I've often wondered what caused FAIRX to falter. The performance since 2010 has just been horrendous.

@MFO Members: Unfortunately, the article link by JohnN, the stock choices were in slideshow format. Here are the nine.
Regards,
Ted
1. CVS
2. MSFT
3. SBUX
4. PG
5. HD
6. UNH
7. TXN
8. ITW
9. AFL

https://money.usnews.com/investing/dividends/slideshows/9-solid-stocks-growing-their-dividendsSolid Stocks Growing Their Dividends
Sept. 5, 2018
When investors look for stocks paying dividends, sometimes they fall into the trap of simply picking a big dividend yield. However, chasing yield can have its flaws.
You have to hold a stock for 12 months to get the full annualized dividend yield – and a lot can happen in that period, including potential reductions to payouts or severe declines in stock price. A better strategy for many investors over the long term is to hold a stable stock that continues to grow its dividend consistently.
These dividend growers may not offer the biggest yield, but they do offer the potential of steady increases in payouts and a lot of consistency as a result.
1. CVS Health Corp. (ticker: CVS). Health giant CVS saw some downward pressure in the wake of a massive $69 billion bid for health insurer Aetna (AET) in March. However, shares have bounced back recently with the stock up about 25 percent from those spring lows on increased optimism about the long-term prospects of this giant that is increasingly a one-stop shop for all things in health care.
For income investors, the dividend is nice but the long-term history of increases is even better. CVS pays a current rate of $2 annually per share, an extraordinary increase over the 28 cents it paid in 2008.
2. Microsoft Corp. (MSFT). Software giant Microsoft has been on a tear in the last few years, with its stock tripling since 2013 thanks to the shrewd leadership of CEO Satya Nadella. A new focus on cloud computing and a rejuvenation of the brand has helped propel this tech giant to new all-time highs like clockwork. The dividend has kept pace with that sharp upward climb, too.
Though a relatively new kid on the dividend block, tech giant Microsoft has wasted no time showing how generous it can be with payouts; dividends were 52 cents in 2008 and are currently pacing an annual rate of $1.68. – Jeff Reeves

FYI: Defense Wins Championships
Regards,
Ted
https://www.morganstanleyfa.com/public/projectfiles/onthemarkets.pdf

FYI: Passive index fund investing is popular for a singular reason. In most cases, passive index fund investment returns surpass those of active fund managers.
John Bogle and his Vanguard brokerage firm launched the first S&P 500 index fund in 1977 with the idea that if costs were slashed, a simple fund that mirrored the S&P 500 had a chance to return close to 9 percent annually, the historical stock market average.
Gradually, the index fund caught on and today there are hundreds of varieties of index funds covering popular indices such as the Dow Jones industrial average and the S&P 500, to niche funds encompassing small-cap, growth, value stocks and more. Investors can also choose from bond, commodity and alternative asset index funds.
The index fund mania doesn't show signs of abating. A recent research report from Standard & Poor's found that index fund investing was more successful than ever. The 2017 report states that over the last 15 years, 92 percent of actively managed large-cap funds returns lagged those of a S&P 500 index fund. And, small- and mid-cap active funds were worse performers with 93 and 95 percent of indexes, respectively, winning the return competition over similar actively managed funds.
Regards,
Ted
https://money.usnews.com/investing/funds/articles/2018-09-05/are-actively-managed-mutual-funds-fading-away

Dear friends,
Chip's lumbar drain was closed yesterday and removed this morning. Absent last minute excitement, I'll teach my advertising class, drive out just about 1:00 and retrieve her. Keeping a good thought.
This is also my son's first day of college classes.
And, Linked In informs me, this is the 34th anniversary of the start of my teaching career at Augustana. I tried hard to find a flaw in their math, but failed.
Hopeful of talking tomorrow with Andrew Foster about Seafarer's evolution, its resurgent performance, Morningstar's decision to put his analyst rating "under review" and his take on the turmoil in his universe.
As ever,
David

FYI: Bruce Berkowitz, head of Fairholme Capital Management, has cut his personal exposure to Sears Holdings by selling a little more than half a million dollars in stock.
Berkowitz disclosed in filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission that he sold 444,800 shares of the struggling department store between Aug. 21 and Aug. 27 for a total of $517,100, or an average of $1.16 each.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.barrons.com/articles/big-sears-shareholder-slashes-stake-1536147001?mod=hp_highlight_2
M* FAIRX Holdings:
http://portfolios.morningstar.com/fund/holdings?t=FAIRX&region=usa&culture=en-US

FYI: PIMCO, one of the world’s premier fixed income investment managers, has hired John Studzinski as Managing Director and Vice Chairman of PIMCO in its Executive Office. Mr. Studzinski, who has spent most of his career working in Asia and Europe, brings to PIMCO 30 years of experience as a trusted financial and strategic advisor who has forged deep bonds among the world’s leaders in business, finance, government and NGOs. He will be based in PIMCO’s New York office and will report to Emmanuel Roman, PIMCO’s Chief Executive Officer.
Regards,
Ted
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/pimco-hires-john-studzinski-managing-113000116.html

Right, they should just pull a random sample from the morningstar.com forum and run with it ... or, they can prob'ly get all they need from the 791 (and counting) comments on the "How Tiresome ..." thread.

@rforno +1

FYI: (This is a follow-up article.)
The fiduciary rule is dead, but its spirit lives on.
The rule, which the Department of Labor first proposed in 2015, required brokers to act as fiduciaries — to put their clients’ interests ahead of their own — when handling retirement accounts. It sounded simple, but it meant that brokers would have to rethink the way they do business.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2018-09-04/merrill-lynch-can-t-restore-the-bad-old-days-of-conflicts

@Old_Joe: " You want a link? Here's one that you may find helpful." Joe you need to highlight, copy and paste in order to have a link. You get an F- in linking 101.

@Ted: Easy, there, Ted. Don't lose it again. You want a link? Here's one that you may find helpful.

Did you take a close look at the criteria?

No institutional share classes. I exclude these to help you get a list you can use. (I allow funds called institutional if the minimum investment is $25,000 or less.)

Maybe you were just lax with your tickers, and you meant DSENX. We can work with that.
We still don't have to look very far. Start with the first criterion:

Cheapest quintile of broad level category groupings.

DSENX ain't cheap. "[A]ll large-cap U.S. equity funds are in one grouping." M* says that DSENX's 0.81% ER (prospectus)/0.79% (annual report) rates "average" among "Large cap no load" funds.
Moving on to the second criterion:

Manager investment of more than $1 million in the fund.

You invest in this fund, so you're probably aware of these figures. Grundlach has put not a dime into this fund. Garza, who doesn't even manage the fund (he manages DMLIX), has put in more money than that. At least Sherman has invested six figures, but not even half the million bucks required to qualify for M*'s list.
I could go on.

FYI: (Revised, at one time I owned Vanguard Wellington.)
It’s time once more for Russel's annual screen for fantastic funds. With just a few key screens, he pared down the universe of more than 8,000 mutual funds to just 28.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.morningstar.com/articles/881522/the-terrific-28.html

FYI: Retirement investment products are failing too many investors, according to a group of researchers, but there may be a better way.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.fa-mag.com/news/a-new-retirement-bond-40414.html?print

There's a M'star piece on the debt/capital ratio of S&P 500 corps up now.
Short FWIW version: over the past 3y, it's grown beyond the 2009 GFC peak (43% vs. 37.5%). Mid/small caps and foreign have smaller but still fairly significant ratios.
The disclaimer in the article: "... average debt/capital is limited in its utility to a degree. What matters as much as a company’s debt/capital is its interest coverage and cash flows. Some companies, such as utilities, tend to have fairly high debt/capital ratios, but they can generally afford to given their predictable cash flows."

@LewisBraham. Very solid post in my opinion. I am effectively retired as of 9/1/18. With above average S.S. , a paid for home and a substantial portfolio.. luckier than most. And who knows what the future might hold? I can't imagine how the masses would fare,,, given what I read about their retirement readiness. It's only gonna get worse for many.

@Davidrmoran
Good grief, acknowledge that you ARE atypical first and stop with the obnoxious good griefs. (You're not talking to Charlie Brown.) Look at the damn stats about savings for most Americans and tell me how you are typical when half have nothing saved for retirement! Our definitions of atypical are not dissimilar and you know it. I suspect from your post history you rank fairly high on the spectrum of amount saved for your age group--nothing at all typical about that. Are you next going to lecture about Americans drinking too many lattes and eating too much avocado toast and that's why they have no savings? Because I also suspect you know that is largely bs. So extrapolating your personal success with the retirement system as some sort of evidence of its larger success for the general or "typical" population is absurd.
What's the government to do? Nothing this government would ever do, but it would be to dramatically increase Social Security payments and/or create a Basic Guaranteed Income, and yes, raise income taxes/estate taxes/corporate taxes and capital gains taxes to pay for it. And it would be to finally acknowledge that some problems in post-industrial highly developed economies can't be solved via GDP growth and that that outmoded way of thinking has disastrous environmental consequences. So yes free markets, but tax appropriately to save people from their worst instincts--buying lattes, avocado toast and big screen TVs if you read the usual asinine arguments--but in reality their general poverty resulting from that massive drain of wealth caused by technology and globalization.
But assuming that the government will never do this, which is the correct assumption, the simplest path would be to leave the current system alone and not make the regressive retirement system we currently have even worse than it already is by getting rid of RMDs at age 70 1/2.
And what is the point of the original provisions?--ostensibly as MFS already spelled out quite clearly to get ordinary Americans to save. What was the other unspoken point? To create a new savings system that allowed companies to eliminate their pension plans and put the burden of retirement on employees' shoulders. And it was to foster the growth of the industry to which this board is dedicated. The ostensible goal of getting Americans to save has proven a complete failure for half of America--because apparently they like cheese and cigarettes--and largely a failure for millions of other Americans who still haven't saved enough. And yes, I know the previous pension plan system had many flaws too--another reason to take that pension system out of corporate hands and extend, expand, increase Social Security, which is the exact opposite of what our current government plans. Anything else or must I expect another sarcastic good grief directed my way?