I thought the evil website had calendar year returns on the performance page going back 15 years. Should be enough, no? Or if you really care about returns in 1980, that might be hard.

Hi Expatsp,
Thank you for your very kind words. I greatly appreciate them and your words of encouragement. I will continue the march.
Thank you also for the cautionary heads-up with respect to writing in a condescension manner. I was simply trying hard to be informative. I suppose I can try too hard.
My reference to the 50/50 coin toss was an attempt (failed)to be sarcastic. I am irritated by negative posts that take issue with some peripheral comment or even a single word to detract from the primary purpose of the post. So I sarcastically introduced my negative 50/50 coin toss reference to demonstrate the trivial nature of such a useless comment. These do not advance the discussion whatsoever.
I have often posted using the 50/50 illustration myself knowing that it is not 100% precise. The fact that it does not hold exactly has been known for decades, at least for the spinning version of it. It appears in many books on probability although various authors claim differing odds.
I suspect that much of the antipathy directed at my posts is prompted by my frequent references to statistics and Monte Carlo analyses. Some folks are intimidated by these references. They should not be since these tools are easily accessible on the Internet and can be used to better investment decisions. You need not be a mechanic to drive a car.
Thank you once again.
My Very Best Wishes.

Yahoo until fairly recently had complete year by year historical returns for mutual funds. For older funds, this information went back all the way into the 1940's or 50's. Yahoo, changed their site, and it seems this information is not longer available. It seems like this is very basic information and should be readily available everywhere. But it's now not easy to find.
For individual stocks, this information can be found at 1stock1.com
Does anyone know where I can now find it for mutual funds, now that Yahoo has dropped it?

Hi Old Joe,
You are always free to interpret my posts in whatever way you choose.
It is never my intent to talk anyone down. I don't comment on specific fund choices or portfolio asset allocations. I hesitate to offer any recommendations because I understand my limitations, the sagacity of the MFO population, and the uncertainties of any financial forecasts. I expect and respect a diversity of investment decisions from individual investors.
A large majority of my posts, perhaps a fraction approaching 100%, provide Links to investment tools and research findings. My only purpose is to expose MFOers to tool sets and careful studies that just might improve their investment decisions. All MFOers are free to use or reject my references. I anticipate a mixed reaction.
I have never claimed to be an investment professional; I retain my amateur status. I learn from the references that I submit. Since I'm in a constant learning mode, I try to keep an open mind. It is certainly true that when I reach some tentative conclusion, I report in a manner that reflects my assessment. I suspect most MFOers do the same.
Note that I said my conclusions are tentative. I try to keep an open-mind and am humble. I make plenty of mistakes and freely admit it. I do emphasize statistical analyses and perhaps that makes a few folks uncomfortable. That need not be the case. Sorry, but that's beyond my control.
Best Wishes.

(LATimes)
\\ Although Rodney King was driving under the influence and was on parole for armed robbery, he was never charged. He was awarded $3.8 million in compensation by the city. King, 47, spent his multimillion-dollar award. He had frequent runins with police for domestic violence, substance abuse, and driving under the influence. He appeared on Vh1’s "Celebrity Rehab," tackling his alcoholism, and just published a book, "The Riot Within, My Journey from Rebellion to Redemption." He was found dead in the swimming pool at his Rialto home on Sunday, June 17, 2012.
If only he had come to MFO and listened to all of us wise ones and invested ....

@Ted
9/9 filings:
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/811030/000089418916011771/osterweis_497e.htm
or
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/811030/000089418916011772/ostfx_497k.htm

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/890540/000113542816001730/reaves-497.txt
497
1
reaves-497.txt
THE ADVISORS' INNER CIRCLE FUND II (THE "TRUST")
REAVES UTILITIES AND ENERGY INFRASTRUCTURE FUND (THE "FUND")
SUPPLEMENT DATED SEPTEMBER 15, 2016
TO THE CLASS A SHARES PROSPECTUS AND THE INSTITUTIONAL CLASS SHARES PROSPECTUS,
EACH DATED NOVEMBER 28, 2015 (THE "PROSPECTUSES")
AND THE STATEMENT OF ADDITIONAL INFORMATION, DATED NOVEMBER 28, 2015 (THE "SAI")
This supplement provides new and additional information beyond that contained in
the Prospectuses and SAI, and should be read in conjunction with the
Prospectuses and SAI.
Effective on or about November 30, 2016 (the "Conversion Date"), the Fund will
automatically convert its outstanding Class A Shares to Institutional Class
Shares of the Fund. After the Conversion Date, Class A Shares will no longer be
offered by the Fund, and will be terminated as a separately designated class of
the Fund.
The automatic conversion of the Fund's Class A Shares into Institutional Class
Shares on the Conversion Date is not expected to be a taxable event for federal
income tax purposes or to result in the recognition of gain or loss by
converting shareholders, although shareholders should consult their own tax
advisors.
The fees and expenses of Institutional Class Shares, which are set forth in the
Institutional Class Shares Prospectus, do not include the 4.75% maximum sales
charge (load) imposed on purchases of Class A Shares or the 0.25% distribution
and service (12b-1) fee payable with respect to Class A Shares.
Additionally, effective as of the Conversion Date, the minimum initial
investment for Institutional Class Shares will be $1,000, and all references to
"$1,000,000" in the Institutional Class Shares Prospectus are hereby deleted and
replaced with "$1,000."
PLEASE RETAIN THIS SUPPLEMENT FOR FUTURE REFERENCE
WHR-SK-012-0100

Samsung actually helped when their Notes 7 catches on fire - couldn't be the worst timing. Sale figure of iPhone 7 shot up as Samsung's product recall was announced. Christmas is only 3 1/2 months away.

Hi Davidrmoran,
It's interesting that you refer to a coin flip as an example. We often suggest the flip as a 50/50 outcome game. That's yet another example of an oversimplification. We don't know as much as we think we know.
While the coin toss outcome might be a theoretical even likelihood, practical physics considerations shift those even odds. If you flip a coin, the probability is 51% that the coin with the side up on the flip will land that same way. When you spin a coin, the likelihood of a tail outcome is well in excess of .50%. Test data supports these outcome odds.
We learn something every day. Here is a reference to some testing conducted by a physics professor:
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/gamblers-take-note-the-odds-in-a-coin-flip-arent-quite-5050-145465423/
Enjoy. You also might profit from these insights. Good luck!
Best Wishes.

Wow. A blast from the past. The very first story in the very first issue of the Observer was entitled "Successor to 'the worst best fund ever.'" The story started this way:
They’re at it again. They’ve found another golden manager. This time Tom Soveiro of Fidelity Leveraged Company Stock and its Advisor Class sibling. Top mutual fund for the past decade so:
Guru Investor, “#1 Fund Manager Profits from Debt”
Investment News, “The ‘Secret’ of the Top Performing Fund Manager”
Street Authority, “2 Stock Picks from the Best Mutual Fund on the Planet”
Motley Fool, “The Decade’s Best Stock Picker”
Mutual Fund Observer, “Dear God. Not again.”
The first sign that something might be terribly amiss is the line: “Thomas Soviero has replaced Ken Heebner at the top.”
...
The fund managed the highest returns of any fund in the preceding decade (nearly 15% annually during "the lost decade"), yet its average investor either made little (about 3% in the no-load shares) or actually lost money (a small negative return in the Advisor class shares).
The fund has had a rough past four years. Assets are down 50% from their peak. Mr. Soveiro had been expanding the franchise but has lately been forced to (or has chosen to) give up his role in other funds. And now, not surprisingly, this.
David

Tom Soveiro has retired from FLVCX and the business altogether eff 9/14/16

FYI: Apple Inc.’s third-quarter rally is unwelcome news to the unusually large swath of investors who have been giving up on the stock.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-09-15/apple-s-20-rally-is-tough-pill-for-295-funds-that-just-bailed
M*: Funds Selling APPL:
http://investors.morningstar.com/ownership/shareholders-selling.html?t=AAPL&region=usa&culture=en-US&ownerCountry=USA

FYI: On April 6, 2016, the U.S. Department of Labor established a federal standard of fiduciary duty that requires investment advisers and brokers who give advice to clients holding retirement plans to place the interests of investors before their own interests. One of the many press reports on the rule headlined its story: “Finally, John Bogle's dream of a fiduciary standard will come true.”
Regards,
Ted
http://www.investmentnews.com/article/20160915/FREE/160919972?template=printart

@JoJo26 That's your term, not mine, which is why I used it in quotes. The existence of such areas is largely a myth concocted by managers who claim to add value, but in reality, do not do so when their product is properly adjusted for exposures and risk it has. Check out the recurring findings in S&P SPIVA reports, for example: "The high-yield bond market is often considered to be best accessed via active investing, as passive vehicles have structural constraints that limit their flexibility and ability to deal with credit risk. Nevertheless, the 10-year results for the actively managed high-yield funds category show that over 90% of funds underperformed the broad-based benchmark." Note this statement is based on a single benchmark; if custom benchmarks were applied as described above, the outcome would certainly be even worse.

@JoJo26 The "some backtest" you are referring to actually tracks the very product of the "fundamental manager in an inefficient area of the market." In many instances, new ideas from such active managers turn out to be worse than the old ones. In other words, an investor would be better off sticking to a "backward-looking" replacement portfolio rather than using the fund a month forward.
An additional alpha, continuous control of the overall portfolio exposures (as opposed to relying on some "charter" or "category" of a fund), ability to trade your assets during the day and without any penalties, or investing into an equivalent of a closed or high-load or high-initial-investment fund, obviously do not come free. If you have a small amount to invest, sure, trading costs are a consideration. Otherwise, these days you can place limit orders for a $1-2 commission on a reasonable number of ETF shares at any of the leading discount brokerages.
That said, certainly, it may not be for everyone. At a minimum, an analysis, such as the one I provided above for MAPOX, shows whether the fund added value on a truly risk-adjusted basis.

I'd maybe have some confidence in this if there was some track record of an actual live portfolio replicating certain funds. Hindsight is 20/20.

By definition, running a rolling calculation is 1-month forward-looking, not a hindsight.
Conversely, you have no guarantee that any of these "fantastic" funds will continue to outperform on a truly risk-adjusted basis (i.e. taking all their exposures, and not just a single market factor, into account). As a matter of fact, the S&P Persistence Scorecard repeatedly shows that all winners eventually regress to the mean and below.

Running a rolling calculation is is exactly what it sounds like, "running a rolling calculation." There is nothing forward looking about it except for the fact that you are extrapolating those rolling periods into the future and assuming that the same (or something similar) will take place.
You are right, I do not know that "fantastic" funds will continue to perform well, but I have more confidence in fundamental managers in inefficient areas of the market than some backtest where you substitute 10 funds for 1 and would need to dynamically shift things regularly to achieve the same result (you aren't accounting for any of the transaction costs that would take place).

I'd maybe have some confidence in this if there was some track record of an actual live portfolio replicating certain funds. Hindsight is 20/20.

By definition, running a rolling calculation is 1-month forward-looking, not a hindsight.
Conversely, you have no guarantee that any of these "fantastic" funds will continue to outperform on a truly risk-adjusted basis (i.e. taking all their exposures, and not just a single market factor, into account). As a matter of fact, the S&P Persistence Scorecard repeatedly shows that all winners eventually regress to the mean and below.

almost half from just American funds and Vanguard. If you insist on cheap and "parent's rating of positive.. based on M* criteria" all you get are the behemoths. There are really two criteria people should focus on in evaluating single category funds 1) am I getting my money's worth paying for active management over an index and 2) can I stand the volatility if that is what is required to beat an index fund.
This piece seem like a shill for more add dollars from American, Vanguard and Fidelity...and what is the point about the survey at the top of the piece asking if Kumal Kapoor wears deodorant
A new low for M*.. People need serious investment advice, not cutsie little quizzes

@JoJo26 The replicating ETF portfolio does not have to be static (just as the fund's composition changes over time). You can run the calculation periodically and adjust the portfolio. One variant of the methodology does this monthly based on a rolling chunk of history. No fund, even one with a high turnover, changes all its holdings overnight, i.e. there is some inertia. So, even if you run the calculation with a one-month lag, you can still get a reasonably good tracking. Applying that approach to MAPOX over the same period, you get the ETF portfolio cumulatively outperforming by ~1.9% at ~0.5% lower standard deviation. See goo.gl/2Z3V5Q