'16 and '17 underperformance is fine as I'd expect him to lag in stronger years. The underperformance YTD is disappointing.
I do think, to some extent, he's been a victim of his own success. He took quite a bit of money in early then subsequently opened another fund, which I think was a bad idea... Too soon.

I still have it and glad it is in my non-taxable account. This is an indication of what may happen when you change fund managers/sub-advisers:
https://www.morningstar.com/articles/880213/harbor-international-under-review-after-subadvisor.html

I'm not sure what you're saying here. Is it that Harbor should have fired Castegren in 2000, since that's the last good year you identify? In that case, perhaps it was Ivy International Growth (now Ivy Global Growth) IVINX that had the right idea. Ivy induced Castegren to quit in 2000 by refusing to close its fund.
More likely, it was Ivy, not Northern Cross that had no succession plan. I don't believe Ivy was expecting Castegren to quit. It plunked Reilly in as manager for 1.5 years, followed by McLachan for another year. Only then did it settle on a long term manager with Mengel. In those intevening couple of years, IVINX returned -17.26% (2000), -21.03% (2001), and -20.96% (2002).
In comparison, HAINX had returns of -4.97% (2000), -12.25% (2001), and -6.38% (2002).
For a frame of reference, TEMFX had returns of -3.67% (2000), -7.92% (2001), -8.64% (2002).
Northern Cross had a succession plan in place. For almost two years before Castegren died, starting Feb 2009, Castegren was joined by Ducrest, LaTorre, and Wendell. For the two years of overlap, and the two years following, HAINX put up good to very good numbers: 17th percentile (2009), 31st percentile (2010), 17th percentile (2011), 17th percentile (2012).
Those managers did not maintain their fine performance. However, the succession was planned and the fund continued to perform well through the transition.
The lesson to be learned is when a fund does not have a smooth succession plan (successful or otherwise), you may expect a portfolio overhaul and large amounts of cap gains realized. Harbor just fired Northern Cross. That's what caused the gains to be realized.

The real lesson was to sell the fund after the death of long-time fund manager Hakan Castegren in 2010. It was one of the top international funds before 2000. Unfortunately, Northern Cross didn't have a successful succession plan in place resulting in mediocre performance in the following years.

FYI: Below is a look at each country’s percentage of total world stock market capitalization based on Bloomberg indices. (We only include the 35 largest countries by market cap in the table.)
For each country, we show its current percentage of world market cap, where it stood on Election Day 2016, and where it stood ten years ago.
Notably, the US has just recently eclipsed the 40% level for the first time since 2005. At the moment, the US stock market makes up 40.01% of world stock market capitalization. Given dollar strength, gains in US equities, and declines in most international equity markets recently, it’s no surprise that this reading is at multi-year highs.
As the US’ share of world market cap has gone up, China’s share has taken the biggest hit. On Election Day 2016, the US made up 36.53% of world market cap, while China made up 10.21%. Since Election Day, the US has gained 3.48 percentage points, while China has lost 2.7 percentage points.
China’s drop has actually moved it into the third place ranking behind Japan, which currently makes up 7.59% of world stock market cap.
Behind the US, Japan, and China ranks Hong Kong (6.51%), the UK (4.49%), France (3.23%), Germany (2.91%), and India (2.83%).
Regards,
Ted
https://www.bespokepremium.com/think-big-blog/us-as-of-world-stock-market-cap-tops-40-again/

FYI: Saturday's ABC World News aired an investment snippet on how Americans should prepare for retirement. The feature lasted just under a minute and a half.
Consequently, there was no time to explain the numbers. Such are mass communications, and you will find no protest from me. This column skips plenty of details itself. However, I do have enough room to explore the segment's most dramatic claim: That somebody who begins investing at age 23 can retire with $1 million by investing $14 daily into a "low-cost S&P 500 fund."
Regards,
Ted
https://www.morningstar.com/articles/880879/can-you-accumulate-1-million-saving-14-per-day.html
ABC News Article:
https://abcnews.go.com/Business/story?id=86992&page=1

FYI: Facebook Inc’s (FB.O) second-biggest outside investor has offered backing for the world’s largest social media company as it faces public criticism for what people see on its service and how much user information is shared with third parties
Regards,
Ted
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-facebook-fidelity/fidelitys-danoff-backs-facebooks-response-to-content-privacy-issues-idUSKCN1LC2G7

FYI: -ProShares, a premier provider of ETFs, today announced that its S&P 500 Ex-Technology ETF (SPXT) will be changing its index effective on or about September 21, 2018.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20180827005589/en/ProShares-SP-500-Ex-Technology-ETF-Change-Index

When you get to three dots, watch out for ghosts ...
https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/02/some-three-dot-journalism-in-honor-of-herb-caen/252489/

In short words ... Both.

+1

Vanguard is owned by its funds - not publically owned.
Fidelity is private - Johnson family, plus.
Capital Research - private
Nuveen - owned by TIAA, a not-for-profit company
Dimensional Fund Advisors, LP - private

Thanks again @davidmoran
Re tutorial (noun) - Cambridge Dictionary
1. a period of study with a tutor involving one student or a small group
2. a period of study with a tutor and a small group of students
3. IT a document or website on a computer that shows you how to use a product in a series of easy stages:
Albeit, you used the adverb form of the word (which is rarely used). So to tie things together:
tutorially: in the manner of a tutorial (Collins Dictionary)
Here’s how M* describes Ms. Benz’s role and purpose: “Morningstar director of personal finance Christine Benz has developed a series of hypothetical portfolios for savers and retirees. These portfolios are offered as general examples for investors' reference. These portfolios are not personalized recommendations, nor are they investable products offered by Morningstar.”
Hope I’m not nit-picking. Just trying to understand why I should be particularly interested in her advice over, say, someone like Ol’Skeet here who does a great job explaining his long standing bucket approach or the folks at T. Rowe Price who present models by example. (ie - I can take apart a given target date retirement fund designed by them and visualize how much they allocate to different funds or sectors.) I’m not saying Christine Benz’s is bad advice. Just asking why she deserves more credence than someone else who’s equally (possibly more) experienced?
Nothing in Benz’s listed educational background (below) suggests any type of financial training or certification. All I see there is political science and East European history. Also, I’ve never thought of M* as an advisory firm. Always thought their forte was in statistical analysis of fund data. (But, I’ll admit to rarely looking at them.)
Christine Benz’s Experience (Linkedin) https://www.linkedin.com/in/christine-benz-b83b523/
Director of Personal Finance
Morningstar, Inc.
2008 – Present (10 years)
Director of Mutual Fund Analysis
Morningstar, Inc.
February 2006 – March 2008 (2 years 2 months)
Education
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
BA, Political Science, Russian and East European Studies
Lyons Township High School
From Amazon https://www.amazon.com/Christine-Benz/e/B002PICOLS
“Christine (Benz) holds a bachelor's degree in political science and Russian/East European studies from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. She lives in the Chicago suburbs with her husband, Greg. She is an avid cook, a political junkie, and a long-suffering Chicago Cubs fan.”

@MFO Members: In my opinion, MCG will continue to outperform MCV as it has for the last five year.
Regards,
Ted
MVG:
YTD = 12.73%
3yrs. =15.38%
5yrs. = 12.25%
MCV:
YTD=4.04%
3yrs=12.97%
5yrs=9.80%
Source M*

FYI: (Christine Benz's Aggressive T. Rowe Price Retirement Saver Portfolio
Anticipated Time Horizon to Retirement: 40 years )
20%: T. Rowe Price Dividend Growth (PRDGX)
15%: T. Rowe Price Equity Index 500 (PREIX)
10%: T. Rowe Price New America Growth (PRWAX)
10%: T. Rowe Price Small-Cap Value (PRSVX)
35%: T. Rowe Price Overseas Stock
5%: T. Rowe Price New Income (PRCIX)
5%: T. Rowe Price Real Assets (PRAFX)
Performance
3-Year Annualized Return: 11.93
( The Linkster's Aggressive T. Rowe Price Retirement Saver Portfolio
Anticipated Time Horizon to Retirement: 40 years )
20%: T. Rowe Price New America Growth (PRWAX)
20% T. Rowe Price Equity Index 500 (PREIX)
20% T. Rowe Price Global Technology Fund (PRGTX)
20% T.Rowe Price Health Sciences Fund (PRHSX)
20% T. Rowe Price Blue Chip Growth Fund (TRBCX)
Performance
3-Year Annualized Return: 19.82
The Entire Article:
https://www.morningstar.com/articles/880485/how-our-t-rowe-price-retirement-saver-portfolios-h.html

Sen: Have not fear, the Linkster is here! The fund reopened September 1, 2016
Regards,
Ted :)

bone surgery 12 is up for me in october
(ain't complaining, in other centuries I'd be cast aside in a ditch)

Mike W - msf has it right of course (as regards money market funds)
1 or 2 ran into trouble in years past. But that was before the SEC-mandated reforms that were imposed within the past decade. One that lost money (several decades ago) was of the institutional variety serving large corporate customers - if memory serves. So even than consumers didn’t lose money. But it was common for some firms to play a bit “fast and loose” with ratings on the paper their mm funds held. Also, back than some went out too long on duration and got into trouble when rates moved the wrong way.
Sure - Theoretically, even a government money market fund could experience losses. But under such a scenario, we’d all have much more serious issues to think about aside from losing a few cents on the dollar in our government money market fund.

As @Ted and I agree with tech. and health exposure.
My particular watch for these two areas is that in the event of a major equity correction; these 2 sectors, as well as the other high fliers in growth will be some of the areas to get picked on the most for profit taking. The big money will come out of the best return areas over the past several years, yes? I'm not concerned at this time; just my open thought here.
Also, dependent upon one's available choices at their vendor; one can decide whether to have broad exposure to health or more narrow sectors. Review the holdings and performance carefully.
Health and tech. are two sectors where I don't regard expense ratios as a particular "evil". I'll guess the average ER for a managed fund is .7%. One can pay this much, too; for a passive managed etf.
Also note that one may already have 15% - 30% exposure to these 2 sectors via an equity growth fund or more broad based equity fund. Perhaps this is your comfort level.
---EXAMPLE: ITOT, I-shares, U.S. equity, broad
--- info tech. = 25%
--- health = 14%
--- finance = 14%
--- telecom = 1.8%
I've not looked deeper into all holdings with this etf; but included finance and telecom; as there may be additional tech. related inside these areas, too.
Note: To the etf list below, an OMG moment. The current best performance from this list is both a small cap and health, too. A great place to be this year, at this point in time; at least from the year's beginning.
In addition to Ted's active fund list, is this list for 47 health related etfs. I set this link with YTD return, but not sure how it will load here or for your use.
Do your homework in the healthcare sector and good fortune, as there are lots of choices.
We remain 50% of total equity exposure with health and tech.
Regards,
Catch

Do you know if Vanguard prime MM can lose principal? Thx

I'm interpreting this question a little differently from Sven.
Any MMF can lose money, even Treasury MMFs (should the US government decide that it doesn't want to make timely payments).
That said, the rules for government MMFs and prime (and muni) MMFs are different. The latter are broken into two classes - retail and "everybody" (aka institutional). The institutional ones may float on a daily basis. Technically so do retail prime MMFs, but since they're still allowed to round to the nearest penny, in real life they hold their $1.00 price.
Still, they're required to post their true NAVs, so you can get an idea of when to panic. You can find VMMXX's daily pricing here:
https://investor.vanguard.com/mutual-funds/profile/portfolio/vmmxx
A share is currently worth $1.0002, so if you buy now for a buck, you'll be getting a steal :-)

Here is a big chew regarding IRA's for minor's from MFO, 2017 discussion.
@Sven
A tax return is not necessarily a requirement; nor is being a "high school" student.
I surely hope, to the extend allowed annually; that the parent(s) of the child doing modeling or a baby commercial have made the allowable annual Roth contribution. The child does indeed have income, if all things legal are properly set in place.
Take a look again at the national and local level commercials on TV. Those young ones are indeed earning income, yes?
---An add, at least relative to Fidelity; minimums regarding fees and anything related are waived for a minor IRA account as the overall value of the account(s) held by the adult are the baseline for this. Fidelity's recent 10:1 split with some of their managed funds offer an advantage for minor's, too; as if the minor had $250 in their first deposit, they couldn't buy FSPHX at $260/unit. The split now places the price at $26/unit, more or less. Fidelity offers more than enough of their own and I-shares etfs to cover all of the bases for a minor's Roth IRA.
Regards,
Catch