Sort of a curiously written article. If you go to Goldman's own site, here's their take on their research:

Investors see growing overvaluations in both bonds and equities and have signaled concern about a valuation bubble forming, according to the BofA Merrill Lynch Fund Manager Survey for April.
The proportion of global investors saying equity markets are overvalued has reached its highest level since 2000. A net 25 percent of respondents to the global survey say that global equities are currently overvalued, up from a net 23 percent in March and a net 8 percent in February. This is still, however, short of the record-high level of a net 42 percent in 1999.
At the same time, the proportion of respondents saying that bond markets are overvalued has reached a new high in the survey’s history.

Only 25% of investment managers think the market is (even a little?) overvalued? But even at the 1999 peak of the internet bubble (I guess bubbles don't actually have "peaks" but I was having trouble getting a better phrase), only a minority of managers thought it was?
I wonder if a better headline would be: "Majority of investment managers institutionally blinded to evidence of unsustainable valuations"?
David

The 15-year number does not mean much to me. Cycles occur, as when U.S. stocks under-performed international from 2001-2007, and the reverse happened in 2008-2014. Most of these funds have had multiple manager changes in 15 years. I would be much more interested in looking at true diversified international (not global, not EM) with current manager track records or records including their previous intl fund stints. When I do that, I get a very different picture and group of funds.

Hi @Ted
This from my reply at your GMO link:
"Yup. One has to know what the intention and/or meaning of a particular investment is attempting to do.
Hell, healthcare will take a bang downward at some point in time, eh? One must pay attention to be an investor; deciding what they choose to do about/with risk and reward."
>>>The article mentions "Worrying"; but only in the title line.
As to currency swings. We all should understand that most standard active mutual funds do not apply a part of their operation to currency hedging.
But, also part of our world of investing is that other choices exist that do allow for flexibilty with investment choices.
From the GMO article link:
While many investors cite volatility reduction as a rationale for currency hedging, a white paper from GMO's Catherine LeGraw argues:
1) Volatility may be cut over the short-term, but not over longer horizons
>>>Correct
2) Volatility benefits have been reduced over time as companies become more global
>>>Correct
3) Even if volatility is lowered for international holdings, it isn't reduced for the whole portfolio as the hedging simply makes holdings more correlated with U.S. stocks
>>>Partially correct, IMHO
4) Hedging introduces leverage and hence tail risk (see the move in the Swiss franc).
>>>Correct. Investing involves risk, period.
>>>You directed this post towards me, and I am guessing this was based upon my notes to your GMO article post.
Worrying here regarding investments? Not at this time. Which includes our holding of HEDJ.
We sold our largest bond holding, LSBDX , beginning last October and unwound another large holding of PIMIX . LSBDX is at +.17% total return since mid-Oct, 2014 and -.21% YTD. PIMIX is about +3% YTD, and performing better than I expected. But, the monies from these sells have performed well with the purchases made with the monies.
We're about 65% equity between U.S. and Europe, at this time.
Europe, as we here know; has been going through stops and starts for investing for the past 5 years. The most recent QE program by the ECB may be of benefit; but I am not so sure of the overall long term value, at this time. The long time strength of the Euro finally started to decline (and stick) and we hope to ride this movement until the value of this is much less important.
Lastly, regarding the Euro currency. If, in conjunction the current QE policy of the ECB reducing interest rates and supporting bonds; that a positive recovery and strength for this areas exports will require the Euro to continue to devalue.
The holding periods for any of our investments is always subject to change dependent upon pricing and related market actions to any given sector.
The only sector of question at this time is U.S. real estate. Yes, this area has had a decent run for some time now; but I don't really find a reason for the recent weakness; other than profit taking.
Okay, time for more coffee; as I have to remove old carpeting/padding. YUCK !
Thanks for the question, or curiosity.
Take care,
Catch

FYI: Bubble talk is back on the table.
Regards,
Ted
http://blogs.wsj.com/moneybeat/2015/04/15/morning-moneybeat-why-we-might-not-be-in-bubble-territory-just-yet/tab/print/
Current Futures:
http://finviz.com/futures.ashx

Hi Heathkit,
Congratulations on your superior performance. You have made some wise and highly profitable mutual fund investment decisions. Indeed, the very bottom-line is how much you get to keep over the long haul. The lowest cost fund provider need not always produce the largest reward.
I suspect scores of MFO members can boast of similar success. I can too, although only marginally. The relative winning was never an upward straight-line set of happenings for me. Staying the coarse is an important factor.
Your outcomes and my outcomes are anecdotal experimental evidence that supports the proposition that some higher expense ratio funds do outperform less expensive rivals. Stock picking skills and better exit/entry timing can overcome the cost handicap. But be very careful when extrapolating your anecdotal experiences to an overarching market generalization. Broad statistics paint a different, more gloomy picture.
In fact, research clearly demonstrates that higher costs matter in reducing the likelihood of actively managed funds achieving positive Alpha (excess returns) over extended timeframes. Outliers do exist; some fund managers are exceptionally talented folks. But the integrated overall statistics say that these superior investors are rare birds.
How rare are these guys? Vanguard and Morningstar have done studies to put a number on these instances. Here are Links to the Vanguard and the Morningstar works:
https://personal.vanguard.com/us/insights/investingtruths/investing-truth-about-cost
http://news.morningstar.com/articlenet/article.aspx?id=347327
Vanguard presents a nice set of summary charts that clearly show that the median return for the lowest cost quartile consistently outdistances the returns from the median return of the highest cost option. These are overall statistics so outliers on the positive side of the distributions are always present. The trick is to identify these star performers early in their history. Yes that is possible.
Further in the Vanguard paper, a figure shows the percentage of actively managed funds that outdistance their Index rivals over a 10 year period. The data is presented for 5 fund categories. For surviving funds, the Developed and Emerging market International funds had the highest outperformance likelihoods at 48% and 40%, respectively. Small Cap Blend fielded the lowest percentage of outperformance at the 26% level. Winners are out there; it’s our task to find them. Performance persistence beyond the study timeframe is yet another issue.
Morningstar’s Russell Kinnel asked and answered as follows: “How often did it pay to heed expense ratios? Every time.”
He concluded with some wise advice: “Investors should make expense ratios a primary test in fund selection. They are still the most dependable predictor of performance. Start by focusing on funds in the cheapest or two cheapest quintiles, and you'll be on the path to success.”
Costs always matter, but are definitely not the singular criterion in making a final fund selection. The odds are better for the lower cost options. Don't allow anecdotal evidence to overwhelm base rate statistics.
Nice talking with you.
Best Wishes.

Dear Mona,
Thanks a lot, I understand that it works only when there is a trend. Perhaps like in health care now, but also with everything else, like currencies etc. What is surprising is how high this fund jumped during a single year. But then of course Equinox funds use many strategies, not all of them are doing well, so one of them could jump just by chance.
More on this fund can be found at http://globenewswire.com/news-release/2014/02/14/610535/10068444/en/Equinox-Chesapeake-Strategy-Fund-Provides-Mutual-Fund-Investors-With-Access-to-Expertise-of-Legendary-Turtle-Trader-Jerry-Parker.html
See also http://equinoxllc.com/sites/default/files/Chesapeake_ProdBro.pdf and http://www.chesapeakecapital.com
Finder

>> The hands of Time were rewound for you--- you could have done it all over again
haha, would it were so with my body and mind and so much else.
Thanks. But I never look at or care about NAV.
Reinvested, 1985 - 2009 = eightfold increase.

They work by following trends, until the trends no longer work!
I had a lot of luck with PQTIX in 2014, but less so in 2015. I am having better luck with AQMNX in 2015.
I watch my positions in these two funds very closely.
Mona

Any opinion on this group of funds? They are managed futures, which behaved beautifully during the last year. In particular, EQCHX gained 58% during the last year. Of course this fund has almost no history (it started trading on 09/07/2012, with the total gain 69% since that time) but such a success is hard to ignore.

I located this discussion of the fund. Maybe someone will have some insight about how this type of strategy has fared elsewhere. All I understand is that its initial rate of return appears to be unsustainable. (The chart of the returns presented at M* is a pretty one though!)
schoonermutualfunds.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Schooner-Hedged-Alternative-Income-Fund-2.2015.pdf

FYI: Most fund managers find the results aren’t worth the cost of hedging.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.wsj.com/articles/should-mutual-funds-hedge-for-currency-swings-1428375812

FYI: The hottest trend in the fast-growing market for exchange-traded funds is stripping out currency swings from overseas investments.
GMO, the $120 billion investment house co-founded by the legendary Jeremy Grantham, lays out the case for why most investors shouldn’t bother in a recent white paper
Regards,
Ted
http://blogs.barrons.com/focusonfunds/2015/04/14/granthams-gmo-skewers-currency-hedged-etfs/tab/print/

FYI: Foreign stock mutual funds have outperformed U.S. stock funds the past 15 years. Stock funds invested abroad had built a huge lead by the end of 2007, as foreign markets, particularly emerging markets, surged while the U.S. economy struggled to recover from the bursting of the dot-com bubble.
Regards,
Ted
http://license.icopyright.net/user/viewFreeUse.act?fuid=MTkyMTgzMzc=
Enlarged Graphic:
http://news.investors.com/photopopup.aspx?path=webLV041415.png&docId=747683&xmpSource=&width=1000&height=1063&caption=&id=747601

@davidrmoran Well, you had your chance. In 2009, FAGIX's NAV was thrown back to... 1985! The hands of Time were rewound for you--- you could have done it all over again. :)
@Junkster ETFs for junk? I'll see your 10-ft pole, and raise it to 20-ft--- no way, Jose!
"Financial innovations created in good times often fool people into thinking a silver bullet has been invented that offers a better deal than traditional investments. (By “traditional” I mean investments that are acknowledged to entail increased risk as the price for targeting increased return . . . not the “miracles” where increased return comes gratis.) Many recent innovations have promised high liquidity from low-liquidity assets. [...] however, no investment vehicle should promise more liquidity than is afforded by its underlying assets. [...][W]e’re back to wondering about whether there will be a buyer for the bonds the bank wants to short, and at what price. Thus we can’t get away from depending on the liquidity of the underlying high yield bonds. The ETF can’t be more liquid than the underlying, and we know the underlying can become highly illiquid." Howard Marks, most recent commentary
There are bad vapors arising in BondLand.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-04-12/flash-move-haunts-bond-traders-heeding-dimon-s-warning-of-crisis

FWIW, Scottrade still has it available under RiverPark. On an unrelated note, Morningstar shows RGHVX as almost entirely long as of 3/15.

Here's all I've got so far: TCW Gargoyle Hedged Value (TFHIX/TFHVX).
The identity section writes in the future tense but gives no effective date:

The following performance information relates to the Institutional Class shares of the RiverPark/Gargoyle Hedged Value Fund, a series of RiverPark Funds Trust (the “Predecessor Fund”). The Predecessor Fund offered two classes of shares, Retail Class (RGHVX) and Institutional Class (RGHIX), which invested in the same portfolio of securities, but had different returns based on their respective expenses. Retail Class shares had lower returns than Institutional Class shares because of their higher expenses. Prior to the Fund’s commencement of business, the Predecessor Fund will reorganize into the Fund, a series of TCW Alternative Funds.

The effective date of the prospectus filing is 4-10-2015.
It might be an interesting conversation.
More as soon as I have something to share,
David

Dear friends,
For what interest it holds, the Gargoyle Hedged Value fund has quietly moved from RiverPark to TCW. The prospectus for the TCW fund refers to RiverPark as "the predecessor fund." Same team, strategy and expenses, $75 million AUM, substantially higher minimum initial investment.
While it's been popular to grouch about the RiverPark Alternatives funds (which has always muddled me since two of the three are distinctly above average), you might note that Hedged Value transitioned three years ago from being a hedge fund. The composite hedge-mutual record earns it a five-star rating at Morningstar. The fund will earn a three-year rating at the end of this month; it's made about 14% annually since the conversion, finished in the top third each year and, on an absolute returns basis, is in the top 6% of long/short funds over the past three years.
I've got a call out to the managers to see what's transpired. I'll share as soon as I can.
As ever,
David

would it be possible to make "return group" a searchable criteria, along with "age group" and "risk group"? lots of times i want to exclude any fund that is less than a 4 or a 5 in terms of returns for, say, one year and three, etc. would be very helpful, i think.
also, and i think i've mentioned this a few times before, but is there a way to age limit the drawdown numbers so that i can more easily compare apples to apples?
iow, let's say i'm looking at the list of funds in age groups 5 and 10. well, i get max DD numbers for time periods less than 5 years (no bear market), combined with those up to ten years (one doozy of a bear market), which makes comparing the funds by DD irrelevant.
i think it'd be better to be able to list, say, age groups 5 and 10 but have the option to limit the DD to the past 5 years for those funds in the 10-year age group. that'd make the comparisons apple to apple. i think.
am i making myself at all clear?

FYI: (Click On Article Title At Top Of Google Search)
Ask me how much my cellphone costs each month, and I can tell you down to the penny. Ask me how much I pay in investment management fees each month, and I have no idea.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.google.com/search?newwindow=1&site=&source=hp&q=Stop+Deluding+Yourself+About+Investing+Expenses+wsj&oq=Stop+Deluding+Yourself+About+Investing+Expenses+wsj&gs_l=hp.3...5593.9525.0.10077.5.5.0.0.0.0.80.365.5.5.0.msedr...0...1c.1.64.hp..4.1.74.XKoI83M3s4o
Investing in ETFs: Put a Dollar Figure on Your Fund Fees:
http://www.etftrends.com/2015/04/investing-in-etfs-put-a-dollar-figure-on-your-fund-fees/

One might be equally suspicious of any prognostication lacking the adverb ("may"), considering the accuracy of such headlines. He probably could have skated with "why you might not..."

As you like it. :)
http://www.moneymanifesto.com/you-may-need-more-than-four-million-dollars-to-retire-no-joke-7587/