@VintageFreak I see you're interested in the Grandeur Peak Global Micro Cap Fund from your other posts. It has a 2.00% expense ratio. But it is that kind of fund which has a high expense ratio but a small asset base that I am talking about. Is it fair to say that another of their funds--Grandeur Peak International Opps Inv GPIOX--has an "average" expense ratio of 1.35% when it is hard closed to all investors at $765 million while Acorn International Z ACINX with $7.3 billion and a 0.93% expense ratio has a "low" one?
morningstar.com/funds/xnas/acinx/quote.html
morningstar.com/funds/XNAS/GPIOX/quote.html
That "low" expense ratio rating factors into Morningstar's "silver" rating of Acorn. But is it really low if Acorn is collecting many more millions in fees than Grandeur? Is it really low if Acorn now has to navigate illiquid foreign small caps as a result with a large $7.3 billion portfolio? It's market impact costs will be higher and its flexibility to invest in the smallest companies less than Grandeur. Only by looking at total dollars in fees would someone recognize that Acorn isn't necessarily a low fee fund and Grandeur isn't necessarily a more expensive one.

As Bogle suggested recently, look at the dollars they're taking in, not just the percentage. 2% of $25 million means they're getting paid about $500,000 a year to run a global microcap fund, covering tiny obscure faraway companies. Sounds like a bargain to me. Plenty of people here think it's a bargain to pay 0.5% to invest in a domestic large cap fund with $10 billion, which means those managers are getting paid $50 million a year to cover highly liquid big companies where research is easily accessible.

Here are some of my additional "finds" I do not see in this thread. Of course, these are available through capgainsvalet.com (yes, a shameless plug).
Blackstone Alternative Investment Funds
http://www.blackstone.com/docs/baif/2015-estimated-distribution-table---mfs.pdf?sfvrsn=2
Calvert Funds
http://www.calvert.com/resources/tax-center/estimated-distributions
City National Rochedale Funds
http://www.citynationalrochdalefunds.com/fundinformation/download/CapGainsDistributions_2015_Equity.pdf
Domini Funds
https://www.domini.com/shareholder-services/tax-center/december-2015-distributions-estimates
Invesco Advisers Inc
http://www.invesco.com/static/us/investors/contentdetail?contentId=9a64a8c235512410VgnVCM100000c2f1bf0aRCRD
Jensen Funds
https://www.jenseninvestment.com/jmf/jensen-funds/forms-documents/distributions/
Morgan Stanley Funds
http://www.morganstanley.com/msamg/msimintl/docs/en_US/publications/forms/Tax/2015_estimated_yr-end_distributions.pdf
Nationwide Funds
http://www.nationwide.com/mutual-funds-distributions.jsp
Parnassus Funds
http://www.parnassus.com/parnassus-mutual-funds/DividendInfo
RBC Funds
https://us.rbcgam.com/resources/docs/mutual-funds/pdf/other/RBC_Cap_Gain_Distribution.pdf
Transamerica Fund Asset Management Inc
https://www.transamerica.com/images/capital-gain-distributions_tcm73-37718.pdf

"So far, about three-quarters of the S&P 500 have reported results, with profits down 3.1 percent on a share-weighted basis, data compiled by Bloomberg shows. This would be the biggest quarterly drop in earnings since the third quarter 2009, and the second straight quarter of profit declines. Earnings growth turned negative for the first time in six years in the second quarter this year."
The trend is your friend? Ummm, which one would that be? Eni Meeni Miney Mo.

Many other posts have compared ZEOIX to RPHYX. Now, comparing SSTHX and RPHYX for the past three years, we have the typical $10000 at $10,733 for RHYPX, and $10,663 for SSTHX, pretty much a dead heat. In this year's difficult market though, it's 0.76% return for RPHYX, and -1.30% for SSTHX, about a 2% difference in favor of RPHYX. While I'm certainly less than thrilled at the deterioration in the RPHYX NAV, it would still seem to be a better place than SSHTX at least for now.
Looking at ZEOIX, it's doing quite well this year, at a 2.58% return, and with $10,966 for three years. Unfortunately, it's not available NTF at Schwab, as Press notes. Guess I'll have to stick with RPHYX for a while.

Flying under the radar here. It is an acquisition. Wonder what their plans are for it. Keep it or use it to seed something else.
http://www.cipvt.com/pdf/New-Sheridan-Prospectus-June-30-2015.pdf

I want to decide where I am going to expend my energy
Fund A
Assets: $100B
ER reported: 0.5%
Avg Annual Return: 10%
Fund B
Assets: $1B
ER reported: 1.5%
Avg Annual Return: 10%
Returns are always after expenses. I care about who makes how much money why now? I make 10% in each fund. If either fund is misrepresenting expenses and investors would have ended up with higher return, then all crusaders can go complain to justice department.
25 years back, when information was not forthcoming may be this makes some sense. In today's time with the internet, every fund investor knows all things remaining the same, go with the lower ER fund. If you are going with higher ER fund, do it for a reason - lower asset base, better fiduciary management, etc. etc. "Investors need to know how fund expenses are being paid and who they are being paid to". No, they don't. Why? Because they cannot do diddly squat about it.
I would like Jack Bogle to give interview to someone else besides M*. Or I would like him to ask Christine Benz WTF one ANALyst or another at M* marries American Funds every other week. All well wishers of fund investors, please stop telling investors what they should do and go tell/appeal to those who make money off those investors.

Hi Guys,
MFOer Bee ended his/her submittal with the following aside: “It would be interesting to look more closely where these fund manager invest their profits since most fund managers commonly don't invest in the own mutual funds.”
This closure is definitely more than an aside. It is an important indicator when selecting a mutual fund. It might not rank as highly as a low expense ratio criterion, but it is a significant signal. Having significant skin in the game addresses commitment.
Bee is correct when he/she observes that most fund managers do not have that commitment. Although the percentages are not compelling, a surprising large number of fund managers do taste their own cooking. According to a Morningstar study, that number is in the vicinity of about One thousand loyal partakers of their own cooking. Good for them, not so good for those who abstain.
Here is a Link to a recent WSJ article by Liz Moyer that summarized some findings from the Morningstar study that was completed by Rus Kinnel:
http://www.wsj.com/articles/find-mutual-fund-managers-who-eat-their-own-cooking-1433518014
One shocking statistic that was uncovered by Kinnel’s research is the following: “Balanced funds, which own both stocks and bonds, exhibited the starkest difference in performance in the Morningstar study. The success rate for balanced-fund managers with no money invested was 32%, compared with 85% for managers betting more than $1 million.” That’s quite a jump in performance success when contrasted against a respectable benchmark.
Indeed, skin in the game is a primary motivator and a measure of a fund manager’s commitment to the investment policies that is practiced.
Best Wishes.

Here's my prediction: Fossil fuel companies will continue to deny climate change is real and of human origin until alternative energy becomes competitively priced and a true threat to their business at every level sans government subsidies. Then fossil fuel companies are going to go on a buying binge, acquiring all of the major alternative energy companies. Once they have complete control of the alternative energy industry, they will acknowledge that climate change is real and of human origin. It's sort of like tobacco companies buying companies with products to help you quit smoking now that the cat is officially out of the bag about smoking: abcnews.go.com/Business/buying-cigarettes-quit-smoking-aids-company/story?id=9057261 Win-win for them. They get to continue to sell fossil fuels and get to look like the good guys for offering alternatives to fossil fuels. Where would that leave socially-responsible funds? Unfortunately, it's problematic.

If the last thirty years are any indicator of future trends in Healthcare, maybe a 90/10 portfolio of VGHCX / VFISX vs Warren's VFINX / VFISX: (click on each image for better clarity)

Something never mentioned about these shareholder costs is that these are risk free returns for the Fund company.
Regardless of the gyrations of the market, asset under management never return a negative profits for fund managers. A fund that charges an ER of 1% on $1,000 invested will earn $10 return/year. If the market correct 50% and that $1,000 investment falls to $500 the fund company still earns a positive 1% or $5.
To me, this is the reason why there is such a motivation for the fund company to add assets under management (AUM). Profits for fund companies are often less about growing the mutual fund share price (fund performance) and more about growing the assets under management.
To me, the dirty secret is that fund management fees are always positive and are only more or less positive as it related to assets under management at any one time. Investors who pay these fees are additionally exposed directly to losses due to market risks. Fund managers deal with market risk by growing assets under management, not necessarily by focusing on the performance of the fund.
- The mutual fund shareholder, not the fund manager, assume market risk. If an equity fund experiences a 50% market correction the equity investor must absorb a 50% loss.
- Fund companies are profitable regardless of market performance. The fund manager continues to make a profit, sometimes a smaller profit, but still a profit.
- Fund managers deal with "lower profitability" from market risk by increasing their assets under management.
As an aside:
It would be interesting to look more closely where these fund manager invest their profits since most fund managers commonly don't invest in the own mutual funds.

PARNX is also fossil free as of Feb. 18, 2015.

I actually assumed all Parnassus was "fossil free".
PS Someone needs to file a pattent on Fossil Free Mutual Fund quickly. In fact, I'm expecting FOSFX launch soon now. Fossil Free Large Cap. Wisdom Tree Small Cap. Tree of Wisdom. Free off Fossill.

I understand what you are trying to get at. I do. Matter of fact on M* Bogle also made point as much as half of "fees" go to parties outside the fund manager.
http://www.morningstar.com/cover/videocenter.aspx?id=685180
There are fixed costs incurred by a fund. So many funds with low asset bases close because those assets cannot fund - no pun intended - the beast, where now fund company ends up operating fund at a loss.
The SAI of a fund does indicate where the expenses charged by the fund is going. Would we benefit from more disclosure? Sure. I'm saying there is enough information already. If expenses are the end all and be all, then we are all crazy to invest in actively managed funds.
I'm not saying your article is not relevant. I'm saying this problem if we accept it exists, is unsolvable unless we start capping fees for management as well as fixed costs, with trading costs being the only variable to account for the rest of the fees - more assets can possibly cause more commissions when fund has to buy larger quantities of shares of stocks it owns. The devil is in the details and the devil is here already. My point, investors have to share equal blame for investing in funds that are charging them too much.
As an investor, to me the ER is amount of $ I spend for every $1000 invested. My perspective is different from someone else's who's sitting on the side with an excel spreadsheet. JOHCM is collecting less fees, because it is managing fewer assets. The difference in assets between that fund and the American fund is so large, the ER becomes irrelevant since the percentage works off a much large asset base at the former. JOHCM is being fiscally responsible and investors should stay with that fund because they should believe JOHCM has investors best interest in mind and will be able to overcome any impediment of the ER over the long haul as opposed to the American fund.
I am not seeing the point saying American as a company is raking in more dollars but their fund has smaller ER. As an investor and IF I didn't pay the load, I would indeed pay less per $1000 would I not with the American fund? If both funds returned the same return, and everything else regarding taxes remaining the same, will I not keep more of the returns with the American fund? If not, American should be hauled into court because they are hiding stuff in their SAI.

@Sven
https://www.sec.gov/litigation/admin/34-49741.htm
(Above link sometimes doesn't work. You should, however, be able to pull up this 2004 SEC document doing a Google search. It's good reading.)
From the SEC Complaint: "From 1998 through 2001 and in 2003, Strong frequently traded 10 Strong funds, including one over which he was the portfolio manager, making approximately 660 redemptions inconsistent with the limitations of the prospectus in the forty accounts that he controlled. As a result of his trading, Strong had gross profits of $4.1 million and net profits of $1.6 million. SCM failed to disclose Canary's trading agreement, and the inherent conflicts of interest involved in allowing such trading, and Strong and SCM failed to disclose Strong's frequent trading activities, to the Boards of Directors of the Strong funds or to the shareholders of the funds ..."
---
Regarding his personal accounts, 660 redemptions (1998-2003) is an eye-grabber. Anybody here ever come close to that number of trades over a 5 year period? As a former shareholder I can tell you they didn't tolerate such frequent trading by most clients. I was cautioned once after doing about 6 trades in one of their funds over a year's time.
Here's a story detailing the rise and fall of Strong Capital Management and which references the takeover by Wells Fargo in May 2004.. http://www.pionline.com/article/20120806/PRINT/308069980/one-time-powerhouse-strong-financial-down-to-a-staff-of-1
Strong appealed to many small investors in the Midwest. Low minimums, flashy literature and promotion, and a sizeable stable of competitive funds. Strong himself, through one of his publications, taught me: "Pay Yourself First." That saying probably didn't originate with him, but I heard it first from him and it was inspiring and helpful at the time. A fairly charismatic figure, he appeared as a guest once on Rukeyser's Wall Street Week - though you could tell old Lou wasn't too impressed.

Hi @Ted and others,
Ted, it is nice to see you posting again; and, with this, I hope you are feeling better. I can assure you that you were indeed missed.
I have mixed feelings about your price target for the 500 Index (2059 X 6.7%=2200). Currently, I feel stocks in the Index are richely priced with a current TTM P/E Ratio of 22.7 and on forward estimates at 17.9. What concerns me is the spread between reported (TTM) and estimates is better than 25% with Friday's market close price of 2079 (October 30) for the Index. With this, I am thinking forward estimates will be getting revised downward and at your price target of 2200 then this puts stocks as expensive at yearend and vunerable for correction as they are today assuming earnings do improve and stay in step with your anticipated price improvement. If your anticipated price target is achieved then I hope earnings estimates come through to support this price target; and, that they do not get revised downward so the beat rate, by analyst, looks good for 4Q2015 reporting. I think the average investor is, at times, mislead by beat rate reporting not knowing that this most often happens as a product of analyst's making revised downward earnings expectations up to and sometimes just before companies report. Thus, the beat rate continues. I personally do not see much continued upside in the markets until corporate earnings and revenue improve. This could continue to be a challenge with a strong dollar and a rising interest rate environment on the horizon. I have no plans this year to make a special investment position for an anticipated fall stock market rally because I think stocks, as a whole, are currently overbought.
With this, I am Ieft pondering; and, standing pat with my portfolio's current asset allocation of about 25% cash, 20% income, 50% equity and 5% other assets as of my last Instant Xray report (October 30, 2015).
Again, it is nice to see you posting.
I sincerely wish you the very best; and, take care of yourself.
Old_Skeet

Sorry, but I don't understand.
I totally get one should look at how much the fund company is raking in. That's why one needs to observe if ER is going down when assets are going up or not. One also has to look at the management fee portion of the total ER since some fund strategies are costly to implement and one must weigh that before purchasing any actively managed fund.
What I don't get is the comment about whether it needs really $1B to run a $128B. Of course not. Since when has it been about that? The larger the fund asset base, the larger the management fee as a percentage. A fund manager is successful when he generates more revenue for his fund company. Are we going to pretend it is anything else? If the asset size of fund grew more because of appreciation and less because of asset accumulation, then didn't the investors think it is worth it. You pay more for an iPhone than other phones right?
VFINX ER is 0.15 (or whatever it is does not matter). What if the assets of VFINX were 10th of its current size. Are we going to ANALize how much it is going to cost to run this fund based on its asset size now? Someone of Bogle's standing IMHO should do more about railing against investors. Tell them to vote with their feet and SELL funds with $128B in assets who are raking in $1B in fees. Or is he suggesting capping fund expenses beyond a certain asset size of a fund? That would be a fantastic regulation. I
Finally, anyone who buys a load fund needs to have their head examined. If it is because they are working with an advisor, then as I have said many times we need to put that occupation out of business. I want Bogle to write articles about advisors who are selling loaded funds with 5.75% loss upfront. I want him to rail about M* doing analysis about how American funds (who can do no wrong) are cheap because even if most people pay a load, over time they cost less because their ER is lower. I listen to Bogle when he rants about indexing vs active management. Indexing is what I use largely in my tax deferred plans. If I was saying same thing for 50 years, I would think it is quite enough and at age 85 take a chill pill.
BTW, Alan Greenspam. Please go away as well. No one needs to hear your expertise on how to (mis)manage the fed.
I'm sorry, but this "news" is only slightly less annoying than "who killed marilyn monroe" shows which TV channels show whenever nothing else interesting is happening in the world. Does anyone have an original idea to help investors?
End of rant.
PS. For the record, I do NOT want Mr Lewis Branham to go away. I DO WANT Greenspam and BogleMyMind to go away or comment on some other topic. Write a cookbook or something.

Don't know much about the tax angle, but VEIPX is one of the best V'rd LCap value funds in the last 5-10 years.

Good point. Even in what has been largely a "Growth" environment, this "Value" fund has done quite well. Might be a good candidate to DCA into.
Thanks for the heads up!

Don't know much about the tax angle, but VEIPX is one of the best V'rd LCap value funds in the last 5-10 years.

I likely wrote a bit too compressed.
The M* figures in the article are as of 9/30/2015. When one quotes YTD figures, one has to be clear on what the "date" is in "year to date". (The Nov 2 dateline of the article is the date the article was written, not necessarily the date of the data within the article.)
M* shows YTD (D = Nov 3) for PREMX of 3.14%. Likely rounding was done differently by Bloomberg; I'm not going try to figure out why the two figures differ by 0.01%. They're basically the same.
If you're looking at YTD performance that includes October and part of November, it would be nice to know what was in the portfolio that produced that performance. Unfortunately, funds report their portfolios with a 30 day lag (at least I think that's the delay), so the best you're going to get is a portfolio as of 9/30/15.
It seems to me that if that's the portfolio one is looking at, then one should also be looking at the performance that this particular portfolio achieved - that is, the returns through the same date, 9/30. Not that it makes a big difference. The portfolio is in constant flux, day by day and even minute by minute, so a snapshot still doesn't tell you what happened along the way to achieve the performance shown.
The raw data for holdings should be the same regardless of the source of you data. That is, Bloomberg, M*, the fund page, should all report exactly the same holdings for a fund on a given date.
But any analysis of the holdings (average credit rating, percent in cash, etc.) is going to vary from source to source. That's because while two sources (M*, fund page) may use the same names (e.g. percent in cash), their calculations may be different.
M* throws bonds with maturities under 1 year into the cash bucket. So if you have a portfolio that is filled entirely with bonds where half mature in six months and half mature in 10 years, M* will say that your portfolio is 50% cash, 50% bonds. My guess is that when M* analyzes the country exposure of the portfolio, it only looks at the 50% in long term bonds. And the country exposure of those bonds may be different than the country exposure of the short term bonds. So what's reported as country exposure might depend on whether you look at just the long bonds or all the bonds.
I haven't even gotten into derivatives, in part because I haven't tried thinking through how one might analyze them. Suffice to say that TGBAX plays enough games with currency exposure (it bears no relationship to the bond country exposure) that one should be able to come up with very different figures depending on how one treats derivatives.
Ideally, one should read up on how all of the numbers are calculated. (I've posted before about how M* computes average credit quality in a way that gives a lot more weight to lower graded bonds.)
If one doesn't fully understand what the numbers mean (I certainly don't), the next best thing is to stick with one source (M*, Bloomberg, some other aggregator). That way, any summary figure (e.g. average credit quality) is computed the same way for each of the funds one is comparing. M* will compute credit the same way for PREMX as for VTBIX.

Howdy @heezsafe
Listening to sounds for investing................and happened to read your thought about the market place. while this was playing (below). Perhaps not totally relevant for all the words for investing, but.............
As crazy as the markets and the science of money may be, there is too much moving around looking for a place to play, eh? We're riders on the money trains if we choose to participate. I think about the many I know who don't have the concerns, cares or thoughts that pass across the typed pages here. There are days when I think about running away from home (investing that is); but, I know what I know and am pleased that I have enough knowledge and time into this game to participate with some success.
I wouldn't have it any other way, among the various other areas in my life today. Next month or next year I may run out of the desire. I hope I am able to see and understand when that day arrives, and it will.
Regards,
Catch
"Déjà Vu" Crosby, Stills, Nash & Young, 1970
One Two Three Four
If I had ever been here before
I would probably know just what to do
Don't you?
If I had ever been here before on another time around the wheel
I would probably know just how to deal
With all of you
And I feel
Like I've been here before
Feel
Like I've been here before
And you know it makes me wonder
What's going on under the ground, hmmm
Do you know? Don't you wonder?
What's going on down under you
We have all been here before, we have all been here before
We have all been here before, we have all been here before
We have all been here before, we have all been here before

Some may have to double click the play arrow.