David Winters gives decent interviews, but I have yet to be impressed by his performance at WGRNX, which continues to have underwhelming returns for a fund with an exorbitant expense ratio of 1.85% and AUM of $1.7B. He continues to be a poster child for indexing, such as ACWV. And among actively managed WS funds, I would definitely prefer the lower cost DODWX.
Kevin

Another thing that would concern me is the lack of call protection; specifically, the company can call in all or any portion of this preferred stock at $25.00 starting in 2016:
'
"Ally may redeem all or any portion of the outstanding shares of Series A Preferred on any dividend payment date on or after May 15, 2016."
Compared to the current price of $27.18, this represents close to a 10% capital loss. If you're willing to accept the risk of this capital loss associated with Ally's calling in your stock (and it's likely to be called), you are braver than I am.

FYI: Tomorrow I'm adding Ally-B Preferred to my capital preservation portfolio. At it's present share price of $27.18, par being $25.00 the current yield is 7.82%
Regards,
Ted
http://www.preferredstockchannel.com/symbol/ally.prb/

For your information: SEQUX has 54.47% potential capital gains exposure, which is a lot. So it they sell (which may not happen, or course), one will pay lots of taxes, unless it is in IRA.

@finder, 54.47% is a lot of potential capital gains exposure. But it's not hugely more than the market itself. Look at the Vanguard S&P 500 Index Fund's potential capital gains exposure.

So it's more just a result of a huge bull market since the market low on March 9, 2009 at S&P 500 677.

.

@rjb112: What software are you using to get overlay on M* Fund Snapshot ?
Regards,
Ted

@Ted, I combined two different screens so they could both be seen.
So I'm not seeing the overlay........
First I looked at the "Quote" tab on M*, then took a screenshot.
Then clicked on Tax, per your instructions.
Then took a screenshot of what you see under Tax.
Then combined both screens.
But to answer your question, I'm using Internet Explorer 11 as my browser

For your information: SEQUX has 54.47% potential capital gains exposure, which is a lot. So it they sell (which may not happen, or course), one will pay lots of taxes, unless it is in IRA.

@finder: Click on Tax at top of fund snapshot.
Regards,
Ted
http://performance.morningstar.com/fund/tax-analysis.action?t=SEQUX&region=usa&culture=en-US

Excellent Ted.

For your information: SEQUX has 54.47% potential capital gains exposure, which is a lot. So it they sell (which may not happen, or course), one will pay lots of taxes, unless it is in IRA.

@finder, where do you locate the data about a fund's potential capital gain exposure?
Probably somewhere on Morningstar. Can you reference the exact location?
thanks

I don't think there is a general answer. You have to look at specific age groups.
It has been shown that the first half of baby boomers 1947-55 have done much better financially then the second half and those who came after.
It is the first half of baby boomers that are retiring now.
It is those that come after that will have a difficult time.

FYI: I’ve lost count of the surveys telling us that all Americans will suffer deprivation when they retire. I'm sure you have, too. A recent Harris Poll found that 74 percent of Americans worried about retirement. The National Retirement Risk Index now indicates that 53 percent of Americans are “at risk.”
Regards,
Ted
http://assetbuilder.com/scott_burns/if_retirement_is_so_terrible_where_are_the_riots

For your information: SEQUX has 54.47% potential capital gains exposure, which is a lot. So it they sell (which may not happen, or course), one will pay lots of taxes, unless it is in IRA.

Vintage freak, expatsp and davidmoran, I have been invested in Fidelity Contrafund with Will Danoff, have enjoyed the fund's performance, though the asset size is considerable. Yacktman is closed, but with the AMG affiliation I am going to wait to see how things play out, if they should re-open like Sequoia did. Matthew 25 is also on my watch list but they took a big hit in 2008-09. We may be overdue for a correction, so it will be interesting to see how they hold up. PRBLX is very interesting especially with the dividend focus, I have not seen much on them before so will research further. Thanks for your observations and suggestions, much appreciated, Lukemon

I'm with VintageFreak. I try to buy a fund with a great long term record and a great manager I respect when it's been in a period of underperformance, so long as I still respect the manager. For me FAIRX, with its mediocre 5 year record and great 15 year record, is one I'd rather add to than sell at this point. Berkowitz's investing style -- find a few great ideas, then go all-in -- doesn't go out of style, IMHO, precisely because (unlike, say, quant strategies which others can just imitate or which may not change with the markets) one of its key ingredients is courage and boldness.

That's fair enough Ted. FAIRX had one of the best performances out there, right out of the gate, upon inception. Bruce was Morningstar's manager of the Decade in January 2010.
Ted, I'm guessing that perhaps you used to watch Louis Rukeyser's show, Wall St. Week With Louis Rukeyser.
He used to say, "What have you done for me lately"?
Looking at the past 5 years as of 8/15/2014, a bull market the whole time:
FAIRX: 12.48%
SEQUX: 16.40%
And SEQUX has historically outperformed in down markets and underperformed in bull markets. As you know, the past 5 years has been bull market, so SEQUX was not at its best
Let's look at the $10,000 invested for those 5 years:
FAIRX: $18,004
SEQUX: $21,368
I calculated that using an excel spreadsheet. If someone wants to confirm the data, please do.
Of course, YTD, FAIRX is trouncing SEQUX.
the future returns of each: unpredictable

FYI: David Winters, the investor best known for criticizing the executive pay plan at Coca-Cola Co., has parted ways with another key player in the Coke saga: Warren Buffett‘s Berkshire Hathaway Inc. Now the question is will Wintergreen Fund shareholders dump Winter's by selling their shares.
Regards,
Ted
http://blogs.wsj.com/moneybeat/2014/08/15/winters-who-criticized-coke-sells-berkshire-after-buffett-didnt-criticize-enough/tab/print/

Valeant is an interesting animal, gobbling up other companies and attempting to squeeze more juice out of the lemons. It's really almost a private equity company with a healthcare focus. They've been buying up companies right and left.
It's been successful, so far, although its attracted a lot of shorts - most famously, Jim Chanos.
"Mr. Chanos, who is best known for predicting the fall of Enron, has made a bet against Valeant, arguing that it generates growth only by purchasing companies.
“There is a real business there, but there is no growth and the Street is paying up a huge amount for future growth based on acquisitions,” Mr. Chanos, president of the hedge fund Kynikos Associates, said on the sidelines of the Skybridge Alternatives Conference in Las Vegas."
http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2014/05/16/short-seller-chanos-turns-attention-to-valeant/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0

"
So you have a fund going long and short based on what brilliant people think should work and they would have been better off just going long (and the more heavily shorted companies, the better) for the last 5 years or so.

Remember the Long Term Capital Management hedge fund?

Yeah, Jim Rickards - who I like quite a bit and follow (he's written two books and has an active Twitter) - was the principal negotiator in the bailout of LTCM. It's sort of like that - very intelligent people doing very complex things who are married (to at least some degree) to their economic theories.

"
So you have a fund going long and short based on what brilliant people think should work and they would have been better off just going long (and the more heavily shorted companies, the better) for the last 5 years or so.

Remember the Long Term Capital Management hedge fund?
If ever there were brilliant people, that was it. IIRC, possibly two Nobel Prize winners in that group of geniuses. It failed, and required a bail out from our government to prevent a wider spread financial crisis.
There was a book written about it [I haven't read it though]:

SEQUX has been great in recent years (from late 2009) until this year. As far as I know the problem is Valeant which is the largest position I think(till a few years ago the largest position was Berkshire)Since Feb. Valeant ,which has been in the news alot, is down about 20%
By the way can you get into the fund? They closed it late last year to most people.
As of December 10th, 2013, we have adopted a harder close for Sequoia. The Fund is closed to new investors, except for new accounts opened with us directly by existing shareholders of the Fund or existing clients of our firm, or members of their families. The Fund remains open to contributions from existing shareholders, though we reserve the right to reject any order to purchase Fund shares.

I've been in SEQUX for very many years, so regarding "can you get into the fund", I read what you posted below, on their website, and assume someone not in the fund cannot get in, unless they meet the very narrow criteria above.
Yes, regarding Berkshire, I remember that for a long time, Berkshire had a weighting of about 30% in SEQUX! I'm sure you know the historical ties between SEQUX and Warren Buffett......when Buffett closed his partnership, he told all his partners that if they were still interested in being in the stock market, he recommends Bill Ruane as the manager to go with. Bill Ruane established SEQUX for that express purpose.
Yes, Valeant is the largest position, and has a larger weighting than I feel comfortable with, at 18%. It never bothered me to have 30% in Berkshire Hathaway, but 18% in Valeant does bother me. Of course, Valeant went up 96% last year, and it sure wasn't bothering me then! But actually, I wasn't tracking the portfolio and wasn't even aware of it at the time.
Here's Valeant's amazing performance on a calendar year basis:

The Sequoia team is very aware of valuations, so it's interesting that their largest holding has had such a performance run up. Normally I wouldn't think SEQUX would hold a stock with such a run up, but Morningstar lists Valeant's forward P/E as only 10.5

"How would this strategy have performed during prolonged bull markets, like the one we have been in since the closing low on March 9, 2009, when the S&P 500 closed at 677?"
The implosion of the fund/s run by Andrew Lo (from the article below: "The idea what that Dr. Lo, perhaps one of the most brilliant quantitative scientists and academicians in finance (MIT, Harvard, all kinds of awards, PhDs out the ass, etc), would be incorporating a variety of approaches to manage the fund using all asset classes, derivatives and trading methodologies that he and his team saw fit to apply. You would write Dr. Lo a check ten seconds after seeing him speak somewhere, trust me.") are, I think, an excellent summary of one aspect of why these funds haven't worked.
A summary of the Lo situation:
http://www.thereformedbroker.com/2014/05/28/brokers-liquid-alts-and-the-fund-that-never-goes-up/
I think you have funds that are effectively quant funds run by very intelligent people who have a set of various rules and indicators who have done terribly in recent years because QE and ZIRP have effectively invalidated many of their rules that the investment decisions of these funds are based off of. These funds are black boxes, but as opaque as they are, there is highly likely a lengthy list of rules (and probably highly complex ones) that the fund operates with and uses to make its investment decisions.
So you have a fund going long and short based on what brilliant people think should work and they would have been better off just going long (and the more heavily shorted companies, the better) for the last 5 years or so.

From the Tactical Hedged Futures Strategy fund prospectus: "The Sub-Advisor forecasts index trading ranges based on its fundamental analysis of economic conditions, technical analysis of historical index prices and its general opinion of market direction. Additionally, the Sub-Advisor uses scenario analysis to assess risk and will adjust portfolio positions to reduce sensitivity to downside market movements."
Oy. Funds whose strategy just starts to get too esoteric.

I'm sure Warren Buffett would say he doesn't do this because he has no idea where the market is headed short term based on fundamental analysis....technical analysis.....and general opinion......and scenario analysis.
Is the market predictable short term based on these factors?
How would this strategy have performed during prolonged bull markets, like the one we have been in since the closing low on March 9, 2009, when the S&P 500 closed at 677?
I'm sure based on fundamental analysis, the market should not have gone up 32.4% in 2013....should not have gone up in 1997, 1998, 1999.
I haven't looked at the expense ratio, but funds like these often have high expense ratios.
This fund seems like it's all about trying to outguess Mr. Market.
I wish them luck, but I'm doubtful they will be successful over the longer term.