I suspect showing PRHSX as closed is a mistake because there's no general indication that its closed and I'm able to process a buy past where I would normally be told I couldn't buy if its closed in non-Fidelity accounts. In fact, Fidelity doesn't stop me either although I don't have any excess cash in the account so I can only get to the point where it tells me I don't have enough money to make the initial investment minimum.
As for an REIT, I have never researched it in depth, but HCP is 12% below M*'s fair value estimate and paying a little less than 5% yield.

Hi @mcmarasco
You noted: "Does anybody have any thoughts on Blackrock Healthcare (SHSAX) "Load Waived" at FIDO or Vanguard Healthcare (VGHCX) also at FIDO and GOLD rated by M*?
I like the idea a pairing with another fund such as FBIOX, any suggestions or comments?
FIDO shows PRHSX (TROWE) as "closed" to new investors even though it is "open" at TROWE. Any insight or suggestions?"
>>>For broadbased healthcare, I do not find an advantage to holding Vanguard or others when compared to FSPHX. The performance is similar looking backwards. There is and will be variances over other time frames depending on manager actions. As you are already "inside" of Fido with your account, I personally don't find a need to move outside of Fido offerings. I have not checked for overlap; but you could also consider a more directed play towards pharma with FPHAX or directed towards the delivery side of medical services with FSHCX.
With the exception of FBIOX, of which; FSPHX has a chunk of this action, over a 5 year time frame, FSPHX is a most suitable and able performing healthcare fund when compared to all other active managed funds.
We've considered mix and match with the several Fido medical area funds; but have remained with our monies in FSPHX.
Fido also has an etf (can't recall the ticker), either via I-shares or Fido for healthcare.
Lastly, I personally would not invest any less than 5% of a total portfolio in a given sector, in order to provide enough momentum to a portfolio. 'Course 5% can also go against the portfolio, too. :)
As others have also noted; your other equity fund holdings may alread have your portfolio at 5% of total holdings in healthcare. Many broadbased equity funds owe their YTD gains to healthcare holdings. I personally find no problem with adding to this sector, as dedicated holdings.
As always, just suggestions; eh?
Take care,
Catch

Hi rjb112 and others,
Today is Sunday November 30th around 8:45 AM EST as I write.
I composed an email and sent it to Elizabeth Weilburg of Morningstar "M*" and advised her of continued pricing concerns that had been expressed earlier to M*. In my email, I provided the link to the MFO site thread that would provide current details and documentation on this continued issue of slow pricing of certain mutual funds.
In addition, I'd like to thank rjb112 for providing the supporting screen shots which provided visuals in support of my statement. It is appreciated.
Sould I receive a response to my email I let all know.
Old_Skeet
.............................................................................................................................................
Additional Note: It is now about 9:40 AM EST on Sunday November 30th as I write this note; and, it seems the visuals provided by rjb112 that I referenced in my email to Ms. Weilburg and in the above comment, for some unknown reason, to me, have now been removed.
Leaves me to wonder why one would do this?
.............................................................................................................................................
Interestingly, it is now about 10:20 AM EST Sunday and the visuals have now returned. Hopefully, they will remain.
Old_Skeet

@linter: Your combination provides the following exposure: 50% HC, 22% Tech, and 13% Industrials. You may want to consider an equal mix of PRHSX and POAGX, which would be my preference. But if you want a higher octane, then you may consider a mix of PRHSX 5%, FBIOX 5% and POAGX 10%. In our portfolio, we own 10% positions in both PRHSX and POAGX.
Kevin

Sorry for being a dissenter, but does anybody really need an EM HC fund -- translation: regional, sector ?? Smells like too much slicing and dicing to me. If this is a slice-dice need, then I would focus less on where a stock is domiciled and more on where a stock derives its revenue, and one may want to consider an ETF like PPH, which holds significant positions in stocks that derive appreciable sales from emerging market countries as detailed here:
http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2014/03/16/5-big-pharma-stocks-with-the-strongest-ties-to-eme.aspx
Kevin

i have 5% in PRHSX and 10% in POAGX. besides those two and all the similar funds, are there any other ways to buy healthcare, just to diversify a little w/ in the sector? what about healthcare REITs? any thoughts on those? or maybe GILD, to go purer and take a flier on one of the biotech powerhouses?

@mcmarasco, If you own the S&P 500, you already have about 12% of your assets in healthcare. Putting 5% into a pure healthcare play is not a bad idea. Biotech has a big future but it will be volatile.
If you are worried about the bull getting long in the tooth, you could DCA into healthcare and biotech and/or wait for a pullback to add funds.

Have a number of individual names and both CEFs and a mutual fund. While there may be volatility in the short/mid-term, take a look at the performance of some of the major biotechs, which actually did well in 2008. I think you have a combination with these names of growth and some degree of defensiveness. Plus, what Tampabay said.
Also, there is an investor day webcast on the Tekla website (HQH, HQL, TQH) that lasts about 3.5 hours. I thought it was a fascinating look at the industry - 3.5 hours may sound like a lot, but I thought it passed by rather quickly, with a panel discussion, chat from the fund managers and guest speakers.

Mac, ask yourself, "Self do you see Healthcare costs going down? do you think facilities and drug/medical companies will stop making money", see more or less users of healthcare in the future? You have answered yourself, 5% is nothing as a sector play....

I have been contemplating putting about 5% of my portfolio into this arena. But I'm not sure if that is a wise move right now. Would I be "late to the party"?
I have been hearing and reading that this is the place to be but the returns over the last few years (and YTD) have been unbelievable. I don't expect that to continue, but is there still room for Healthcare to prosper going forward?? What about the Biotech arena? I know it is much more volatile than the broader "Healthcare" sector; but is it worth it???
I can take some volatility, so that is not a major concern. Furthermore, this industry also seems to be a nice diversifier, little correlation to the stock market as a whole!
Any and all thoughts, comments, ideas and suggestions welcome!!!
Thank you, Matt

Hi Carefree,
David Iben is a very smart investor, but that doesn't mean that you need to give him your money to manage. He is obviously taking concentrated bets on beaten down sectors that continue to be beaten down more (aka, value trap). And the chart for his fund -- using the 20/50/100EMAs -- looks ugly and is not improving. I would definitely consider this fund a sell and avoid. If one wants to bottom fish and has extreme patience and tolerance for pain, then I would take a look at RSX. But otherwise, I would recommend looking at more attractive global equity funds like DODWX, THOIX and VMVFX/VMNVX.
Kevin

It is now Saturday November 29th at about 9:00 AM EST as I write. I have two funds (JCRAX & SGGDX) that are currently reflecting Wednesday November 26, 2014 nav end of day pricing in Morningstar's fund quote sheet. This carries over into their portfolio manager system.
Seems Morningstar still have issues as Yahoo Finance and the respective fund families are reporting the correct nav end of day pricing as of Friday November 28th.
Old_Skeet

@Old_Skeet: In case you want to call them and show the documentation:

@LewisBraham,
I agree completely and funny enough we were discussing the same about healthcare not too long ago.
mutualfundobserver.com/discuss/discussion/comment/50872/#Comment_50872
Obviously Emerging Global Advisors wasn't able to generate interest in their fund but did they or anyone else offer any reasons why no one is interested? Is it a question of marketing (because I'd never heard of Emerging Global Advisors) or a true lack of interest on the part of investors? You're article seems to suggest the latter but I also don't think there's much of the former. Considering the returns you cited over the past 10 years, both are a surprise to me.

I actually looked for the health care fund the other day to consider investing in, only to realize that the fund company had dropped a lot of their EM funds. Oh well. Long ABT as a boring EM healthcare play.

I believe these miners are down around 75-80% from their highs a few years ago. Once year-end tax loss selling is over, I must admit that I'm tempted to play the January Effect with them. A lot of people must be looking for tax losses this year, and these stocks are where they'll find them. The conditions for total capitulation seem ripe.

Turnover ratio is one of those statistics that should be colored coded in my opinion. According to the website Investopedia:
"Mutual fund turnover is calculated as the value of all transactions (buying, selling) divided by two, then divided by a fund's total holdings. In simpler terms, mutual fund turnover typically measures the replacement of holdings in a mutual fund, and is commonly presented to investors as a percentage over a one year period. If a fund has 100% turnover, the fund replaces all of its holdings over a 12-month period."
So turnover isn't just the selling out of holdings, but also the adding of holdings. Is it not plausible that a mutual fund that doubles its size (AUM) and then puts that new money to work by only adding shares (holdings) would have an annual "turnover ratio" of 50%? This scenario seem very positive and I color it green. OAKMX AUM hasn't double in size this year, but has seen almost a 50% increase ($12B to $17B):

Rummaging through OAKMX's M* data (which only list the top 25 stocks of a fund) I noticed that only one stock, (HD (Home Depot), has been held for at least 10 years. HD was first bought by OAKMX in 2002.
OAKMX holds 52 stocks (a fairly concentrated fund... see OAKLX if you want the Ultra - Nygren concentrated fund)
Of OAKMX's top 25 holdings listed on M*:
- Six are new as of this year
- Three more have been held for less than 2 years
- 14 stock have been held less 3 years or less
- 24 have been held less than ten years
- Nygren has increased shares to 23 of his funds top 25 holdings
Of these increases, Nygren made bigger bets on:
- Google by 24%
- Diageo by 20%
- AIG by 18%
- Qualcomm by 16%
- Saniflo, Apache, Mastercard, and Oracle by 12%
I guess my point is that even a fund with a mere 19% turnover can have an entirely different portfolio of stocks in any 5 year period (19% x 5 years). Conversely, mutual fund turnover ratio can be nothing more than a manager attracting more assets and putting that money to work by buying more shares of the same holdings.
I could be wrong, but much of Nygren's turnover this year seems to be attributed more to buying than selling (increasing the number of shares of holdings). His track record speaks for itself, but his recent share increases seems to speak optimistically of the holdings he presently holds. I color this manager's turnover ratio "green".
Another important note from Investopedia:
"The turnover rate in your mutual fund is really a measure of the frequency of transactions in your funds. In general, investors should analyze the turnover rate in conjunction with several considerations in determining whether or not to purchase a particular mutual fund. The fund turnover rate is not a silver bullet for your investment portfolio; it should be used as a complimentary decision-making tool. Other indicators, such as expense ratios, load/no-load, management tenure, investment philosophy and performance are (at least) as important as the turnover rate in helping you make the right investment decisions. "
Here are the holdings Nygren has added to:

Hi Hank. $2.90 not high by NY standards. Lowest I've seen around here is ~$3.05.
I was temped to get back into PRNEX about a month ago. Obviously glad I didn't. I'll just let the oil wars with the Saudis and Russian sanctions and North American oil ventures play out until I see some uptrend. No sense trying to catch a falling knife.
And miners? Haven't touched them in over 3 years and never will gamble like that again. Yeah, some year they'll go up 80%, but maybe 1 out of 100 people can time that right and make money at it... and that isn't me. Actually, fund managers playing the value game with PM miners is the reason I left ARIVX a couple years ago. A loosing game IM<HO.

@LewisBraham,
I agree completely and funny enough we were discussing the same about healthcare not too long ago.
mutualfundobserver.com/discuss/discussion/comment/50872/#Comment_50872
Obviously Emerging Global Advisors wasn't able to generate interest in their fund but did they or anyone else offer any reasons why no one is interested? Is it a question of marketing (because I'd never heard of Emerging Global Advisors) or a true lack of interest on the part of investors? You're article seems to suggest the latter but I also don't think there's much of the former. Considering the returns you cited over the past 10 years, both are a surprise to me.

FYI: (Click On Article At Top Of Google)
The “bucket” approach to these funds is not the way to go.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.google.com/search?newwindow=1&amp;q=emerging+markets+in+detail+++barron's&amp;oq=emerging+markets+in+detail+++barron's&amp;gs_l=serp.3...174131.177089.0.177698.10.10.0.0.0.0.203.947.9j0j1.10.0....0...1c.1.58.serp..8.2.292.767JyQqIXT0

FYI: (Click On Article Title At Top Of Google Search)
Holiday shoppers have a host of mobile apps to help them figure out if that door-buster sale at the local department store is worth rushing to, or if prices are better somewhere else. Too bad fund investors don’t have the same kind of app. Most investors understand the benefits of owning low-cost investments, but pricey funds still lurk in their portfolios. And not all of these funds’ managers are hunting for investments in far-flung corners of the investing universe and generating market-beating returns to justify their higher fees
Regards,
Ted
https://www.google.com/search?newwindow=1&amp;q=pricey+funds+poor+performance+barron's&amp;oq=pricey+funds+poor+performance+barron's&amp;gs_l=serp.3...15237.21550.0.21906.17.17.0.0.0.0.84.1186.17.17.0....0...1c.1.58.serp..14.3.240.7kwDc-JgNdA

FYI: (Click On Article Title At Top Of Google Search)
The playbook never changes that much for Bill Nygren, co-manager of the Oakmark fund. Emphasizing fundamental research and patience, he looks for undervalued stocks that can overcome their discounts. (The fund’s annual turnover is 19%, versus an average of 61% for Morningstar’s large-cap blend category.) However, Nygren isn’t afraid to make a few tweaks. Following a big upswing in equity prices since the market bottomed in 2009, the Chicago-based manager is finding few attractive companies that sport a single-digit price-earnings multiple. So he has added some growthier names like Google (ticker: GOOGL), which doesn’t trade at a big premium to the Standard & Poor’s 500 index. Nygren, 56, who has co-managed the $17.8 billion fund with Kevin Grant since 2000, has compiled good long-term performance. Oakmark (OAKMX) has beaten the S&P 500 over three, five, and 10 years, and ranks in the top 10% of its Morningstar peer group over those periods. Barron’s spoke with Nygren recently by phone.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.google.com/search?newwindow=1&amp;q=Oakmark’s+Bill+Nygren+Likes+Financials+and+Techs&amp;oq=Oakmark’s+Bill+Nygren+Likes+Financials+and+Techs&amp;gs_l=serp.3...15215.27183.0.28344.18.11.0.0.0.8.79.700.10.10.0....0...1c.1.58.serp..18.0.0.RUqQCPJVpE8