Sequoia Fund SEQUX
http://www.sequoiafund.com/si-dividends-capital-gain.htm
"On November 16, 2015, Sequoia Fund, Inc. made a long term capital gains distribution to shareholders of record on November 13, 2015. The distribution amount was $7.98 per share. "

FYI: A deep look at Janus today.
Regards,
Ted
http://news.morningstar.com/articlenet/article.aspx?id=723115

"...let’s look at China from the 30,000 foot view. From this perspective we observe two things that will unfold over the next decade. First, investment as a share of GDP will fall from almost 50% of GDP to closer to 35% of GDP, if not lower. Second, consumption as a share of GDP will rise from 38% to around to 50%, if not higher...Companies that feed off of Chinese investment in infrastructure will likely struggle and companies that benefit from Chinese consumption will do ok, if not great."

"...all the common benchmarks for diversified developed or emerging markets (MSCI, FTSE, Vanguard, etc) are around 50% (or more) allocated to the economic sectors with the largest headwinds in the decade ahead. That means that any diversified EM or DM investment products (mutual funds or ETFs) that look anything like the benchmark are by default leaning into the wind rather than letting it push them. "
See: GaveKal

Update: On 11/16/2015, Verso released its Q3 results.
Included in the results were management comments (essentially) that Verso is "going concern" risk and that they don't have adequate liquidity and that "restructuring" is a real possibility.
I don't recall seeing that verbiage in earlier press releases.
Foreseeable. Predictable. Apollo Investments does it again!

Whenever the Fed moves, it's likely to be 0.25%, eh? And further tightening will be extremely gradual, in light of uncle Janet's presentations. And yet, whenever the Fed finally does make that first step, I bet there will be a quick "relief rally." I'm not optimistic, short-term, either. But the near-term has never been my investing horizon.

DoubleLine's Gundlach: Fed hike 'no-go more likely than most people think' Paris attacks alone are unlikely to play a factor in next month's decision.
Reuters By Jennifer Ablan Sun.Nov 15th
DoubleLine Capital co-founder Jeffrey Gundlach said on Sunday that the Federal Reserve may hesitate to raise rates given rocky economic and financial conditions, though the Paris attacks alone are unlikely to play a factor in next month's decision.
The influential money manager, who recently warned that the U.S. Federal Reserve should not tighten monetary policy in December, said the Paris attacks could pressure stock markets around the globe, "which we know Fed officials have been watching, even if they try not to admit it."
Gundlach cited a number of asset classes that are signaling deteriorating conditions: The S&P Leveraged Loan Index, which is at a four-year low, the SPDR Barclays High Yield Bond Exchange-Traded Fund "very near a four-year low" and the CRB Commodity Index at a 13-year low. "You also have the Eurozone doubling down on stimulus. Fed raising rates? Really?"
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/11/15/us-doubleline-gundlach-idUSKCN0T417Z20151115#Xa4BZzDyQ3V3uC0h.97

Krauss' concerns are absolutely legitimate -- especially about ETFs failing to approximate NAV during moments of market stress.
OTOH, Krauss' concerns are self-serving too. -- lower-fees which ETFs provide are working counter to the profitability of the old-line money-management industry. For any retail investor who was ever sold a "class A" fund for a 7% load, you know that load-funds held a persistent, material difference between bid and ask.
Fink's comment is also self-serving --- he runs the largest ETF complex, so is quite willing to poo-poo concerns re the risks/shortcomings of ETFs.
If (a part of the ) problem is that ETFs encourage "short term-ism" by making it very convenient for institutional money, hedgies, etc to make very short-term, low conviction bets, perhaps tax policy could have an effect -- something like: for very short-term trades (say 3 days or less) a "proceeds tax" -- levied not on gains, but on proceeds of sale, of perhaps 5%. This might serve to discourage ultra-short-term speculation, in favor of real investment.
Too bad the relevant regulatory authority (SEC) are a bunch of hacks who have been co-opted/corrupted by Wall Street, and who have no concern for protecting the retail investor -- on the ETF issue or any other.
Caveat investor !

FYI: The deadly terror attacks in Paris are likely to strike financial markets, too, when trading resumes Monday. But the initial losses expected in risk assets like stocks and the shift into safer holdings like U.S. government bonds and cash are likely to be short-lived, history says.
Investors’ knee-jerk reaction to terror attacks and other "shocks" is to sell so-called risky assets until they have a chance to measure the resulting economic fallout, according to data compiled by Sam Stovall, U.S. equity strategist at S&P Capital IQ. The good news is the losses tend to be recouped relatively swiftly as Wall Street typically concludes that both the domestic and global economy won’t be derailed by acts of terror.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/markets/2015/11/15/terror-and-markets-sell-offs-tend-short-lived/75822426/

I was actually eyeing their DLCMX for when the commodity sell off is over.

I hold uncle Jeffrey's core-plus bond fund. I had not even seen this offering before. It does make me nervous that the DL shop is planning to spawn so many new items, so soon. Like Royce, several years ago. Uh-oh.
As for commodities (DLCMX,) I just initiated a tiny position which I intend to grow over the long haul, in ConocoPhillips--- for the dividend. (Ticker COP.) When oil's price rises again, this depressed stock--- the largest of its type in the world--- should rise, also. That's the theory, anyhow.... 5.5% yield on the sucker, at the moment.

@VintageFreak. The database is good. It's the presentation of the legacy screener that is causing you the confusion. The tabulated metrics are only for the longest evaluation period applicable ... 1, 3, 5, 10, or 20 years ... so you can only compare the metrics of funds from same age group. The return group rankings are directly comparable, but not the metrics.
Below are the risk/return metrics for BRUFX, OAKBX, PRWCX, and WGRNX across various periods from the MFO premium site ... hope this helps.

FYI: Bearded and tanned, Peter S. Kraus, the chief executive of AllianceBernstein, strode with assurance into a Midtown Manhattan conference room full of financial advisers from a large investment bank.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/05/business/dealbook/the-man-who-hates-etfs.html?_r=0

@VintageFreak and catch. No worries. Right, so, the legacy screener tabulates metrics only for the longest evaluation period applicable ... 1, 3, 5, 10 or 20 years. In case of WGRNX, that means 5 years (through September ... it crossed the 10 year mark last month). Its big drawdown occurred prior to that ... as can be seen in the lifetime metrics on the premium site (snapshot below). The legacy site ratings will be updated again after 4th quarter.

The power of patience. Not just of BRUFX managers but both of investors who did buy and those who didn't. It's top holding was once $2, now it is $450. The problem is it is now 12% of the fund. The chart below shows BRUFX underperformed the S&P 500 for 20 years after inception.
After having waited so long, I think I might want to wait a bit longer.

Hi @VintageFreak
I have not looked at the MFO ratings/Lipper charts; but at StockCharts (link below) indicates that WGRNX had a drawdown of -52.4% from a 2007 high of $14.47 on 11-1-2007 to its low of $6.89 on 3-6-2009. These numbers are + or - a few points for exact dates.......a quick and rough number.
At this linked chart you may have to drag the left edge of the slider below the chart to see the full chart of this fund, which is back to November 14, 2005. You hover the pc cursor over any area of the chart line for date and price info. You will also note that the high price in 2007 required until July, 2011 for full recovery to the same price level.
http://stockcharts.com/freecharts/perf.php?WGRNX#
I won't use this thread more for this, as it is dedicated to MFO/Lipper.
Regards,
Catch

FYI: An anecdote from World War II tells us a lot about why most of what passes for investment data is wrong.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.dallasnews.com/business/columnists/scott-burns/20151113-the-missing-bullet-holes-problem.ece
Just for the record, Scott Burns's investment firm AssetBuilder is a agent of DFA Funds.

I expect most have had quite enough of the Valeant business by now, but for those who haven't, or who have lingering questions re. the nitty-gritty of the matter, here is some number crunching done by a corp finance wonk at the NYU Stern School of Business.It's the weekend. More leisurely hours for musing. Might as well use them.
http://aswathdamodaran.blogspot.com/2015/11/checkmate-or-stalemate-valeants-fall.html
Teaser:
3. Accounting games: Part of Valeant’s rise can be attributed to the laziness of analysts, who apply multiples (that they pull from a cursory assessment of the comparable) on pro forma earnings, and some of it to the debris of acquisition accounting (goodwill, impairment of goodwill and acquisition-related restructuring charges). I have written before about the damage that goodwill does to both accounting statements and to good sense, but the degree to which acquisition accounting has muddied up the numbers at Valeant can be captured by looking at how they have taken over Valeant's financials in the last 5 years:

He also makes his case as to whether Valeant will be a going concern re. its value. He breaks it down pretty well.

@VintageFreak You can do some homework @ the link below.My largest holding.Often some deep value and thinly traded securities in portfolio.In times like '08-'09, value can get a lot deeper and if few want your IBM shares who's going to buy your Alanco Technologies, Inc. shares.Yes that was an extreme draw down for a M* moderate allocation fund but the long term performance is exceptional.Father/Son managed fund,Consider age and experience?
One of Ted's favorite links:
http://www.marketwatch.com/tools/mutual-fund/screener?FundType=0&FundValue=0&ReturnFundPeriod=11
Management’s Discussion and Analysis REPORT TO SHAREHOLDERS 1
BRUCE FUND, INC.
Annual Report
June 30, 2009 ( Bold added)
The Bruce Fund (the “Fund”) shares produced a total return of -24.31% for the six months ended December 31, 2008,
compared to a total return of -28.48% for the S&P 500 Index for the same period. The first six months of our fiscal year
were dismal. While we thought we were prepared for the onslaught, we were wrong. Positions in low rated convertible
bonds dropped precipitiously with no support from interest payments. Likewise our common stocks were punished,
much worse than we anticipated. The U.S. Government bonds showed appreciation in the period and the cash balances
remained above normal.
The outlook for capital appreciation is muted. The economy could be weaker for much longer than most believe.
Preservation of capital is job one. Gains will be hard fought.
Bear markets do several things; they wash out inefficient companies and create values. There will come a time to be
more aggressive and we hope we will be ready. Management will continue to screen investment opportunities for their
capital appreciation potential and profile that against the risks the investment might present. Areas of recent interest
have been various bonds selling at discounts to par value offering reasonable yields. The bonds as well as the stocks in
the portfolio encompass significant investment risks, which are again outlined in the prospectus
Footnotes to some of BRUFX holdings
(a)
Non-cash income producing security.
(b)
In default.
(c)
Private Placement and restricted security under Rule 144A of the Securities Act of 1933.
(d)
Variable rate securities; the money market rate shown represents the rate at June 30, 2009.
(e)
This security is currently valued according to the fair value procedures approved by the Board of Directors.
(f)
This security has no expiration date, it will convert to common stock at a future date
http://www.thebrucefund.com/document-library.aspx

Many things are at/near 5 year lows, including emerging-market equities (EEM), emerging-market debt in local-currencies (EMLC), most commodities (DBC), MLPs (MLPI). Looking at a 5-year chart, without doing anything else, and drawing inferences as to the investment merit of an asset is... foolhardy.
AU/USD, like most of the investment classes cited above are a function of the strength of the USD. --- I say this, because AU, while down in USD terms, is NOT down across all currencies. Its down vs. USD, GBP, SFR over 5 years. AU is also down vs CNY -- but then CNY's is (usually-) manipulated to track the USD. However AU is UP vs the CAD$, Yen, rand, rupee, AU$, ruble and MXP. AU is (essentially) flat vs. EUR.
The strength in the USD is itself a function not of American economic strength, but of our economy being the "cleanest dirty shirt", and of waning commodity demand from China. No one can foresee when these trends will reverse, but I suspect, they will reverse/mean-revert at some time. I suspect AU will still experience a "capitulation panic", however, generally assets are best bought when they are cheap, not dear. US equity enthusiasts should keep that in mind, as we are now in the 7th year of a very, VERY high-return equity bull. No tree grows to the sky.
AU can be first/foremost thought of as portfolio insurance -- providing diversification of returns over long periods of time. During the past 5 years, US equities have done wonderfully. So US equity investors were rewarded, while their AU holdings declined. OTOH, during the 2000-2010 period, equity returns languished/were lousy, but bullion holders were well rewarded.
For anyone dis-enchanted with their bullion holdings, I have a standing offer: contact me, and I will be happy to haul away any of your unwanted bullion, and I won't charge you a fee for the service, not a dime.