FYI: Equity-income mutual funds, which aim to produce dividend income along with capital appreciation, have two factors potentially in their favor: 1) They invest in companies that have sufficient quality to produce steady income, perhaps even rising income and 2) their holdings' dividend payouts act as a cushion on price decline in bear markets.
Regards,
Ted
http://license.icopyright.net/user/viewFreeUse.act?fuid=MTkzMzAxODM=
Enlarged Graphic:
http://news.investors.com/photopopup.aspx?path=webLV051215.jpg&docId=752125&xmpSource=&width=1000&height=1063&caption=&id=752113

FYI: Count Bill Gross among the world’s biggest philanthropists.
The bond investor has already given away as much as $700 million and eventually will donate his remaining $2 billion fortune, a figure that’s “staggering, even to me,” Gross said in an interview on Bloomberg Television
Regards,
Ted
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-05-12/gross-gives-away-700-million-on-way-to-donating-fortune

The fact that Uber is now valued higher than something like 80% of S & P 500 companies is absurd. I'm sorry, but I'll stick with taxis, which don't have "surge pricing", are cheaper and still work just fine.
Lets all remember this story, shall we?
http://www.businessinsider.com/women-raises-362-to-pay-for-uber-ride-2014-11

BBRY ( or BB which are Canadian shares) had a big day yesterday (up over 6%) on little news other than a facelift for the Leap phone (a popular phone in India). My losses in BBRY (-80%) have been as close to my gains in MINDX. Funny to think India may reignite the BB brand.
POAGX (M* 5 star Gold Primecap fund) lists BB as one of it's top ten holdings.

What's all the hellavalo over?
The snippet is a short, simple, multi-pronged piece presenting one financial advisor's view on the subject we've all been discussing. If you're interpreting it as "heavy" reading, you're probably over-reacting. Yahoo is good at tossing out short and incomplete attention-grabbers like this one. I guess that's how they sell ads. If you read Yahoo's business pages you already know this.
There's a few interesting facts: The number of recipients taking SS early has been growing (although we hardly needed to be informed of that). A Gallup Poll survey showed "... more non-retirees ... than at any point in the last 15 years are planning on Social Security to be a major source of their retirement income ..."
The advisor's main point is, I think, offered a bit tongue-in-cheek in the form of a "paradox". A good paradox often expresses an underlying truth contained within an apparent absurdity. Perhaps that's why the reactions are so divergent.
The underlying truth here is that those at 62 are, health wise, better able to enjoy the extra income from early SS payments by engaging in travel, hobbies, and other life-enriching experiences (and the adviser thinks they should avail themselves of the opportunity.)
The obvious absurdity is that only those who don't need the money can afford to take it early.
Best wishes

FYI: Even though the when of higher interest rates isn’t exactly set in stone, now would be a good time to make sure you’re in at least one of the best fond funds for tackling rising interest rates.
Regards,
Ted
http://investorplace.com/2015/05/3-best-bond-funds-for-rising-interest-rates-vbmfx-mwtrx-prfrx/print

FYI: (This is a follow-up article)
With Uber now reportedly valued at $50 billion, there are justifiable worries that some private start-up technology companies worth $1 billion or more — known as unicorns — are in bubble territory.
But don’t worry, the thinking goes. Main Street investors won’t get hurt as they did after the dot-com collapse of 2000 because the current crop of highfliers are privately held by expert investors like venture capitalists. So most civilians will be fine should things turn south this time.
Here’s an open secret: That’s fiction
Regards,
Ted
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/12/business/dealbook/main-street-portfolios-are-investing-in-unicorns.html?ref=business&_r=0

@MFO Members: With 7.3 Million AUM, an high expense ratio of 1.85, couple with poor performance, 90 precentile in 2013, 98 percentile in 2014, and 70 percentile YTD this fund will not be missed. Therefore, I'm not sending flowers or going to the wake or the funeral.
Regards,
Ted
Another One Bites The Dust: Queen

http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1355064/000158064215002120/arbitrage497stkr.htm
497 1 arbitrage497stkr.htm 497
Catalyst Event Arbitrage Fund
(the “Fund”)
a series of Mutual Fund Series Trust
Supplement Dated May 11, 2015
to the Prospectus Dated November 1, 2014
The Board of Trustees of the Mutual Fund Series Trust has concluded, based on the recommendation of Catalyst Capital Advisors LLC, that it is in the best interests of the Fund and its shareholders that the Fund cease operations. The Board has determined to close the Fund, and redeem all outstanding shares, on June 15, 2015 (“Liquidation Date”).
Effective immediately, the Fund will not accept any new investments and will no longer pursue its stated investment objective. The Fund will begin liquidating its portfolio and will invest in cash equivalents until all shares have been redeemed. Any capital gains will be distributed as soon as practicable to shareholders and reinvested in additional shares, unless you have previously requested payment in cash. Shares of the Fund are otherwise not available for purchase.
Current shareholders of the Fund may, consistent with the requirements set forth in the Prospectus, exchange their shares into shares of the same class of other funds in Catalyst family of funds, such as the Catalyst Hedged Futures Strategy Fund or Catalyst Macro Strategy Fund, at any time prior to the Liquidation Date.
ANY SHAREHOLDERS WHO HAVE NOT REDEEMED OR EXCHANGED THEIR SHARES OF THE FUND PRIOR TO JUNE 15, 2015 WILL HAVE THEIR SHARES AUTOMATICALLY REDEEMED AS OF THAT DATE, AND PROCEEDS WILL BE SENT TO THE ADDRESS OR ACCOUNT OF RECORD. If you have questions or need assistance, please contact the Fund at 1-866-447-4228.
IMPORTANT INFORMATION FOR RETIREMENT PLAN INVESTORS
If you are a retirement plan investor, you should consult your tax advisor regarding the consequences of a redemption of Fund shares. If you receive a distribution from an Individual Retirement Account or a Simplified Employee Pension (SEP) IRA, you must roll the proceeds into another Individual Retirement Account within sixty (60) days of the date of the distribution in order to avoid having to include the distribution in your taxable income for the year. If you receive a distribution from a 403(b)(7) Custodian Account (Tax-Sheltered account) or a Keogh Account, you must roll the distribution into a similar type of retirement plan within sixty (60) days in order to avoid disqualification of your plan and the severe tax consequences that it can bring. If you are the trustee of a Qualified Retirement Plan, you may reinvest the money in any way permitted by the plan and trust agreement.
This Supplement and the existing Prospectus and the Statement of Additional Information dated November 1, 2014, provide relevant information for all shareholders and should be retained for future reference. Both the Prospectus and the Statement of Additional Information dated November 1, 2014 have been filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, are incorporated by reference and can be obtained without charge by calling the Funds toll-free at 1-866-447-4228 or by writing to 17605 Wright Street, Omaha, Nebraska 68130.

Hi Guys,
Probably like most of you, there are financial writers I like and trust, and others I do not. Jaffe falls in the positive category, but not without reservations.
Some skepticism is a practical defensive device whenever accessing any financial opinions. I mostly find Jaffe’s columns informative, but buyer beware since there is a tendency to distort presentations to buttress a position.
Jaffe shows promise as a financial commentator. Proof of that is in this referenced column. He wisely chooses to close his assessment by liberally quoting MFO’s own David Snowball. Jaffe’s choice in this regard is spot on-target.
Congratulations to Professor Snowball. The reference to his perspective on this subject gives him a wider, more diversified audience exposure.
But care must be exercised when reading Jaffe’s documentation. It seems as if he is playing loose with statistics. Instead of measuring a manager’s performance over an integrated timeframe, Jaffe resorts to a far less meaningful measure of 8 consecutive years of outperformance to generate his position. He says: “just four actively managed funds …. have current streaks of eight consecutive calendar years of beating the S&P 500, according to Morningstar.”
So what? The meaningful measure should be the time integrated end portfolio value of active management over the entire selected timeframe; a given bad quarter or a substandard annual return is acceptable if recovery is in evidence. Also, why an 8 year period? That specific a timeframe has the unhealthy likelihood of data mining.
Understanding the reasons for making any investment decision is necessary for success.
Remember the infamous 1720 South Sea bubble when one absurd trading company attempted to sell its shares with the following goal: “For carrying on an undertaking of great advantage; but nobody to know what it is.”
History may not repeat itself, but many times it rhymes. For example, recall Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s quote: “We have to pass the Health Care Bill so you can find out what's in it”.
Even Isaac Newton fell victim to the lure of South Sea profits. He lost a ton of money. A brilliant mind is no guarantee of investment foresight.
So the cautionary lesson here is that financial articles, even those from writers who are mostly respected, must be carefully read and aggressively challenged to recognize nuances in the presentation, and biases in the perspective.
Best Regards.

FYI: Fidelity Investments’ print ad campaign highlighting some of the company’s best managers was supposed to make people think about star power.
Instead, it nearly proves that the fund industry is a black hole, sucking all the starlight into darkness
Regards,
Ted
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/index-funds-killed-the-mutual-fund-star-2015-05-11/print

Were all the other 3rd years since 1947 preceded by a 6-yr rising bull? Also, if I'm not mistaken, we still have roughly 7.5 months to go in this 3rd year.

Hank, I agree with you about the past 15 years don't have anything to do with the coming 15 years. But let's not attribute that only to the James fund. That statement covers ALL funds. Assuming Vanguard has a better research department than James for arguments sake, that in itself doesn't mean that the Vanguard fund will get a better return with less risk. There are plenty of Vanguard actively managed funds that aren't great, notwithstanding their deeper bench. (more researchers means better research?)

Hi Soupkitchen,
You are correct that there are no absolutes.
However, lets not forget two important things that you can probably bank on in the future with VWINX and GLRBX.
First, the 75 basis point difference in the ER. That creates a significant headwind for GLRBX (or tailwind for VWINX) and if I am flying from New York to Atlanta, my bet is I will arrive sooner with the tailwind.
Second, to overcome the headwind, GLRBX must take increase risks to achieve equal returns. As you know, Sharp and Sortino Ratios are measures of risk adjusted returns. Looking at these, VWINX is the winner in the past 3-Yr, 5-Yr, 10-Yr, and 15-Yr periods. And Standard Deviation has already been addressed.
Just for clarification purposes, I think GLRBX is a very good fund, and I see nothing wrong with owning both. That said, I personally do not see the need to own both in the same (very similar) space and I want to put the odds in my favor to achieve the same or greater return, with less risk.
Mona

FYI: The third year of the Presidential Cycle has historically been the equity market’s best year in terms of performance, but with a gain of less than 3% YTD, 2015 has gotten off to a slow start. In fact, this year’s returns are the weakest for the third year of an election cycle in nearly 70 years (1947).
Regards,
Ted
https://www.bespokepremium.com/think-big-blog/weakest-year-three-since-1947/

Hi SoupKitchen:
Re: "I just don't see anybody being right or wrong in this discussion. Each investor has his (or her) reasons for preferring a specific fund."
Agree with you in my case. Mona's case on fees is harder to refute.
I'll admit to being partial to TRP, despite somewhat higher fees. Rather than a balanced fund, I'd look at one of their fund-of-funds which carry reasonable fees of .65 or less and should provide similar diversification benefits to a balanced fund.

Why it pays to get reduced Social Security benefits
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/why-it-pays-to-get-reduced-social-security-benefits-185927965.html

Where is this years global growth occurring?

A lot can happen in 15 years, but how long ago does the year 2000 feel to you? Projected Global growth by GDP (2030):
"Get ready for a new economic order. In the world 15 years from now, the U.S. will be far less dominant, several emerging markets will catapult into prominence, and some of the largest European economies will be slipping behind."

referenced article:
the-world-s-20-largest-economies-in-2030
My Take:
Matthews Funds do a nice job in the Asia markets (MAPIX, MACSX, MSMLX, MCDFX, MAKOX, MAPTX, MINDX and others)
T Rowe Price Funds do a nice job in other EM markets (TREMX, TRAMX, PRLAX, PRMSX, PREMX)

Hank, I agree with you about the past 15 years don't have anything to do with the coming 15 years. But let's not attribute that only to the James fund. That statement covers ALL funds. Assuming Vanguard has a better research department than James for arguments sake, that in itself doesn't mean that the Vanguard fund will get a better return with less risk. There are plenty of Vanguard actively managed funds that aren't great, notwithstanding their deeper bench. (more researchers means better research?)
I just don't see anybody being right or wrong in this discussion. Each investor has his (or her) reasons for preferring a specific fund. Then what ends up happening in the future is anybody's guess. I own both VWINX and GLRBX, plus other allocation funds, just because I prefer to use different funds because they don't invest in the exact same way.

Yes, the Balanced fund has done very well. M* likes it. But, you're not buying the performance of the past 10-15 years. You're buying the performance of the NEXT 10-15 years. Big difference. Do as you will. And you will. Were it me, I'd stick with a larger company with a deeper management team, better research capabilities and more competitive fees. There's so many I won't start to name them. Or, as I think Mona and others would suggest, go with an index fund or other offering from low cost leader Vanguard.

Yup, Wellington Management certainly fits your description. And if I were looking for a Conservative Allocation fund for my taxable account, I would in fact go with VTMFX over GLRBX.
Mona