People should also be aware that inherited IRAs are no longer afforded bankruptcy protection per a Supreme Court ruling last week. Essentially the Court said they aren't "retirement money" if inherited. You can try to roll inherited IRAs over, but that has possible tax consequences.

Apparently, spouses may be affected by Court decision too if they do not roll over to their own account:
American Bar - Supreme Court Rules Inherited IRA Funds Not Exempt In Bankruptcy

"....
The case involves a daughter’s inherited IRA of a daughter and not that of a surviving spouse. The opinion implies that the surviving spouse’s rollover IRA is the person’s own IRA and thus exempt in bankruptcy but, if the surviving spouse does not rollover, then the IRA is an inherited IRA and subject to the same rules as an inherited IRA of a non-spouse beneficiary. The opinion says no more on that subject and does not address whether a surviving spouse’s rollover IRA is comprised of “retirement funds” or whether the surviving spouse’s inherited IRA does not have “retirement funds.” Since the funds would be the same in either case, that would be a difficult distinction. The opinion implies that if a surviving spouse does not rollover an IRA and thus does not make it his/her own IRA, the result would be the same as the daughter’s inherited IRA, as the IRA that is not rolled over by a surviving spouse is also an inherited IRA. The Court states: “If the heir is the owner’s spouse, as is often the case, the spouse has a choice: He or she may “roll over” the IRA funds into his or her own IRA, or he or she may keep the IRA as an inherited IRA (subject to the rules discussed below).”
...
Nevertheless, while not clear, the Court seems to imply that an IRA rolled over by a spouse beneficiary will be treated as the spouse's IRA, rather than an inherited IRA, and such IRA will be an exempt asset. If the spouse chooses to treat the IRA as an inherited IRA, however, it will not be an exempt asset."

FYI: Even the strongest have to evolve.
Regards,
Ted
http://news.morningstar.com/articlenet/article.aspx?id=663995

Bob, their fees for equivalent funds are lower than Wasatch's. Acc'ding to M*:
* Foreign: WAIOX 2.25%, GPIOX 1.73%
* Global: WAGOX 1.80%, GPGOX 1.68%, GPROX 1.60%.

FYI: Longtime stock picker Mario Gabelli earned $85 million in 2013, easily topping the pay of financial titans like KKR & Co.’s Henry Kravis and George Roberts, BlackRock Inc.’s Larry Fink and even Goldman Sachs & Co.’s Lloyd Blankfein, according to a survey of financial executive pay released Monday by the research firm SNL Financial.
Regards,
Ted
http://blogs.wsj.com/moneybeat/2014/09/08/mario-gabelli-wall-streets-highest-paid-ceo/tab/print/

He moves from Latin American stocks to extended duration Treasuries, with a 25 year duration? If the interest rate on 25 year Treasuries were to go up 1%, the principal/NAV would go down by 25%.
This Moose is no stranger to risk. Latin American stocks are also not the lowest risk thing around either.

For small trades, the ETFs are OK. But for larger trades (say 50K or more) the mutual funds are better because there is no bid-asked spread.

@MOZART325, I'm not 100% certain that the index fund has the advantage there over the exchange traded fund. The index fund has to "pay" the bid-ask spread on every single purchase it makes. How is that fundamentally different than the bid-ask spread on the exchange traded fund?
May need to call in an expert on individual stocks. I don't have the expertise to address this issue, but I'm skeptical of the idea that exchange traded funds have an "additional" bid-ask spread to pay that a traditional index fund does not.

For small trades, the ETFs are OK. But for larger trades (say 50K or more) the mutual funds are better because there is no bid-asked spread.

But with 75% in cash, this fund still lost .53% today in a slightly down market. Did I miss anything here with this fund, or should I move on to other real SCV funds?

With the unique holdings in the top 10, I wouldn't assess it on the basis of how much it lost today versus how much the market lost. Because this definitely is not a "market" kind of fund, it has NO characteristics that are index-like.
Take a look at the sector weightings. This fund goes its own way and does not look at what others are doing.

I would study the manager. I Googled him, and there is plenty to read about him, including several interviews, to understand his current and past thinking and investment strategy.
You could read his fund reports. There is a semi-annual report that came out in July of this year. And whatever shareholder communications he has.
Below are the calendar year returns. His first full year of operations, he was at the top of the heap. The next two years, the bottom......
Where he will be over the next few years is totally unpredictable

But with 75% in cash, this fund still lost .53% today in a slightly down market. Did I miss anything here with this fund, or should I move on to other real SCV funds?

Here's why the fund lost .53% today even though it is 75% in cash.
BTW, I'm not familiar with this fund. Just took a look after you posted the question:
All of the fund's top 10 holdings were down today as can be expected in a down market, but several of them were down a LOT for a one day decline.

The Gold mining stocks had a horrific day, and that has affected your fund a lot. Take a look at the top 10 holdings of your fund.

Your opinions?

I also agree with the 5%. It will be interesting to see how performance holds up after the hard close. Do they plan on offering any more funds?

Hi Andy- yes, I'm thinking that 5 is a pretty good number for this one.
Regards- OJ

Hey Catch, it can also be a buy ... then sell and buy something else if it doesn't work out - no shackles.
Around here it's 4%, on its way to 5 by the end of the month.

About 3% at present, may bump it up to 4 or 5.

I hold a larger position in this fund and established it almost at its inception. I understand the reason holding large cash position, and also understand that we should consider this fund as a conservative allocation fund with cash as the other alternative asset. But with 75% in cash, this fund still lost .53% today in a slightly down market. Did I miss anything here with this fund, or should I move on to other real SCV funds?

Well, think positive. My wish is for your holdings to INCREASE and so you will only need to sell to keep your stake at 5%. :)

>> whole article is good reading.
>> The referenced article is indeed excellent.
Omg, how the heck so? Seems extremely feeble to me, even by the feeble standards of WSJ and MW service pieces. The rules are lame, not really or demonstrably or consistently true, the quotes from Kinnel and Snowball highly selective (you can always find such an example), the absence of broad data lazy and troubling, and the whole thing a yawn and worse, useless, unhelpful, unactionable. 1 - Sure, some hot managers ain't no more. Maybe most. Oh, but wait, Danoff ahead. Oh, wait, he's longterm. 2 - Sure, GLRBX has been good forever, and you shoulda bought and held, period, full stop, you dope. 3 - Everyone has been writing forever about size, which matters absolutely, sure, yes, except when it doesn't, and most managers say it doesn't, but they are wrong, or are they? Wait, Danoff ahead. Good thing Tillinghast and D&C were overlooked. 4 - KIS, okay, so indexing is best. Or is it? And cherish sc and value, oky-doky and all righty, then. Twas ever thus. 5 - duh. 6 - Balance and blend and mix are important. Wow. And 7, the last rule, the future, well, read those last three questions out loud and see if you can do it without laughing.
The whole thing is a weak, but actually worse than weak, September yawn, to my eye. I worry when smart people here reflexively write that something is good or excellent. Is there anything whatsoever in this article that would not have occurred to any regular visitor to this forum??

LL,
This is a tough space to fill...one that I struggle with as well. I'm linking 2 threads on this same issue. SCMFX plus VASVX are the options I've narrowed it down to.
Good luck, and let us know what you decide,
Press
http://www.mutualfundobserver.com/discuss/discussion/5469/small-and-mid-cap-fund-recommendations#latest
http://www.mutualfundobserver.com/discuss/discussion/13679/help-requested-sc-mc-value-funds#latest

With the ETF you can put in a limit price. Take a look at the intraday for VTI.
https://www.google.com/search?q=VTI&rlz=1C1AVSA_enUS454US460&oq=VTI&aqs=chrome..69i57&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=122&ie=UTF-8
It has a 60 cent swing between high and low. You could do a little research and figure out a limit amount purchase. My experience is that you can pick up a few cents.
You can do the same when you want to sell.

I am familiar with many of these funds as my 403 offers some, and I am also invested in my own IRA accounts.
The current holdings break-down looks like this, and I think she picked all the good active funds. Although PRWAX may bear watching as a new manager took over in 2013.
PRWAX: domestic large growth
ABMIX: domestic mid blend
OTCFX: domestic small growth
DODFX: foreign large blend
PTTRX: intermediate term bond
60% : US, 22%: foreign, 18%: bond
A few interesting notes:
VINIX is just the Vanguard institutional version (low cost) of S&P 500 Index.
ABMIX is closed to new investor. I have the investor version (CHTTX).
OTCFX is closed to new investor.
RERGX is foreign large growth with .49% expense. Both DODFX and RERGX are fine choices for foreign exposure.
I am not familiar with the others.
I hope she's comfortable with 82% stock and 18% bond levels:
https://personal.vanguard.com/us/insights/saving-investing/model-portfolio-allocations
Hope this helps.

Hi Guys,
The referenced article is indeed excellent. However, it really contains no surprising information. It just reinforces a wide body of earlier research findings that grow more compelling with each year’s additional data.
Mutual fund performance persistence is largely a myth, with a few outstanding exceptions. The game plan should be to find and stick with those noteworthy exceptions. The article identifies a few of them.
In physics, the law of gravity dominates. Although not quite as universal, within the investment community, a regression-to-the-mean law seems almost as pervasive.
The evidence against fund persistent outperformance is overwhelming. In its early years, the Morningstar 5-star rating system proved so vulnerable to performance decay, and subsequently to star erosion, that the firm was forced to modify and expand its ranking methods to salvage its fading reputation.
The numerous periodic table of returns published annually by a host of industry giants demonstrate the fragile nature of last year’s winners. The rotations are swift. Buying last year’s top performers has proven to be a Loser’s game.
Each year, Fortune magazine issues a list of the most respected and the most despised companies. The list does have some stability year over year. However, the market returns from owning the most accomplished companies over the long haul do not match those yielded by the least honored outfits. From an investment rewards perspective, this is yet another illustration of a regression-to-the-mean pull.
All MFO regulars should be familiar with the often referenced Standard and Poor’s SPIVA and Persistency reports. These documents have registered fund persistency failures for many years. Here is the Link to those data rich reports:
http://us.spindices.com/resource-center/thought-leadership/spiva/
If motivated, you can click on the specific SPIVA and Persistency items to explore more deeply. The SPIVA mid-year report was just released. I have not yet accessed it.
Michael Mauboussin has written extensively about the tradeoffs between luck and skill in determining outcomes. He concludes that as the skill level of professional money managers has escaladed over time, the luck component becomes the more dominant factor. There are fewer and fewer Excess Return opportunities. Hence, expect that persistent superior performance should degrade even more in the future and should be more difficult to identify.
That’s an imperfect signal that favors an Index-like approach. Institutions have recognized that signal, and are moving more aggressively in that direction. Perhaps we should too?
Best Wishes.