And if anyone has been wondering what the Smart Money crowd has been doing--- as opposed to what they are blathering--- this probably won't surprise you (or maybe it will):
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-05-29/primary-dealers-and-banks-bash-treasurys-here-what-they-are-really-doing

I did find a summary sheet:
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1311981/000116204414000519/adiron497ad201405.pdf
which was filed prior to the other link I posted above.
I am posting a link below to all of the Adirondack filings (hopefully, it works). Look for the recent 497AD (I think most are PDFs) and 497 filings for additional information.
http://www.sec.gov/cgi-bin/browse-edgar?CIK=0001311981&action=getcompany

Found this recent filing which may be of some interest about the fund:
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1311981/000116204414000552/adiron497ad201405.pdf

Hi Cman,
Thank you for replying.
You are absolutely correct that I erroneously concluded that the Sharpe paper said “Nowhere does Sharpe argue that active fund managers must purchase only Index stocks.” He made no such assertion.
When I wrote that line I was thinking of the global aspects of his analysis; hence I immediately followed with “His analysis addresses the global market.”. I should have said “My interpretation addresses the global market.”
As you, and many others point out, it depends on where boundaries are drawn. I draw the boundaries with regard to this specific topic around the entire equity marketplace. Neither passive or active investors can be perfectly assigned to each category. Today, even Vanguard’s S&P 500 Index fund does not precisely duplicate its benchmark. At last count, it held 504 positions.
My extremely simple position is best represented by my conservation of returns argument. Any costs and fees are leakage from an individual investors rewards. The cut of the equity annual return’s pie is reduced by the cost drainage.
The integrated excess profits from successful active fund managers, who do exist, are swamped by the integrated below market returns from unsuccessful active managers. The differential is the moneys that active managers and other Wall Street entities expropriate.
That is a summary of the main theme of my post. I choose to draw my conservation circle around all large and small cap holdings.
I am still experiencing difficulties posting and have shortened my comments to secure access.
Best Wishes.

If I remember correctly, Hartman flip-flopped twice within a month or so, right?

Lol, he flip flops constantly. He's also always talking about how he's long commodities in other currencies and the currency seems to be changing every other day. The best is when he's on "Fast Money" and he says something and the people on that show look like they really, really want to say something or question him but they never do.
Gartman has also had three ETFs delisted in two different countries and yet no one says squat. That's what I hate about the financial media - bad performance is never, ever questioned. You just get a cushy gig spouting nonsense every other day.
http://seekingalpha.com/article/2187533-lights-going-out-for-off-and-onn

FYI:
Regards,
http://online.wsj.com/articles/stock-futures-inch-higher-ahead-of-gdp-data-1401365716#printMode
Markets At A Glance: http://markets.wsj.com/us
Leading Sectors; http://finviz.com/groups.ashx

http://www.stanford.edu/~wfsharpe/art/active/active.htm
Nowhere does Sharpe argue that active fund managers must purchase only Index stocks. His analysis addresses the global market.

Wrong. From his own definition at the very beginning in the linked paper.

Of course, certain definitions of the key terms are necessary. First a market must be selected -- the stocks in the S&P 500, for example, or a set of "small" stocks. Then each investor who holds securities from the market must be classified as either active or passive.
A passive investor always holds every security from the market, with each represented in the same manner as in the market.

He doesn't care what the market is or how big it is as long it is a closed system as defined in his framework above. The mathematical result is valid only relative to a passive investor (you can call it an index) that holds every stock in the "defined market".
Which means the active investor can only buy from that defined universe that is held by the passive investor
In addition, as shown by a simple example, in the thread you are responding to, the condition " each represented by the same manner as in the market", it is valid only with an unstated interpretation - that the aggregate composition of holdings of all the participants together of the market are in proportion to the market cap. This is not true in reality, obviously.
Appeal to authority is not good argumentation as opposed to showing a real understanding of the actual paper and addressing the actual points. Even Nobel laureates have made errors or as in this case actual theoretical results over-generalized for reality by supporters.

While it's not described as such (and oddly, not in that category on M*), this would appear to be simply a managed futures fund and not a real great one. The last few years have not been that great for managed futures as a strategy, but - as I've discussed in past threads - I really don't think managed futures works in the mutual fund format.
Really just sort of an "it is what it is".

PQTIX has been working well so far.

It actually has. I'll have to take a look at the holdings when it is released.
"IIRC, Andrew Low said that almost all portfolios should have 5-20% of the assets in managed futures. [He might have said liquid alternatives, but my recollection is that he said managed futures]."
I have nothing against managed futures, which is often some degree of trend following long or short, but 20% is insane, especially the kind of managed futures MFs, most of which update maybe once a month and then are consistently whipsawed. While I recommend alternatives, I really don't think there's a need for managed futures for mutual fund holders. There are some good managed futures hedge funds that have far more infrastructure and can be far more nimble.
Take a look at RYMFX, the first managed futures fund. It was one of the few things that was up in 2008, then afterwards - aside from a little comeback lately - has just been drifting lower.
The AQR fund has certainly done better, but overall is down slightly since inception in 2010.
http://finance.yahoo.com/echarts?s=RYMFX+Interactive#symbol=RYMFX;range=my
The new Pimco fund has certainly had a good start, but I just think the strategy is going to have periods when it works and periods when it doesn't.

That chart is one for the ages.
I think I'm recalling right that Consuelo Mack never asked Andrew L. about his record on the alt strategy he was touting during the May 2 WealthTrack program.

+++++
I saw the Consuelo Mack interview, and no, I don't recall him being asked his record. I should say though, I'm a big fan of Consuelo Mack.....
But he was asked something that Consuelo Mack asks all her guests: Something to the effect of
'What is the one investment you would recommend for nearly all portfolios?'
IIRC, Andrew Low said that almost all portfolios should have 5-20% of the assets in managed futures. [He might have said liquid alternatives, but my recollection is that he said managed futures].
I was stunned by that recommendation. Later I spent a few minutes reading about his fund and about managed futures. How could you possibly put 20% of your portfolio in an investment that you couldn't explain in simple, understandable terms? Like investing in a black box, shrouded in mystery.

The ER is a little too high, but otherwise, what's not to like? I cannot help but to let you see one of my own small-cap funds: MSCFX. I'm pleased with it. Lower ER. (The other small-cap fund we own is NAESX, an Index fund from Vanguard. It's in wife's 403b.)......
As far as annual pay-out, ADKSX wins, hands-down, for 2013. It paid a LOT more than MSCFX and NAESX in '13. But I don't think that can be sustained, year after year. PRSVX is a TRP offering with quite low ER for an actively managed fund. But I think its performance is sub-par. And all of the ones I've just mentioned are listed by Morningstar as small-BLEND. But ADKSX is categorized as small-VALUE. And ADKSX does not have big bets in its top 5 holdings--- less than 10% of holdings are there..... You just introduced me to a fund I did not know about, before. Thanks.

Tech 19% now/35% Then
http://image.slidesharecdn.com/internettrends2014-052814-pdf-140528064345-phpapp02/95/slide-23-1024.jpg?cb=1401289564
Primer;
http://seekingalpha.com/news/1774853-meekers-2014-report-touches-on-mobile-growth-google-facebook-arpus
Plenty more Tech info @
http://s3.amazonaws.com/kpcbweb/files/85/Internet_Trends_2014_vFINAL_-_05_28_14-_PDF.pdf?1401286773

Wednesday, May 28, 2014
Editor's Corner
Stocks At New Highs, Or Not
Ron Rowland
There are numerous market benchmarks, and depending on which one you follow, the market may or may not be at a new high. The Dow Jones Industrial Average is probably the most widely “known” stock index in the world, but it didn’t close at a new high yesterday, although it was less than 40 points away from doing so. Given that 100-point swings are common for this index, and its actual high occurred just two weeks ago, it is acceptable to say the Dow is trading at all-time highs.
The S&P 500 is the most widely “tracked” index in the world. It finished Friday, yesterday, and today at all-time closing highs. Everyone loves round numbers, and the S&P’s flirtation with the 1900 level the past couple of months became reality last Friday. Both the S&P and the Dow recovered their financial crisis bear market losses in early 2013. Therefore, being in new high territory is not a recent event for these two indexes but has been the status quo for more than a year.
Other popular indexes are unable to make similar claims. The Russell 2000 Index of small cap stocks was hitting new highs for most of 2013 and into the first quarter of 2014. It then experienced a 9% correction, and its recent upswing still leaves it more than 5% shy of a new record-high. The plunge taken by the Nasdaq Composite Index early this century remains the stuff of legend. It has been more than 14 years since the Nasdaq has registered a new high, and it needs another 19% gain in order to erase its deficit.
U.S. stocks account for only 48% of worldwide equity capitalization, making the inclusion of international indexes mandatory to this discussion. The most popular benchmark of foreign stock prices is the Morgan Stanley Capital International Europe, Australasia, and Far East (“MSCI EAFE”) Index. It established an all-time high nearly seven years ago and needs another 22% advance to recover from the financial crisis. If you add in the seven years of dividends, the gap is almost closed. The lifetime high for the MSCI Emerging Markets Index coincided with the EAFE Index back in October 2007. From a percentage perspective, emerging market stocks need to gain about 29% before they are again at new highs.
Depending on your benchmark, possibilities range from stocks trading at new highs for more than a year to needing gains of another 29% before reaching a new high. The next time your favorite news outlet declares the stock market closed at a new high, be sure you know which index they used for the declaration and understand not all markets are able to make the same claim.
Sectors
All sector categories but one gained momentum since our last update. Real Estate maintains its top ranking for a second week with Energy duplicating the feat for second place. Technology was the big winner, jumping five places to land in third. Internet stocks and small cap semiconductor firms were the driving forces behind Technology’s surge. Telecom was the lone category failing to gain momentum, although it managed to hold its relative strength slide to just one slot. Materials held steady in 5th while Consumer Staples slipped two spots to 6th. Industrials, Health Care, and Utilities jockeyed positions, with Industrials now leading the trio. Financials and Consumer Discretionary were the only two sectors in the red a week ago. Today, they join the others on the positive side of the ledger.
Styles
The style categories were looking grim a week ago with more red ink (or pixels) than green. Micro Cap was registering negative momentum with three times the magnitude of Large Cap Value’s positive strength. This week, there is an across the board improvement, most notably among the weakest categories. Mega Cap moved up from second and wrestled the top spot away from Large Cap Value. The next four categories are in a dead-heat, with Large Cap Value, Mid Cap Value, Large Cap Blend, and Large Cap Growth all staking a claim on second place. The bottom six categories kept their same relative positions, although their momentum scores improved substantially. Small Cap Value managed to flip back to the positive side, and Small Cap Blend is on the verge of doing the same. Small Cap Growth and Micro Cap have been the two weakest styles and in the red for eight continuous weeks, but if they can hold on to their recent gains they could soon be in the green.
Global
The eight-week reign of Latin America came to an end this week with Emerging Markets ascending to the throne. The U.K. improved one position as Latin America’s momentum decline pushed it down to third. Canada and Pacific ex-Japan, two natural resource rich categories, held their relative positions. World Equity and EAFE swapped places, as did the U.S. and Europe. China gained strength, which counteracted the weakness of Latin America and helped Emerging Markets move to the top. Last week we discussed the disappointing performance of Japanese stocks in 2014. Apparently, Japan took our input as constructive criticism and put together four consecutive days of gains. In the process, it moved to positive momentum and erased its distinction of being the one category that has been seeing only red since January.
Note:
The charts above depict both the relative strength and absolute strength of various market sectors, styles, and geographic locations on an intermediate-term basis. Each grouping is sorted (top to bottom) by relative strength. The magnitude of the displayed RSM value is a measure of absolute strength, which is our proprietary method of measuring and reporting the intermediate-term strength as an annualized value.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q) What has higher yield and lower risk than the four most popular dividend ETFs?
A) All Star Investors’s ETF Dividend & Income Strategy.
The new ETF Dividend & Income Strategy was launched 12/30/2011 and is included as part of a subscription to All Star Investor. Click here to receive $100 discount on an annual subscription.
Notes: Yield = 12-month trailing yield, supplied by Morningstar as of 12/31/12. Std Dev = annualized standard deviation of daily returns for 2012. MDD = Maximum drawdown during calendar year 2012. Std Dev and MDD data calculated in AmiBroker using FastTrack data.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“We’re on this slow glide higher. Valuations aren’t being stretched, corporate news has been decent, and the economy slowly improving. I don’t mind buying here."
Chris Gaffney, Senior Market Strategist, EverBank Wealth Management, 5/27/14
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
=== Follow Us===
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recent Articles Posted at InvestWithAnEdge.com:
Market Leadership Strategy - A Free Active Rotation Strategy from All Star Investor
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLOSURE
© 2014 AllStarInvestor.com All Rights Reserved. Protected by copyright laws of the United States and international treaties. Nothing in this e-mail should be considered personalized investment advice. Although our employees may answer your general customer service questions, they are not licensed under securities laws to address your particular investment situation. No communication by our employees to you should be deemed as personalized investment advice. Any investments recommended in this letter should be made only after consulting with your investment advisor and only after reviewing the prospectus or financial statements of the company. All Star Investor employees, its affiliates, and clients may hold positions in the recommended securities.
Distribution is encouraged. Please do not alter content.
Courtesy of: www.AllStarInvestor.com, Publisher of www.InvestWithAnEdge.com
This message was sent to Old_Skeet from:
All Star Investor | 11651 Jollyville Road, Suite 200 | Austin, Texas 78759
Email Marketing by
Update Profile | Forward To a Friend

FYI:
Regards,
Ted
http://www.bespokeinvest.com/thinkbig/2014/5/28/emerging-market-rally-in-perspective.html?printerFriendly=true

A mind is a terrible thing to waste. As an investment--- even worse. But Andrew Lo has proven all doubters wrong. Never ever say never ever.... a "cautionary tale."
http://www.thereformedbroker.com/2014/05/28/brokers-liquid-alts-and-the-fund-that-never-goes-up/

FYI: Copy & Paste 5/28/14: Cynthia Lin: WSJ
Regards,
Ted
A roaring rally in the prices of U.S. and European government bonds sent yields on Treasurys and other ultrasafe debt to 2014 lows, underscoring continued investor uncertainty over the pace of global economic growth.
In late afternoon trading, the 10-year U.S. Treasury note was up 21/32 in price to yield 2.443%, according to Tradeweb. The yield sank as far as 2.432%, its lowest level since June 2013. Bond yields fall when prices rise.
Demand was equally strong across the Atlantic, amid expectations that the European Central Bank could loosen monetary policy as soon as next week. The yield on 10-year German bunds fell 0.05 percentage point to 1.285%, the lowest since May 2013. The yield on 10-year U.K. gilts fell 0.09 percentage point to 2.549%.
Traders said the rally was driven by a surprise uptick in Germany's unemployment as well as typical month-end buying by fund managers to better align their portfolios with underlying indexes. A Treasury price rally in 2014 that has brought the 10-year yield down from 3% at the end of 2013 has left many fund managers holding smaller positions in U.S. debt than market benchmarks.
"The buying [in U.S. Treasurys] is being driven by relative value, rather than a need for yield," said Jake Lowery, portfolio manager at Voya Investment Management. "Global fixed income looks relatively expensive" compared with U.S. Treasurys.
Mr. Lowery points to the yield difference between U.S. and German 10-year debt. The U.S. offers about 1.15 percentage point in extra yield versus Germany, a historically large premium.
The wave of bond buying is the latest chapter in a yearlong government-bond rally that has surprised many investors and unexpectedly made safe debt one of the strongest-performing asset classes in financial markets.
Wednesday's rally wasn't limited to debt perceived as safest by investors. Yields on bonds issued by economically weaker European nations such as Spain, Italy and Portugal also declined. Spain's 10-year yield fell as far as 2.793%, a record low.
"We've had a rally in some other sovereign debt markets, making Treasurys look cheaper," said Gary Pollack, head of fixed-income trading at Deutsche Bank's private wealth-management u
Wednesday's Treasury gains add to Tuesday's rally in the face of upbeat U.S. economic data and fresh supply hitting the market. The fact that yields hover around the year's lows while U.S. economic data has been improving and growth is widely expected to accelerate has many bond analysts scratching their heads.
"We, who are usually some of the most bullish in the herd, are having a hard time reconciling generally OK data" with falling yields, said David Ader, government bond strategist at CRT Capital Group.
Many analysts point to the heavily skewed net trading position at the start of the year, with many investors betting Treasury prices would fall as the economic recovery picked up pace. Those bets were hit by a U.S. slowdown last quarter, causing many to unwind the so-called shorts.
"The market in general has been caught off guard by the strength in Treasurys this year," Mr. Pollack said, adding that he doesn't see yields sinking much further from here. Like many others, Mr. Pollack sees the 10-year yield ending the year around 3% as U.S. growth accelerates into year-end.
With many sellers crowded around the 2.42% mark on the 10-year note, traders don't see the yield falling significantly past that point without a new round of soft data.
J.P. Morgan's weekly Treasury client survey showed short positions ramping back up to 35% from 24% last week. Neutral positions fell from 66% to 48%, reflecting the fewest fence-sitters since October 2010.
A five-year Treasury auction Wednesday attracted mediocre demand, offering buyers the lowest yield on that maturity in six months. That followed a weak turnout at Tuesday's two-year note sale.
The soft auctions show how there are limits to the seemingly insatiable demand for U.S. Treasurys. While investors question the outlook on global growth, data at home have been improving, which raises worries among bond investors about the Federal Reserve increasing rates.
Fed officials, including Atlanta Fed President Dennis Lockhart overnight, have assured that rates will remain low for some time to come to support the economy. But should growth accelerate and inflation perk up, the rally in bonds now only sets up risks for a bigger selloff later on.
Rate-increase expectations for now are centered around mid-to-late 2015.

Market Capitalization Size % of Portfolio Benchmark Category Avg
Giant 0.39 0.26 4.22
Large 5.19 28.56 14.53
Medium 48.38 65.48 57.93
Small 32.62 5.66 23.16
Micro 13.41 0.04 0.16

@ron, OP seems to be looking for value funds.
I don't know if there is an extended market value index fund. That would fit the bill IF the goal of the OP is pure and full market exposure with no downside protection. Or a combination of mid cap value and small cap value index funds if which there are plenty.
But since, the original question is under-specified (need a Cabernet/Merlot) in requirement, it allows for creative interpretations to fit one's own pet fund. :-)

This is so true in large cap domestic and international stock funds. Folks often think active share means how much turnover a fund has. But it really has to do with how different the fund's holdings are from its benchmark. Typically of M* to not make the information available except to subscribers of its most expensive software. But also understand that the fund's benchmark (as stated in the prospectus and/or annual report) might be different than what M* uses. Using active share statistics to compare similar funds is one thing. But keep in mind that some great funds are not style-box driven. OSTFX, for example, uses the S&P 500 benchmark, but it only has about 40 holdings, and more than 50% are in mid-and-small cap stocks. Average market cap, in this case, does not help much. Same for GSRLX, which has only 50 holdings, but 20% is in MLPs, and about 15% is in foreign stocks. So it's pretty clear this fund's active share number is very high compared to the Russell 1000 Growth, but the fund is definitely not even remotely similar to that index.
There are, however, any number of large cap funds that get a lot of cash flow but provide very little benefit, often none at all, over an index fund. It seems clear to us that smaller funds with concentrated portfolios, usually style-box agnostic, are often the best options for investors wanting real active management.

Ever since 4:45 AM CST, I've struggled to link article to the MFO Discussion board.
Regards,
Ted

FYI:
Regards,
Ted
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/print/2014-05-28/nasdaq-nears-13-year-high-as-technology-goes-from-hated-to-loved.html

@willmatt72: Look at these.
Regards,
Ted
Mid-Cap Growth:
http://money.usnews.com/funds/mutual-funds/rankings/mid-cap-growth?int=959608
Mid-Cap Value:
http://money.usnews.com/funds/mutual-funds/rankings/mid-cap-value