From a performance standpoint, HJPSX deserves to be on top of the Japan Fund podium.

MCDFX is also chicken dinner vs MCHI:

FYI: Technology and health care companies helped drive U.S. stocks broadly higher Friday, placing the market on course to finish a volatile week with a slight gain. Hewlett Packard Enterprise and HP led the gainers among technology stocks. Energy companies also rose along with crude oil prices. Bond yields receded from the four-year highs they reached earlier this week.
Regards,
Ted
Bloomberg:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-02-22/asian-stocks-set-to-edge-higher-dollar-slides-markets-wrap
Reuters:
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-stocks/tech-stocks-fed-view-help-wall-street-climb-idUSKCN1G71HI
MarketWatch:
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/dow-futures-climb-as-investors-wait-for-interest-rate-clues-from-fed-speakers-2018-02-23/print
IBD:
https://www.investors.com/market-trend/stock-market-today/stocks-rally-into-close-2/
CNBC:
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/02/23/us-stock-futures-dow-data-earnings-and-politics-on-the-agenda.html
AP:
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/F/FINANCIAL_MARKETS?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
Bloomberg Evening Briefing:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-02-23/your-evening-briefing
WSJ: Markets At A Glance:
http://markets.wsj.com/us
Bonds: Reuters:
https://www.reuters.com/article/usa-bonds/treasuries-yields-fall-on-stock-market-jitters-month-end-demand-idUSL2N1QD1J7
Gold: MarketWatch:
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/gold-closes-lower-for-the-session-to-post-weekly-loss-of-17-2018-02-23/print
Oil: CNBC:
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/02/22/oil-focuses-on-drop-in-us-inventories-but-surge-in-exports-caps-gains.html
SPDR's Sector Tracker:
http://www.sectorspdr.com/sectorspdr/tools/sector-tracker
SPDR's Bloomberg Sector Performance Pie Chart:
https://www.bloomberg.com/markets/sectors
Current Futures: Positive
https://finviz.com/futures.ashx

FYI: It may not be an Olympic event, but when it comes to attracting cash from investors in exchange-traded funds, Japan and China are taking home the medals.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-02-23/japan-may-not-dominate-the-olympics-but-in-etfs-it-takes-gold?srnd=etfcenter

@MSF

I'm still trying to get my head wrapped around the concept that the same security could be classified differently with respect to liquidity by two funds, even managed by the same company

Two things to consider:
1. Different funds have different amounts of the same security. A tiny fund investing in a microcap stock could have ample liquidity to trade it while a behemoth fund owning more than 5% of its outstanding shares won't be able to get out of the position without having significant market impact costs and liquidity problems. While there are differences fund families measure these differences internally.They should be able to come up with an estimate of what the liquidity of an individual portfolio is because they often stress test the portfolio and to actually manage it need to know how liquid everything is.
2. The more illiquid assets don't trade like stocks on an exchange and are often over the counter or by "appointment only." So a bond fund from one company that is well connected with bond dealers may have more liquidity for the same bond than another fund that owns it. Again, part of the compliance and internal risk control of any reasonably managed fund company would be to know very well what the available sources of liquidity are.
Yes, there will be different measurements for liquidity for different funds if the rule took affect. But so what as there are also different measures of fair value for illiquid securities at different funds. I say let fund companies make a good faith effort to disclose liquidity and let investors and professional fund analysts at Morningstar etc. evaluate that disclosure. Having differences might lead to more transparency and risk understanding than an ignorant consensus on liquidity would. If one fund is overestimating the liquidity for the same securities that other funds own, analysts can point that out and say they are understating their own liquidity risks.

He also seems to like commodities. Anyone have a favorite commodity fund? PCLDX has crossed my radar.
gundlachs-favorite-idea-in-the-financial-markets-today-is-commodities

FYI: If stocks are going to take another tumble, I think it would be preceded by a bitcoin decline," he said.
Stock-market volatility was reawakened from its dormant state earlier this month, with the major averages briefly dipping in correction territory.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/02/23/jeffrey-gundlach-says-if-you-want-to-know-where-stocks-are-going-next-watch-bitcoin.html

Before leaping, it might be a good idea to understand what's being discussed here. (I'm just beginning to read the rule, so I speak from a fair amount of ignorance.)
ISTM that there are at least two different issues here. One concerns a 15% limit on the amount of illiquid securities a fund can purchase; another concerns how one classifies (tosses into buckets) those illiquid securities (once they're determined to be illiquid). The 15% limit does not appear to be on the table, the classification system of illiquid securities is.
From the Final Rule (p. 10 of 459!):

We also are adopting a 15% limitation on funds’ purchases of illiquid investments, largely as proposed, but the definition of investments considered illiquid and subject to this 15% limit has been enhanced and substantially harmonized with the classification system we are adopting today.

I'm still trying to get my head wrapped around the concept that the same security could be classified differently with respect to liquidity by two funds, even managed by the same company (Final Rule, p. 100):

We recognize that, although we are providing a uniform classification framework, different funds may still classify the liquidity of similar investments differently, based on the facts and circumstances informing their analyses. This simply reflects the fact that different funds likely have different views on liquidity based on considerations such as their assessment of various market, trading, and investment-specific factors, and the size of their position in a particular investment. We acknowledge that liquidity can be difficult to estimate and that there is no agreed-upon measure of liquidity for all asset classes

Yes, that says "similar investments", not literally the same security, but SEC clarified in its FAQ (Q5): "Q: May different funds classify the same investment differently? A: Yes [then discusses the section of the Final Rule quoted above]"
Another report: http://www.thinkadvisor.com/2018/02/22/sec-extends-liquidity-rule-deadline-for-open-end-f?slreturn=1519403206

You get one single, big, fat guess. Make sure all the wealth is concentrated in the hands of the (savvy) 1%, and screw the 99. With wealth already on your side, you can make the laws and regulations work toward that goal, too. The perfect scenario--- if you're in the oligarchy which is likewise already in charge. LB has already quoted from the disinformation campaign, above. And "Oceania has ALWAYS been at war with East Asia, eh?"
"... This post isn't about refugees, but Orwelianism. What's shown here is retroactive changing of history to conform to the new political consensus. It's doublethink, as people strive to change their own thinking. It's newspeek, as people try to change what others believe by changing the words used to express those ideas. It's also about the mainstream press, which has become part of the corrupt establishment, obviously violating every principle of journalism in order to exercise power."
http://blog.erratasec.com/2016/02/weve-always-been-at-war-with-eastasia.html

I want to hear how the industry will try to explain how this is good for shareholders in any way, shape or form. Oh, wait, here it is:

The mutual-fund industry has panned what some analysts called the “bucketing” requirement, saying it requires them to make imperfect judgments about liquidity that could expose them to second-guessing by regulators and influential fund analysts such as Morningstar Inc.
“It is the industry’s single greatest concern with the rule,” said John Baker, a lawyer specializing in mutual funds at Stradley Ronon Stevens & Young LLP in Washington. “It’s very difficult to implement, it’s consuming a disproportionately large amount of resources, and there is real doubt as to how valuable this information will be to the SEC.”

The thing that's so laughable about this argument is that any fund shop investing in illiquid assets that isn't completely devoid of investment acumen would be assessing the liquidity of those assets anyway. They know internally what liquidity buckets those assets belong in. So why can't they disclose those buckets to shareholders and how will such disclosure be "consuming a disproportionately large amount of resources?" It's nonsense.
Here's the full article, but with paywall:https://wsj.com/articles/regulators-to-pull-back-on-obama-era-mutual-fund-rules-1519338039

FYI: Securities regulators are planning to pare back Obama-era requirements that would require mutual funds to tell shareholders about large holdings of hard-to-sell assets, in what would be a significant concession to the industry.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/sec-planning-to-roll-back-obama-era-mutual-fund-rules-2018-02-22/print

FYI: There is always a reason for investors to worry about the stock market, be it valuations at historically high levels, economic risks, the risk of inflation or geopolitical risk. That is why there is an equity risk premium, and why, historically, it has been large enough to be called the equity premium puzzle.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.etf.com/sections/index-investor-corner/swedroe-what-investors-should-worry-about?nopaging=1

#1 Tip = Don't look at your account.

lanternland: FYI: Other share classes.
Regards,
Ted
Leland Thomson Reuters Vntr Cptl Idx A 5.75 — 1.75 2,500 0.25 — —
Leland Thomson Reuters Vntr Cptl Idx C — 1.00 2.50 2,500 1.00 — —
Leland Thomson Reuters Vntr Cptl Idx I — — 1.50 5.0 Mil

I agree with your comments Hank and could have written the same only not as well. One thing that struck me was an NRA info source who stated that the AR15 was developed specifically for hunting. Must have meant people hunting as I've never seen an animal hunter carrying one and I've been at this almost 50 years.

Here’s my earlier link & excerpt. Hope this avoids having 2 different threads on essentially the same subject.
Question for those in the know - What’s the easiest way to dig up a list of mutual funds with investments in American Outdoor Brands (alias Smith & Wesson). I’d sure like to see it.
One more note: I’m not against guns. Heck, some of my happiest memories as a teen go back to tromping through northern Michigan’s woods in October with my high school buddy after school, usually on Fridays, trying to bag a bird or rabbit with the single-shot 16 gage shotgun my pop gave me on my 16th birthday. Good healthy sport. But the nonsense going on in this country has to stop. Whatever it takes!
“Florida teachers reacted viscerally to news that they've been paying into a retirement fund that invests in gun companies, including the maker of an assault rifle used to kill 17 Parkland high school students and educators last week. They demanded Wednesday night that the state agency that manages the fund divest of those stocks immediately. The state pension plan for Florida teachers held 41,129 shares in American Outdoor Brands Co., formerly known as Smith & Wesson ...” http://snewsi.com/id/18169948123

FYI: (This is a follow-up to Hank's link on the subject.)
A fresh wave of scrutiny is washing over big state employee pension funds and money managers that invest in shares of gun makers one week after the deadly shootings in a Florida high school.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/02/22/state-pensions-and-fund-companies-feel-heat-over-their-gun-stock-investments.html

Looking at assets (or AUM) of financial institutions presents a distorted picture. Banks, investment companies, etc. control lots of assets, but those assets are owned by others. The value (market cap) of these companies is much smaller than their assets would suggest.
When thinking about settlements, revenue might be a better yardstick. It's hard to get firm numbers on TCW (privately held), e.g. Nippon Life just acquired 1/4 of TCW, but terms were not disclosed.
FWIW, Hoovers estimates TCW's annual revenue to be $278M. $30M would put a sizeable dent in that, let alone net profits.
http://www.hoovers.com/company-information/cs/revenue-financial.the_tcw_group_inc.7beb84b4a92f7670.html

FYI: .U.S. equities, international equities and commodities all bounced back after the major market sell-off.
.The best-performing fund for 2018 on a year-to-date basis is the Leland Thomson Reuters Vntr Cptl Idx I (LDVIX).
.Latin American Equities is the best-performing mutual funds subcategory based on the rolling-month return
Regards,
Ted
http://mutualfunds.com/news/2018/02/22/mutual-funds-weekly-roundup-february-22-2018/

FYI: What are the lives of the planet's wealthiest people really like?
Several years ago, sociologist Brooke Harrington decided to find out.
Hidden Brain
What's It Like To Be Rich? Ask The People Who Manage Billionaires' Money
She knew she'd have a hard time gaining access to the world of the über wealthy, so she did something unusual: She took courses to become a wealth manager.
In the course of this training, Harrington met other wealth managers, who agreed to be interviewed for her research.
She discovered that, in order to manage money for the super-rich, these professionals learn a lot about the private lives of their clients.
What they shared, Harrington says, shocked her.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.npr.org/2018/02/19/586457604/whats-it-like-to-be-rich-ask-the-people-who-manage-billionaires-money