I hold this fund in taxable account so would not sell all at one time. I need to manage the tax consequences.
It has done very well for me but its been laggard if one compares 1, 3 or 5 years returns with similar type of funds.
and it has very high ER

I sold about 50% of SWFFX & cut MFLDX loose. I'll wait for market pull back, if there is one, before reinvesting.
Happy Labor Day weekend everyone !, Derf

Yeah ...
Somehow I find it depressing that you can sit atop the world's most extensive collection of mutual fund data and probably the world's largest fund analyst corps and all you manage to ferret out are two huge funds standing in plain view.
American Funds New World (NEWFX): $25 billion and a decent record as an EM fund over all trailing periods, especially given its muted volatility. One minor downside is that it doesn't particular invest in EM stocks conventionally conceived. By M*'s tracking, a third of its money is in EM stocks and two-thirds elsewhere. Where elsewhere? Toyota, Nestle, Novo Nordisk, Cummins Diesel, Samsung, Prudential ... The argument, of course, is that these firms sell a lot to the emerging markets but, Ms. Benz agrees, it might not be the best way to get EM exposure which leaves us with ...
T. Rowe Price Emerging Market Stock (PRMSX): $7.8 billion and an utterly undistinguished record under its current manager. Since his arrival in September 2008 the fund has modestly trailed its peer group and the corresponding Vanguard index fund but does not seem to have compensated for that with noticeably lower volatility.
Their only regional fund is Matthews China (MCHFX), at a sprightly $1.2 billion. On whole, I suppose if I want to pursue regional exposure in Asia I'd argue from a more broadly focused Matthews fund.
Oh well, back to working on this afternoon's class.
David

http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1572617/000089418913006686/wstchstr-capfnds_497c.htm
Received literature last night concerning the Merger Fund. In that literature, was several mentions of the above fund being available.
Personally, I have the Quaker Event Arbitrage Fund (formerly the Penn Avenue Event Driven Fund and its longstanding manager, Thomas Kirchner). Since I was an investor in the former, I was grandfathered from paying the load after the merger of the two funds. (http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/870355/000145078910000169/quaker497forn14.htm)
Another MF company getting in the event driven fund business.

FYI:
Regards,
Ted
U.S.: http://blogs.wsj.com/moneybeat/2014/08/27/morning-moneybeat-why-sp-2000-is-a-milestone-worth-celebrating/tab/print/
Europe: http://blogs.wsj.com/moneybeat/2014/08/27/morning-moneybeat-europe-small-losses-likely-in-europe/tab/print/
Asia: http://blogs.wsj.com/moneybeat/2014/08/26/morning-moneybeat-asia-a-historic-two-point-move-for-the-sp-500/tab/print/

MAPOX is a decent fund. I don't know its history during bear markets but it's been around for a while. I had forgotten that MAPTX was closed.
Matthews is a great company. I have MAINX as well as MAPIX. MAINX is around 5% of my portfolio. But, they are Asia centric. That's their business and they are good at it. Having exposure to Europe is good too.
You may have more moves to make but take it slow and use opportunities to make changes. My favorite visual for my $cost avg method was the water hose and bucket. The water was my money going into investments. The hose directed that money. The buckets were my investments. As some investments fell out of favor and I still believed in them I would point that hose and fill that bucket more than the others. It's a value type $cost avg method. On the other hand if a fund had a big year I would sweep profits in one or more of the others. My big year was the year TWCUX had a 80% +/- return. I swept the profits. The next couple of years were not that good. Typical after a big return.
I think you will be happy with MEASX.

Thanks. man. I'm approx. 50/50 domestic/international. That includes EM and Frontier. MAPIX is the biggest chunk. Next biggest chunk is PRWCX at 18.77% of portf followed by PRESX at 14.85% and MAPOX at 9.02% of total. The others are much smaller. I like my selections, but the proportions here just happened, always playing catch-up, if you know what I mean.
MAPTX sounds good, too. But I'm already sitting on 13 different funds. Some of them, ostensibly the "hot" ones--- serve as feeders for more tame, core funds in the portfolio: PRWCX and MAPOX.
I will indeed move some money, but keep a big chunk in MAPIX. Thanks again. I've already decided that I want to keep this all in Matthews.

@Crash,
29.78% is a lot in my opinion. My shares of MAPIX= 9.02% of my portfolio. It is a good fund though and it is closed to new investors so I would not sell it all. If you decide to sell, just pare it back a bit. The bigger question is where to go with that money? MEASX I'm sure is a good fund but it has a high ER. Also, and this again is my opinion, it does not include Hong Kong, Singapore as well as Japan. Japan may not be the fastest growing economy but the other two are pretty important in this region. I am getting the impression you want to be in emerging markets or in Asia with your comments. EM funds in this region have been slow as of late. It depends on what your impression of the future is and how countries like India and other countries will grow with the economy. It will be a rough ride and if you don't like volatility then you have more to think on. I would keep my asset allocations on these funds a bit lower. Depending on your asset size, 5-10% might be a good start.
A simple way would be to keep 10% in MAPIX and maybe another 5% in MAPTX. You still have TRAMX from your comment above and that is a good one for a small amount too. As for the rest if any, there are many funds that might fit for you but wit the markets at this stage, you might be chasing performance.
I am just one person and one opinion. I hope others will give some recommendations or suggestions. What works for me may not be for you. But I do believe your almost 30% in MAPIX is too much.
Hope this helps.

Sorry bee, with due respect to your Mom, "Conservative" and "Strategic and losing 25%? Something is just wrong here. GLRBX is it.

FYI: (Click On Article Title Top Of Googel Search)
Barry James knows about managing risk.
In 2008, when the Standard & Poor's 500 lost 37%, the James Balanced Golden Rainbow Fund (ticker: GLRBX ) lost just 5.5%.
Yet James isn't just good in a crisis. His fund, which garners a five-star rating from Morningstar, has consistently outperformed its peers and is in the top percentile of its category for the past decade. In the past 15 years, the fund returned an annualized 6.5%, compared with 5% for the S&P 500.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.google.com/search?newwindow=1&site=&source=hp&q=5+stock+picks+barron's&oq=5+stock+picks+barron's&gs_l=hp.3...1971.12349.0.12990.22.21.0.1.1.0.94.1699.21.21.0....0...1c.1.52.hp..6.16.1249.ZoGbSjFJH9A
M* Snapshot Of GLRBX: http://quotes.morningstar.com/fund/f?t=GLRBX&region=usa&culture=en-US
Lipper Snapshot Of GLRBX; http://www.marketwatch.com/investing/fund/glrbx
GLRBX Is Ranked # 22 In The (CAA) Fund Category By U.S. News & World Report:
http://money.usnews.com/funds/mutual-funds/conservative-allocation/james-balanced:-golden-rainbow-fund/glrbx

Ha! That's a "Catch 22" if you ask me. Funds mentioned favorably here at MFO grow very large very rapidly it seems. Than, in so year or two they're too big to manage. What a bummer. Of course, the manager can choke off inflows anytime as Skeet says.
Why does all this remind me of Dodge and Cox in 2009? Go back and read the archives (FA/MFO) if you can find them. Too big, too bloated, and unmanageable were cited frequently as reasons to flee. Seems they've managed to confound their skeptics and make some $$ for those who held on. Having low ERs in the vicinity of .50% hasn't hurt them either.
You may be correct that this fund can function successfully only with a smaller asset base. But, I wouldn't bet on it. There are economics of scale as well. I do think stability of assets is more important than size. So, if they haven't been able to convince their clients to hang in there for longer than a year or two without jerking out their $$ than that's a failing on their part which will come back to bite them.
Don't like any of these goanywhere funds. But hate to see folks flee a fund so quickly. Less than two years ago MFLDX was darling of the board. You could almost hear their cash register going "ka-ching" every time somebody invested in the fund. I think another issue is that these funds by nature will sometimes appear "out of sync" as they are trying to run against the grain and do something different than the general mob. My prediction is that on August 31, 2017 the commentary here will be decidedly favorable towards MFLDX. No special knowledge - just think the odds favor that.

Doubtless old news to those here already interested in or holding DSENX, but a clear summary if you have not studied it:
https://materials.proxyvote.com/Approved/MC5539/20140811/PROS_218034.PDF

FYI: T he average U.S. taxable bond fund continues to boast a higher return than the S&P 500 in the past 15 years, though the general stock market has been catching up since it hit bottom after the 2007-08 financial crisis.
Regards,
Ted
http://license.icopyright.net/user/viewFreeUse.act?fuid=MTg0MDcyMTg=
Enlarged Graphic: http://news.investors.com/photopopup.aspx?path=WEBmutPent082614.gif&docId=714744&xmpSource=&width=1000&height=1063&caption=&id=714746

The first time I ever heard Bob Brinker was around 15 years ago when he was recommending I Bonds with a coupon rate of 3% plus inflation. I knew that anybody recommending I Bonds and low-cost no-load funds had to be okay in my book. He's always emphasized proper investment allocation and the role that fixed income securities have in a portfolio.

For those who don't know, Admiral James Stockdale was a POW during the Vietnam war; the highest ranked 'guest' in the Hanoi Hilton. He was there for eight years and was tortured more than twenty times.
Many POWs didn't make it but Stockdale and some others did.
Collins asked Stockdale, "Who didn't make it out?"
"Oh, that's easy," he said. "The Optimists."
Collins was confused as he thought Stockdale was an optimist as he had no doubt he would get out of his situation.
Stockdale clarified:
"The optimists. Oh, they were the ones who said, 'We're going to be out by Christmas.' And Christmas would come, and Christmas would go. Then they'd say, 'We're going to be out by Easter.' And Easter would come, and Easter would go. And then Thanksgiving, and then it would be Christmas again. And they died of a broken heart."
"This is a very important lesson. You must never confuse faith that you will prevail in the end - which you can never afford to lose - with the discipline to confront the most brutal facts of your current reality, whatever they might be."
As applied to investors, there are a lot of optimistic investors that don't make it. For example, people who were excited about stocks in the late 1990's were optimistic that stocks will continue to earn 15-20%/year just as it had in the recent past. This was sort of the "we'll be home by Christmas" optimism in Stockdale's story. Maybe it doesn't seem so bad as the market hasn't done much since then, but most likely, these people piled in at the top and then puked out their positions in the following bear market (and most likely didn't get back in).
A very insightful post.
Regards,
Reo
http://brooklyninvestor.blogspot.in/2014/08/good-to-great-stockdale-paradox.html

He did call an excellent sell signal in January of 2000, but only sold 60% of his stock allocation. Then I believe it was August when he said to buy the QQQ's with 20-50% of the cash reserves generated from the Jan 2000 60% sell. Then he later re-issued the QQQ buy several times in 2001. He did correctly buy back into the market in March of 2003. Those were his two best calls, Jan 2000 and March 2003. Since 2003, he has stayed fully invested, and missed the big bear market in 2007-2009. He also sold the market in 1988 after the Oct 1987 crash. That sell signal did not work out.

Hi Old_Joe,
While you are extending the rope for MFLDX ... Mainstay thanks you. I believe in giving a fund manager ample time to position the fund but when Mainstay kept the fund open rather than closing it to where it could be well managed based upon ever changing macro themes ... Well, I recently decided to book my profit in the fund and move on. It has now got to turn some good investment tricks to move the nav. By the way MFLDX shorted DUK during its merger with PGN and it moved the nav big time. With its size today this play would now amount to no more than a drop in a big bucket.
The same thing happened in Ivy Asset Strategy. I held that fund for a good number of years and as the assets under management kept increasing I noticed so did the time it took the managers to reposition the fund. And, it became so large that it was noted and alleged by some that its repositioning and rapid selling of some S&P 500 futures caused and lead to the great ... Flash Crash. With that, I let it go.
Sometime things just get too big to manage.
That leads me to BankAmerica ... It to got too big for its britches, by my thinking, and look what has transpired. Glad I sold the family stock in that monster before it tanked. And, now there is Duke Energy another Charlotte, NC based company. When the board of directors of Duke hoodwinked the North Carolina regulators about the planned merger with Progress Energy ... Well, I sold off my DUK stock too. And, I still do not feel good about the size that DUK has become. From my thinking ... It is just now too big to effectively manage and I am looking for something to crop up if it has not already ... Look at the problems they now face with those toxic coal ash ponds.
Simply stated when I feel things have gotten too big to be managed ... I move on.
Old_Skeet

FYI:
Regards,
Ted
http://www.mfwire.com/common/artprint2007.asp?storyID=49502&wireid=2
M* Snapshot Of ANGLX; http://quotes.morningstar.com/fund/f?t=ANGLX&region=usa&culture=en-US
ANGLX Is Unranked In The (MSB) Category By U.S. News & World Report;
http://money.usnews.com/funds/mutual-funds/multisector-bond/angel-oak-multi-strategy-income-fund/anglx

For all the years I listened to Brinker, and that amounts to around 15 years, he was very much the "stay the course" advisor. Perhaps his change of stance is reflective of a new investing environment we now face. Since 2008 it has been fast changing.

One thing JohnChisum is that he has always been a market timer. His monthly subscription newsletter is called market timer. So I think bailing out of Vanguard GNMA's, Vanguard TIPS, and other high quality fixed income investments goes along with a Marketimer, even though market timing is usually associated with stocks. Actually, he's timing the bond market in a sense.

For all the years I listened to Brinker, and that amounts to around 15 years, he was very much the "stay the course" advisor. Perhaps his change of stance is reflective of a new investing environment we now face. Since 2008 it has been fast changing.