Thanks. That's very helpful. It looks like this is a pure quant fund (albeit with multiple models).
It's curious that this information is not in any SEC filings. The only similar information (in the prospectus) is that Harindra de Silva, Ph.D, a member of the Analytic Investors, LLC management team "works primarily on research for the strategy (i.e., model maintenance and design)". From "model" one might infer quant management for this sleeve.
The only source I can find for the information you provided are "Fact Sheets" for the fund, such as this one dated June 30, 2015. Stranger still is that these are not published by SEI, in the sense that there doesn't seem to be a way to navigate to them.
FWIW, here's their glossy on their Managed Volatility funds.
All in all, a bit unusual, like they don't want you to know about the fund. Or, it's all in plain sight and I'm just having a bad day :-)

@PRESSmUP Holdings in the chart are as of March 31, 2015. There may have been a few changes since then.
@Dex Maybe this is a good thing? [of course, junk declines often foreshadow broader mkt corrections, so when I suggest "good" you're probably thinking "whatchoo talkin' 'bout, Willis?"] :)

well, then this chart won't make you feel much better...
http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2015/09/a-question-of-liquidity/

@little5bee
Call one of the three parties named on the second page of the subscription for questions. I am sure any of three of them will be able to help you.

http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/809593/000113322815004961/e420919_485apos.htm
Sub-Advisor
The Fund's investment sub-advisor is Sound Point Capital Management, LP.
Sound Point Floating Rate Income Fund previously mentioned:
http://www.mutualfundobserver.com/discuss/discussion/comment/66946/#Comment_66946 ?

Looks like SVOAX lines up very well with BPAIX (the shareclass of BPVAX with the same min). It's doing 3-6% better short term (YTD, 1 year), a bit less than 1% worse over 3 and 10 year spans, 1.25% better over 5 years.
Clearly doing better tha BPAIX in the 2015 down market, and held up nearly as well as BPAIX in 2008 (losing about 2% more, but still about 10% less than the market).
It did that as a midcap blend fund, and has been gradually drifting over to large, then value where it sits now. It's a minimum volatility fund (check its name); its low standard deviation and M* risk attest to that. On the other hand, that also means it is subject to higher turnover as noted in its prospectus: "Due to its investment strategy, the Fund may buy and sell securities frequently."
Overall, looks like an interesting fund, definitely worth consideration.
It's a little hard to get a handle on its management - three different management companies, each with several managers involved. Don't know whether each team is allocated a sleeve, or if there is dynamic allocation among teams.
SEI apparently has two different sets of funds with the same names, organized as series of SEI Institutional Managed Trust (including SVOAX), and as series of SEI Institutional Investment Trusts. There you'll find another SEI US US Managed Volatility Fund (SVYAX), managed with nearly the identical slew of managers, lower expenses and a similar but slightly better record (some of which may be attributable to a lower ER). Unfortunately, this appears to be a "true" institutional fund, sold only to institutions, 401k plans, etc.

PRDGX or VDIGX for domestic funds; VIG for domestic ETF's
PID for international dividend growth
I know there are others, as well...these are the ones that came to mind. Just thinking that this might be what you're looking for, if you can take more risk.

NOBL popped up on my radar as well. Thoughts?

@willmatt72 What about one of the dividend growth ETFs/funds? You will be getting in at a lower cost than several months ago and hopefully, will grow your income AND get a gain. Although remember, this tax loss selling season may be a bit brutal. Maybe better to wait till after December distributions are paid and get in even lower...at least that's what my crystal ball is telling me ;)

Any suggestions for both OEFs and ETFs?

Think that this sort of information should be disclosed by the funds for benefit of shareholders that don't have the time or resources to gather the information and calculate the numbers themselves.

I'm 100% with you here. It seems like you are starting with this and backing into "solutions" that make no sense, in part because you're tying ERs (and other SEC disclosures) to taxes when those are two different (though related) things, calculated in ways that don't always line up.
There are other costs not included in the ER, like trading costs. See WSJ, "The Hidden Cost of Mutual Funds". I think all this information should be readily accessible.
That applies to all funds, not just funds that pass through the foreign taxes paid. Just because a fund has only 30% of its assets in foreign countries, like VGENX, doesn't mean that the fund isn't paying foreign taxes, or that your net returns aren't getting correspondingly reduced.

Your original question was: "Why then, doesn't the SEC require that mutual funds that own foreign dividend-paying stocks report two expense ratios"
In order to call for the reporting of two different ERs, it was necessary for you to establish two points: that foreign taxes paid should be included in the ER reported, and that (given that taxes paid are included in the ER) that the reported amount of foreign taxes paid by the fund should be different depending on whether the owner holds the fund in a taxable or tax-deferred account.
Stated that way, the second part sounds silly. A fund pays the same amount of dollars per share (of given share class) in expenses independent of who owns it.
Regardless, all I needed to do to address your original question was demonstrate a problem with either of the two points (include taxes in ER, and report them two different ways). I spoke primarily to the latter, though I touched tangentially on the former.
You cited Schwab (presumably with approval), that said the difference between a taxable account and a tax-deferred account was merely a timing issue - that in the tax deferred account "there's no deduction or credit currently available", but that nevertheless a foreign tax paid " reduces the amount of tax the IRS is able to collect when you start making withdrawals."
I simply explained what you had cited as a reference. Suggestion for the future - if you doesn't agree with everything on a page provided as a reference, don't cite it, or say explicitly what you are citing it for. "Resource" opens the whole page up to use.
The posts tossed in a lot of extraneous items, some of which generated more heat than light. For example, 12b-1 fees as the exemplar expense. Those fees come with a lot of baggage. You might have used almost any other fund expense instead.
Ideally, one might try to find another fund expense that closely resembled a foreign tax. I've an idea - how about a domestic government assessment (tax or fee) paid by a fund? There's the SEC Section 31 fee that brokers tack onto your sale of securities on an exchange. (It's that little fee, typically a few cents that you see on your sell trade confirms.)
Funds pay this government charge when they trade securities, so that's a similar expense. Oh wait, that isn't included in the ER either. Oh well :-)
Regarding the thesis that the "only case where it would be a 'timing issue' is the one where you paid taxes at a rate of 100% on the money withdrawn from the retirement account", it's easy enough to show that isn't correct.
We'll stay on point here and filter out as much noise as possible. We'll focus strictly comparing the impact of foreign taxes paid in a taxable account with their impact in an IRA by eliminating other sources of tax liability.
Assume that the original contribution was nondeductible (so that there's no tax due on the principal when withdrawn). Assume that all income generated by the fund comes in the form of nonqualified dividends (so the tax rate for the taxable and IRA accounts are the same). Assume no growth of principal. We'll assume that taxes are paid from another pocket, so that this extra cash doesn't clutter calculations either.
Getting back to my original example - in year 1, your investment earns dividends (after expenses other than foreign taxes) of $1.10. The investment pays $0.10 in foreign taxes, and distributes $1 in cash, while declaring that you have $1.10 in income. In year 2, assume no growth, no dividends. For our final assumption, we'll say that in year 2 you close out the IRA (and are over age 59.5 - no penalties).
Remember that I'm showing only that the result in the IRA is the same as taking a deduction (not a credit) in the taxable account.
Year 1:
Taxable account, have an extra $1 nonqualified cash dividend in your account. You declare income of $1.10 and a deduction of $0.10, for net taxable ordinary income of $0.025 (assuming 25% tax bracket).
IRA: You have an extra $1 in your account.
Year 2:
Taxable account - no change. You have the extra $1 in your taxable account, no taxes due.
IRA: No growth. You have your original post-tax investment and $1 of increased value. You close your account. You owe ordinary income of $0.025 on that $1 (which again comes from another pocket).
Same taxes owed. Just deferred a year. Timing.
---------------------------
The conceit is that the fund is a pass through entity. It passes some of the tax liability through to you. Notably, foreign taxes, but only sometimes. When it does, it is you not the fund paying the taxes. That happens by the fund giving you the full distribution (here $1.10), and then taking back the tax amount so that it can pay it for you.
That's not an expense of the fund (i.e. one included in the calculation of fund income passed through to you). It's your expense. As the IRS writes, "You can claim a credit only for foreign taxes that are imposed on you".
For the IRA investor, that foreign tax is a fee like any other - a brokerage commission, a load, a redemption fee, etc. The investor gets to treat that foreign tax collected from the IRA the same way as any other expense incurred by the IRA.
For the investor with a taxable account, the foreign tax is again an expense borne by the account, not by the fund. It is precisely because the investor (not the fund) is paying the tax that the investor gets to take a deduction or credit.

"I plan to sell one of my funds and buy into another fund in the same category in IRA"
"What if any would you do in this scenario?"
++++++++++++
If I determine that I don't like my current fund and have found a fund I do like to replace it....then I would consider this a lateral move in the stock market and I would sell the one I don't like and go right into the one I do like. It's not an asset allocation change, just getting out of a fund you don't like and in to one you like.....so I would go with your option 1 above.
If you sell it all into cash and then dollar cost average into the next fund [your option 3 above], you have changed your asset allocation and will be partially out of the market with that money for a period of time........so the timing of those purchases will impact your performance. If you want to be partially out of the market, that's fine....that would be a way to do it. If you feel we are heading into more market weakness and want to be partially out and dollar cost back in, that's a way to do it.
There's no right or wrong way to do this.
Option 2 is also fine, especially if you are concerned that the fund you sell might do better than the one you buy............anything can happen when you sell one fund and replace it with another, so option 2 can be very good.
As you said, there are no tax implications.
Note that in an IRA, most brokerages will not let you sell all of Fund A (say it has $25,000 in it) and buy $25,000 of Fund B on the same day. They will usually let you buy 90% of the current value of Fund A...and buy the other 10% the next day. The reason: if it is a traditional mutual fund, the price won't be known until after the market close, so the $$ amount of the proceeds won't be known.
Cheers

For example, consider two international funds and one international sector fund from Vanguard:
1. VTRIX - International Value Fund
2. VFWAX - FTSE All World Ex US Index Fund Admiral
3. VGRLX - Global Ex US Real Estate Index Fund Admiral
The funds yields are as of Sep 2015, tax information from last year, with expense ratios as noted below. 2014 tax info for each fund is from VG's Foreign Tax Center.

Ticker      Div Yield     Foreign Tax Paid   Expense Ratio  Div Yield x Forgn Tax Pd
VTRIX       2.72%         4.94%              0.44%           0.13%
VFWAX       2.99%         5.33%              0.14%           0.16%
VGRLX       3.22%         4.66%              0.24%           0.15%

The "unclaimable" foreign tax credit (for investors who hold the funds in tax -advantaged retirement accounts) appears in the last column of the above table, and is equal to the product of the [Dividend Yield] and [Foreign Tax Paid].
Compare this cost (for that is what it is, no?) with the investments' stated expense ratio.
While not "large" in absolute levels, it is about one-third of the ER of the actively managed fund, MORE than the ER of the world index fund, and more than half of the ER of the Global R/E fund.
Think that this sort of information should be disclosed by the funds for benefit of shareholders that don't have the time or resources to gather the information and calculate the numbers themselves.

The short answer to your question is to reread the Schwab page, specifically the section on Deferred Accounts: "Think of it as a timing issue."
First let me note that many funds do not pass through foreign taxes at all. Global funds are not allowed to pass through the taxes if less than half their assets are foreign. Other funds simply choose not to pass through the expenses.
Say a fund has $1.10 in income, and pays $0.10 in foreign taxes. It pays a $1 dividend to you in cold, hard cash. As far as the taxes go, it has two choices.
It can say that you netted $1 of income, end of story. That is, treat the foreign taxes the same as any other expense (notably like commissions that don't show up in the ER either).
Or it can say that you received $1.10 of income, but that it held back $0.10 to pay your share of foreign taxes. That way, you show more income, but also have a pass through expense to use on your tax return.
If you choose to treat it as a deduction, you wind up with taxable net income of $1 - the same as you've got in the IRA (where you got that $1 of cash). That's also the same result as if the fund hadn't passed through the tax expense to you (you got $1 income, end of story).
Up to here, there's no difference, after taxes, between what happens with the IRA and what happens in the taxable account. Either way, you're netting $1 of taxable income. The IRA defers the taxes, but it's still $1 of income when you withdraw the dividend. That's what Schwab is talking about with its "timing issue".
There is another way to treat foreign tax pass throughs, but only in taxable accounts. So if there's a difference, it's not between taxable accounts and IRAs, but between taxpayers who take a deduction and taxpayers who take a credit. The fund doesn't know which choice you made on your 1040.
I believe the theory behind taking a credit is the same idea as paying income taxes in two states (or two countries). If one moves between states, it is possible that both states will tax the same income. Say one state taxes you at 5%, and the other at 7%. If the first state collects 5% from you, the the latter state will tax you so that the total amount you pay is 7%. It does this by giving you credit for the 5% tax you already paid.
Same idea with the foreign tax. You've already paid tax to another country on the income. So the US says that it will give you credit for that portion of your income taxes. But it won't give you credit for more than you would owe in US taxes. You cannot reduce your US tax on this particular income below zero. You wind up paying in toto the higher of the two rates, US and foreign. (This is the foreign tax credit limitation - Form 1116 - that your Schwab page is talking about.)
Either theory - tax credit or tax deduction - makes sense. One of them, the tax deduction, leads to the same after tax result in the IRA and in the taxable account.
I'm ignoring the issue of funds taxed as corporations (per IRC Section 851(b)(3)(B)(iii)) since that gets into accounting (accrued liability affecting NAV), which is a rather different animal from operating expenses. Though I suppose one could argue that it's nothing but a timing issue, again.

With respect to foreign dividend funds/ETFs (such as those in registration at Vanguard, or offered by Wisdom Tree, others, etc.)...
The SEC requires that funds that hold >25% of their holdings in MLPs to be taxed as corporations, and accrue a deferred tax liability, which is included in the reported expense ratio of the the funds.
See for example, disclosure from AMLP, available here: http://www.alpsfunds.com/documents/pdfs/amlp-edu-20120509.pdf and expense ratio, as listed at left here: http://www.alpsfunds.com/resources/AMLP.
Why then, doesn't the SEC require that mutual funds that own foreign dividend-paying stocks report two expense ratios:
1. One expense ratio for taxable investors; and
2. One expense ratio for non-taxable investors (such as those investing through IRA accounts, for example).
While foreign taxes paid are - to some extent - recoverable via foreign tax credit or deduction, any credit can not be obtained when the funds are held in a retirement account.
Shouldn't the additional "locational burden" be disclosed, on either a mandatory (SEC) or voluntary basis? Is anyone aware of any fund that highlights the extra cost in their prospectus or annual report?
Other resources below. Thanks.
Tax Rate Schedule, circa 2011 [for example, see second table]
http://topforeignstocks.com/2011/01/23/withholding-tax-rates-by-country-for-foreign-stock-dividends/
Investopedia on Foreign Tax Credit
http://www.investopedia.com/articles/personal-finance/012214/understanding-taxation-foreign-investments.asp
Schwab on Claiming Foreign Tax Credit Deduction
http://www.schwab.com/public/schwab/nn/articles/Claiming-Foreign-Taxes-Credit-or-Deduction

Here are the risk/return metrics for GLDSX through August since inception and across various evaluation periods. (The screenshot is from our beta MFO Premium site.)
David points out that GLDSX trails the pack at the 10 year mark, which is reflected in the lifetime metrics below and across the current market cycle since November 2007.

Its performance here is another example of a fund that gets recognized for its shorter term performance (eg., Great Owl and Honor Roll designations), while the longer term performance may be lacking. We've discussed other such funds before on the board.
As a reminder, Honor Roll from the legacy Fund Alarm rating system means the fund is top quintile based on absolute return across the past 1, 3, and 5 year evaluation periods. While MFO Great Owls are top quintile based on risk adjusted returns for all evaluation periods 3 years and greater (eg., 3, 5, 10, and 20).
In this case, through August the fund is just under 10 years, so there is no 10 year ranking. But when our rankings get updated through September, the 10 year performance will be pretty poor and GLDSX will no longer get the GO designation, which is supposed to go to funds that have consistently produced top risk adjusted returns.
My rambling here is because I've been considering updating the GO designation slightly to require lifetime performance to also be top quintile if that period is less than 20 years. David Moran got me thinking along these lines a while ago...he actually has bigger issues with the designation, but he did get me thinking about imposing the lifetime constraint. As always, would appreciate any thoughts.

let us know what's on your list, okay?

Celgene (CELG) and Gilead (GILD) are the primary two that I have as long-term holdings. Amgen (AMGN) is also worth a look at these levels. Celgene has basically given investors guidance out to 2020 and while it's not a major part of their revenue, Celgene is interesting from the standpoint of you have a biotech that basically is picking and choosing what it believes are compelling possible collaborations in a lot of the smaller (and some larger names.)
Not an up-to-date chart, but gives an idea:

Guidance:

Gilead is now trading with a 10 p/e, so there's that (plus a massive buyback in place.)
I do think you have to have a longer-term view for these names, because the second anything even remotely concerning is associated with a possible problem for the biotech industry, people just absolutely flee like no other sector in the market.

Given the relatively small amount of money involved (as was pointed out in the NYTimes article), this may have been a situation where First Eagle cut legal corners on something it could have done legally.
It could have gone to the board and said: The fund is bleeding cash. This is causing fire sales and hurting investors. We need to staunch the outflow, by increasing marketing. Raise our management fees to cover that marketing and we'll pay for the marketing services. That would have been legal, and the net effect would have been to have the investors pay for the extra marketing expenses.
Instead, First Eagle decided to short circuit the process and just use the fund assets directly without involving the board. It was aware this wasn't legal, because it hid the payments from the board and from shareholders by saying they were for shareholder services (which were allowed to come from investor assets).
I'm not saying this was their thinking, and what they did certainly wasn't legal. But since the same investor money could have been spent legally on marketing, it doesn't seem to me that investors were fleeced. Rather, what bothers me is the deliberate illegality.
A footnote - Morgenson's calculation of the amount of money First Eagle netted from management fees on the net inflows is wrong. She said that First Eagle took in $23.1B over six years. Multiplying it by the management fee of 0.75% per year, she gets additional management fees of $173M.
But this was over six years. The average extra AUM was half of the $23.1B (assuming linear growth). And this amount should be multiplied by 0.75 times six (for six years). That makes the $25M spent on marketing look even smaller, and thus less likely that this was done by First Eagle to make an illegal buck. Hardly excuses it.

So..........First Eagle is a branch of Volkswagen? They sold their integrity and good name for 25 mil? I've had a bunch of money with these guys for 10 years -- and they stole from me? Time to move on.

FYI: A rocky week for the broader stock market has inflicted serious damage to exchange-traded funds that track biotechnology stocks.
The $8 billion iShares Nasdaq Biotechnology ETF (IBB) fell 6.5% recent trading on Friday.
The ETF has fallen each day this week, bringing its total five-day decline to 14% — the biggest weekly drop since Oct. 2008, the height of the financial crisis.
Regards,
Ted
http://blogs.barrons.com/focusonfunds/2015/09/25/biotech-bombs-suffers-worst-weekly-decline-since-08/tab/print/