https://www.sec.gov/ix?doc=/Archives/edgar/data/0001593547/000139834424014407/fp0088809-1_497ixbrl.htm
Target Funds-------------------------------------->Acquired Fund
Ninety One Emerging Markets Equity Fund---->American Beacon Ninety One Emerging Markets Equity Fund
Ninety One Global Franchise Fund----------->American Beacon Ninety One Global Franchise Fund
Ninety One International Franchise Fund------>American Beacon Ninety One International Franchise Fund

LCR's YTD performance is 5.82%. is this something people consider attractive for a go anywhere fund in 2024?

Over the period Dec 2000 to July 2024 here are some select stats comparing LCORX to VBIAX (my standard go to benchmark, debatable on whether one size fits all benchmark is appropriate but I do it for convenience). First number for all of below is LCORX and except Sortino, numbers are rounded off.
- CAGR: 7% v 7%
- Max DD: 37% v 32%
- Sortino: 0.78 v 0.84
- 1/3/5 Yr Retuns: 14/5/8 v 15/4/9
- Rolling 1/3/5 Returns: 8/7/7 v 7/7/8
Based on above stats, about the same risk and returns for both. So LCORX is not for me but I'm happy to learn from others on why LCORX.

From Sgt. rono
I prefer to use longer smoother steadier trends myself as they're easier to spot. And as FA said, it's not picking the absolute bottom nor top with a longer trend. With a 4 or 5 year trend, there's plenty of money to be made from between the 20 and 80 yard line - you don't have to go endzone to endzone. And again, all you're trying to do is to improve the returns of your portfolio over that of the 'great unwashed.'
Now a couple of tactics. First you need to have an exit strategy and you must follow it. Even if it 'stops you out' prematurely, you MUST follow it. With stocks you can set Stop Loss points, but you can also set mental stop loss points with mutual funds. For volatile sectors, you can use 10%-15% give back from your high. For more staid sectors, you could use 5-10%. Your call but FOLLOW IT.
When riding a trend, I scale in and scale out. Some go all at once, but I go incrementally. Perhaps I'm just a chicken. Ok.
For example, 6 months ago, I started noticing China via CAF. After watching this for a few weeks where it continued to diverge from the rest of asia and other markets, let's say I decide to play it. My intention is to invest $10K (round numbers for example). Ergo, I invest $2500 first and watch it for a week or so. If it makes me money and stays in the green, I go ahead and invest another $2500 . . . and watch it for a week or so. If it continues green I drop the remaining $5000. And watch it.
Scaling OUT is the same in reverse. Let's say I'm using 10% pull back from the highs for my 'stop loss'. It does so. I sell 25% of my holdings and watch it. If it drops some more, I sell another 25% and watch it. If it drops some more, I sell the rest. Note that depending upon how steep the drop, you may just bail much more quickly. And you MUST exit when the market says. I don't care what your feelings are, all that matters in this case is what the Captain says. You can always find another trend, but you simply do NOT want to give back all your gains.
And that is the trap that many fall into - they identify the trend, climb on board, ride it up and fail to get off and ride it back down. This leads to net/net zero. feh. This is why you must follow your exit strategy faithfully.
The nicest thing about trend or momentum investing is that you can still have a very passive buy & hold porfolio with much of your money - say 90% and just play with 10% and improve your returns over that of the average.
peace,
rono
Added : From May 2009 I'm wondering how rono is doing ?

Problem seems to be fixed. I purged all cookies on my browsers, restarted the machines, and so far (knock wood) I'm not getting that constant device verification at the moment.
As Schwab's tech support told me the other day:

For the security of our client’s accounts, we have several systems that work together to determine if a device is trusted at login. The systems first looks to determine if the browser has the authentication cookie in place or if the device matches the previous Device ID. At this time there is no way to determine the way in which the device was recognized.
Since you were asked for the access code after trusting the device, that means that either the system determined the cookie on the browser was not present or is corrupted, or intervention was needed due to mismatching Device ID.
Here are some troubleshooting tips.
Login to the Schwab account, successfully complete Device Validation and trust the device. After you log in, logout and back in once more. If device validation intervenes once more, its likely related to browser cookie. Please clear cache and cookies and attempt login once more. Other settings in the browser have also been known to interfere. Please check browser extensions that may block or delete cookies upon exit.
If it is not intervened, its likely related to Device ID. Please reboot the device and attempt to login once more.
If neither of these troubleshooting tips solves the issue, please reach out to our Technical Support Team at 800-565-826, Monday - Friday: 8:00 am – 9:00 pm ET, to speak with a specialist for further assistance.
If you have any further questions, please start a live chat on Schwab.com or reply to this secure message. Our representatives are available at any time to assist you. We greatly appreciate your business.

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/793769/000119312524200350/d637629d497.htm
497 1 d637629d497.htm INTERNATIONAL GROWTHFUND SAI SUPPLEMENT
 
111 South Wacker Drive, 34th Floor
Chicago, IL 60606-4302
harborcapital.com
Supplement to Statement of Additional Information dated March 1, 2024
August 14, 2024
Harbor Funds’ Board of Trustees has determined to liquidate and dissolve Harbor International Growth Fund (the “Fund”). The liquidation of the Fund is expected to occur on October 23, 2024 (the “Liquidation Date”). The liquidation proceeds will be distributed to any remaining shareholders of the Fund on the Liquidation Date.
Shareholders may exchange shares of the Fund for another Harbor fund, or redeem shares out of the Fund, in accordance with Harbor’s exchange and redemption policies as set forth in the Fund’s prospectus, until the Liquidation Date.
In order to ready the Fund for liquidation, the Fund’s portfolio of investments will be transitioned prior to the planned Liquidation Date to one that consists of all or substantially all cash, cash equivalents and debt securities with remaining maturities of less than one year. As a result, shareholders should no longer expect that the Fund will seek to achieve its investment objective of seeking long-term growth of capital.
Because the Fund will be liquidating, the Fund is now closed to new investors. The Fund will no longer accept additional investments from existing shareholders beginning on October 16, 2024.

It's not just Schwab's interpretation. That's the way the IRS interprets time of identification - up to the time of delivery (settlement).

Time for making identification. For purposes of this paragraph (c), an adequate identification of stock is made at the time of sale, transfer, delivery, or distribution if the identification is made no later than the earlier of the settlement date or the time for settlement required by Rule 15c6-1 under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 17 CFR 240.15c6-1 (or its successor)

26 CFR § 1.1012-1(c)(8)

Trade date is the day your order to buy or sell a security is executed; settlement date is the day your order is finalized and on which funds and the securities must be delivered.

FINRA, Understanding Settlement Cycles

You can “almost” rent a decent room near Times Square for the price of that steak dinner! :)
Locally, Glenfiddich 12 is going for $55.

The folks at Leuthold shared a recent email titled "We did WHAT?" which reports that they shorted the NASDAQ in July. They wrote:

While our tactical portfolios almost exclusively hedge equities using our proprietary short-selling strategy, last month we upped the hedge by shorting the NASDAQ 100 via the QQQ ETF. One of the driving factors is that July’s broadening action was much more of a NYSE phenomenon than a NASDAQ one—the latter market still looks highly bifurcated and triggered a “maximum-negative” reading on the HLLI in early August.

Partly in consequence, they posted top 6% returns in July (up 3.7%) and top 21% returns over the past four weeks (-0.3%). I know they're a bit tame, perhaps a bit wonky in a small Minnesota shop way, for some investors but they have top tier performance over the trailing 1-, 3- 5-, 10- and 15-year periods with relative returns ranging from top 12% (3-year) to top 31% (15 year) against their Morningstar peers. They've comfortably outperformed their Lipper peers since inception (1995) on both upside and downside measures.
Happily, for the budget conscious, the LCR ETF seems to be outperforming LCORX by (eyeballing here) about the different in their expense ratios.
Today's note: "the 21-day correlation between Large Growth and Large Value turned negative for just the fifth time in 33 years. Two previous signals coincided with major rotations into the Value style."

All methods aside from average cost (for mutual funds) are specific ID (what Schwab calls Identified Cost Method). The specific shares that are to be sold are identified and their actual cost used in determining gain or loss.
That's the way things work regardless of institution. The question is how those specific shares are identified.
An investor can always (except when using average cost) specify which shares are being sold at the time the trade is placed (or anytime up until settlement). However, if the investor doesn't identify the specific shares, Schwab still has to identify them, somehow.
That's where these other methods come in. You're giving Schwab an algorithm to select the shares you're selling if you don't identify those shares yourself.
Schwab, like most institutions, sets the default method of selecting shares to FIFO for everything but mutual funds. But that's used only if you don't identify the shares you're selling at the time of sale.
For mutual funds, again like most institutions, it sets the default to average cost. If you want to change from average cost to something else, you have to do this via paper form. At least you can send that paper to Schwab electronically.

WOW - @rforno. That’s a “gutsy” move. I don’t know what steak dinners in Georgetown cost.Wondering how many bottles of Glenfiddich the potential loss might be … ? :)

Where we go, around $500 (including the expected overpriced booze).
Maybe 6 bottles of Glenfiddich, depending on the year. :)

I also lived through 2000-2002 bear market and at that time I was single, 37-39 years old and was investing entirely with Janus...blast from the past!!
Janus Mercury, Janus Global Technology and at the time the vaunted Janus Worldwide with Helen Young-Hayes. I was 100% equities. I admit soon after 9/11 I just couldn't take it any longer with the market's long correction and sold out of my complete positions into a Janus MM fund for a month or so before reinvesting into the markets. I toned down the risk by going 75/25 equity/fixed income. I believe the equity fund was Janus Core Equity and the bond fund was Janus Flexible Income...again, names of those funds might be off just a bit.
As stated in my previous post, I didn't sell anything during the GFC with the difference being the experience I had living through 2000-2002 and the eventual rebound and also having a respected friend who encouraged me to stay the course during the GFC as he was doing.

Looking to replace MMKT funds and still try for 5% per year after rates are reduced, with low volatility. RSIVX (RSIIX)and RPHYX (RPHIX) are getting initiated, and will sit next to HMEZX and CBLDX. Boring is desirable in this bucket.
The Fed should just leave the darn rates alone.

Paulson! yes @ BaluBalu, that is who I was referring to earlier.
And. @hank, no, nada, I sure wasn't advocating for all in all out etc...I was trying to point out that it is now easy to look back and say one should/could've(?) started averaging in..but at the time it wasn't easy at all...so with the knowledge of hindsight, it sure is easy to say now that should have went all in....
My drawdown was -3.7% (truth!) during the 08' flush (hey FD1000, how do you like that?)...as I got somewhat toasted during 2001 flush, I had good muscle memory recall....and also when I went to an open house at a new condo development in San Diego....I told the nice gal sales rep that the price points were kooky insane....she asked where I was from...and said that explains it..."you don't get it"...I said no ma'am, YOU don't get it...a year from now you will be on your knees begging me to pay 40% less than these prices...I was right....and now 15 years later, would say she was also...LOL! Then I also had a Washington Mutual open up by me with higher than market CD rates...the gal there was wanting me to sign a 5-year CD...I said, nah, I'm walking you guys are making home loans to folks who couldn't afford a storage shed...I don't want anything to do with ya'll and as a matter of fact I am going to short the piss out of your stock...made a nice bundle on that trade.
The more I read on this thread and think back 30 years+...the more I think a moderate-conservative multi-asset, balanced approach with some flexing around the edges is the way to go....sure would have more monies now and have had less stress, worries etc...

@hank
Ten index funds is too much 'diworstificiation' to my mind.
--- Diworsification is the process of adding investments to a portfolio in such a way that the risk-return tradeoff is worsened.
A quote from Steve Jobs (Apple) that applies to the many things too many investors attempt to chase or justify.

“A lot of times, people don't know what they want until you show it to them”
― Steve Jobs

NOTE: We've remained U.S. centered with investments since the GFC. Hell, Europe remained broken for years after the melt. AND, if investment 'things' become bad here, they're probably worse everywhere else, globally.

-
Thanks @catch22
Re: your #10 complex (Decaphobia)
Does this mean you won’t go near asset allocation “fund-of-funds”? The ones I look at, including several well regarded ones from T Rowe Price (like TRRIX) typically invest in 15-25 other funds. While this one doesn’t limit holdings to just index funds, you can find many that do. What do you know that these managers don’t?
The reason I myself maintain 10 equal weight positions in assets like OEFs, CEFs, ETFs, stocks (9 positions + cash) is the ease of swapping out one position for something else should I desire to take profits from an over-performer or raise / lower the portfolio’s overall risk profile. Having fewer than 9 holdings (+ cash) would entail a greater degree of risk in selling 100% of a position and replacing it with another. In my dreams … I envision having only 5-7 holdings. But am in no hurry to achieve that elusive goal.
To each his own. I was happy to own only a single fund (TEMWX) during most of my working years. Sir John did a great job managing it in the early days. I think what’s really important is that investors have a plan and adhere to it, whatever plan fits their needs. Investing a lifetime’s accumulated wealth at 80 isn’t the same as building an asset base when you are 25 or slyly gaming the markets at 50.

Fro Bob C. Dec. 16 '09
All that being said, we have a few managers/funds that we have used for what we would consider a long time. Among them are Thornburg Value and International Value, Artisan MidCap Value and Mid Cap, Diamond Hill Small Cap and Long-Short, Permanent Portfolio, Artio International, Artisan International, First Eagle Overseas, some of the Matthews funds, Oppenheimer Developing Markets, and several of U.S. Global's funds: Global Resources, World Precious Minerals, and Eastern Europe. One we have held only a few years is Ivy Asset Strategy, but we have a lot of confidence in its two top managers and expect it to be a core holding for a long time.
On the bond side, we have used Loomis for what seems like forever. Our other big holding has been Templeton Global Bond, and what a great manager it has.
But with all of this said, we don't know what tomorrow will bring. So flexibility remains a key component of our strategy. We have a whole asset class of "Alternative Strategy" for which we allocate 15-20% as a way of reducing volatility and adding low or negative correlation to portfolios. And we also have a "Tactical Sector Strategy" class that gives us a 10-15% allocation to overweight specific sectors. We hope that these two parts of our portfolios will give us a boost in good markets and a cushion in bear markets.

@MikeM +1 2 3
Have followed with interest your work with Schwab’s robo over many years. Appreciate all your comments. I’m thinking there are some actively managed allocation funds that might do quite well what robos profess to do.
I subscribe to a newsletter that publishes a “recommended portfolio” consisting of 10 index funds. (It’s currently almost 50% cash.) I don’t follow the recommendations - and can’t see any particular brilliance to the approach after about 3 years following it, except that the index funds recommended carry much lower ER’s than I pay for my actively managed funds.

Reading 08/09 forums is a good exercise to do. I do it frequently. The one common thread of discussion was lack of income producers. Too much equity and not enough longer duration bonds, CD's etc. to provide income to pay bills. Another issue was portfolios designed to sell shares to pay bills in retirement. Selling shares in collapse. 50% down takes 100% to get even.

If I remember correctly, March 2008 was just the "appetizer", not the "main course" GFC that started in Fall 2008. Early in 2008, a couple of Bear Stearns hedge funds collapsed. Most investors went on with their merry-ways thinking that Bear Stearns Fund hedge fund managers were just idiots for losing money in the bull market.
On the hindsight, market had peaked in Fall 2007, some fractures developed in Spring 2008 (canary in the coal mine?), and full blown collapse followed in Fall 2008.
I think that I first noticed Wayback Machine in a post by @msf - thanks. Now I am a big fan of Wayback Machine / Internet Archives. It's run by a nonprofit that is under attack by some greedy publishers - the charge is copyright violation that all digital-libraries face. Unfortunately, Wayback Machine has been forced to un-archive some stuff due to adverse court rulings, but it's continuing the fight. Wayback Machine has a natural sampling frequency of millions of websites. For my part, when I visit Wayback Machine, I also manually archive several websites that I visit for additional captures for those. As a practical matter, it archives the main webpages and related links, but stops if links are redirects (to other links).
StockCharts SP500 7/1/07 - 6/30/09 (change dates if display defaults),
https://stockcharts.com/h-sc/ui?s=$SPX&p=D&st=2007-01-01&en=2009-06-30&id=p25401887723

Thanks @yogibearbull.
While you can’t pull up the entire discussion, those headers (many from December ‘08) reveal a lot. I’ve excerpted a few consecutive lines which make reference to the ongoing “flood.”
Trying hard to avoid a depression... - Fundmentals 13:28:52 12/16/08 (7)
Like the analogy too, but the last time it rained for 40 day & 40 nights, few were left standing (nm) - rayf 16:42:54 12/16/08 (2)
Re: Seems like it's already been a lot more than 40 days and 40nights... -nm - Old Joe 16:55:47 12/16/08 (1)
You're right, of course... - rayf 17:35:50 12/16/08 (0)
Wonderful set of analogies. - Shostakovich 14:02:33 12/16/08 (1)
Re: Wonderful set of analogies.... Yes, I thought so also. -nm - Old Joe 14:11:32 12/16/08 (0)
Re: Trying hard to avoid a depression... - JR 14:01:47 12/16/08 (0)
Re: Now you've surely done it... said the forbidden "D word" right out loud! -nm - Old Joe 13:42:35 12/16/08 (0)
Notice that @Old_Joe hasn’t changed any. :)
-
And thank you @msf …
Your excerpted comments from March 2008 are revealing. Some anxious posters are speculating the following day will be another ”Black Monday” - as in ‘87. Must be watching the futures on Sunday evening. (Siri confirms March 16, 2008 was a Sunday.)
Geez - These guys had nearly another 12 months of this still ahead. Sound like nervous wrecks already!