Old_Skeet can clarify this but I think when he is monitoring his portfolio he is doing it by sleeve. That way his attention is only to those funds within that sleeve and not the entire 53. Compare that to my portfolio with only 11 funds. I watch all the funds at the same time instead of 5 or 6 within a sleeve.
If someone were to hold a large number of funds like OS, the sleeve method is probably the best.

..."past 40 words/15 sec. you better get my ( and everyones) attention,"
Most intellectual duscussions are longer than 40 words or 15 seconds. No sound bites here at MFO.

I Read his stuff, some good stuff, too much Detail/information in one sitting for most readers....past 40 words/15 sec. you better get my ( and everyones) attention,
or else trash can.......

Old_Skeet: Suggest you E-Mail Tom Madell to see what he has to say about you 53 funds. I think I know what he's going to tell you. You are not an investor, your a fund horder.
Regards,
Ted

In this edition ...
-When You Should Consider Making
Changes to Your Portfolio (below)
-Are Bond Funds Likely to See Negative Returns
for the Remainder of the Year? (page 5, top)
-A Disappointing Note About
Morningstar.com (page 5, bottom)
Read all about it through the below link ...
http://funds-newsletter.com/mar15-newsletter/mar15-new.htm
Old_Skeet

@linter: No, the 5% is from the article.
Regards,
Ted

ted: did your portfolio gain 5% in two weeks or are you talking about the markets? if the former, congrats!

A few active management funds I have screened based on comparative performance within their sector:
Foreign Small Blend - GLFOX
Foreign Small Value - QUSOX
Foreign Small Growth - WAIOX
World Allocation - KTRSX
Europe - CAEZX

Not to rain too heavily on your parade, but regarding a couple of the funds I recognize here:
The Lazard Global Listed Infrastructure Fund (GLFOX) is just what it sounds like - a sector fund, and one that even for a concentrated fund, is very concentrated (1/3 of its assets in its top five holdings). It is value leaning (as is typical of Lazard), unlike most infrastructure funds (and despite M*'s characterization of the fund as blend). A fine fund, and it holds mostly foreign equity, but that's as far as it goes to fitting in as a foreign fund.
Polaris Foreign Value Small Cap (QUSOX) - if you're including this one and a world allocation fund, it seems that you might also want to list Polaris Global Value (PGVFX) - a world stock fund from the same team, that recently lowered its ER to make it quite attractive. (As M* notes, its former higher cost was its only negative.)
Acorn Europe Z (CAEZX) - like the rest of the Acorn funds, this noload share class is closed except to grandfathered investors (who own any Columbia or Acorn Z class shares from before 2005). I keep a toehold for just this reason.

FYI: (Click On Article Title At Top Of Google Search)
What goes down might come up.
Foreign stocks had a losing year in 2014—but they could juice your portfolio’s performance if U.S. stocks falter, as many folks now fear. Here are four reasons I’m inclined to up my allocation to both emerging markets and developed foreign markets:
Regards,
Ted
https://www.google.com/search?newwindow=1&site=&source=hp&q=Four+Reasons+to+Boost+Your+Foreign-Stock+Exposure+Jonathan+Clements&oq=Four+Reasons+to+Boost+Your+Foreign-Stock+Exposure+Jonathan+Clements&gs_l=hp.3...5025.13707.0.14114.18.18.0.0.0.0.75.1149.18.18.0.ehm_loc...0...1c.1.62.hp..15.3.195.5DNUlN5eR3k

Bought a bit of WOOD several years ago, I think about the time GMO recommended forests. Up 45+%, which is so-so, but it takes a while to make a tree. Don't know what I would do now. WY looks like it has a good dividend, but the rating services at TDA dislike it. The chart is steadily up, however. Will watch.
If Fido's New Markets Income counts, I was heavily in, but less so now. Out completely a year or so ago, but lightly in now and positive returns so far. Haven't had the nerve to plunge as I age.
VGHCX for > 10 yr; FBIOX has been good; peaking, but probably safe with Republicans controlling Congress. Looking around the sidewalks, health care funds have to do fairly well. The services can't be moved off-shore; the demographics can't be ignored; and cost controls won't be placed to any great extent.

Fund Managers Bullish on Europe's QE
I would also take a look at MINIX and OSMYX, which both have over a 60% exposure to Europe. As disclosure, we own HEDJ in the Euro space.
Kevin

Dow at 18,000 and climbing.
Where are they now? The skeptics at 10,000? The worrywarts at 12,000? The Naysayers at 15,000?
Obviously, the stock market has reached a new permantly high plateau.

A response to a "Are we in a stock market bubble?" question from 1 year ago:
"The stock market is not in a bubble. Today is no different than 20% of the time in the entire history of the stock market. This rally is normal.
What we have is a debt bubble. The rising debt is the stimulus funding the rally on Wall Street. QE1, QE2, QE3, Operation Twist, bailouts, handouts, and now $85 billion injected into the system every month. Hmm, I wonder if there is a coincidence between enormous debt creation and 43 new highs in the Dow this year?
No, the stock market is not in a bubble. It is reacting normally to new injections of cash and buyers. The debt bubble, however, is a different matter. These things end badly, historically. Eventually, somebody has to pay the Piper."
reference:
https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=A86.JySc1.dU1RkAEoEnnIlQ?qid=20131130115932AAATw2e

@Roy; FYI. I don't but they have outperformed market-cap weighted index
Regards,
Ted
EWI:
http://www.investopedia.com/articles/exchangetradedfunds/08/market-equal-weight.asp
Returns:
SPW:
http://us.spindices.com/indices/equity/sp-500-equal-weighted
SPX:
http://www.spindices.com/indices/equity/sp-500

FYI: What do you do after gaining 5% in just two weeks? Hit a record high.
The S&P 500 rose 0.6% to 2,110.30 this week, a new record high, while the Dow Jones Industrial Average rose 0.7% to 18,140.44, also a record high. The Nasdaq Composite jumped 1.3% to 4,955.97, and is now just 1.8% away from its record high hit back in March 2000.
Regards,
Ted
http://blogs.barrons.com/stockstowatchtoday/2015/02/20/nothing-can-stop-us-now-record-closes-for-dow-sp-500-as-nasdaq-edges-closer-to-dot-com-highs/tab/print/

Hi Pop Tart,
Like kevindow I think we're just at the beginning of QE for Europe, I think it will continue for a long time and I think the Euro will weaken and European stocks will do well all along the way. My preference is HEDJ because they only hold Euro area stocks that derive more than 50% of revenue outside of the Euro area, meaning their businesses benefit not only from the weak currency but as well from the multiple expansion.
IMHO, Europe has pretty big problems. They have mostly bad demographics, the ECB has been clear they need reform in addition to QE and they have strong nationalistic interests that make creating real and sustainable growth easier said than done. Greece is a timely example. They can't live with austerity now because they need to stimulate the economy, but without serious reform the rest of Europe (and in large part the Germans) just end up subsidizing their problems. QE is going to help exporters, it will help anything related to tourism and it will feed multiple expansion, but without real fiscal changes the problems aren't going away. Since I don't believe there will be real reform anytime soon, I think QE will have to continue and the Euro will devalue until someone manages the political capital to push real change.

https://www.creditwritedowns.com/2009/10/jeremy-grantham-the-market-is-25-overvalued-15-correction-coming.html
These debates never have a winner as we are colored by our biases, me included. I have never been a fan of Jeremy Grantham of GMO. While not a perma bear, at the very least a very pessimistic guy. In his interview above in October 2009 he was his usual pessimistic self. And just look at his prediction then of the seven forward year returns for stocks.

@Old_Skeet
Just a little experiment I'm trying.
The differential to me is the risk premium, so peeling off the the risk premium is an actionable strategy that hopefully acts to lower my overall portfolio risk as well as capture gains.
Much like an equity position provides a higher risk/reward profile than most bonds, certain bonds have a higher risk/reward profile than other bonds. I think of it as an additional quarterly "dividend" for holding a riskier asset. In this case, the "additional dividend" is the performance differential between two bond funds with different risk/reward profiles.
PSHDX has a lower risk/reward profile than PONDX, but occasionally PONDX will under perform PSHDX. This has usually been a brief single quarter occurrence. When this changes and PONDX shows continual under performance I will notice it (since I monitor it) and I will act by possibly reducing or eliminating PONDX.
I'm looking for persistent out performance as a reason to hold riskier assets. I use less risky assets as a guage and as the place where gains are gathered. The less risky asset can then serve as a place to distribute income (in retirement) or a place to turn for dry powder.
To take this one step farther, image a three fund risk sleeve: PCKDX, PONDX and PSHDX. I first identify these funds as part of my PIMCO risk/reward sleeve. I choose funds that move farther out on the risk/reward spectrum and also are top performers in their respective sectors. So long as the higher risk fund out performs the lower risk fund(s) I maintain a position in the higher risk asset. Quarterly I compare the relative performance of PCKDX to PONDX and PSHDX. If the differential are positive I gather the gains by selling into the less risky asset on the sleeve ladder. Last quarter I had to skip a rung (moved gains from PCKDX to PSHDX) as illustrated in the chart below for Q4 2014:

Hi @golub1
You noted: "Reversion to the mean works over the long term, but momentum works over shorter terms. How soon it fails and when to switch to another strategy is the great puzzler."
This statement pretty much sums the whole picture.
We are long term??? investors until we are not..... Some of long term holdings have been years (since the crash) and others sections have had a months time frame.
More than 25% of our current equity holdings are related to healthcare. This works until it does not, eh?
Thanks and take care,
Catch

(1) Halting Redemptions: Here's an article which quotes existing SEC language giving fund directors permission to halt temporarily redemptions from money market funds in times of crisis. It was supposed to take effect a year ago:http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2015/02/warning-sec-has-given-money-market.html On broader scale, ... Never put all your eggs in one basket. Folks here are creative enough to figure out how best to preserve some degree of liquidity in event of a financial crisis. Umm ... Using different cash-equivalency funds, different banks, perhaps some govt. bonds, different lines of credit, a store of food or cash, perhaps a pocket full of gold or silver coins.
-
(2) Floating NAV: John's original article addresses the floating NAV soon to take effect (although fudiciaries can get around the requirement by designating a fund "retail" only). I view the change as equivalent of cod-liver oil. Won't taste very good - but healthier long run. Money market funds were not designed to insure the same level of safety or stability as banks or government bonds. The floating NAV brings investor expectations more in to line with reality. Consternation surrounding the floating NAV appears largely "Much Ado About Nothing". We have operated our family budget out of both good quality ultra-shorts and money market funds for decades. Fluctuations in value on the ultra-shorts are normally slight and not enough to upset anyone's budget. We've owned Price's TRBUX since inception. It aims for $5.00 NAV and typically remains at that value. On rare occasions has it fallen to $4.99 or risen to $5.01, hardly enough to be noticed. A conservative house, Price has probably done a better job running this type of fund than some others will. And, I'd expect greater fluctuations during a severe crisis. (Under such circumstances you'll probably have more to worry about than whether the cable bill gets paid on time.)
-
(3) Re Ol' Skeeter's Related Question http://www.mutualfundobserver.com/discuss/discussion/19156/money-market-reforms-force-advisers-to-rethink-risk#latest
Can't remember the last time I looked to my cash portion for income. The small amount of cash we hold is for immediate liquidity and to allow us to take advantage of opportunities that arise. Since most houses exempt money market funds and ultra-shorts from frequent trading restrictions, we're willing to sacrifice yield in return for that increased liquidity. We also keep balances in no-fee checking accounts at local banks and credit unions. While the income earned is negligible, we receive many services from these institutions. Things like being able to transfer funds in and out of our mutual funds, automatic bill paying, gift-cards during the Holidays, checking (even a supply of checks), all without fees.