Some Roth distributions are federally taxable (e.g. earnings if your Roths are less than five years old). "Any portion of your Roth IRA distribution that is included in your federal adjusted gross income (AGI), is subject to Michigan tax."
http://www.michigan.gov/taxes/0,4676,7-238-75545_43715-154072--,00.html
"if part of the [Roth] distribution is taxable, then Michigan pension withholding would be required on the taxable portion of the distribution."
http://www.michigan.gov/taxes/0,4676,7-238-43513_59451-263747--,00.html
As far as other fund houses go - there are a lot of wrong answers out there. My experience with front line customer reps is that some may give answers without checking details.
Sometimes it's hard to get past front line reps. I once spent six months arguing with an electric supplier because they were charging tax to residential customers, when the city law explicitly exempted residential customers from tax. (They ultimately stopped collecting the tax but said it would take awhile to compute refunds.)
I got an answer from Fidelity earlier this year that I believed was wrong (again, a tax question). It happens. I was able to work around that answer, so it wasn't worth a fight. But I did email them a link to an IRS page directly contradicting what they told me.

Hello,
A good article on rebalancing covering the why's and how to's.
For me, the best thing I did, years back, was to determine an asset allocation consisting of cash, bonds, stocks and other assets with target percentages being set for each asset class allowing for some range movement based upon market conditions, my needs and most important my risk tolerance. Over time, I developed a matrix that helps me determine just how much stocks, the most risky asset class, to hold from time-to-time based upon certain market condidtions but keeping within my asset allocation range for stocks.
Currently, my range allocations are as follows: Cash Allocation range 15% to 25% with target currently being set at 20% ... Income Allocation range 25% to 35% with target currently being set at 30% ... Growth & Income Allocation range 30% to 40% with target being set at 35% ... and Growth Allocation range 10% to 20% with target being set at 15%. In doing a recent Morningstar Instant Xray analysis on my portfolio the results were cash 25%, bonds 25%, domestic stocks 30%, foreign stocks 15% and other assets 5%. With this, I am currently light in my income allocation due to an anticipated rising interest rate environment, neutral in my stock allocation and heavy in my cash allocation. Note, some of my hybrid funds must have recently bought stocks because not too long ago I was light in stocks as well as bonds.
In general, my market valuation matrix determines how much stocks I will hold from time-to-time on the investment positions that I set the allocation on and is based, in most part, on some valuations measures I use to gague the market. These include both technical and fundamental measures along with some room for my other measure that allows for some reasoning and is known, by me, as my SWAG mythology, Scientific Wild Ass Guess, which includes some investment folklore. For the hybrid funds that I own, I let the fund manages determine what assets to hold and how much of each while I determine how much of my portfolio is to be invested in hybrid type funds. In doing this, this allows for some adaptive allocation movement, within the portfolio, through asset movement and repositioning within the hybrid funds held. Currnetly, the hybrid funds make up about 40% of the overall portfolio.
For me, rebalaning form time-to-time has indeed, I feel, been beneficial.
I really did enjoyed reading the article.
Thanks @Ted for posting.
I wish all ... "Good Investing."

Thanks for all of your responses.
Gmarceau, thanks. I actually already own DSEEX (institutional shares of DSENX) . Great fund.
VintageFreak, thanks. One of the main catalysts for a market pullback should be a rise in interest rates IMHO. Looking at the top holdings, JP Morgan, Wells Fargo, and Bank of America make up 3 of the top 13. One of the reasons these stocks have not kept up is interest rates remaining low. If the market goes down due to a rise in interest rates, I would think these financial stocks should benefit (or at least not go down as much as the rest of the market). Other top holdings have low PE's, which I would think would not go down as much as higher PE stocks in a downturn...but who knows.
AndyJ. Thanks. I do not know much about the longer history of the fund as far as it's holdings are concerned. I just assumed the fund was concentrated in financials, consumer cyclicals, and healthcare because that is where the fund mangers currently see value. It is good to know that you say the fund is always in those sectors, and that its previous outperformance was due to that. Something to consider.

FYI: The markets have a way of making investors fearful whether stocks are up (they can’t rise any further can they?) or down (surely the worst is yet to come, right?). It’s always something which is what makes the markets equal parts fascinating and gut-wrenching.
Regards,
Ted
http://awealthofcommonsense.com/2016/09/a-pressure-release-valve-for-your-portfolio/

A quick search shows virtually every doc saying that Michigan IRAs are considered pensions for tax purposes, and are subject to withholding.
Older folk (those who were born earlier than 1953 or have spouses that old) may be able to avoid some or all of the withholding by filing form MI W-4P. I'm sure you know all this - I'm just reading up on Michigan, since I didn't know that any state required IRA withholding if the taxpayer didn't elect withholding for the IRS.
I suspect no one knows exactly how things will work, but a possibility (check with TRP):
- keep enough in PRRXX (Gov. MMF, formerly Prime Reserve) to cover withholding
- keep remainder in a prime fund earning a bit more interest (TSCXX)
If TRP will cooperate, then you may not have to worry about the redemption fee and/or gating on the prime fund. See if TRP will let you use the PRRXX shares for the withholding, and distribute the TSCXX shares in kind to your taxable account
You could then wait until redemption restrictions were lifted on the TSCXX shares in the taxable account and cash out.
Or you could keep everything in TSCXX, so long as redemption restrictions were not likely. This would entail monitoring the weekly liquidity of the prime fund here. No gates or redemption fees unless this drops below 30%. (It's currently 36.61%)
This would get you an extra 15 basis points - admittedly it may not be worth the effort. Maybe it would be easier to move out of Michigan :-)

Hi, LLJB. Thnx for reading my report and commenting. Re your question about where the two Primecaps are: Primecap Odyssey Aggressive Growth was No. 11 among all US diversified stock mutual funds with at least $100 million in asset in the post Brexit period I looked at. It had a 13.97% return. Its stablemate, Primecap Odyssey Growth, was sixteenth best, with a 12.83% return. As you pointed out, the table that accompanied the story only listed the top 10.
Re your questions about Composite Ratings: I'll look into the historical data.
Re your sell trigger question: There are several. It depends on what the stock is doing. I'll look for links that explain which sell signals to look for in which circumstances and post them here or in another report.
Again, thnx for your interest. And have a good labor day holiday.

"Nothing about retail prime funds being especially prone to risk"
I believe all MM's carry risk. The possibility of losing .01c means prone to risk in my mind compared to the history of MM's (for the most part) holding the buck in past years.

My family's never lost money in a MMF either, though my father was an early adopter of Reserve Fund when it was the only game in town.
At the same time, I remain cognizant of the risks (small but nonzero), which is why I expect compensation for the risk. That's why I've suggested keeping taxable cash in 1% bank accounts until MMF yields improve.
But for brokerage- or fund-based IRAs, where moving money to and from bank accounts is problematic, I've pointed to VMMXX and FZDXX. They hit a reasonable balance between risk (small, nonzero), yield (about 0.5%), and convenience. Especially for IRAs where one likely keeps little in cash.

Wow, Hancock Horizon Funds - never heard of them, I'm impressed!
I do think that the heyday of the regional funds was the late 90s or so (the era from which my links came). "Regional stock funds are becoming more popular in the mutual fund industry." Washington Post, March 2, 1998.
If you thought the Golden Gate Fund (focused on the Bay Area) was a bit too narrow, how about Gateway Cincinnati Fund (closed 2003)? P&G and what else?
The funds that hung around for some time did so by broadening their mandates - Franklin Calif. Growth reduced its regional exposure from 80% to 50% before getting rid of it. Safeco NW played games to keep Boeing after it moved its headquarters to Chicago (which I guess makes it fair game for Mairs & Power).
So finding any fund actually focuses on regional companies (as opposed to giving brownie points, i.e. "some emphasis") these days really does impress.
That said, I think that NY Ventures is stretching it a bit - it's more NY because of its name than its portfolio.
Looking at NYVTX (it holds only 57 stocks), the ones in the Northeast I see are :
#5 JPM (Chase)
#8 UTX (United Tech. CT)
#10 AXP (Amex)
#11 BK (Bank of NY Mellon)
#18 PX (Praxair CT)
#31 CB (Chubb NJ)
#32 TYC (Tyco Int'l - US operations HQ in NJ)
#32 DGX (Quest Diagnostics NJ)
#33 CFG (Citizens Financial Group, RI)
#36 PCLN (Priceline CT)
#40 (L Loews)
#43 MCO (Moody's).
Even if I missed a couple, it's hard to consider this a northeast fund.
Kudos on Hancock Horizon, A for effort on the rest.

For those who prefer the deep South there's this fund:
hancockhorizon.com/files/2016/2Q/Burkenroad%20Small%20Cap%20Fund%202Q16.pdf
And for those who prefer the NorthEast: morningstar.com/funds/xnas/nyvtx/quote.html
Throw in a tech fund and you probably have California covered. Then if you combine all four including M&P, you might have the entire nation. The interesting question is what sort of regional economic risks and sector concentrations you might end up with favoring one region over the other. If you like the Northeast, you will most likely end up heavily in the financial sector, which hasn't been the best place to be lately, but could be deemed undervalued in today's market. Note though: Davis NY Venture is not a pure New York play, but still has that financial services emphasis.

I'd think hard about the fund's sector strategy if I were tempted to buy in. Right now, and from memory basically always, Smead invests real money in just three sectors: consumer discretionary, financials, and health. Those sectors' fortunes pretty much explain the up-and-down performance in the past, and may be the main driver at least in the near future.
Edit to add: I followed it for ~ 3y, thinking I might buy in if discretionary tanks and afterwards begins to turn up, because I'd noticed that it was always the #1 sector, usually by a lot, and that was pretty much all Smead talked about on his fairly frequent visits to Nightly Biz Report on Pbs.
Then finally, a few months back, it dawned on me to chart it vs. a simple discretionary etf, VCR, didn't see any advantage for SMVLX, and so deleted Smead from my watchlist.

Separate discussions --- whether the feel of the Midwest starts a few miles east of the Ohio border, and what if anything accounts for M&P performance deltas, such as they are.
Of course start points matter. From beginning of 1980 MAPOX underperforms DODBX and FPURX while outperforming (significantly) 50-70% equity allocation criterion, while beginning at the end of 1980 makes it closer to a tie.
As an owner I read their prospectus many times, and yes, including ND. The 'better idea' thing was always leaned on pretty lightly. (The way other fund families like to talk about being sort of out of it [GLRBX].)
My bond query was at least partly tongue in cheek, but I did figure you might well do the digging.
Jack Kennedy often quipped that WDC was a city of 'Southern efficiency and Northern charm.'

This exchange about what constitutes the midwest is sort of humorous, given that funds invest based on economics, not political lines. The midwest is whatever the fund says it is, no more, no less.
M&P doesn't even say it focuses on the midwest. It says "some emphasis is given to the ... Upper Midwest, ... which the Adviser "considers to be the states of Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota and Wisconsin". Not even Indiana. As always, read the fine, um, prospectus.
As far as the Census Bureau's definition of regions goes (which seems to be what some people here are alluding to), this is the same definition that calls Maryland a southern state. That's not what I was taught in school (i.e. that DC was situated between the northern states and the southern states), nor does it match what most people think, according to a (not too scientific) 538 poll. Only 6% of self-identified Southerners agreed that MD is part of the south.
Regarding the performance of MAPOX: What explains the difference in decades long performance (relative to respective categories) between MAPOX and MPGFX? Keep in mind that these funds were ostensibly managed by the same people. Were they keeping their best equity ideas for the balanced fund (that doesn't seem likely, but I haven't researched), or was the relatively better performance of MAPOX due to its bond sleeve?
Assuming the latter (IMHO a good assumption until justifiably questioned), it's fair to look to that bond portfolio. There are two issues here: (1) how regional is this part of the portfolio really, and (2) how has the fund performed in different bond markets.
To the first question: while MAPOX is currently heavily into corporates, that waxes and wanes. M* writes: " On the fixed-income side, the managers own a mix of U.S. government agency debentures and investment-grade corporate bonds. The allocation has varied over time." In 2006 (per annual report) 59% of its bonds were US bonds (mostly Fannie Mae), not regional. Even today (semi-annual report released this week), with 90% of its debt in corporates, there doesn't seem to be a disproportionate amount in the states named by the fund.
Sure, lots of FoMoCo debt (about 1.4% of the corporates). But 40% of the corporate debt is in financials, and you'd be hard pressed to find a M&P regional company there. Okay, there's Kemper (Ill.) with a tad under 1% of the corporates. Berkshire Hathaway hails from Nebraska, not part of the fund's regional focus. Then you have more financials listed under industrials, like GE Capital (also sold recently), and Dun and Bradstreet (NJ). Big IT creditors include Intel (bigger than FoMoCo), Symantec, Autodesk, Fidelity Nat. Info Services (Fla.) and Western Union, all about 0.8% of corporate debt. Then there's midwest Motorola, with about 0.6%.
To the second question - how did the fund perform if we decompose by bond market? Using 1/1/80 as a starting point for the bond bull (rounding to decades), MAPOX underperformed DODBX by 13% cumulative. Perhaps with the expected return of a bond bear market, MAPOX will once again outperform. Maybe not, since those pre-1980 managers are long gone. As Dan Fuss notes, he's one of the few bond managers around who's had experience in rising interest rate markets.
In short, it doesn't appear that M&P gets any particular benefit on the equity side from its narrow (6 state) regional bias. On the bond side, it's hard to see that there even is a regional bias. Regardless, it hasn't outperformed your reference fund of choice since the 70s, when the bond market was very different. None of this detracts from M&P; it just doesn't support the theory that M&P (like Ford) has a better idea.

Ironically the best place to be (for several more months) might be the very place they are claiming is risk prone (Prime). Where Gov't MM's level out at is unknown at present until money flows stabilize. Prime yields are juicy at Vanguard. Switch from Prime in 1Q to Gov't if/when smoke clears. They are saying brokerages have beefed up reserves. To each his own. Eventually I will be in Gov't.

Like other active portfolio managers, Artisan Partners Asset Management has suffered: Money has flowed out of its funds, earnings have declined, and its stock has fallen 26% this year, to a recent $26, sharply below its 2014 high of $70. That has given Artisan shares a fat yield of 9% but has also raised questions about whether it can sustain its dividend.
Founded in 1995, Artisan (ticker: APAM) went public in 2013. Today, it has 14 mutual funds investing in U.S. and foreign stocks and bonds. Ten funds have a coveted...
https://google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=Finding+9%25+Yields+in+a+Beaten-Down+Asset+Manager

I was thinking about buying this fund early in the year. Fortunately, I never pulled the trigger. YTD performance is in the 98th percentile (only up 0.26% compared to S&P 500 up 8.27%), 1 year performance is in the 95th percentile, and 3 year performance has fallen to the 66th percentile. Prior to 2016, this fund had stellar returns. Since 2011, the fund beat the S&P 500 every year and was at or near top percentile wise for each year. It's value or contrarian style has hurt it lately.
My question is: would this actually be the right time to buy this fund? It holds stocks that as a whole have not gone up with the rest of the market this year, so should be undervalued and may be more likely to outperform if the market is deemed to be expensive or remains flat and people look for bargains. The fund has had an excellent history prior to this year, so surely the managers know what they are doing and have just run into a rough patch. Or is this a case where one should stay away from this fund, as it has finally lost its magic and might not get it back, like other funds have in the past.
I'm also curious if any current SMVLX owners have become frustrated with this fund and are thinking of selling it, or if anyone has recently sold it because of it's poor performance over the last year.

FYI: (Click On Article Title At Top Of Google Search) "Investing From The Ground Up"
Bob Mitchell and Joe Monahan have visited enough companies over the years to know what gives them confidence in a potential investment—and what makes them leery.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.google.com/#q=Investing+From+the+Ground+Up+Barron's
M* Snapshot CCASX:
http://www.morningstar.com/funds/XNAS/CCASX/quote.html
Lipper Snapshot CCASX:
http://www.marketwatch.com/investing/Fund/CCASX
CCASX Is Ranked #10 In The (SGC) Fund Category By U.S. News & World Report:
http://money.usnews.com/funds/mutual-funds/small-growth/conestoga-small-cap/ccasx

@Lewis, davidmoran, msf: The final geography yearly exam has been graded and you all fail. Therefore, it will be necessary for all of you to repeat Geography 101 next semester.
Regards,
Ted
The Midwestern United States (or Midwest) is a name for the north-central states of the United States of America. The states that are part of the Midwest are: Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, South Dakota, and Wisconsin.

Gosh, I don't know. Does the following go your case's way, since it includes bonds?
From 1961 inception to 1/1/2000, MAPOX beats DODBX in $10k growth by $59k, $446k+ to $387k+. 15% cumulative, maybe not a lot for almost 40y, but not nothing.
So regional bonds too, not just stocks?
From inception to date, almost 55y, it's been 8% edge to MAPOX (cume).
Somehow I don't think anyone has ever thought of M&P like Safeco or Golden Gate. Maybe they shoulda.

Because of, or in spite of, localization?
From M, via SFGate: The main argument for regional funds is that managers gain an edge by being close to the companies they own.
But from CS Monitor (1998): Many years ago, regional investing might have made sense. ... But with the proliferation of data sources and telecommunication, I can be just as close to a company in California as I can to one down the street.
It went on to observe that out of thousands of stock funds, there were only "about two dozen [regional funds] (whose combined assets total $3.3 billion)" . At least back then I could name a handful of those two dozen - Safeco NW, Franklin Calif. Growth, M&P Growth, and Golden Gate Fund GGFDX (SF Bay Area). Name any regional fund management company today other than M&P. I can't (which doesn't mean they don't exist).
All these regional funds falling by the wayside. I think that qualifies as odds stacked against the genre. Which brings me back to my lead sentence - is M&P doing well because of, or in spite of, its regional focus?
Most might indeed agree that M&P trounced the odds decade after decade. I suppose it did in the sense that it managed to survive while most regionals didn't. But in terms of performance, it was decidedly mediocre for the three decades between 1970 and 2000. (From 1/1/70 to 12/31/99, a $10K investment in MPGFX grew to $349K, compared to $345K for the average LCBlend fund, and $513K for the S&P 500.)
This lends credibility to the thesis that it is the fund's management and not its regionality that had given it more recent success.