TRAMX has not had a good very recent streak. I was fortunate in a backhanded way, so I did not get in right away, in '07, when it first opened. The new(er) Fund Manager seems to know what to do.
Past 5 years: +10.7% (Reuters.)

Good stuff. Thanks Ted.
I think one reason my Roth has outdistanced my Traditional IRA over the past 5-6 years is that I leave it alone and seldom, if ever, "tinker" with it. I don't know if that strategy works under all market conditions, but it has worked since early '09.
One lesson from Hussman may be that the harder we work to get something "right", the more apt we are to get it wrong. I guess you could say this guy has "written the book" on screwing-up. So sad for all those investors who sent him their money over the years,

There was the article not that long ago that said that Fidelity found that some of the customers who performed best were the accounts that had not been touched for so long they were deemed forgotten.
http://www.businessinsider.com/forgetful-investors-performed-best-2014-9

Yikes! No thanks! Some years back, T Rowe Price started an African fund. Sounded interesting, lots of interesting sales literature, Price has conservative reputation, what could go wrong? So I invested. Lost more than 50% in the blink of an eye, until I was unable to sleep at night and couldn't digest my breakfast. Sold it and took the 50%+ loss. Too risky for me. [Please don't tell me the fund has gone up 10,000% since I sold, I can't stand the pain.]

Good stuff. Thanks Ted.
I think one reason my Roth has outdistanced my Traditional IRA over the past 5-6 years is that I leave it alone and seldom, if ever, "tinker" with it. I don't know if that strategy works under all market conditions, but it has worked since early '09.
One lesson from Hussman may be that the harder we work to get something "right", the more apt we are to get it wrong. I guess you could say this guy has "written the book" on screwing-up. So sad for all those investors who sent him their money over the years,

In reference to Ted's blurb on auto sales.
Alan Mulally may have demonstrated impeccable timing here. Get out before the all aluminum (read: expensive to build, buy, repair & insure) pickup debuts as gas slides below $2.50. One report has it under $2 in some areas of the U.S.
BTW: Chev recently reported brisk sales of the non-alum Silverado.

Nice post msf. It looks like neither the Vanguard 500 Index fund VFIAX nor the Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Fund VTSAX have had any capital gains distributions in the past 10 years
Source: https://advisors.vanguard.com/VGApp/iip/site/advisor/investments/price?fundId=0540#state=30
And the tax cost ratio and tax adjusted returns for VTI (Vanguard Total Stock Market Index ETF) and VTSAX (Admiral shares, Total Stock Market Index Fund) were just about identical over 1, 3, 5 and 10 years, per Morningstar.

Sometimes ETFs are not more tax efficient.
Vanguard Admiral class shares and ETF class shares are identical in tax efficiency. Vanguard Investor class shares, which are a poorer choice, are inherently more tax efficient.
For example, for the Vanguard 500 fund, its admiral share class (VFIAX) and ETF share class (VOO) have 1 year tax cost ratios of 0.83%, and 3 year tax cost ratios of 0.57%. (VOO doesn't go out five years.)
VFINX, the investor share class, has corresponding tax cost ratios of 0.78% and 0.53%.
The reasons are twofold:
1) These are different share classes of the same (not merely identical) portfolio, so they share equally in the realized gains.
2) Interest and dividends of the underlying stocks are used to pay the ERs. So the higher the ER of a share class, the less that is distributed in the way of income dividends. That means that the higher the ER, the higher the tax efficiency (lower dividends).
It's the same idea as hoping a fund will have small distributions because it made little money. Not something to be hoped for.
Admiral shares and ETF shares currently have the same ERs, so they'll have the same tax efficiency. All else being equal, the ETF will lose a little bit on a round trip, because of the bid/ask spread that is absent from the other share classes.

QVAL is the subject of a big article in the December issue. As I've been an investor with Alpha Architect, the manager of QVAL, I wanted to take a moment to endorse the ETF. I've had a SMA with Alpha for close to two years. Due to regulations, I assume Alpha was not allowed to use the SMA figures in any QVAL documents but there is no prohibition against my doing so. The account I had that used the same approach that QVAL is using outperformed the S&P 500 after management fees by several percent during the period I was invested. I have transitioned my SMA to QVAL because of the superior tax efficiency of the ETF structure. If you really want to do a deep dive into the inner workings of the strategy, read Wes Gray's Quantitative Value book. AA are good people and I'm writing this as an MFO subscriber that wants to see QVAL succeed so that I'm not caught up in a fund liquidation if it were forced to close due to not enough AUM. I don't think that will be a problem because I believe in the long run it will outperform its benchmark and there are very few funds that actually do that. OTOH I wouldn't want it to get so successful that huge AUM interferes with their ability to execute the strategy! However, the inevitable stretches of underperformance will probably prevent that from happening. So I encourage you to look into QVAL unless you're looking to invest a billion dollars. If so, please don't ruin it for the rest of us!

FYI: U.S. stocks closed higher on Tuesday as investors welcomed stronger-than-expected construction spending figures for October as well as robust car sales data. November car and light truck sales were second-highest in eight years, according to figures from Autodata.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/us-stocks-rise-dow-closes-at-record-2014-12-02/print
Bloomberg Slant: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/print/2014-12-02/u-s-stock-index-futures-are-little-changed-after-s-p-500-slips.html
Markets At A Glance: http://markets.wsj.com/us

I just turned 65. My Roth is invested rather aggressively but as I built it the intent was to have it generate enough income to cover my day to day living expenses. It does this easily and then some at this juncture. All of the current income is reinvested in additional shares which of course.......you see where this is going. At some point I may have to flip the switches and start withdrawing that income but for now both my needs and wants are small and life is good.

I think this depends on a great many factors, including age, tax situation, etc.
(my age 69.5)
We got into Roths late - doing a conversion of a portion of our Traditional near the '09 market bottom and after we had already begun taking SS benefits. Initially it was 100% invested in aggressive global growth funds because they were among the most beaten-up when we converted. Now, we're more interested in protecting our sizeable tax free gains (counter to the traditional approach to Roths).
Roth now comprises nearly half our investments. it's still a bit more aggressively positioned than the Traditional IRA portion - but not that much so. Mostly balanced funds along with a portion in diversified income funds. I will say the Roth contains what I consider the finest funds we own - so overall quality of the Roth investments is better - and it continues to out-perform the Traditional IRA. Kinda begs the question: Why don't we move everything to those select funds? Go figure.
Future uses? (1) Would be handy should we encounter some unexpected major expense - as wouldn't incur the tax cost pulling from the Traditional would. (2) Since Roths aren't subject to RMD, we'll be able to protect that tax-sheltered portion longer than otherwise.
PS: Goal is to run completely out of money the day before we die. :)

@MJG, no, no flipping of intent, or a dropped not, and I thank you much for your thoughtful analyses and data provision.
It all depends on how much diversification the word wants to mean.
I was going chiefly by my memory of
http://www.investopedia.com/articles/financial-theory/09/international-investing-diversification.asp and
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/money/perfi/columnist/waggon/story/2011-12-01/euro-crisis-your-portfolio/51554946/1 and
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/money/perfi/funds/2009-01-06-diversification-stock-fund-losses_N.htm (note the Doll quotes).
Perhaps in the future things will return to the rather less correlated statuses. But in retirement I have cut back on general international funds and bothering to research them while contrarily adding (small) some Matthews Asia and a couple of Japan funds.

http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/35348/000003534814000086/Main.htm
Supplement to the
Fidelity Fifty®
August 29, 2014
Prospectus
Proposed Reorganization. The Board of Trustees of each of Fidelity Hastings Street Trust and Fidelity Capital Trust has unanimously approved an Agreement and Plan of Reorganization ("Agreement") between Fidelity Fifty® and Fidelity® Focused Stock Fund pursuant to which Fidelity Fifty® would be reorganized on a tax-free basis with and into Fidelity® Focused Stock Fund.
The Agreement provides for the transfer of all of the assets of Fidelity Fifty in exchange for shares of Fidelity Focused Stock Fund equal in value to the net assets of Fidelity Fifty and the assumption by Fidelity Focused Stock Fund of all of the liabilities of Fidelity Fifty. After the exchange, Fidelity Fifty will distribute the Fidelity Focused Stock Fund shares to its shareholders pro rata, in liquidation of Fidelity Fifty. As a result, shareholders of Fidelity Fifty will become shareholders of Fidelity Focused Stock Fund (these transactions are collectively referred to as the "Reorganization").
A Special Meeting (the "Meeting") of the Shareholders of Fidelity Fifty is expected to be held during the second quarter of 2015 and approval of the Agreement will be voted on at that time. A combined proxy statement and prospectus containing more information with respect to the Reorganization will be provided to shareholders of record of Fidelity Fifty in advance of the meeting.
If the Agreement is approved at the Meeting and certain conditions required by the Agreement are satisfied, the Reorganization is expected to take place on or about June 5, 2015. If shareholder approval of the Agreement is delayed due to failure to meet a quorum or otherwise, the Reorganization will become effective, if approved, as soon as practicable thereafter.
The foregoing is not a solicitation of any proxy. For a free copy of the Proxy Statement describing the Reorganization (and containing important information about fees, expenses and risk considerations) and a Prospectus for Fidelity Focused Stock Fund, please call 1-800-544-8544. The prospectus/proxy statement will also be available for free on the Securities and Exchange Commission's web site (www.sec.gov).

Not quite 70 so not quite your desired sample, but our Roths are the most aggressively invested, and indeed sometime over the winter I think I will swing more and more into DSENX.
Kids get low-debt house plus anything left over, but the goal is to spend it, not heir-leaving. Maybe college help for grandchildren.
Of course my travel abilities in 10-15y (if I am still alive) will be (even) more diminished than now.

Another Article on the topic:
"US producers have locked in higher prices through derivatives contracts. Noble Energy and Devon Energy have both hedged over three-quarters of their output for 2015.
Pioneer Natural Resources said it has options through 2016 covering two- thirds of its likely production. “We can produce down to $50 a barrel,” said Harold Hamm, from Continental Resources. The International Energy Agency said most of North Dakota’s vast Bakken field “remains profitable at or below $42 per barrel. The break-even price in McKenzie County, the most productive county in the state, is only $28 per barrel."
Saudis-risk-playing-with-fire-in-shale-price-showdown-as-crude-crashes

@linter: Your combination provides the following exposure: 50% HC, 22% Tech, and 13% Industrials. You may want to consider an equal mix of PRHSX and POAGX, which would be my preference. But if you want a higher octane, then you may consider a mix of PRHSX 5%, FBIOX 5% and POAGX 10%. In our portfolio, we own 10% positions in both PRHSX and POAGX.
Kevin

Makes sense to me. But also the more I look at it, the more I think that instead of 10/10 maybe the wisest thing is to go PRHSX (or similar: pjp?) 10% and POAGX 5%, especially if we are soon coming to a top or even if we aren't. Has there ever been a meaningful time period when POAGX outdid PRHSX either on the upside or lost less on the down? Heck, maybe the whole thing should go into PRHSX. Even if health corrects in a major way, I still don't see it correcting more than POAGX, right?

FYI: Look for good fundamentals, not hot streaks.
Regards,
Ted
http://news.morningstar.com/articlenet/article.aspx?id=675310

This morning I had a email response from Matthews Asia. Their explanation is a bit more thorough than previous replies other posters have noted. One question is still on my mind. They did not pay the distribution due to the tax rules on PFICs and what impact that would have on their shareholders. Would this also apply to future distributions as well? I replied back with that question in mind.
Here is their response:
Thank you for your investment in the Matthews Asia Dividend Fund and for contacting us. As you noted, there was no ordinary income distribution estimates for the Matthews Asia Dividend Fund primarily due to the tax treatment of the portfolio’s Passive Foreign Investment Companies (PFICs).
A PFIC is a non-United States company that primarily derives its income from investments. A corporation is classified as a PFIC if it passes one of two tests (with a few exceptions)—the Income Test (75% or more of the company's gross income is passive income) or the Asset Test (50% or more of the company's assets produce passive income). U.S. investors who invest in PFICs must follow unique tax regulations that differ from regular investments.
U.S. tax code requires investors under certain circumstances to deduct from the distributable income capital losses stemming from holdings in companies deemed to be PFICs. The Fund’s holdings in real estate investment trusts (REITs) are deemed PFICs. And while our inclusion of REITs in the portfolio can result in higher variability—both negatively and positively—in the income distribution, we continue to find them attractive for their significant yield premium to other equities. Please note that the Matthews Asia Dividend Fund does have income from dividends (book income) and the income is built into the value of the Fund but is not being distributed primarily because of the above tax rules. This is not an indication of a change in how the portfolio is managed. The strategy remains focused on total return while investing in companies with high dividend payouts and growth-oriented businesses.

GN'MAybe a good bet again.
Nice recent performance - intermediate government :

From Morningstar conversation Board
"How tiresome....portfolio again not updated" =
------ 85 Replys since 5/15/ 2013 ------
and yet, M* portfolio manager is still not completely
updated as of 7:30 pm est today 12/01/ 14 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! --- SLOTH----
Ralph