In the coming weeks, according to American Airlines, the current American Airlines $uper $aver 401(k) Plan will be renamed the American Airlines, Inc. 401(k) Plan. Employee accounts from the US Airways Employee Savings Plan will also begin merging into the new Plan. This includes legacy US Airways flight attendant and non-contract employee accounts. Accounts for the legacy US Airways groups that have not reached joint ratified contracts will, for now, remain in the Employee Savings Plan.
Pilot accounts in the legacy American $uper $aver, and the legacy US Airways 401(k) Plan for Pilots and Future Care plans will move to a new American Airlines, Inc. 401(k) Plan for Pilots. The legacy Retirement Savings Plan for Pilots of US Airways, Inc. will remain separate at this time, however, upon the effective date of the new Pilot 401(k) Plan, the company contribution for these pilots will be made to the new Pilot 401(k) Plan.
The new Plan accounts are composed of a core account and an optional BrokerageLink® account.
AFS manages our clients’ 401(k) accounts using the BrokerageLink® option. As an institutional level adviser, we have access to more funds and ETFs (about 20,000) as well as more cost efficient share classes than normal retail BrokerageLink® accounts. We have also negotiated with Fidelity, the plan custodian, and have been able to reduce transaction fees by 67% (as compared to retail accounts) for mutual funds that charge them.

American Airlines Inc., Fort Worth, Texas, hired Fidelity Investments as sole provider for its 401(k) plans, starting in mid-2015, said Elise R. Eberwein, executive vice president, people and communications, for American Airlines, in an e-mail...[more]

Fidelity Investments will assume the responsibility for American Airlines’ 401(k) participants beginning in the middle of 2015.
The new relationship comes on the heels of the American and US Airways merger, announced in December of 2013. Fidelity has provided retirement services to US Airways since 1993.... [more]

GLDSX has all of the trappings of a friends and family fund. Golden Asset Management runs 10 strategies, including this one, through separately managed accounts. They've got about $6.5 billion in AUM. This appears to be the only one also available as a '40 Act fund.
...
David

Yep. The past five years have certainly been ... uhhh, golden for them. Here's their 10-year record versus their peer group:
2006: (4.2) - that is, they trailed the pack by 4.2% that year
2007: (2.1)
2008: 0.1 - that is, 0.1% better than their peers
2009: (17.7)
2010: (2.9)
2011: 5.4
2012: (1.0)
2013: (2.2)
2014: 8.5
2015: 6.4
So, they've trailed in six of the past 10 years by 1.0 - 17.7%. They've led in four years, including 2015 YTD, by 0.1 - 8.5%. Happily for them, most of the good years are appearing in the 1, 3, and 5 year windows.
David

Hi, willmatt!
And "nuts." I wrote a response a couple hours ago, hit "post" and ran off to a meeting. Upon return, I discovered no-post. Nuts.
GLDSX has all of the trappings of a friends and family fund. Golden Asset Management runs 10 strategies, including this one, through separately managed accounts. They've got about $6.5 billion in AUM. This appears to be the only one also available as a '40 Act fund.
The small core strategy launched in 2002 and claim they're managing about $300 million in the strategy. Why "claim"? Because the performance composite for the strategy lists a composite value of $87 million. Even if you count the fund's $98 million separately, you're still under $200 million.
In any case, it's a focused, even-weight, sector-neutral portfolio. 60 stocks with a 1.67% target weighting. Over the past three and five years, it's beaten the Russell 2000 by 250-300 bps/year. That said, returns tend to be lumpy and performance strikes me as unpredictable. That's not automatically bad but since I don't know why they do what they do, it's hard to know what to make of them.
I did write Golden today and I'll happily share whatever I hear back.
As ever,
David

Linked below are more current comments from Secretary Clinton. I'm thinking the baby is getting tossed out with the bathwater here....I would like to see the CEO of Turing get skewered, but *DEVELOPERS* of orphan compounds absolutely can't survive on a $250 monthly cap.
Once the dust settles, this may be a nice entry point. Pharma has too much sway ( i.e. money) with Congress to have these items put into practice.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/09/22/us-usa-election-clinton-idUSKCN0RM08D20150922

With respect to GILD specifically, wouldn't say "excessive speculation", but sure as hell would say excessive automated trading. You can't tell me that these ridiculous swings every day are due to anything but automated trades taking advantage of, and probably causing, the volatility. Look at today for example. A 2% disparity (GILD up .7%) with the health index (down 1.3%). Interesting to watch, if nothing else.