@Anna: The combined funds have $136 Billion AUM, I don't see why not.
Regards,
Ted

@MFO Members: VWELX average annual return of 8.22% since 1929, and VWINX average annual return of 9.92% since 1970 a hard duo to beat. !
Regards,
Ted

MJG You and others have referenced my #1 life/trading book several times The Luck Factor by Max Gunther. But few take it to heart. As Mr. Gunther relates "there are five outstanding characteristics that distinguish the lucky from the unlucky". My favorite is The Ratchet Effect - the capacity to get out of deteriorating situations (trades/investments) quickly. You don't think, just react. But for most investors it is emotionally difficult to admit mistakes and hence they hold on and on and on to losing/underperforming positions. They spend so much time with their analysis on the buying side but zero time on the sell side planning an exit point if they are wrong. This is especially commonplace with those who are enamored with their perceived intelligence.
Another trait is Audentes Fortuna Juvat - Fortune (luck) favors the bold. That is a topic for another time but most investors diversify away any possibilities of that characteristic benefiting them.

Ratings are updated monthly on our MFO Premium site. Its MultiSearch tool includes all share classes, 21 evaluation periods, and 50 screening criteria. The March update comprises ratings on 9,296 US mutual funds and ETFs (27,307 all share classes), based on Lipper's Data Feed Service.
Looking through some of our Pre-Defined Screens ...
Among the Best Performing Rookies: AQR Equity Market Neutral R6 (QMNRX, Alternative Equity Market Neutral), NWM Momentum (MOMOX, Flexible Portfolio), 361 Global Long/Short Equity Y (AGAWX, Alternative Long/Short Equity), Catalyst Macro Strategy I (MCXIX, Alternative Global Macro), and ProShares S&P MidCap 400 Dividend Aristocrats (REGL, Mid-Cap Core).
A little further down this list is LSV US Managed Volatility Inst (LSVMX, Multi-Cap Value). LSV is short for Josef Lakonishok, Andrei Shleifer, and Robert Vishny ... three professors that started Chicago-based LSV Asset Management in 1994. They now offer six mutual funds, including three rookies and one Great Owl:

Among short list of Dual Great Owl and Honor Roll Funds: T Rowe Price Capital Appreciation (PRWCX, Mixed-Asset Target Alloc Growth), John Hancock Capital Appreciation Value (Lipper ID B24T, Mixed-Asset Target Alloc Growth), Boston Trust Asset Management (BTBFX, Mixed-Asset Target Alloc Growth), Gavekal KL Allocation Inst (GAVIX, Flexible Portfolio), Vanguard Wellesley Income Inv (VWINX, Mixed-Asset Target Alloc Consv), and Vanguard/Wellington I (VWELX, Mixed-Asset Target Alloc Growth).

>> Remind me again why we should not just invest in VBINX and forget about it?
Because if you had read the Fortune and Forbes ranking articles in the early 1990s recommending DODBX, FPACX, FPURX, OAKBX, MAPOX, and/or GLRBX for the long haul and gone with them instead, you would have made considerably more money --- had you been faithful --- except for Golden, where you would have achieved the same but with a way smoother ride.
At given points since then, of course, many of us would've quailed and bailed out of Dodge, Romick, and more recently Oakmark. Easy to advise in hindsight to stay the course. My father touted Puritan to me in the 1960s, and I reacted as any good knowitall child does.

Chip posted our updated ratings on the Search Tools pages last night, thank you.
Quick look shows ...
All three CGM funds are on the Three Alarm list. As are both Fairholme's equity funds (FAIRX and FAAFX). Sequoia (SEQUX) is not yet ... it has two alarm bells.
bee's fav Bruce (BRUFX) is on the Honor Roll. As is Matthews Asia Dividend Inv (MAPIX), T Rowe Price's Capital Appreciation (PRWCX), and Vanguard's Balanced Index Inv (VBINX), Value Index Inv (VIVAX), Wellesley Income Inv (VWINX), and Vanguard/Wellington I (VWELX).
Remind me again why we should not just invest in VBINX and forget about it?
A little more here ... ignoring survivorship bias, there are 4,856 US funds and ETFs that have been around since the start of current full market cycle in November 2007. Across these 8 plus years, the absolute worst performer is iPath Exchange Traded Notes Bloomberg Natural Gas Subindex Total Return ETN Series A (GAZ) at -47.6% return annually ... down 99% or so from peak. Wretched! The best is Biotechnology UltraSector ProFund Inv (BIPIX) at +18.1% annually.
VBINX is at +5.6% annually, which is better than 80% of all other choices. Hmmm ... I'll offer shipwreckedandalone's post VBINX.
FWIW, Vanguard 500 Index Inv VFINX also returned +5.6% over this period. As has PIMCO Total Return III Inst (PTSAX), Voya Corporate Leaders Trust (LEXCX), and James Balanced: Golden Rainbow Retail (GLRBX).
The just over four year old Seafarer Overseas Growth and Income Inst (SIGIX) remains a Great Owl fund, besting its peers by 8.2% since inception. Also on the GO list are Gavekal KL Allocation Inst (GAVIX), Grandeur Peak Global Opportunities Inst (GPGIX), RiverPark Short Term High Yield Inst (RPHIX), FMI International (FMIJX), Pear Tree Polaris Foreign Value Small Cap Inst (QUSIX), Oberweis International Opportunities (OBIOX), Lifestyle Conservative Inst (TCSIX), TrimTabs Float Shrink ETF (TTFS), Akre Focus Inst (AKRIX), Zeo Strategic Income I (ZEOIX), Scout Low Duration Bond (SCLDX), Queens Road Small Cap Value (QRSVX), PIMCO Short Asset Investment Inst (PAIDX). All these funds have been profiled by David and can be found on the MFO Dashboard.

Ron is an "expert" and very articulate and knowledgeable. So how could he have possibly lost money for you over the past 10 years. 99.5% of investors would be best served in a domestic index fund from Vanguard.

( Ron is working hard for you ! Right !)
(From Muhlenkamp Website)
We are professional investment managers. We are not accountants, auditors, brokers, custodians, financial planners, or tax experts. We do not file tax returns, prepare legal documents, or churn out black box financial plans. We seek to maximize total returns, after taxes and inflation, to our clients by taking advantage of the opportunities provided when markets periodically misprice assets.
Our motto is “intelligent investment management” to emphasize that we remove the emotion from investing. We might also be described as “no BS” or “common sense” investment managers—you get the idea. Investing other peoples’ money is a rational profession and we apply ourselves to it on a continuous basis.
We invest money for people who want their money to work as hard for them as they’ve had to work for it—and who want their money to grow over periods of time best measured in years and generations. Our clients and shareholders hire us to help protect what they have, help make it grow, and help ease their minds.
Regards,
Ted
Let's See How Hard Ron Is Working For You: MUHLX Performance:
15 Years 92 Percentile, 10 Years 100 Percentile, 5 Years 99 Percentile, 3 Years 99 Percentile, 1 Year 98 Percentile, YTD 99 Percentile. At least Ron your consistent.
M* Snapshot MUHLX:
http://www.morningstar.com/funds/xnas/muhlx/quote.html
Lipper Snapshot MUHLX:
http://www.marketwatch.com/investing/Fund/MUHLX
MUHLX Is Ranked #226 out of #483 (LCB) Funds By U.S. News & World Report)
http://money.usnews.com/funds/mutual-funds/large-blend/muhlenkamp-fund/muhlx
Larry Swedroe 2011 Article:
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/does-muhlenkamp-add-value/

Agree that AF goes nuts with the # of share classes. However, they run pretty good funds with low recurring costs ... I hold several of them both in taxable and retirement accounts.
I'd like them even more if they nixed the 12(b)-1 fee and insane front end loads, though. If I knew then what I know now about OEFs, I'd probably not have bought them. But those front end costs are more than paid for now.

M*'s take (from the WSJ giving quotes on reactions to the final regs that I cited in another thread):
Scott Cooley: "“One of my fears was that people who had already had paid a commission on their retirement accounts would be moved into fee-based accounts and then have to pay 1% of assets a year after they had already paid a commission. [But the DOL has] “indicated that it would have to be in the best interest of the client to shift them to a fee-based account from a commission-based account. That’s unambiguously pro-consumer.”
https://www.google.com/search?q=Reactions+to+the+Labor+Department’s+Fiduciary+Rule&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8 (top link for WSJ quotes)

His (Bloomberg Intelligence) answer to what's in the US Aggregate Bond Index (or SCHZ): "everything ... mortgages, munis, the whole package." (At 1:22)
It's all well and good to talk about fees, but first comes knowing what you're buying. (The index also excludes junk and floating rate bonds.)
Okay, the ETF does own 0.80% in munis.
http://portfolios.morningstar.com/fund/summary?t=ARCX:SCHZ&region=usa&culture=en-US&cur=

JPC is up almost 3% at the Monday open, 325k shares traded, more than average daily volume in the first 15 minutes. Bill the G. must still have some influence!

BRUFX vs OAKBX - lower expenses, smaller asset base, much more flexible mandate, able to own small market-cap holdings because of smaller size. Bigger loss in 2007-08, bigger gains 2009-10. Underperformed 2012-2013, outperformed 2014-2015. Just FYI for the board.

FYI: (This is a follow-up article)
Brokerages will need to proceed carefully in their plans to shift many of their retirement savers to flat-fee investment accounts.
Regards,
Ted
http://blogs.wsj.com/moneybeat/2016/04/11/wealth-adviser-daily-briefing-brokerages-need-to-tread-carefully-in-fee-push/

FYI: (This is a follow-up article)
Meanwhile, the industry's biggest threat, ETFs, are chugging along offering a single-version product to all investors
Regards,
Ted
http://www.investmentnews.com/article/20160410/FREE/304109996?template=printart

FYI: Bloomberg's Eric Balchunas reports on mutual funds fees versus cheap ETF.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/videos/2016-04-08/why-is-fee-shaming-such-a-hot-topic

Like others, I was surprised to see the Sequoia prospectus excerpt that David S posted. Not so much because it warned to expect redemption in kind (which is exceedingly unusual), but simply because it gave rules - over $250k in 90 days.
Yet (keeping @ducrow in mind), the first fund I checked was OAKBX, that had somewhat similar language:

Each Fund is obligated to redeem shares solely in cash up to the lesser of $250,000 or 1% of the Fund’s NAV during any 90-day period for any one shareholder. Redemptions in excess of those amounts will normally be paid in cash, but may be paid wholly or partly by a distribution in kind of securities.

The main difference is highlighted - Oakmark doesn't expect to redeem in kind, even if you exceed the $250K limit.
But pro-rata? I too thought that was almost everywhere. Yet it's not in Oakmark, and it's not in the next family I checked, Vanguard. No pro-rata qualification in the in-kind section, at least in Primecap's prospectus.
Regardless of whether an in-kind redemption is pro-rata or not, the fund comes out a tiny bit better when it redeems in-kind. It gives the shares to the investor at full price (no market movement), and the investor gets less than 100% value as the sales push the price down.
That market movement affects the fund's remaining securities also. If the redemption is pro-rata, the percentage impact on the fund's NAV will be the same as if it had sold the shares itself.
But suppose the fund has a really volatile, poor performing stock that it unloads on all the redeeming shareholders. Now it has eliminated (or reduced) its position in that one stock. So it no longer cares how the market moves as those shares are sold off by the individual investors.
For this reason it seems that funds would be better off dumping their dogs when redeeming in-kind, rather than redeeming pro-rata. Unless the prospectus explicitly requires pro-rata redemptions.

Well, it would help to have a more current print on asset allocation to better understand what is going on. As of 12/31/15, the equity sleeve was rather concentrated in only 46 holdings (and with $17B in AUM suggests big position and a not-so-nimble ability to move on a dime). The fund also showed 20% in cash. With the bonds being so conservative and short in duration, I don't know what kind of yield you'd expect from the fund, beyond what you're getting.
http://www.oakmark.com/Our-Funds/Overview/Equity-Income.htm
Unless this fund changes its long-standing modus operandi, I can't envision anything but underperformance for the foreseeable future. The fund just isn't structured for anything else, IMO.

It is odd to me that Amey Stone would recommend (indirectly, via one of her blog's commenters) CEF munis that are about to be merged into another fund, which after all the fusions will have a different investing mandate. This imminent change is noted not only in the article itself, but also in another article she posted just one day earlier:
http://blogs.barrons.com/incomeinvesting/2016/04/08/nuveens-closed-end-muni-fund-mergers-near-completion/
It is as if she thinks multiple fund mergers/consolidations should be considered by investors as a non-event, amounting to nothing much. That hasn't been my experience. Sometimes they don't, but sometimes they do, in a very significant way. And if they do in this case, and the tide goes out..... well, you could be stuck in a suddenly very illiquid investment.

OAKBX's great returns -- a drop off after Ed left?
I have held OAKBX fund for 10+ years, even after Ed's departure because of my respect for the firm.
At the same time, it's worth noting, their international small cap fund (OAKEX, which I also hold) has been lackluster for much longer than OAKBX. So, maybe I should be paying more attention to that?
PRWCX gets a lot of props here and in the press. But if I recall correctly (my wife owns it, I do not), it's closed. MAPOX -- kind of a flip side of OAKBX, I seem to recall: great recent numbers, but more lackluster longer term. VBINX has never impressed me and had long periods when it was easily beaten by any number of balanced funds.