>> The hands of Time were rewound for you--- you could have done it all over again
haha, would it were so with my body and mind and so much else.
Thanks. But I never look at or care about NAV.
Reinvested, 1985 - 2009 = eightfold increase.

They work by following trends, until the trends no longer work!
I had a lot of luck with PQTIX in 2014, but less so in 2015. I am having better luck with AQMNX in 2015.
I watch my positions in these two funds very closely.
Mona

Any opinion on this group of funds? They are managed futures, which behaved beautifully during the last year. In particular, EQCHX gained 58% during the last year. Of course this fund has almost no history (it started trading on 09/07/2012, with the total gain 69% since that time) but such a success is hard to ignore.

I located this discussion of the fund. Maybe someone will have some insight about how this type of strategy has fared elsewhere. All I understand is that its initial rate of return appears to be unsustainable. (The chart of the returns presented at M* is a pretty one though!)
schoonermutualfunds.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Schooner-Hedged-Alternative-Income-Fund-2.2015.pdf

FYI: Most fund managers find the results aren’t worth the cost of hedging.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.wsj.com/articles/should-mutual-funds-hedge-for-currency-swings-1428375812

FYI: The hottest trend in the fast-growing market for exchange-traded funds is stripping out currency swings from overseas investments.
GMO, the $120 billion investment house co-founded by the legendary Jeremy Grantham, lays out the case for why most investors shouldn’t bother in a recent white paper
Regards,
Ted
http://blogs.barrons.com/focusonfunds/2015/04/14/granthams-gmo-skewers-currency-hedged-etfs/tab/print/

FYI: Foreign stock mutual funds have outperformed U.S. stock funds the past 15 years. Stock funds invested abroad had built a huge lead by the end of 2007, as foreign markets, particularly emerging markets, surged while the U.S. economy struggled to recover from the bursting of the dot-com bubble.
Regards,
Ted
http://license.icopyright.net/user/viewFreeUse.act?fuid=MTkyMTgzMzc=
Enlarged Graphic:
http://news.investors.com/photopopup.aspx?path=webLV041415.png&docId=747683&xmpSource=&width=1000&height=1063&caption=&id=747601

@davidrmoran Well, you had your chance. In 2009, FAGIX's NAV was thrown back to... 1985! The hands of Time were rewound for you--- you could have done it all over again. :)
@Junkster ETFs for junk? I'll see your 10-ft pole, and raise it to 20-ft--- no way, Jose!
"Financial innovations created in good times often fool people into thinking a silver bullet has been invented that offers a better deal than traditional investments. (By “traditional” I mean investments that are acknowledged to entail increased risk as the price for targeting increased return . . . not the “miracles” where increased return comes gratis.) Many recent innovations have promised high liquidity from low-liquidity assets. [...] however, no investment vehicle should promise more liquidity than is afforded by its underlying assets. [...][W]e’re back to wondering about whether there will be a buyer for the bonds the bank wants to short, and at what price. Thus we can’t get away from depending on the liquidity of the underlying high yield bonds. The ETF can’t be more liquid than the underlying, and we know the underlying can become highly illiquid." Howard Marks, most recent commentary
There are bad vapors arising in BondLand.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-04-12/flash-move-haunts-bond-traders-heeding-dimon-s-warning-of-crisis

FWIW, Scottrade still has it available under RiverPark. On an unrelated note, Morningstar shows RGHVX as almost entirely long as of 3/15.

Here's all I've got so far: TCW Gargoyle Hedged Value (TFHIX/TFHVX).
The identity section writes in the future tense but gives no effective date:

The following performance information relates to the Institutional Class shares of the RiverPark/Gargoyle Hedged Value Fund, a series of RiverPark Funds Trust (the “Predecessor Fund”). The Predecessor Fund offered two classes of shares, Retail Class (RGHVX) and Institutional Class (RGHIX), which invested in the same portfolio of securities, but had different returns based on their respective expenses. Retail Class shares had lower returns than Institutional Class shares because of their higher expenses. Prior to the Fund’s commencement of business, the Predecessor Fund will reorganize into the Fund, a series of TCW Alternative Funds.

The effective date of the prospectus filing is 4-10-2015.
It might be an interesting conversation.
More as soon as I have something to share,
David

Dear friends,
For what interest it holds, the Gargoyle Hedged Value fund has quietly moved from RiverPark to TCW. The prospectus for the TCW fund refers to RiverPark as "the predecessor fund." Same team, strategy and expenses, $75 million AUM, substantially higher minimum initial investment.
While it's been popular to grouch about the RiverPark Alternatives funds (which has always muddled me since two of the three are distinctly above average), you might note that Hedged Value transitioned three years ago from being a hedge fund. The composite hedge-mutual record earns it a five-star rating at Morningstar. The fund will earn a three-year rating at the end of this month; it's made about 14% annually since the conversion, finished in the top third each year and, on an absolute returns basis, is in the top 6% of long/short funds over the past three years.
I've got a call out to the managers to see what's transpired. I'll share as soon as I can.
As ever,
David

would it be possible to make "return group" a searchable criteria, along with "age group" and "risk group"? lots of times i want to exclude any fund that is less than a 4 or a 5 in terms of returns for, say, one year and three, etc. would be very helpful, i think.
also, and i think i've mentioned this a few times before, but is there a way to age limit the drawdown numbers so that i can more easily compare apples to apples?
iow, let's say i'm looking at the list of funds in age groups 5 and 10. well, i get max DD numbers for time periods less than 5 years (no bear market), combined with those up to ten years (one doozy of a bear market), which makes comparing the funds by DD irrelevant.
i think it'd be better to be able to list, say, age groups 5 and 10 but have the option to limit the DD to the past 5 years for those funds in the 10-year age group. that'd make the comparisons apple to apple. i think.
am i making myself at all clear?

FYI: (Click On Article Title At Top Of Google Search)
Ask me how much my cellphone costs each month, and I can tell you down to the penny. Ask me how much I pay in investment management fees each month, and I have no idea.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.google.com/search?newwindow=1&site=&source=hp&q=Stop+Deluding+Yourself+About+Investing+Expenses+wsj&oq=Stop+Deluding+Yourself+About+Investing+Expenses+wsj&gs_l=hp.3...5593.9525.0.10077.5.5.0.0.0.0.80.365.5.5.0.msedr...0...1c.1.64.hp..4.1.74.XKoI83M3s4o
Investing in ETFs: Put a Dollar Figure on Your Fund Fees:
http://www.etftrends.com/2015/04/investing-in-etfs-put-a-dollar-figure-on-your-fund-fees/

One might be equally suspicious of any prognostication lacking the adverb ("may"), considering the accuracy of such headlines. He probably could have skated with "why you might not..."

As you like it. :)
http://www.moneymanifesto.com/you-may-need-more-than-four-million-dollars-to-retire-no-joke-7587/

>>>Matthew Tuttle, chief executive of Tuttle Tactical Management, says the biggest junk-bond ETFs—such as HYG, up about 1.8% this year, and SPDR Barclays High Yield Bond, up about 1.9%—.......<<<<
With junk bond indexes at historic highs I knew the above percentages were way off. HYG is up 3.18% YTD and JNK up 3.51%. Do these guys never look at total return (dividends included) when computing returns? Or was this article dated April 12 written in late February? Most likely the former.
Edit: Wouldn't touch a junk ETF with a ten foot pole. Much better to invest/trade an open end junk bond fund.

"...This year, the frontier index is down -2.9%, compared with a +1.6% gain for the S&P 500, through Thursday..."
I'm still in the saddle at TRAMX. I started with a fixed number of dollars in the initial investment which I always keep in mind, and I reap profits after each New Year, taking me back to the original investment amount. The profit is being relocated into PRWCX. YTD, TRAMX is up by +4.53% at $10.16 per share, down from it's all-time (and 52-week) high of $10.91.

Crash:: You link didn't take, so instead here's Wally Ballou !
Regards,
Ted

@JohnChisum: thanks for the patronage, John! Keep it up!
@davfor: I also bought WAFMX for the African exposure. Not so hot this year, but I'm going to keep it unless it really goes off the deep end: 2.6% exposure on WAFMX.
We don't talk much about American Funds here on MFO, because they still have that unwarranted front load of 5 or 6%. We were able to purchase without the load, though, and so there is an additional FM exposure of 6.2% with SMCWX (up 8.3% ytd), CWGIX, @5.4% (up 5.6% ytd), and ANEFX, @6.6%, (up 6% ytd).
Finally, we also have GPROX @5%, (up 6.2% ytd) and ARTGX @1.8% (up 2.3% ytd).
All told, World & EM Equity Funds = 33% of portfolio. That section didn't do squat last year, but so far this year, looking very nice. You never know...

@Old_Joe Yes, SFGIX appears to be a good choice for general EM exposure. But, when I sold LZOEX three years ago, I was looking for a FM fund with good exposure to Africa so I bought WAFMX (which I learned about at MFO). That got supplemented with MEASX when it became available for more FM Asia exposure. MAPIX, ARTJX, WAFMX, and MEASX give me about 6% EM exposure out of 50% in stocks (20% foreign, 30% US).

Hmmm...
That I'm not seeing.
Here is an output from MultiSearch...

Which tool are you seeing cut-off jlev?
c