of Mutual Fund Positions = 47
I wish all ... "Good Investing."

Qualified dividends are taxed at 0%, 15% and 20%, the latter if you are in a 39.6% tax bracket.

From @heezsafe 's link:
"[Q]ualified dividends ... are taxable federally at the capital gains rate, which depends on the investor’s modified adjusted gross income (AGI) and taxable income (the current rates are 0%, 15%, 18.8%, and 23.8%.)."
This is due to the Medicare surtax of 3.8% which kicks in once your AGI (not taxable income) exceeds a certain level.
From http://truepointwealth.com/recent-tax-changes-and-how-they-affect-you/
"Note, the 20% bracket doesn’t truly 'exist.' By the time income reaches the top marginal tax bracket of 39.6%, one is already subject to the additional surtax."
In addition to the description of qualified divs in the Fidelity link, there's another gotcha for mutual fund owners. Even if your 1099 says that dividends are qualified (box 1b), they are not unless you hold those shares for at least 61 days around the ex-div date.
This is the same rule as stated in the Fidelity page, but that page wasn't too clear about pass through entities like mutual funds. That is, the fund itself must hold underlying stock for 61+ days for it to pass through the div as a qualified div, but in addition you must hold the mutual fund shares 61+ days around the fund's ex-div date.
Here's another Fidelity page that goes into this gory detail:
https://www.fidelity.com/taxes/tax-topics/qualified-dividends

@Mona, over the years I had enough of paying IRS on distribution even in down markets. Since vast majority of active managed funds failed to out-perform their respective indexes, getting the boring index level return is good enough for us. So on taxable accounts, we use exclusively index funds and ETFs to minimize the tax consequences. Granted that dividends will be tax according to our tax bracket, but at least I can minimize short term and long term capital gains. </blockquote
Sven,
If you are invested in Vanguard Index 500, 100% of the dividends were qualified. In Vanguard Total Stock Market Index, 95% were qualified. And for another example, if you are invested in Vanguard Mid-Cap Index, 86% were qualified.
https://personal.vanguard.com/us/insights/article/estimated-yearend-distributions-122015
Qualified dividends are taxed at 0%, 15% and 20%, the latter if you are in a 39.6% tax bracket. So unless you are making a lot of money putting you in 39.6% tax bracket, you are paying no higher tax rate on your qualified dividends than you would would pay on Long-term Capital Gains.
Mona

Vanguard Small Cap ETF: ER of 0.09% matches wifey's 403b holding in VSMAX. It's down -5.34%, ytd. In small cap, my others are: PRDSX, eking-out a positive number, ytd, at +0.66% and MSCFX, down further than the Vang, at -6.63%. But Friday last was a stinker.

it is not an easy call on the balance of risk and reward over long investment period. Question for most investors is getting the market return good enough?

Domestically, it's become an easy call for me. For the past 4 years or so I was in ARTLX, it seemed each year at distribution time that the IRS was the big winner. Along with other concentrated mutual funds I have owned over the years with high active share, I learned the hard way that many (most) times it does not translate into a fund that beats it's benchmark. Now, I mostly go the Index route and when I want to go to Las Vegas and play the concentrated active fund machine in my taxable account, the ER must be under 50 basis points and the turnover under 15%. Even then I limit my bets.
Mona

FYI: The positive impact of low fees for ETF and index fund investors is palpable.
“In any market, the average return for all investors before costs is, by definition, equal to the market return. Once various costs are accounted for, however, the distribution of returns realized by investors moves to the left, because their aggregate return is now less than the market’s. The actual return for all investors combined is thus the market return reduced by all costs paid. One important implication of this is that, after costs, fewer investors are able to outperform the markets,” according to Vanguard[7].
With that in mind, let’s have a look at some of the lowest fee ETF index funds on the market today
Regards,
Ted
http://investorplace.com/2015/12/cheap-portfolio-cheapest-etfs-index-funds/print

VMNVX continues to be my preferred "world in one fund" with a greater exposure to MC and SC equities than VT (average market cap of $7.4B vs. $30.3B for VT/VTWSX), and a more attractive standard deviation/Sharpe Ratio over the past year of 7.57/0.97 vs. 13.09/-0.08 for VTWSX. According to MSCI, minimum volatility has attractive backtested RESULTS.
Kevin

Customer service is bad everywhere no just discount brokerages. Have you try to resolve computer problem from big box PC manufacturers such as HP and Dell?
In our experience, cash transfer between brokerages is the easiest - typically takes 3-5 days to complete. Transfer on mutual funds and stocks will take up 10 days to ensure everything is in good order that include copies of most recent statement. Fidelity accepts the electronic version while Vanguard requires the hard copy. Bit old school but I am patient. I believe that is part of the rules imposed on brokerages to prevent money laundering.

Fiduciary Management, Inc. » FMI Mutual Funds » FMI Large Cap Fund (FMIHX) » FMIHX Distribution Summary
FMIHX Distribution Summary
Ex-Dividend Date
Reinvestment Price
Income
Short-Term Capital Gain
Long-Term Capital Gain
12/18/15 18.23 0.20835660 0.16523 1.67694

FYI: On Dec. 10, Third Avenue Focused Credit Fund suspended its investors’ right to ask for their money back whenever they wish. That drastic step wasn’t unprecedented, however. It exposed a flaw that has always lurked within the heart of mutual funds — one that exchange-traded funds have largely solved.
Regards,
Ted
http://blogs.wsj.com/moneybeat/2015/12/18/buy-the-etf-not-the-mutual-fund/tab/print/

Amen to that! Unless you want to eat, drink, sleep, and breathe the markets 24 hours a day. And I mean that literally. Over the years have seen all these investors congregate in the same funds such as the aforementioned Whitebox as well as other *crowd* favorites ala RSIVX, ARIVX, MFLDX, WAFMX, RPHYX, AQRNX, and the granddaddy of them all PRPFX. Not exactly a prescription for a wealthy retirement. I just hope it won't be the same sad story with the latest fave GPMCX.

Actually in that collection I don't think MFLDX and certainly AQRNX don't belong. One did a shareholder unfriendly thing, and one is shareholder unfriendly period.
RSIVX, I think people are bashing out of proportion. No one said it did not have any risks. People expecting RPHYX out of RSIVX without reading prospectus going to be dissapointed.
Still a believer in ARIVX. Never owned WAFMX and GPMCX
Now two funds I own and who belong are FVALX and INTLX. Luckily for me have held them forever and will continue to hold "forever". With FVALX manager didn't time the S&P 500 puts correctly or it would be breaking even. Hard to be Value Fund and time the short incorrectly. I'm in for the long haul in these two.
The one dissapointment for me has been ICMBX. Expected it to have held up much better.
Finally, got lucky with WBLSX to OTCRX switch at Vanguard. I feel for WBMAX investors.

@VF - I know you saw it coming, sorry to offend. I asked Charles because I thought he was one of the believers.
I have to wonder though if Mr. Buffett has been right all along. Just stick your money in an S&P 500 index and go live your life. If the smart people in the room with all the toys and tools can't get this stuff right who do I think I'm fooling. Some pondering I must do.

I wish this was a live chat :-). Then you could see my right hand was up, to indicate I was kidding.

The Yahoo Finance article presenting these 29 funds,linked to in the original article, is here:
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/why-the-current-credit-crisis-might-be-35-times-worse-than-you-thought-134706002.html
Its video is okay (talking about junk bond pricing, energy sector), but the $27B and 29 funds are nonsense. The table is not one of funds with particularly high amounts of illiquid assets, but rather one of 10%+ draw downs in 2015.
While many are bond (and notably high yield bond) funds, the list also includes funds like Victory CEMP US 500 Enhanced Volatility Weighted Index (CUHAX). That is not a mistake; M* reports a draw down of 10.39% between May 22 and Aug 25. (CEMP is the management company). This "at risk" fund's top holdings are such illiquid securities as Coke, Clorox, American Financial Group, Berkshire Hathaway B, Pepsi. Oh, and Yahoo seems to think this fund is Credit Suisse Global Health & Science.
I'm not saying that perhaps many of the funds listed are at risk - just that this does not reflect a "revelation" by Yahoo, or much of anything, beyond an attention getting headline.
Regarding Ms. Yellen's reported statement that the SEC is in the process of implementing measures to address the problem, the SEC put out a proposal months ago. Does "swing pricing" ring any bells here?
Here's my exasperated critique of the initial press coverage of the SEC proposal:
http://www.mutualfundobserver.com/discuss/discussion/23781/sec-wants-to-stem-liquidity-risk-of-open-end-funds-etfs
and Prof. Snowball's subsequent fine presentation of the proposal:
http://mutualfundobserver.com/discuss/discussion/23894/the-variable-impact-of-sec-s-proposed-liquidity-management-program

Re: MAPOX from M*, last August: "This moderate-allocation offering was subject to a new performance test for the 2015 Fantastic list. Previously we considered longtime manager Bill Frels' record, but when he retired at the end of 2014, performance rested with comanager Ron Kaliebe, who has been assigned to the fund since 2006."
I'm still into MAPOX, and adding to it. It's 15.2% of my total. The dividend has been rising, despite a lackluster year, even if by just a penny. It pays quarterly, not monthly. Their webpage warns about the Medtronic-Covidien deal, and about larger than normal year-end pay-out. Fine with me. It's in Trad. IRA. I dunno if that fund family's emphasis on upper-Midwest companies detracts. I first got in in 2012, at $68.00, and it's been a ride upward, since. This year has been a matter of stalling-out, with the rest of the Market.
....And no, I can't say I own ANYTHING devoted to dividends, except my bond-funds: DLFNX, PRSNX, PREMX. And the TRP global Real Estate Fund: TRGRX.

Hey little5bee, had the same trouble moving money from Schwab into Vanguard. I gave up in the middle and reversed the whole thing. The second try, several years later, went better( with cash only) went better, but the service is nothing like Schwab. Go Blue!