http://news.morningstar.com/articlenet/article.aspx?id=659713#cpage=0
I found this article interesting as it suggests if you find a manager who outperforms his/her peers when their sector bets are working against them, then you'll find a manager who outperforms his/her peers in the future. Maybe this shouldn't be terribly surprising but I'd not thought about it in this context before.
Unfortunately, and even more unfortunately this seems far too common at M*, I'm not aware they share how they attribute a fund manager's performance to his stock-picking vs. sector bets. They're more than happy to let me search for the best performing funds in whatever category over many different time periods at the same time they, and everyone else for that matter, tell you that chasing the hot performers will lump you in with the rest of the "irrational" investing public, but they won't make it possible to do more thoughtful research based on the teaser articles they publish.
It made me think of the discussion about Mr. Snowball's monthly commentary. One of David's comments, paraphrasing, was that he's always thinking about how he can make things even better. In this regard, I think this site does a great job of providing information that's useful to thoughtful investors trying to make good decisions. I would encourage you to continue to add information, such as you've done with active share or the ulcer index, that helps people understand what they're really paying that 1-2% expense ratio for.

I am a retiree with a moderately invested 40/60 portfolio (significant mega cap domestic holdings) which as we know already has exposure to emerging market. I currently have a 5.35% allocation to GPEOX, which is my only "sector fund" exposure to Emerging Markets. I hope to open at least an equal allocation to SFGIX soon. Keeping in mind that I would really like to reduce bond exposure going forward, regarding the pending hard close of GPEOX, how much small cap is too much?

...I can tell you that I'm retired, too---but early. Wife works. In small-caps we both hold two specific funds: MSCFX and NAESX. But you mention GPEOX, which is FOREIGN small-caps. That's a horse of a different color.
In our portfolio, MSCFX = 2.41% of holdings, and NAESX is less than 1%, still.
I don't know the particulars of your full picture, but an existing position of 5.35% in GPEOX seems enough.
I bet PRESX will take some further beating, along with other Europe shares. If things remain tense politically in Eastern Europe and there's more killing, I may take profits at my usual time, just after the New Year every year, and add to PRESX rather than PRWCX, which is the general plan. It's cold and heartless. But all the money's dirty, anyhow. I anguish over the lives lost and the idiots who lead countries!
Don't be afraid to "go offshore." My bonds are just 10% of holdings, now, and my domestic/foreign split in equities is about 50/50. I've held MACSX since 2003. (MAPIX is currently closed.) many of us in here hold SFGIX, too.
"Break a leg."

Sorry, this is a little of topic:
Sometimes I speed up selling a fund that is on my "sell list" when I see excessive outflows, just to avoid the negative effects of the fund being forced to sell (usually in a down market). My question is: Where in Morningstar or other convenient sources can one easily find an AUM statistic for an individual fund? I can't find this in Morningstar, but maybe I don't know where to look for it.

Pete64, you can find the AUM in Morningstar on the Quote tab, which is to the far left, and usually the one that opens by default. I'll point it out with an arrow

Testing 234 Image Button

MFO has the word "undefined" in the box for the URL of the image. I tried removing that word, and also leaving it there......same result each time.
I've reviewed the correct way to find the URL of a graphic image using Internet Explorer (which is different than with Firefox, which is what the MFO Guide shows)
And read the MFO User Guide section on using the Image button

Chap, you will want to screen (maybe elsewhere) also by manager tenure (longevity); Pinto, I think it is, at Janus Balanced, has been active since only 05 or something like that. (He seems as good as they come, I must add.) In any case, there are active funds, a few, that have outdone indexes over long period with one person or team, and a very few with superior dip protection 08-09 (my and others' complaint with the Owl ranking). Yes, I know this is survivor bias. Still, worth saluting. MAPOX is an amazing achievement for sure. Those Wisconsin guys (OAKBX guys too).

The quote:
“People aren't stupid. The problem is that our educational system has an amazing blind spot concerning risk literacy. We teach our children the mathematics of certainty -- geometry and trigonometry -- but not the mathematics of uncertainty, statistical thinking.”
>>>Nothing else is being taught that measures or assesses risk???
I see a bunch of risk assessment taking place in our school system; and "it ain't got noth'in" to do with math.
1. bullying
2. school lockdowns (practice drills) to prepare the staff and students for the event of a person who has chosen to cause harm at a particular facility.
3. plain old fights taking place in classrooms, the hallways and cafeteria.
4. risk literacy arrives in many forms in schools. Those who take the chances of failure from participation in any number and/or forms within the social fabric of a school society. Four years of being the backup quarterback for the high school football team, busting their butts to achieve a place or a position within any number of other school functions; but not always reaching the goal from any number of circumstances.
5. Sadly, for too many in some school systems, is the risk of being able to arrive at school for another day of study; without the risk of violence to them traveling to school.
The society of young folks in school systems is a world unto itself. There is risk with many things these young people deal with everyday within their school system; be it the staff/teachers or the other students of this special society.
I did not read the linked article; but hopefully it is more than data studies about math and risk, and how students do not understand risk.
Respectfully,
Catch

Here is a result from a MFO Fund database search, sorted by UI - ulcer index, lower is better. These funds, over a 20 year period, performed well compared to the S&P 500 (VFINX) with lower drawdowns in 2009. Over the past 3 years these funds have captured only about 70% of the S&P gain (my ball park estimate), but one could anticipate that they would also capture less of the next drawdown, making it easier to stick with your plan.
Fund APR MDD UI
MAPOX 10.3 -33.1 6.2
JABLX 10.3 -22.2 6.3
VWELX 10.1 -32.5 6.4
PRWCX 11.3 -36.6 6.5
FPACX 11.1 -28.8 6.7
JAMBX 7.4 -29.0 10.5
VFINX 9.7 -51.0 17.6
Apologies - I have not yet figured out how to post a result from the "Risk Profile" scan.

Well yea - it has to go down 3.4% before it goes down 75%!

Wednesday, August 6, 2014
It’s Only 3.4%
Ron Rowland
"Yesterday, the S&P 500 closed 3.4 percent below its all-time historical high. Bears are coming out of the woodwork, and media outlets are painting a grim picture. Although the modern day S&P 500 Index didn’t come into existence until 1957, Standard & Poor’s has been calculating an index of U.S. stocks since 1923. Dow Jones began the task in 1896. Today we have more than 14,000 days of S&P 500 history. That history extends to about 23,000 days if its predecessor is included and more than 29,000 days if you believe the Dow Jones Industrial Average was a good proxy 100 years ago."
One can read more of this weeks newsletter by clicking on the link below ...
http://investwithanedge.com/newsletter-archives/080614-its-only-3-4
Editing Note:
Recently there has been some issues brought forward about posting complete article content on the board over writing a brief blurb and then providing a link to the article.
The preferred way is to write a blurb and then post the link. Poster Mark called me out on this. With this, I have edited this post to reflect the site’s preferred way in hopes of maintaing harmony and conformability going forward.
I wish all ... "Good Investing."
Old_Skeet

If you are a Morningstar subscriber (to the website) - you can get the AUM for each share class over several years individually by looking at the PDF for the fund. The PDF appears underneath the ticker and star rating, on the initial page for each fund, but M* doesn't have it for all funds. Again, AUM for >each< share class, not all share classes.
Also - I think that if you subscribe to Lipper then you can get the information.
Here is example for top 25 funds:
http://www.diansfundfreebies.com/performance/lg25.pdf

Morgan Stanley and GS willl apparently be offering Dark pool service to the deep water clients:
morgan-stanley-goldman-darkpools

Hi Tony,
Thank you for taking time to read and respond to my post. Unfortunately, I could not successfully access the Link that you provided.
But I suspect that it might be the same reference that MFOer Ted linked in his post titled “Do Active Funds have a Future?”. I’m not sure if that is the case. If so, I have copied Ted’s Link for completeness and easy access as follows (if not, no harm done):
http://news.morningstar.com/articlenet/article.aspx?id=659902
Author and Morningstar researcher John Rekenthaler arrives at a somewhat surprising partial conclusion for a long-term Morningstar contributor. I say partially because he fundamentally proclaims a victory for passive Index investing, but with a few meaningful exceptions. In some fund categories, active management does deliver superior annual returns over a respectable timeframe. None of these findings are everlasting.
Rekenthaler’s conclusions do not depart significantly from those in the article that I referenced. It is also consistent with the findings that I have often referenced in the semi-annual S&P SPIVA Scorecard and Persistency studies. There are always a few mutual fund categories where active fund management outdistances its passive counterparts.
That’s why, although I find the accumulating evidence very persuasive for mostly a passive Index investment strategy, in select fund groupings, active management does what it is paid to do. Positive Alpha does exist! Of course, the challenge is to find it.
Thanks for your help and your interest.
Best Wishes.

Friday night I'm opening a bottle of Rioja and making a toast to all the wise people I've read or discussed with here.
Cheers,
LLJB

'04 reserve picture here...bought at Costco...very wise move. Enjoy!

Hi Old_Skeet and thank you for your insights. Indeed, I see the beautiful simplicity in how your system allows you to evaluate bigger or smaller pieces of the portfolio, which I also attempt to do with the portfolio xray tool.
Your sleeves tend to be the "areas" (large cap, mid cap, small cap, developed international, emerging markets, bonds and alternative- meaning real estate, commodities, currencies, etc.) that I allocate assets to and then my "sleeves" tend to be growth vs. value. I'm wondering whether that's an oversight on my part. I don't focus much at all on the overall aggressiveness of my portfolio, which is very aggressive I would say, and I'm sure I suffer far more volatility than most would be comfortable with. I do pay attention to the income that my investments throw off, but mostly as an afterthought rather than a plan. It seems I have some things to think about as I start my planning cycle for the next year to 15 months. Thanks again!
VintageFreak, please have one more beer for me, you deserve it!!! Friday night I'm opening a bottle of Rioja and making a toast to all the wise people I've read or discussed with here.
Cheers,
LLJB

The article's argument is based on recent investor preferences - everybody and his dog is going after the good performance of passive funds over the past 5 years. My guess is that after the next solid correction, we will see articles about the superior performance of some actively managed funds.

FYI: Do active funds have a future? To cut to the chase: apparently not much.
Regards,
Ted
http://news.morningstar.com/articlenet/article.aspx?id=659902

@Old_Skeet, I would be grateful to learn more about your sleeve system, most importantly how you define your sleeves. Your results are impressive, congratulations!
I basically have only two missions, the first of which is to be (significantly) overweight emerging/frontier markets and underweight developed international markets. The second is to be, again "significantly" overweight small cap stocks. Roughly 50% of my portfolio is mutual funds and 50% is stocks. I have a handful of funds I love and would keep through thick and thin, and another handful that I like but would give up if I found another fund that I thought better. I manage my accounts as one, with decisions about which account to use based on tax considerations and what I would reduce first if I needed cash.

http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/81443/000119312514298028/d771703d497.htm
497 1 d771703d497.htm ALLIANCEBERNSTEIN CAP FUND, INC.
SUP-0101-0127-0814
LOGO
ALLIANCEBERNSTEIN CAP FUND, INC.
-AllianceBernstein International Discovery Equity Portfolio
-AllianceBernstein Market Neutral Strategy — Global
Supplement dated August 6, 2014 to the Summary Prospectuses and Prospectuses (the “Prospectuses”) dated November 1, 2013 for AllianceBernstein International Discovery Equity Portfolio and for AllianceBernstein Market Neutral Strategy-Global (each a “Fund” and collectively the “Funds”).
At a meeting held on August 6, 2014, the Board of Directors of AllianceBernstein Cap Fund, Inc. approved the liquidation and dissolution of the Funds. Each Fund has suspended sales of its shares pending the completion of the liquidation and the payment of liquidating distributions to its shareholders. Each Fund expects to make the liquidating distributions on or shortly after October 10, 2014.
In connection with the liquidation, the Board approved the immediate suspension of each Fund’s distribution and/or service (Rule 12b-1) fees. The Board also approved the waiver of contingent deferred sales charges (“CDSCs”) upon redemption of a Fund’s shares on or after the date of this Supplement. This CDSC waiver will also apply to redemptions of shares of other AllianceBernstein Mutual Funds that are acquired through exchange of a Fund’s shares on or after the date of this Supplement.
Shareholders may redeem shares of each Fund, and may exchange shares of the Fund for shares of the same class of other AllianceBernstein Mutual Funds, until October 8, 2014. Shareholders should be aware that each Fund will convert its assets to cash and/or cash equivalents approximately three weeks before the liquidating distributions are made to shareholders. After a Fund converts its assets to cash, the Fund will no longer pursue its stated investment objective or engage in any business activities except for the purposes of winding up its business and affairs, preserving the value of its assets, paying its liabilities, and distributing its remaining assets to shareholders.
This Supplement should be read in conjunction with the Prospectuses for the Funds.
You should retain this Supplement with your Prospectus for future reference.
AllianceBernstein® and the AB Logo are registered trademarks and service marks used by permission of the owner, AllianceBernstein L.P.

I am a retiree with a moderately invested 40/60 portfolio (significant mega cap domestic holdings) which as we know already has exposure to emerging market. I currently have a 5.35% allocation to GPEOX, which is my only "sector fund" exposure to Emerging Markets. I hope to open at least an equal allocation to SFGIX soon. Keeping in mind that I would really like to reduce bond exposure going forward, regarding the pending hard close of GPEOX, how much small cap is too much?

PIMCO's asset losses (and Mr. Gross's tantrums) have been much in the news, but Morningstar's recent fund flows report shows a fascinating collection of firms whose investors have been hitting the exits over the past twelve months:

• PIMCO, down $79 billion to $506 billion (owie)
  
• Columbia, down $11B to $167B
  
• Janus, down $11B to $102B
  
• American Funds, down $10B to $1.1 trillion
  
• Fidelity, down $6B to $1.2 trillion (which does look a lot like a rounding error)
  
• Hartford, down $6B to $97B
  
• Voya (nee ING), down $6B to $94B
  
• Thornburg, down $4B to $61B
  
• DWS, down $3B to $49B
  

The big gainers: Vanguard, DFA, JPMorgan, and Goldman Sachs are all up by more than $20 billion.
David