@JoJo26:
QLEIX and QLENX are available in Fidelity retirement accounts for $100K and $500 minimums, respectively, with a TF.
@msf:
I totally agree with your assessment of the ER. That is why I have been advocating for years that M* report on the fund's front page the actual expense ratio that investors will be paying, as detailed in the prospectus. In this case, the actual ER of 1.87% should be reported on the fund's front page. And notice that this 1.87% figure doesn't even appear in the expense breakdown for the fund. M* could report this accurate ER but chooses to not do so, likely to favor fund managements over investors. M* could and should do better.
Kevin

The Long/Short Equity space is very troubled, as there have been very few funds which have had attractive long-term performance, and the expenses of such funds are inherently high, which serves as a drag for future performance. Whenever I look at a space with many entrants but few winners, I instinctively avoid the space, and I think that this is generally the right move.

Concur completely. Personally I go further - I tend to avoid "esoteric" categories even if they have a modest number of successful funds, at least until a category has proven itself through stressful periods.

Furthermore, M* understates -- as usual -- the actual expense ratio that investors pay for NCLIX, which is actually a net ER of 1.87%, not the 1.55% listed on M*'s front page.

That's because M* is excluding leveraging costs. The flip side, according to M*, is that depending on how that leveraging is achieved, its cost may still be hidden (even if M* isn't the one doing the hiding). Pick your poison.

Morningstar elects to exclude interest and dividend expense from the net expense ratio in order to provide the end investor with an apples-to-apples comparison of expense ratios. Depending on the leveraging techniques employed by the fund, the fund may or may not be required to report interest and dividend expense. For example, funds that employ shorting strategies or reverse-repo transactions are required to report interest expense in the Annual Report whereas funds that employ futures, swaps, TBAs, and forwards are not required to report the cost associated with those instruments as interest expense.

I'd love to invest in QLENX. Unfortunately, I don't have $1,000,000, much less $1,000,000 to allocate to L/S Equity.

@JoJo26:
The Long/Short Equity space is very troubled, as there have been very few funds which have had attractive long-term performance, and the expenses of such funds are inherently high, which serves as a drag for future performance. Whenever I look at a space with many entrants but few winners, I instinctively avoid the space, and I think that this is generally the right move. From my perspective, there are exactly two attractive funds in the space -- BPLSX/BPLEX and QLEIX/QLENX -- with only the latter being open to new investors.
The managers of this very young fund have done a pretty good job at their long-only equity fund, NCVLX. I am not sure how they will do in the more treacherous L/S space. Furthermore, M* understates -- as usual -- the actual expense ratio that investors pay for NCLIX, which is actually a net ER of 1.87%, not the 1.55% listed on M*'s front page.
If you must invest in this space, I would consider QLEIX/QLENX. As for NCLIX, I would wait for a track record to develop and would be reluctant to be an early investor, as it opened its doors very recently on 12/31/2015.
Kevin

You know this about perma-inflation Singer, right?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/11/06/heres-the-latest-dumb-argument-from-a-billionaire-that-will-hurt-the-economy/

nice job there vilifying the guy (not saying he shouldn't be no love lost here) by saying in the main article he makes his fortune sewing countries with bad debt, then correcting it at the end of article with * saying only 2% of his funds do that. No one is going to read that footnote. :D

Long term should have nothing to do with it. What matters is the cost of entry to the market, not how long you stay in it. In this regard, lump sum usually beats buying in over a period of time (say a year, though the length is not important). That's because the market tends to go up, so the earlier you invest, the cheaper (on average) are your shares.
For example, suppose you invest $1,000/mo for the next twelve months, and compare that with investing $12,000 all at once. At the end of the year, you'll have X shares if you bought each month, and Y shares if you bought all at the beginning.
After that, no matter how long or short you're invested, if Y is greater than X, you'll have done better with lump sum investing (since the return on each share going forward is the same, and you have more shares this way). Conversely, if you got more shares by spreading out your purchases (X is greater than Y), then no matter what your subsequent holding period long or short, you'll have done better by spreading out your purchases.
Where long term vs. short term makes a difference is where you buy different investments. There long term matters, because you're looking at long term trends. That's why holding 100% equity is better than a stock/bond portfolio if you can wait long enough. The problems are (a) this makes people too uneasy, and (b) you may have to wait too long for the trend to manifest, and in the long run we're all dead.

hear, hear! long term is for the birds. Patience is key. what I would say is think differently. think about moving cash to some multiple different funds, not just ONE fund. Chose all index funds and look at those that are not doing well. buy a chunk. wait to buy next chunk. and next. and next.

looks interesting but news on it is also nuanced with just 18 mil in assets, best to wait and see a bit.

Long term should have nothing to do with it. What matters is the cost of entry to the market, not how long you stay in it. In this regard, lump sum usually beats buying in over a period of time (say a year, though the length is not important). That's because the market tends to go up, so the earlier you invest, the cheaper (on average) are your shares.
For example, suppose you invest $1,000/mo for the next twelve months, and compare that with investing $12,000 all at once. At the end of the year, you'll have X shares if you bought each month, and Y shares if you bought all at the beginning.
After that, no matter how long or short you're invested, if Y is greater than X, you'll have done better with lump sum investing (since the return on each share going forward is the same, and you have more shares this way). Conversely, if you got more shares by spreading out your purchases (X is greater than Y), then no matter what your subsequent holding period long or short, you'll have done better by spreading out your purchases.
Where long term vs. short term makes a difference is where you buy different investments. There long term matters, because you're looking at long term trends. That's why holding 100% equity is better than a stock/bond portfolio if you can wait long enough. The problems are (a) this makes people too uneasy, and (b) you may have to wait too long for the trend to manifest, and in the long run we're all dead.

Hi Guys,
Here is a Link to a superior article from Morgan Housel that highlights the big difference between expectations and forecasts:
http://www.fool.com/investing/2016/08/22/expectations-vs-forecasts.aspx?source=iaasitlnk0000003
The distinction is significant. Housel and I would have a very friendly coffee discussion together. We agree on most things. Expectations are typically formulated based on a careful review on relevant historical data sets. Forecasting belongs to soothsayers. Forecasting does become more meaningful if odds based on expectations are attached to it.
Best Regards.

@Alex: October 3, 2016 at 2:30 PM. I'm revising my response because I don't want to sound like a smart ass. I think the market will move sideways until the last quarter begins in October.
Regards,
Ted

Hi @clacy
Now, what you and @kevindow noted does make financial sense, eh?
But, money managers would put themselves out of work, yes?
I do believe that ego, the human essence and any other self esteem word one may discover has relationship to money managers.
I don't follow science up close; but the last time I checked, these folks sit upon the toilet just like the rest of us.
This recent CALPERS article offers clues and potential guidelines, if managers would accept defeat of their egos. Although one can not imagine many folks whose money is being invested are raising a glass of wine to these folks in celebration.
Hell, I've had to adjust my directions several times over the years from "realization factors"; and I'm not even investing "other peoples money" from which a poor rate of return (as with CALPERS) would cause me to be wholly embarrassed. I continue to be asked upon occasion about where to invest. My suggestions have changed from 10 years ago.
Take care,
Catch

FYI:
Regards,
Ted
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-08-23/the-absurd-fight-over-fund-documents-you-probably-don-t-read

The story is a little more complex, as there are also the rapidly growing number of actively managed (by methodology) funds/ETFs, such as those offered by DFA, WisdomTree, PowerShares and others, as well as the assortment of quality factor and volatility factor ETFs.
The common investor has come to the conclusion that investment expenses matter, and after-expense performance matters more. If an actively managed fund is not consistently outperforming (after expenses) its reference index, then it should experience a net outflow of assets. And if its assets decline sufficiently, it should cease to operate. It is in fact a jungle out there, and there is no safe space or concern for hurt feelings in the investment jungle.
I agree with MJG that there will always be folks who think that they can beat the market -- such as hedge funds, self-proclaimed "smarter than the average" investors, and poorly informed investors who "trust" financial advisors who state that they can beat the market.
In general, objective data indicates that the default investment should be passive rather than active. That being stated, one must always respect the data, specifically SPIVA (S&P Indices vs. Active):
SPIVA 7/21/16
As this document illustrates, investors should favor actively managed funds only in Real Estate (Domestic Equities), International Small Cap (International Equities), and a small number of sectors within Fixed Income (Munis, Loan Participation, MBS, and Short/Intermediate IG bonds). The data indicates that investors should go passive for all other asset classes.
Kevin

I received a capital gains distribution of of $17.24 per share on June 6. I wonder what the end of year distribution will look like?

I remember that we had this discussion some years ago... might even have been on FundAlarm. But I still don't fully understand the mechanism: Is it accurate to say that if 40% of the equity market is now indexed (passive), then the remaining 60% is active?
And if that's true, what happens when we get to 51% indexed vs 49% active? Would that mean that a "minority" of active investors would then be determining the market?
And if that's true, what is the ongoing situation as the active share decreases further? More and more "influence" from fewer and fewer investors?

Hi Guys,
I don't worry this issue. Yes, in the recent past Indexing has attracted investor attention and money. According to Morningstar, equity Index products are 40% and bond Index products are 25% of the marketplace. Those numbers have grown substantially in the last decade.
But there will always be folks who believe they can better the Index benchmark. That's the nature of most investors; average is just not good enough.
The statistics tell the real story. Over any 10-year period, only about 25% of actively managed funds outdistance their benchmark, and the inhabitants of that select group change often. It's hard to pick individual active fund winners. Those stats decrease even more when a portfolio is assembled. Studies suggest that a passive portfolio outperforms an active equivalent portfolio over the long haul roughly 80% to 90% of the time. It's statistically easier to pick 1 winning active fund manager than picking a group of 4 or 5 such managers.
Active fund managers need to upgrade their game performance by a significant amount if they want to survive. Private investors are becoming more familiar with the disappointing active fund manager output. These guys are smart enough, but there are too many currently competing to neutralize each other, and they can't overcome their cost burden. It's a heavy load.
Active fund managers will survive, and so will we as we get smarter. Costs matter greatly.
Best Wishes.

The key is the reference to taxable investors. The fact that they are reopening suggests a lot of people getting out of the fund. At the minimum don't buy before 2017 as a taxable investor and i think 2018 would be better

FYI: The rise of passive asset management threatens to fundamentally undermine the entire system of capitalism and market mechanisms that facilitate an increase in the general welfare, according to analysts at research and brokerage firm Sanford C. Bernstein & Co., LLC.
In a note titled "The Silent Road to Serfdom: Why Passive Investing is Worse Than Marxism," a team led by Head of Global Quantitative and European Equity Strategy Inigo Fraser-Jenkins, says that politicians and regulators need to be cognizant of the social case for active management in the investment industry
Regards,
Ted
http://www.bloomberg.com//news/articles/2016-08-23/bernstein-passive-investing-is-worse-for-society-than-marxism

You know this about perma-inflation Singer, right?

Ah, so he was the one; I was telling someone about the terrible Hamptons r/e inflation the other day and couldn't remember what caricature of a clueless zillionaire had said it.

Yes, but that article was two years ago. These days the Hamptons are so déclassé that Starbucks even has a mug for them:

The Hamptons Housing Market Is Getting Clobbered by Wall Street Jitters:
http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2016/04/hamptons-housing-market-wall-street

REXX is a play, solvent and productive but extremely cheap, 61 cents or so, but it may take awhile, esp if NG pricing goes even lower. I am thinking the downside is nearly nonexistent.