no, it's crap:
https://azizonomics.com/2013/06/01/the-trouble-with-shadowstats/
or just google
shadowstats bullshit
and read the next several hits
also
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/07/19/always-inflation-somewhere/
Whatever you "used", just doublecheck this:
What $10k bought in 1979 costs $33k today, $29k if you start in 1980. Say in your own case inflation was higher, so $10k from whatever start point you like is now $40k. VOO growth with divs reinvested went from $10k at the end of 1979 to $512k --- well over a half-mil.

Here are the inflation adjusted returns for VFINX since 1986 (last column):

I used this.
http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl?cost1=27&year1=1988&year2=2016
If VFINX was $27 in '88 it's 2016 value would be 54.92 and now it is 201. So it increased 4X in CPI adjusted number. But if you used the $27 it looks like 8X.
Maybe the official CPI is low. Should it be double?
http://www.shadowstats.com/alternate_data/inflation-charts

IMHO it's all about culture and attitudes, not state lines. How do people act, vote, shop? By these metrics, I tend to view cities like Buffalo and Pittsburgh as midwestern cities. And then there's how people talk:
Pop vs. Soda (vs. Coke): http://www.popvssoda.com/
More to the point on regional funds: Who remembers Franklin California Growth Company (still FKCAX)? It gave up its 80% California growth mandate in 2002 (reducing it to 50%, i.e. majority), and then in Oct 2004 dropped California from its mandate altogether.
I figure if a growth fund can't make it in tech-rich, large economy, California (note that Franklin Templeton is based in California), then the odds are stacked pretty high against funds in smaller regions.
Northwest-focused funds gave up the ghost also around the same time. I was familiar with Safeco Northwest, which expanded into Canada (BC) in 2002, and gave up the regional focus entirely Oct. 2003.

@Paul_Katseff, thanks for the contributions! It appears both articles are pushing IBD's Comp rating so I wondered if you have any statistics about how well those ratings have done over time and in different markets? The articles say one should look for stocks with a rating of 95 or higher. If someone had bought all stocks that reached that rating how would they have done? What's the expected holding period or the trigger to sell?
I'd also suggest being careful with data from Morningstar. In the second linked article your table includes the top 10 funds since the June 27th lows but it doesn't include Primecap Odyssey Aggressive Growth (POAGX), which I believe had a 17.5% return from 6/27-8/28, or Primecap Odyssey Growth (POGRX), which I believe had a 16.1% return during that period. I only checked 5 or 6 funds that I own or keep track of and know have done well so I wouldn't be totally surprised if M* left out a few others too but who knows, maybe I just got lucky.

A chart comparing an investment starting in 1980, for example, should have an inflation component to it to reflect the decline in purchasing power.

Here are the inflation adjusted returns for VFINX since 1986 (last column):

@Lewis: I know this is hard for you to believe, but the Sun doesn't rise and set only in the eastern region of the U.S. The Midwest is the real America.
Regards,
Ted
Minnesota Vikings "Skol Vikings"

People have been wondering that about M&P since Christmas of 1961.

@DanHardy
>> A chart comparing an investment starting in 1980, for example, should have an inflation component to it to reflect the decline in purchasing power.
Not quite following the point. Inflation "applies" to all investments. What $10k bought in 1979 costs $33k today, $29k if you start in 1980.
While VOO went from $10k at the end of 1979 to $512k --- well over a half-mil.
That's why we all invest.

Hi Guys,
Although it has taken a number of informed comments, we have finally arrived at deploying the Presidential Cycle as a market entry/exit timing mechanism.
Like most market advice, it is not without considerable controversy. To be fair, I provide two Links, one that favors the proposition and one that opposes it:
http://gbr.pepperdine.edu/2012/10/presidential-cycle-and-stock-market/
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-presidential-cycle-is-nonsense-2012-01-20
The divergent opinions are not surprising. That mix is what makes for a dynamic marketplace.
Since I favor a Buy-and-Hold approach, I am a neutral on the matter. There certainly is evidence to support the proposition, but that evidence can be questioned from a statistically meaningful perspective.
It’s amazing how often experts offer faulty forecasts on significant matters. Their error quotient is disappointingly high. Remember the “x-rays are a hoax” statement by Lord Kelvin. And Thomas Edison’s prediction that “….. alternative current is just a waste of time. It could kill a man as quick as a bolt of lightning. Direct current is safe.” And the military is certainly not immune to bad projections. Recall RADM Clark Woodward exclaiming that “as far as sinking a ship with a bomb is concerned, it just can’t be done.”
So much for the accuracy of the expert class. That’s even more so in the financial community. The forecasts are often fun and entertaining, but I’m not convinced that they can be relied on in terms of action for positive outcomes. Forecasting is a risky business for both professionals and amateurs alike.
Best Wishes.

Look back at the last 5y of, say, DVY or TWEIX and check both the size and the number of the "corrections."
You can wait a long unprofitable time waiting for a supposedly better moment to invest.

I always keep the Japanese experience in the back of my mind. And many charts do not take into account inflation. A chart comparing an investment starting in 1980, for example, should have an inflation component to it to reflect the decline in purchasing power.
http://finance.yahoo.com/quote/^N225/?p=^N225

Here we go again. Either bad English, or bad reporting. Either way, not good for a columnist:
"Institutional and municipal money-market funds will move from the stable $1 share price to a floating net asset value. Retail funds sold to individual investors will maintain the buck as their pricing standard."
The first sentence suggests that institutional funds and muni funds (i.e. whether they are institutional or not) will have floating NAV. Wrong. It could read: institutional prime and muni MMFs, or for more clarity: institutional prime and institutional muni MMFs ...
There are two and only two attributes that matter
- institutional vs. retail
- US government vs. anything else (prime, i.e. corporate, or muni)
Muni MMFs are no different from prime MMFs. If they are institutional, their NAV must float. If they are retail, they can keep a fixed NAV, with fees and/or gates.
Here's what Fidelity correctly writes:

Furthermore, under the new SEC rules, retail prime and retail municipal money market funds are:

• Able to continue transacting at a stable $1.00 NAV.
  
• Available to "natural persons" investors who are not corporations or other types of organizations.
  
• Not available to institutional investors. Institutional investors will be eligible to use government money market funds and institutional non-government money market funds, which will have a floating four-decimal NAV.

This fund was hugely successful shortly after it was opened, and in a month it will close. It is very positively profiled in this month commentaries. I decided to compare it with the Vanguard Tax Managed Small Cap fund VTMSX. I found that the outperformance of the MSCFX is due to the first year of its existence, when it was very small and nimble and managed to avoid the plunge of 2011. However, starting from 01/11/2013 the performance of these two funds is nearly identical. An advantage of the index fund VTMSX is that it does not suffer from its size and is not going to close. Any comments?

FYI: Shift to government securities as financial-crisis reform takes effect.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/your-money-market-fund-is-about-to-undergo-some-changes-2016-09-02/print

FYI:
Regards,
Ted
http://www.mutualfundobserver.com/2016/09/september-1-2016/

What you're describing isn't a Roth conversion at all. It's a distribution (counting toward your RMD) and a separate contribution to a Roth. There's no connection whatsoever. Unlike a conversion, here you don't have to show that the Roth money came from a traditional IRA.
Often funds that close will say something about whether existing shareholders are allowed to open new accounts. For example, RPHYX prospectus:

Existing shareholders ... may purchase additional ... shares of the Fund through existing or new accounts ...

In contrast, PRWCX's prospectus says:

New T. Rowe Price IRAs in the fund may be opened only through a direct rollover from an employer-sponsored retirement plan. ...The fund reserves the right, when in the judgment of T. Rowe Price it is not adverse to the fund’s interests, to permit certain types of investors to open new accounts in the fund ...

So the ability to do a Roth conversion into a new Roth IRA account is at the discretion of T. Rowe Price. I've used both of the paths above (for another fund, not PWRCX) - a direct rollover from a 401(k), and a Roth conversion (at the discretion of TRP).
As you wrote, you'll have to ask Seafarer what its policy is.

I have PRWCX in my Traditional IRA at T.Rowe but not among my Roths. Guess I could convert just $1,000 (their minimum IRA account requirement) of PRWCX to a ROTH and than move as much other Roth money into it as I wanted? Heck, they might not even insist on $1,000.
At this time such move would be of little consequence. On the other hand, might be good to do it before they change their rules. From what I've read, there's no age limit for Roth conversions. Out of curiosity ... would a (taxable) conversion to Roth count towards one's RMD requirement? (suspect NO)

As I recall, TRP didn't require the $1K, but I didn't want to abuse the privilege, so I did a "full" $1K conversion.
Regarding RMD
:
a) You are required to take your RMD before you do any conversion for the year (i.e. the first money out of the IRA is considered the RMD);
b) If you put RMD money into a Roth, it is considered a new contribution, not a conversion; so you need to have earned income, otherwise it is an excess contribution, heavily penalized.

I've gone through these exercises with Vanguard and with T. Rowe Price. At Vanguard, no new account means no new account, even for in-kind transfers. T. Rowe Price is happy to move shares around for you, even if it means opening new accounts for a closed fund.

Thanks for the tip. I have PRWCX in my Traditional IRA at T.Rowe but not among my Roths. Guess I could convert just $1,000 (their minimum IRA account requirement) of PRWCX to a ROTH and than move as much other Roth money into it as I wanted? Heck, they might not even insist on $1,000.
At this time such move would be of little consequence. On the other hand, might be good to do it before they change their rules. From what I've read, there's no age limit for Roth conversions. Out of curiosity ... would a (taxable) conversion to Roth count towards one's RMD requirement? (suspect NO)

I also own SFGIX, since 2012. Very pleased. It is my only EM equity fund.

Same here. I've owned it for a few years and it's my only EM fund.

"If a shareholder closes an account in the Fund due to redemption or exchange, the shareholder will no longer be able to make additional investments in the Fund."
If I have two accounts in the fund (say an IRA and a taxable account) and I close the taxable account, I should still be able to add investments to the IRA - even though I was a shareholder who closed an account.
The more interesting question is whether I could take then a distribution in kind from that IRA and open up a new taxable account with those shares. Likewise, could I do a Roth conversion in kind, if I originally had no Seafarer Roth IRA?
These are not merely hypotheticals. I've gone through these exercises with Vanguard and with T. Rowe Price. At Vanguard, no new account means no new account, even for in-kind transfers. T. Rowe Price is happy to move shares around for you, even if it means opening new accounts for a closed fund.
I've even had problems (ultimately resolved) converting from investor shares to institutional shares in a third family's closed fund. Also relevant here, since Seafarer just dropped the min on its institutional class shares from $100K to $25K.

The closing was hidden in the Summary Prospectus:
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/915802/000139834416017861/fp0021369_497k.htm
Excerpt:
Purchase and Sale of Fund Shares
The Fund offers two classes of shares, an Investor Class and an Institutional Class, each of which is offered by this Prospectus. The minimum initial investment for the Investor Class is $2,500 for all accounts, except that the minimum initial investment is $1,000 for retirement and education savings accounts and $1,500 for automatic investment plan accounts. The minimum initial investment for the Institutional Class is $25,000 for all accounts. Investors generally may meet the minimum initial investment for the Institutional Class by aggregating multiple accounts within the Fund. If a shareholder invests in the Fund through a financial adviser or intermediary, the minimum initial investment for the Institutional Class may be met if that financial adviser or intermediary aggregates investments of multiple clients to meet the minimum. The minimum investment for subsequent purchases is $100 for both share classes.
Effective immediately after market closing on September 30, 2016, the Fund will close to most new investors. The Fund will be available for purchase only by the following investors:
· Existing shareholders of the Fund;
· Financial advisors, consultants and discretionary programs with existing clients in the Fund (i.e., they can continue to add new clients in the Fund);
· Retirement plans or platforms with participants who currently invest in the Fund;
· Model-based programs with existing accounts in the Fund; and
· Employees of Seafarer and their families.
Please note that some intermediaries may not be able to accommodate the conditions set out above.
If a shareholder closes an account in the Fund due to redemption or exchange, the shareholder will no longer be able to make additional investments in the Fund.
The Fund reserves the right to make exceptions to any action taken to close the Fund, or limit inflows into the Fund, and delegates such authority to Seafarer.