@MSF I think that would depend a great deal on the type of industry, type of politician being paid and the specific laws being considered. On the local or state level such payments I bet might significantly influence whether a company gets, say, a government contract despite the rules against such behavior. The Citizens United Supreme Court ruling basically legalized graft and influence peddling:
https://nytimes.com/2016/06/19/sunday-review/bribery-and-corruption-or-honest-graft.html
latimes.com/nation/la-na-court-mcdonnell-corruption-20160627-snap-story.html

Interesting thought. The fund screens out those who don't pay to play, then takes the top 150. That's based on total dollar amount and percentage that goes to GOP candidates. So big companies can win even if they're just hedging their bets.
Even going by the pay to play philosophy, wouldn't it still make more sense to focus on specific policies?
If, say Pfizer bought its way into affecting regulations (e.g. maintaining the ban against drug importation despite campaign promises seemingly to the contrary), wouldn't one expect the whole brand name pharmaceutical sector to benefit? Even if, say, Merck had supported Democrats.
That's not to say that an individual company couldn't wrangle sweetheart government deals. Just wondering whether such company specific (as opposed to industry-specific) "help" would be the exception or the rule.

This is letting the tail wag the dog. If you want to invest in companies based on Trump policies, you invest in companies whose businesses might profit from his policies, as opposed to what party the company employees support. Though perhaps figuring out which companies might profit would be too difficult.
Such a fund would have to figure out whether to buy health care stocks (because we're going to have a health care policy that is so much more universal, efficient and inexpensive than ACA) or dump them (because we're going to repeal ACA and worry about replace later).
Should it sell short term Treasuries (because a government shutdown is imminent without a wall), or buy long term Treasuries (as the economy will grow so fast that deficits will be a thing of the past even as taxes are cut)? Or both?
Should it buy American infrastructure companies, because there's going to be $1T in infrastructure investment over the next decade? Or should it sell, because the budget proposals suggest a net decrease in federal infrastructure spending?
For 0.72% in fees, I want some real research, not a fund that just reads campaign disclosure forms.

It's loaded up with companies that make hats? /sarcasm
Politics and investing 'themes' don't mix. Josh Brown did a good writeup on this the other day:
MAGA Muppet Bait
http://thereformedbroker.com/2017/09/01/maga-muppet-bait/

FYI: Fund holds companies seen as “highly supportive” to Republican causes and PACs
Regards,
Ted
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/think-trump-and-the-republicans-can-make-you-money-this-new-etf-bets-on-maga-2017-08-31/print

Yeah - Barron's really "got it right" in October 1998. With gold at $303, their "Wrong About Gold" article scorned investors who were (correctly) becoming bullish on the metal. So I won't put much faith in their analysis today.
Excerpt: Wrong About Gold
Oct. 5, 1998 - Key Commodity Indexes
"The world's gold bugs seem to be exulting at news of the global financial crisis. And it's easy to see why. With stocks falling sharply in value, investors have started to show renewed interest in gold, that ageold hedge against hard times. But their knee-jerk reaction ignores the fact that we seem to be looking at an outbreak of deflation, not inflation. That's not to say that gold prices couldn't rise further over the next few months. Uncertainty always seems to stoke enthusiasm for the yellow metal. But the fact is that fundamental demand for gold is not increasing significantly and supplies remain plentiful." http://www.barrons.com/articles/SB907371410794467500
-
Just my personal perspective ... buying gold, or the miners, is about the closest you can come to gambling within the confines of your IRA. (Only @rono knows where it's going.) I have a meager 1-2% hold in OPGSX which has done well since buying in May. Some of my diversified funds, notably PRPFX and PRAFX, have decent exposure. At some point I'll sell the p/m fund, take the money and run. Not yet --- too much uncertainty out there in the geopolitical. Last week gold was hot, picking up $30-$40 and rising to over $1320. With the turmoil in Asia, it gained another 10 bucks Monday to around $1330.
---
If trouble with above link, try this Google search. Select top story "Wrong About Gold" https://www.google.com/search?ei=UK-sWevdLOSXjwSH0pawAg&q=cheryl+strauss+einhorn+commosities+corner+1998+article+on+gold+price+in+Barrons+Oftober+5+1998&oq=cheryl+strauss+einhorn+commosities+corner+1998+article+on+gold+price+in+Barrons+Oftober+5+1998&gs_l=mobile-gws-serp.12..30i10k1.30394.37695.0.38648.15.15.0.0.0.0.387.4260.0j1j7j7.15.0....0...1.1.64.mobile-gws-serp..0.15.4258.Uq4g1FlZnVE

PORTFOLIO VISUALIZER
http://tinyurl.com/match-sigix-returns
OR
http://tinyurl.com/sigix-returns-match
MORNINGSTAR
http://portfolios.morningstar.com/fund/summary?t=SIGIX
http://performance.morningstar.com/fund/ratings-risk.action?t=SIGIX
Sven:
Good question. Using just web-based freebies, I might proceed this way.
SIGIX has been around since 2012, so you can attempt to explain its returns using ETFs that have ability to invest in same or similar markets.
The issue is that the factors used to construct benchmarks - from the PortfolioVisualizer site - in this case, are domestic, not global.
But if you follow a returns matching rule, the weights that result from ETFs are somewhat similar to SIGIX's own portfolio, yet returns from the 'ETF match' trail those of SIGIX. See [P/V] links above for 2 examples.
This "better than expected" conclusion would appear to be 'confirmed' by M* portfolio/risk analysis. See above.

FYI: (Click On Article Title At Top Of Google Search)
Despite today’s news cycle, gold prices have been bouncing up and falling back. This could make gold-mining-stock ETFs problematic.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.google.com/search?source=hp&q=Don't+Be+Dazzled+By+Gold+Barron's&oq=Don't+Be+Dazzled+By+Gold+Barron's&gs_l=psy-ab.3..35i39k1.1916.16724.0.18843.34.33.0.0.0.0.441.2668.31j1j4-1.33.0....0...1.1.64.psy-ab..1.33.2659.0..0j46j0i67k1j0i20k1j0i131k1j0i46k1j0i22i10i30k1j0i22i30k1j33i22i29i30k1.qRMve1peRPQ

Hi Guys,
In the investing world, it is a rock solid guarantee that introducing technical analysis into the discussion will promote a heated debate. The controversy will surely continue beyond our limited exchanges.
Some folks are entirely committed to technical analysis techniques; others rate it as total bunk. The truth is likely to be somewhere in the middle ground. Many year ago I was a committed technical analysis advocate; today I casually look at the charts. These charts are a terrific summary of what has happened and where we are today relative to that historical record. However, they can not be used to reliably forecast the future. Far too many things change, especially in our dynamic marketplace.
The number of folks who rely on technical analysis to make investment decisions have doubled over the past decade or two. It is still a rather small percentage. That cohort probably doesn't include investors like me who only casually examine the charts. Here is a Link to a very serious academic study that examined technical analysis and its advocate's performance:
http://arvidhoffmann.nl/Hoffmann_Shefrin_2014.pdf
It is a very complex and comprehensive study. I have only read its conclusions and reviews of the paper, but not the paper itself. The conclusions reinforce numerous other study outputs that challenge the effectiveness of pure technical analytics. All these academic studies find it difficult to identify positive Alpha contributions.
Of course, the ultimate test is the positive reward performance over market returns that are easily delivered by Index products. Technical analysis demands considerable time to do it properly. Does a payoff exist at the end of that considerable effort and time sink?
My answer is No, but that might just reflect my shortcomings in that arena. It might not be the same answer from informed and dedicated chartists. What works best for each investor varies. We each get to choose our own poison.
By the way, I was an early follower of John Murphy's methods. I own his earliest book and applied some of his recommended methods. My efforts produced dubious outcomes when compared to what the market was generating in that same timeframe. Again that is likely my shortfall. Good luck to all you guys who incorporate significant technical analysis in your investment decision making.
Best Wishes

I found out that Jain also is sub advisor to the Goldman Sachs GQG Partners International Opps Fund GSIHX and is available at Fidelity load waived and ntf. It is different than GQGPX which is not yet available at Fidelity. The GS fund is global and currently 14% emerging market vs 73% emerging for GQGPX. They are neck and neck ytd. Since I was familiar with Jains record having HIEMX when he was at Virtus, decided to put toe in his new fund, but had to go to TD Ameritrade to buy it. I always liked new funds with seasoned managers and this is one worth looking at. Both started dec 16, but both have gathered over 300M since then. Thanks to BenW and Ted for finding Jains new shop and posting on it.

Interesting find.
An apparently little known fact is that several fund families, notably Fidelity, offer funds with performance based fees. AllianceBernstein is doing something a bit different in making nearly all of its fee performance based. Usually the performance adjustment is just a few basis points. Fidelity has 76 funds with these fees.
With luck, you'll be able to read this Barron's article via google: AllianceBernstein Fires the Latest Shot in the Fee Wars
As ibartman noted, these funds are available only to certain fee based accounts. More specifically, to accounts that pay for their "investment advisory and administrative services". It sounds like clean shares, with a twist.
http://mutualfundobserver.com/discuss/discussion/33008/will-the-fiduciary-rule-shrink-the-ever-expanding-world-of-share-classes
The twist is that the Fidelity flex funds charge no management fee either. Obviously no performance adjustment to 0.00%.
I'm guessing that Fidelity is making its profit by charging retirement plans a fee to offer their funds. For example, here's an excerpt from the fee section of a Fidelity service. The service is called "Fidelity Portfolio Advisory Service At Work. Like its retail PAS service, this manages your portfolio for you (for a fee), but the portfolio is your retirement plan.

If you have enrolled in the Service through a retirement plan that makes available Fidelity Flex mutual funds as the eligible investment options for the plan, you will not be charged an annual net advisory fee and will not receive a Pricing Supplement, because your plan sponsor has agreed to a single program fee with Fidelity that will be paid at the plan level.

"Plan sponsor" is your employer. It sounds like Fidelity is making its money from running the plan (that the employer is paying for), and offering the underlying funds "for free". Like offering a fund of funds with no separate management fee to entice people into an investment (here the retirement plan) where other fees are collected.
I'm still not entirely clear how Fidelity gets paid, especially if these funds show up in non-Fidelity run retirement plans. Still trying to "follow the money".

ICYMI Another POV
https://finance.yahoo.com/video/pimco-betting-raising-fees-92-203014634.html

Or a negative sign - that WF was so bad that not even Vanguard could stomach all of it.
"Vanguard funds supported 12 of 15 Wells Fargo directors on the ballot, and backed the company’s management on all nine shareholder proposals up for a vote at the April meeting. "
Is the glass 80% (12/15) empty or 20% (3/15) full? Compare Vanguard with American Fund's "Income Fund of America, which did not support nine of 15 directors."
I suppose that's still better than 100% empty.

PCI is still retains a discount although. Narrower than in the past.
Separate question: Do folks regard PONDX/PIMX/PONAX as a core holding or a high yieldly satellite? Just curious what folks like @junkster, @davidsnowball, @mikem, @oldskeet think?
Regards,Mike

Mike I can't help you because of the short term nature of my methodology. I was in PONDX in 2012 and a few months in early 2013 but not again until this year. Its returns from 2013 through 2016 were not inspiring. Much of this year's returns are from its exposure to rmbs primarily non agency. I read somewhere PIMCO and Ivascyn are buying all the legacy non agency rmbs from before the crash they can get their hands on. I am 55% IOFIX and 45% DPFNX now which is primarily all non agency but with a heck of a lot less AUM. How long this ultra steady rise in that market can continue there I have not a clue. But the strong housing market has helped immensely.

It was a huge month for non agency RMBS bonds. But have been paring back IOFIX because of its exposure to Houston. If last month's high is taken out (adjusting for the ex div date) will ramp back up.

@Tony,

A technique to find a security in an uptrend is to be able to draw a straight line upward through at least 3 of its price lows, preferably using a semi-log chart.

Some thoughts:
I believe this technique also holds true on the downside where a downtrend can be identified by this same method.
So,
Three lower lows = a downtrend
Three higher lows = an uptrend
The question is, do you apply this analysis on a daily, weekly, monthly, or yearly basis?
Day traders might say daily. Long term investors might say yearly. I like looking at monthly data using chart sites like M*. By using the YTD chart option a monthly grid display makes end of the month data easy to read.
Here I am connecting "end of the month" data to identify "uptrends" or "downtrends" with respect to "new lows".

Moving in closer to this month's (August) action:

We tend to hear the new cycle report "new highs" when what really is more important is making and holding a "new higher low" since this becomes support and a reference for a change in momentum.
Thanks for this thread.

Technical Analysis doesn't have to be complicated.
One technique is to buy when a moving average (MA) of price crosses below the price line, and sell when the MA crosses above it. This is the technique described by Mebane Faber in his paper, "A Quantitative Approach to Tactical Asset Allocation," with the buy and sell rules on page 21: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=962461
Another technique (with similar results) is to buy when the slope of your MA turns up, and sell when it turns down. This was described by James Rohrbach in his 2008 article, "Buy and Hold is Dead": http://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-trend-really-your-friend/print
A technique to find a security in an uptrend is to be able to draw a straight line upward through at least 3 of its price lows, preferably using a semi-log chart. For details on drawing trend lines, see http://stockcharts.com/school/doku.php?id=chart_school:chart_analysis:trend_lines
"The basic trendline is one of the simplest of the technical tools employed by the chartist, but is also one of the most valuable." and "Very often, the breaking of the trendline is one of the best early warnings of a change in trend." are quotations from the book, "Technical Analysis of the Financial Markets," by John J. Murphy. If you were going to read just one book on technical analysis, that would be the one I'd recommend.

FYI: This paper builds on the foundation described in Factor-Based Investing.
It is a practical guide to the suitability and key portfolio construction considerations relevant for those interested in equity factor-based investments.
Regards,
Ted
http://ritholtz.com/2017/09/equity-factor-based-investing-practitioners-guide/

FYI: Vanguard Group, one of the world’s biggest fund managers, voted against three directors at Wells Fargo & Co this year, including Chairman Stephen Sanger, according to U.S. filings, a rare rebuke from the bank’s second-largest shareholder.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-wellsfargo-accounts-vanguard-idUSKCN1BB33D?feedType=RSS&feedName=businessNews&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+reuters/businessNews+(Business+News)

Nice writeup. Pretty basic stuff, but a lot of effort. (I've worked with a company off and on that does a similar form of machine learning.)
Good results for a prototype, though I'm not sure it's ready for prime time.
M* acknowledges that the model has a hard time distinguishing between gold, silver, and bronze. Grouping these all together into one bucket (called "Recommended"), the model still doesn't do a great job. See Exhibit 4 in the paper.
Of funds that analysts actually rated Recommended (gold, silver or bronze), the model only thought 78% of them should be recommended. The model said that 21% of these Recommended funds should be rated Neutral, and 1% Negative.
Of the funds that analysts rated Neutral, the model said 59% should be Neutral, it Recommended 32% of them, and was Negative on 9%.
Of the funds that analysts rated Negative, the model rated only 55% Negative, it was Neutral on 41% and even Recommended 4%.
Given the questionable value of analyst ratings in the first place, an automated rating that is itself wrong 22% to 45% of the time seems to render this first stab as useless.
I've no doubt the accuracy can be improved. Will take a lot of time and effort though.

Interesting move by PIMCO, eh? Contrarian indicator?
Pimco Bucks Trend by Raising Fees on Ivascyn's Income Fund
Pimco Income Fund, the fastest-growing actively managed U.S. mutual fund, is raising fees at a time most money managers are racing to slash costs paid by investors.
The $92 billion fund will increase its fees 5 cents per $100 on Oct. 2 for most share classes, according to a filing Thursday, bringing expenses for the institutional-class shares to 50 cents per $100. The change in supervisory and administrative fees is attributed in part to the cost of managing dividends for the growing fund, which has about 5,500 securities in numerous countries and currencies, said Pacific Investment Management Co. spokesman Michael Reid.
< - >
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-08-31/pimco-bucks-trend-by-raising-fees-on-ivascyn-s-income-fund