@MFO Members: In the Linkster's opinion stock buybacks are neither black or white, they are 50 shades of gray. In order to continue the conversation here is more on the subject.
Regards,
Ted
Share Repurchase:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Share_repurchase
A Breakdown Of Stock Buybacks:
http://www.investopedia.com/articles/02/041702.asp
6 Bad Stock Buyback Scenarios:
http://www.investopedia.com/articles/stocks/10/share-buybacks.asp
The Downside To Stock Buybacks (Jonathan Clements):
http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-downside-to-stock-buybacks-1414284206
Profits Without Prosperity (Harvard Business Review):
https://hbr.org/2014/09/profits-without-prosperity
Companies' Stock Buybacks Help Buoy the Market:
http://www.wsj.com/articles/companies-stock-buybacks-help-buoy-the-market-1410823441
The Eepurchase Revolution:
http://www.economist.com/news/business/21616968-companies-have-been-gobbling-up-their-own-shares-exceptional-rate-there-are-good-reasons
Presenting The Full Impact Of Stock Buybacks On S&P 500 "Earnings":
http://www.zerohedge.com/print/474514

It's all very easy to dismiss an article such as that by suggesting that it is "rife with political undertones" and "considering the source". Such emotional responses do more to suggest that the article may be worth consideration than not.
If in fact there are "political overtones", does that then automatically negate each and every point made in the article? Since when do "political overtones" equate to an accusation of falsehood? That article seemed to me to have plenty of references which could be fairly easily checked for accuracy.
How about a proper rebuttal based on an examination of the premises of the article, or the introduction of contrary opinions based upon other references?
"the shift toward stock-based compensation helped drive the rise of the 1 percent by inflating the ratio of CEO-to-worker compensation from twenty-to-one in 1965 to about 300-to-one today" True or not?
"Labor’s steadily falling share of GDP has inevitably depressed consumer demand, resulting in slower economic growth." True or not?
"Over the past decade, the companies that make up the S&P 500 have spent an astounding 54 percent of profits on stock buybacks." True or not?
"Federal spending on economically crucial research and development has plummeted 40 percent, from 1.25 percent of GDP in 1977 to only 0.75 percent today." True or not?
"Adjusted for inflation, public university tuition—once mostly covered by the states—has more than doubled over the past 30 years, burying recent graduates under $1.2 trillion in student debt." True or not?
"Wealth concentration at the top is not good for the nation as a whole." True or not?

Just read the new summary prospectus. They are no longer waiving any expenses and the ER for the Institutional shares is
2.32% with the investors shares@2.57%. I think this is too much, particularly, since they haven't done well very recently. Anyone have thoughts as to whether this holding is worth keeping or an alternative fund or ETF to replace it?

HDSVX, Hodges Small Intrinsic Value, has about 57% in microcaps. The average market cap of the fund's holdings is around 849 million. Seems to be same management team as the successful HDPSX, but with way fewer AUM.

@Catch
TRBUX actually returned .51% to investors over the past year.
The .35% ER is the result of a fee waiver. Otherwise, it would be .49%
Since the one year "yield" is posted as .66%, I'm not sure how they managed to return that .51% after expenses. Magic? Or perhaps a bit of capital appreciation.
By contrast, their Prime Reserve money market fund returned only .01% to investors over the past year,
I see two reasons for these funds coming out at this time.
First, they may forsee a rising rate environment (which Catch alludes to) in which even short-term bond funds will experience the size losses that conservative investors won't want to bear. Such an environment is, of course, alien to anyone under the age of 40 or 45.
Second, they want to gain experience running what is essentially a floating NAV money market fund, as the SEC has been pushing them to move in this direction with their traditional money market funds.

The fund had a terrible 2014 indeed.
Under-performed across the board...against peers and benchmark...against cash and bonds and SP500.
Basically, seemed to get everything wrong.
Working with them to get an updated perspective...the fund just past its 3-year mark...rates only 3 stars from M* and only 2 from us, quantitatively.
I'm starting to develop this expectation, probably unfair, that it's ok if long-short does not make money in an off year, but it's not allowed to lose money.
I guess I want them to behave like diodes.
c

Fidelity has had this one, FCONX since March of 2011 (when interest rates were going to increase :) ); but it is too expensive at .40 ER, which wipes out the yield currently at, .20%, 30 day SEC yield.
Negative cash flow like some of the central banks, eh?
Fido fund view link

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/02/kill-stock-buyback-to-save-the-american-economy/385259/
This article from The Atlantic goes a long way to helping understand how a seemingly innocuous rule change in 1982 has resulted in billions of dollars being diverted from the economy and from the pockets of the other 99%. Wealth concentration at the top is not good for the nation as a whole.

"Vanguard will launch with two share classes: the “Investor” class (VUSFX) will sport of ratio of 0.2% and an initial investment of $3,000; Vanguard’s “Admiral” share class (VUSFX) will carry a 0.12% expense ratio and a minimum investment of $50,000."
-
Interesting. Price came out with same concept two-three years ago. I own TRBUX and was surprised to see tonight that its ER Is only .35%. Vanguard wins on cost - but not by much.
Minimums appear similar. At Price it's $2500 for a regular account and $1,000 for an IRA.
I realize folks won't be pounding a path in the ground racing to get into these things at current rates. Currently, TRBUX yields only slightly more than a money market fund - or effectively nothing.

FYI: Vanguard Group on Tuesday rolled out a low-cost, short-term bond mutual fund its says will thread the needle between safety and yield.
Regards,
Ted
http://blogs.barrons.com/focusonfunds/2015/02/10/vanguard-readies-ultra-short-term-bond-mutual-fund/tab/print/

FYI:
Regards,
Ted
WSJ Slant:
http://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-stock-futures-rise-1423574281
Bloomberg Slant:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-02-09/asian-futures-slip-on-greece-concern-while-yen-holds-gain
Reuters Slant:
http://www.reuters.com/assets/print?aid=USKBN0LE1G320150210
MarketWatch Slant:
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/us-stocks-greece-china-data-once-again-keep-futures-pinned-down-2015-02-10/print
WSJ Markets At A Glance:
http://markets.wsj.com/us
Sector Tracker:
http://www.sectorspdr.com/sectorspdr/tools/sector-tracker
Current Futures:
http://finviz.com/futures.ashx

FYI; You'll find market beaters among the Kiplinger 25.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.kiplinger.com/printstory.php?pid=13244

msf as usual is on target.
I recall that up until about 10 years ago, long-short funds hid the interest they paid on short sales by adding it to brokerage costs rather than including it the (much more visible) expense ratio. New SEC reporting requirements put a stop to that practice and mandated those costs be included in the ER.
The net result was an "overnight" jump of around 1% (give or take) in the reported ERs for these funds. (I tried to find that ruling but could not.) The fund companies, as you might expect, objected.
An ER of 2-2.5% on a fund that routinely shorts equities is not unusual. If I liked the fund, I'd consider that reasonable for these funds.

The figures that Ted quotes (accurately, that is what Whitebox states on its website) are wrong. The website states that this is as of the date of the current prospectus, but these figures are from last year's (2014's) prospectus.
The figures from the current (2015) prospectus are much more reasonable. "Other operating expenses" (the real culprit, and the real unknown) have dropped by 43 basis points (from 0.68% to 0.25%).
Carrying costs for the short sales ("dividend and interest expense") dropped 12 basis points, but that's more a matter of how much of the fund is invested short vs. long, and of general market interest rates than it is any particular efficiency in the fund.
The management fee is 1.0% - probably normal for this type of fund (I don't look at these often). And the acquired fund expenses are minimal.
The reason why this fund looks expensive is because it is shorting a lot. Those ETF top holdings that JohnChisum referred to? They're mostly shorts, and M* shows the fund is around 210% short (and 310% long, including cash). That's what accounts for that 1%+ in carrying costs. The idea of leverage or shorting is that you make more on the borrowing (of the security in the case of shorting) than it costs you. So many people discount this part of the expense ratio.
As Paul Harvey would say, "and that's the rest of the story."

FYI: Savvy ETF investors have tuned in to the mammoth stimulus programs in Europe and Japan.
As a result, currency-hedged exchange traded funds tracking those region's equities are on fire.
Few more so than WisdomTree Europe Hedged Equity (ARCA:HEDJ). It ballooned from just shy of $500 million in assets in October 2013 to $5.63 billion in December 2014. In this young year, it has grabbed an additional $4 billion in assets, taking its total to $9.69 billion.
Regards,
Ted
http://license.icopyright.net/user/viewFreeUse.act?fuid=MTg5NTE2MTQ=
Enlarged Graphic;
http://news.investors.com/photopopup.aspx?path=WEBetf021015a.jpg&docId=738562&xmpSource=&width=1000&height=691&caption=&id=738608
M* Snapshot Of HEDJ: http://etfs.morningstar.com/quote?t=HEDJ
HEDJ Is Ranked #12 In The (ER) ETF Fund Category By U.S. Nrws & World Report:
http://money.usnews.com/funds/etfs/european-region-funds/wisdomtree-europe-hedged-equity-fund/hedj

@Carefree: A very expensive and poor performing turkey turkey ! Here is some information from Whitebox Website regarding expenses.
Regards,
Ted
As of the date of the Fund’s current prospectus, the gross expense ratios of the Fund’s Investor Shares and Institutional Shares were 3.10% and 2.85%, respectively (including dividend and interest expense on short sales and acquired fund fees and expenses), and 1.93% and 1.68%, respectively (excluding dividend and interest expense on short sales and acquired fund fees and expenses). Whitebox Advisors LLC has contractually agreed through at least February 28, 2015 to limit total Fund operating expenses (excluding dividend and interest expense on short sales and acquired fund fees and expenses) to no more than 1.60% and 1.35% of the Fund’s Investor Shares and Institutional Shares, respectively. If dividend and interest expense on short sales and acquired fund fees and expenses were included, such net expense ratios through February 28, 2015 are estimated to be 2.77% and 2.52%, respectively.
Exchange-Traded Funds. In addition to bearing Fund expenses, shareholders indirectly bear the expenses of the underlying ETFs in which the Fund invests

FYI: Janus Global Unconstrained Bond Fund attracted an estimated $85.6 million in net new money in January, the lowest amount since Pacific Investment Management Co.'s former investment chief Bill Gross took over as manager in October.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.investmentnews.com/article/20150209/FREE/150209919?template=printart

That's a big ouch. I wonder why the excessive ER when many of the top 25 holdings are ETFs and other funds?
http://portfolios.morningstar.com/fund/holdings?t=WBMAX&region=usa&culture=en-US

This is the latest..ouch!
Whitebox Tactical Opportunities Fund Share Class: Investor Shares Institutional Shares
Ticker: WBMAX WBMIX
SUMMARY PROSPECTUS
January 16, 2015
TotalAnnualFundOperatingExpenses1 .................. Less Fee Waivers and Expense Reimbursements2 . . . . . . . . . . .
Total Annual Operating Expenses after Fee Waivers and ExpenseReimbursements ............................
Investor Shares
None None None None
1.00% 0.25%
1.00% 0.25% 0.07%
2.57% (0.00)%
2.57%
Institutional Shares
None None None None
1.00% None
1.00% 0.25% 0.07%
2.32% (0.00)%
2.32%

Hi Puddnhead,
Since I like the combination of humor and insight in your posts so much, here's where I would start if I was undertaking the effort:
I screened for open equity funds with average market cap less than $500MM this time and Perritt Microcap Opportunities, PRCGX and Bridgeway Ultra Small Companies Market, which is still open, are the two positively rated funds by M*. They are bronze funds.
When I look at category ranks, and they would be ranked against small cap growth, blend or value funds, there's a lot of consistently low ranks. RBC Microcap Value, TMVAX, seems to be the most consistently well ranked of the crowd. The Ancora fund, ANCCX, also does pretty well. Over 10 years, there are only 3 funds ranked in the top 50%, Teton, Wasatch Microcap Value and the Satuit fund. Over 5 years, its a little better, there are 5 better than average, including the RBC and Ancora funds. Over 3 years there are 10 in the top half with 3 of those by the skin of their teeth. The RBC and Ancora funds are again in the mix.
My impression is that these funds are pretty volatile and not very often better than small cap funds with higher average market caps. If you think about small cap funds generally you would expect 1 out of every 5 to be in the top 20%. In the case of these funds, its running more like 1 out of 5 or 1 out of 10 being in the top 50%. I would prefer to see better performance for the extra risk.
Good luck!
LLJB