Here are two local links regarding Bernie Klawans:
Obituary: http://articles.philly.com/2011-12-22/news/30547045_1_mutual-fund-retirement-community-engineer
http://www.bizjournals.com/philadelphia/stories/2003/01/13/focus2.html

@jerry: "I remember many years ago when it for one year one of the top records." I believe that's when George Washington was the fund manager.
Regards,
Ted

FYI:
Regards,
Ted
http://video.cnbc.com/gallery/?video=3000511388&play=1

I generally have a positive opinion of the firm; however, when an asset manager is a public company, it always raises a bit of a stewardship concern in my mind (even a great firm like TRP). Manning & Napier has also been expanding their liquid alternatives capabilities, including them in target date funds and other allocations funds--something that doesn't excite me greatly.
The firm does have low investment minimums when you invest directly, and has been recommended on MFO for that reason. I held MSCBX, a conservative allocation fund, since its inception in 2012 but sold it a few months ago when I was simplifying my portfolio.

I owned two of their int'l funds at different times, years ago, EXWAX and EXITX. Preferred the latter although M* always talked up EXWAX and never even did a report on EXITX. They were decent performers until around 2011, and they haven't done much of anything good since then.
Have to wonder if there's any traceable connection with the ipo in late 2011.

FYI: Asset manager Manning & Napier (MN) announced on Wednesday that CEO Patrick Cunningham has resigned.
Regards,
Ted
http://blogs.barrons.com/focusonfunds/2016/04/20/manning-napier-ceo-patrick-cunningham-resigns/tab/print/
MFWire.Com Slant;
http://www.mfwire.com/common/artprint2007.asp?storyID=53877&wireid=2

1-2 percentage points less in U.S. stocks is next to nothing, especially considering most of this group has looked pretty weak anyway.

A queer and wonderful trail though, Ted. Bernie Klawans - an aerospace engineer, right Charles? - ran it for decades, from 1971-2011, likely out of his garage. One-page website, no 800-number, no reports or newsletters or commentaries. Brought on a successor when he was in his late 80s, worked with him for a couple years, retired in April and passed away within about six months. Then his chosen successor, Craig Arnholt, died unexpectedly within a year. The Board of Trustees actually managed the fund for six months (largely successful - they beat both their LV peers and the S&P) before finding a manager who'd run the fund for a pittance. The new guy was doing fine then ... kapow! He lost 22% in September and October of 2014, when the rest of the market was essentially flat. That was a combination of a big stake in Fannie and Freddie - adverse court ruling cut their market value by half in a month - and energy exposure. He's been staggering toward the cliff ever since.
Though the website's a lot nicer.

http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/102681/000116204416001738/valley497201604.htm
497 1 valley497201604.htm
[valley497201604001.jpg]
Valley Forge Fund, Inc.
TICKER: VAFGX
Supplement dated April 20, 2016 to the Prospectus dated April 22, 2015
The Board of Directors of the Valley Forge Fund, Inc. (the "Fund"), has concluded that due to the relatively small size of the Fund, it is in the best interests of the Fund and its Shareholders that the Fund cease operations. The Board of Directors has chosen to close the Fund and redeem all remaining outstanding shares on May 27, 2016.
Effective as of the date of this Supplement, the Fund will no longer pursue its stated investment objective. The Fund will liquidate its portfolio and will invest in cash equivalents such as money market funds until all shares have been redeemed. Any required distributions of income and capital gains will be distributed as soon as practicable to Shareholders. Shares of the Fund are not available for purchase.
Prior to May 27, 2016, you may redeem your shares, including any reinvested distributions, in accordance with the "How to Redeem Shares" section in the Prospectus. Unless your investment in the Fund is through a tax-deferred retirement account, any redemption is subject to tax on any taxable gains. Please refer to the "Taxes" section in the Prospectus for general information. You may wish to consult your tax advisor about your particular situation.
ANY SHAREHOLDERS WHO HAVE NOT REDEEMED THEIR SHARES OF THE FUND PRIOR TO MAY 27, 2016, WILL HAVE THEIR SHARES AUTOMATICALLY REDEEMED AS OF THAT DATE, AND PROCEEDS WILL BE SENT TO THE ADDRESS OF RECORD. If you have questions or need assistance, please contact your financial advisor directly or the Fund toll-free at 1-800-869-1679.
IMPORTANT INFORMATION FOR RETIREMENT PLAN INVESTORS
If you are a retirement plan investor, you should consult your tax advisor regarding the consequences of any redemption of Fund shares. If you receive a distribution from an Individual Retirement Account or a Simplified Employee Pension (SEP) IRA, you must roll the proceeds into another Individual Retirement Account within sixty (60) days of the date of the distribution in order to avoid having to include the distribution in your taxable income for the year. If you receive a distribution from a 403(b)(7) Custodian Account (Tax-Sheltered account) or a Keogh Account, you must roll the distribution into a similar type of retirement plan within sixty (60) days in order to avoid disqualification of your plan and the severe tax consequences that it can bring. If you are the trustee of a Qualified Retirement Plan, you may reinvest the money in any way permitted by the plan and trust agreement.
This Supplement, and the existing Prospectus dated April 22, 2015, provide relevant information for all Shareholders and should be retained for future reference. Both the Prospectus and the Statement of Additional Information dated April 22, 2015, have been filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, and are incorporated by reference, and can be obtained without charge by calling the Fund toll-free at 1-866-869-1679.

FYI: The rally that has sent the benchmark S&P 500 up more than 15 percent from its February low is prompting U.S. diversified funds to sell shares as the market nears its record high.
The average asset allocation fund - so called because the funds can invest in anything from stocks to bonds and currencies - has 40.2 percent of its portfolio in U.S. equities, down 1.2 percentage points from six months ago, according to Lipper, a Thomson Reuters company.
The average weighting to U.S. stocks is nearly 2 percentage points less than it was at when stocks last reached record high in May 2015, suggesting that fund managers are less bullish now
Regards,
Ted
http://www.reuters.com/article/usa-stocks-rally-idUSL2N17N0UL

This is a good fund to demonstrate just how bunched together bond funds tend to be.
MCOIX (class I) with its 0.50% ER does get a 5* rating. But its sibling shares classes don't.
MSCAX.lw (class A, load waived) with its 0.75% ER gets a 4* rating.
MSCVX (Investor class) with its 0.83% ER gets a 2* rating.
A tiny difference in expenses (resulting in a tiny difference in returns) can make a large difference in ratings. One way of taking this is that a large difference in percentiles could represent a minscule performance difference, depending on the type of fund.
Then there is the matter of loads. Obviously if you can get MSCAX load-waived (e.g. at Schwab), that's going to be better than MSCVX, since the former has a lower ER.
But with respect to star ratings, Morningstar incorporates the front end load into the calculations. It amortizes the load over the period of interest (3, 5, or 10 years), to calculate a reduced load-adjusted return. That's why A shares will often have lower star ratings than load-waived A shares.
The longer the period, the less of an impact (per year) the load has. So if a fund has a ten year history, Morningstar calculates the load adjusted returns for all three periods, gets star ratings for all of them, and combines them into a single rating. But if a fund like this one has only a three year rating, the impact of the load is overstated.
That is because the load is amortized only over a short three year span. Consequently, the star rating may take an oversized hit from the load simply because the fund's lifetime is somewhat short.
Just another idiosyncrasy to keep in mind.

FYI: MainStay announced today that the three year track record of the MainStay California Tax Free Opportunities Fund (MSCAX, MCOIX) has earned the Fund’s Class I shares a five-star rating from Morningstar, a leading provider of independent investment research in North America, Europe, Australia and Asia. The Fund has ranked in the 1st and 3rd percentiles, therefore beating at least 97 percent of the 115 funds in its peer group, in Morningstar's Muni California Long category in 2015 and 2014, respectively
Regards,
Ted
http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20160420005877/en
M* Snapshot MSCAX:
http://www.morningstar.com/funds/XNAS/MSCAX/quote.html
Lipper Snapshot MSCAX:
http://www.marketwatch.com/investing/Fund/MSCAX
MSCAX Is Unranked In The (MCB) Fund Category By U.S. News & World Report:
http://money.usnews.com/funds/mutual-funds/muni-california-long/mainstay-california-tax-free-opportunities-fund/mscax

Hi Mark,
Until last weekend the weather had been dreadful, but not like other parts of the country where they're getting hammered. I love Mother Nature dearly, but she can be quite contrary at times. My neighbors just started cutting their grass - the barbarians.
BTW, my basement sale purchase of XOM is actually in the green +6%. However, my SQM buy is doing very well. I like this stock. It's one of the few pure lithium plays. Growth plus a 2.6% yield. Why don't you buy a Tesla?
The silver juniors? feh. Peter Lynch 101 - play what you know. I've collected coins for 60 years and this looks like it just might be my third rodeo. We'll see.
take care and good fortune,
rono

YTD gains in the CEF world are even more striking due to leverage and discount shrinking. many funds are up over 10%. looks like 2012 all over again in the fixed income spread stuff - loans, HY, EMD, structured credit -- all up more than equities. mortgages are modestly up too. volatility is down... i guess in the world of zero to negative rates, anything with an earned yield over 8% finally gets appreciated.

My income sleeve is up ytd about 2.75% which consist of six funds (GIFAX, LALDX, LBNDX, NEFZX, THIFX & TSIAX) and my hybrid income sleeve also consisting of six funds (CAPAX, CTFAX, FKINX, ISFAX, JNBAX & PGBAX) is up about 3.25%. Currently, I don't have any funds within my portfolio that are not up ytd. Overall, my portfolio as a whole is up ytd about 4.1%; and, in comparison, the Lipper Balanced Index is up about 3.1%.

If you are up 4.1% YTD with the large cash position you hold then that is a very commendable return. Congrats!
Edit: So are you including cash as part of your portfolio because if you are you must have some boffo equity funds YTD? As I recall you were a bit of a momentum investor so that would not surprise me at all.
The other ones where I have money, such as D&C, there just isn't much reason to trade. Maybe one or two changes a year. I'd love to hear Junkster reveal what it takes to be banned from a fund house! God knows I've tried their patience over the years.:)

T Rowe was the very first fund family I was banned from when I held an account there in the early to mid 90s.

FYI: Fund designed for investors who want the performance of the S&P 500 Index without all the exposure to weapons, adult entertainment and other traditional Catholic no-nos.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.investmentnews.com/article/20160419/FREE/160419902?template=printart
Global X Funds Website:
http://www.globalxfunds.com/funds/cath/

My income sleeve is up ytd about 2.75% which consist of six funds (GIFAX, LALDX, LBNDX, NEFZX, THIFX & TSIAX) and my hybrid income sleeve also consisting of six funds (CAPAX, CTFAX, FKINX, ISFAX, JNBAX & PGBAX) is up about 3.25%. Currently, I don't have any funds within my portfolio that are not up ytd. Overall, my portfolio as a whole is up ytd about 4.1%; and, in comparison, the Lipper Balanced Index is up about 3.1%.

FYI: Sequoia Fund, which has faltered from its big bet on drugmaker Valeant Pharmaceuticals International Inc., is considering opening to new investors for the first time in more than two years.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-04-19/sequoia-fund-may-reopen-to-new-investors-after-valeant-losses

The poor state of CT wants a piece of the Yale endowment too:
bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-03-23/yale-endowment-tax-proposal-eyed-by-cash-strapped-connecticut

Howdy Professor,
Good article.
Note that while silver jumped 4.2% the silver miners went nuts. [aside - haven't we been down this road before?]
http://www.kitcosilver.com/equities.html
In the precious metals space, there are two metrics that can be used to fine tune your approach and holdings. The gold/silver ratio and the gold/XAU ratio.
The first- the gold/silver ratio has historically been around 1/17 with one ounce of gold worth seventeen of silver. In fact, this is what happened in the Hunt bull market in the late 70's. Gold tripled from around $300 to $850 and silver went from below $5 to $50. Note they topped out at 1/17. Also note that silver went up tenfold. During the Big Bonanza bull from 2002 to 2011, gold went from around $300 to $1800 while silver went from around $4 to $45. Note that the leverage is still there but the ratio is about 1/45 or so. Right now the ratio is 1/73. This would point towards overweighting silver relative to gold.
The gold/XAU ratio is an historic metric showing the relationship between the price of bullion and the bullion mining stocks. Now it's easy to understand why bullion and mining stocks would track each others performance, but realize they are traded in different markets and can diverge from each other for various and sundry reasons. This divergence, or convergence is measured by the gold/XAU ratio. Before the advent of ETF's, 5 was the demarcation with under that pointing towards overweighting bullion to miners and over that calling for overweighting the miners to bullion. Whelp, the ETF's have skewered the metric way higher and I'm not sure the wizards have reset the bar, but currently the ratio is over 15. That screams at me to overweight the miners relative to bullion.
This tells me the greatest potential leverage is with the silver miners.
Note that in each of these cases, we're talking about overweighting silver and the miners . . . but only 'overweighting'. This doesn't mean you don't own gold bullion in some form. Just that you own a bit more than you might otherwise, in silver. You own a bit more of the miners, via most every pm mutual fund in existence. I met one guy that actually bought silver and gold at the ratio amounts. But that's being a purist.
Why silver is running right now? Geez, I don't know. Most of it is probably because of the dollar falling relative to gold.
However, and this is what matters. I don't care why silver miners are going nuts. I just watch Captain Price and follow his lead. I own SVM, EXK and AG and it's getting fairly obscene. And I like it.
Take care,
peace,
rono