@David_Snowball, Speaking of Leuthold , I'm curious to see if you made the decision to move money from FPACX to LCORX. After reading your thoughts and looking into the fund, I decided to go with LCORX as a more conservative hold in my portfolio. Looks like by the end of 2015, they were down to about 40% net equity holdings. Just wondering what you ended up doing.

@msf: Not having a very good day, just learned that my best friend for over seventy years and best man at my wedding died on Sunday. I feel like 1090 !
Regards,
Ted

1090, huh? Not long after Eric the Red. :-)

@Andy: Back in the 1990's I held Fidelity Nordic Fund (FNORX) that's largest stake was Nokia, I made money.
Regards,
Ted

Hard to believe they still give it a positive rating. It's been so bad that even the 10y return score is down to fourth quintile.

For what interest it holds, Mr. Horn came across as one of the most deeply thoughtful guys we've interviewed. The audio of our 2015 conference call with him is on our Featured Fund page for Polaris.
David

The column contains several quotes from our esteemed Professor Snowball, for whom I have a question: What do you think about TIAA-CREF's splitting the CREF funds into three share classes (R1, R2, R3)?
(TIAA was still called TIAA-CREF when it split the funds.)
My own take (along with apparently the vast majority of posters on M*'s TIAA forum) is negative. The partitioning appears designed solely as a marketing tool (just as David described for American funds).
But by charging the highest ER on IRAs (regardless of the amount of assets), TIAA is discouraging investments from outside and harming asset retention as well. (Rollovers from its 403(b) plans are more likely to go elsewhere.) What were they thinking?
FWIW, I find that American Funds has done a pretty good job of clarifying the role of each share class, despite their high number. In contrast, I find it more difficult to understand the difference between several of Fidelity Advisor share classes.

FYI: The mutual fund industry offers about 8,000 mutual funds, spread among about 24,000 share classes, but some fund companies offer many, many more share classes. Experts say it may be a marketing tool for fund firms.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.investmentnews.com/article/20160328/FREE/160329940?template=printart
M* Example ANWPX:
http://financials.morningstar.com/fund/purchase-info.html?t=ANWPX&Country=usa

"U.S. Market Neutral Anti-Beta Fund" -- No offense, but I actually laughed out loud when I first heard that name. Dropped 20% out of the gate. Seems to be doing better lately, but still, what's the appeal of a "market neutral" fund that's volatile like a normal stock fund, and sports a 3 year return of 1.03%? Good luck anyway.

QMNNX, QLENX, COGMX. There have been a few MFO threads that mention the first two (they're AQR funds, you can search for them), and David S. did a review of the latter in the Feb. commentary.
The two AQR funds use the same methodology, but the first is biased toward neutral market exposure and the second biased (somewhat) long. They've got varying availability depending on the brokerage. The share classes I linked are the investor shares (usually NTF if available), and there are institutional shares (cheaper E.R. and usually TF if available, with a very large minimum).

I have vnmfx and ottrx in small amounts but some days wish entire equity allocation was there

These two funds are linkable if entered as caps...VMNFX (I had to rearrange the letters) and OTTRX. Hope that helps.
GDMZX seems to fit into this L/S methodology if I understand its mandate correctly. AQR is one of this funds sub-advisors.
Mentioned here by @ducrow in another thread:
mutualfundobserver.com/discuss/discussion/26631/guidstone-defensive-market-fund-gdmzx#latest

http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/882748/000110465916107932/a16-7423_1497.htm
497 1 a16-7423_1497.htm 497
The Boston Trust & Walden Funds
One Beacon Street
Boston, MA 02108
Boston Trust Small Cap Fund
Walden Small Cap Innovations Fund
Supplement dated March 28, 2016 to the Prospectus and Statement of Additional Information (“SAI”)
each dated August 1, 2015
Effective April 1, 2016, the Boston Trust Small Cap Fund and the Walden Small Cap Innovations Fund will no longer be closed to new investors. Accordingly, all references to the Funds being “closed to new investors” in the Prospectus and Statement of Additional Information are deleted in their entirety.
Please retain this supplement for future reference.
This Supplement, and the Prospectus and Statement of Additional Information (“SAI”), each dated August 1, 2015, provide relevant information for all shareholders and should be retained for future reference. The Prospectuses and SAI have been filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, are incorporated by reference, and can be obtained without charge by calling 1-800-282-8782, extension 7050.

FYI: At least one large fund manager is not buying into Argentina's turnaround story and believes the country's first international bond in over 15 years may not offer as much value as local debt in Mexico and Brazil.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.reuters.com/article/latam-bonds-franklin-rsc-idUSL2N16W04W
M* Snapshot TPINX:
http://www.morningstar.com/funds/XNAS/TPINX/quote.html
Lipper Snapshot TPINX:
http://www.marketwatch.com/investing/Fund/TPINX
TPINX Is Ranked #17 In The (WB) Fund Category By U.S. News & World Report:
http://money.usnews.com/funds/mutual-funds/world-bond/templeton-global-bond-fund/tpinx

FYI: Fund-ratings firm Morningstar cut its forward-looking rating on Sequoia Fund (SEQUX) in the wake of a high-profile executive departure and sharp losses related to Valeant Pharmaceuticals International (VRX).
Morningstar sounded cautiously upbeat about the fund’s prospects, however, since Valeant’s collapse can’t get much worse at this poin
Regards,
Ted
http://blogs.barrons.com/focusonfunds/2016/03/28/morningstar-slashes-rating-on-sequoia-fund/tab/print/
MarketWatch Slant
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/sequoia-fund-suffers-yet-another-blow-from-valeant-stake-2016-03-28/print
M* Snapshot SEQUX:
http://www.morningstar.com/funds/XNAS/SEQUX/quote.html

Altruist Financial Advisors seems to have some curious notions regarding Vanguard:
"For those who do not have access to DFA, we suggest they limit their bond holdings to domestic bond funds." A blanket rejection of VTIBX without even mentioning it.
(That fund was started in 2013, and the page has information from at least 2014, so this is not a matter of the fund not existing at the time of the writing.)
" However, the existence of an ETF share class makes [VTMGX] quite a bit more capital-gains tax-efficient than it would otherwise be."
Vanguard has always stated that the tax value of ETFs (at least for cap-weighted index funds) is overrated (i.e. they are not "quite a bit more capital-gains tax-efficient'). The data bear this out not only generally but specifically for this fund.
The fund was created in 2014 as the result of a merger between Vanguard's tax-managed foreign developed markets fund and its "regular" fund. See:
http://mutualfundobserver.com/discuss/discussion/12700/what-happened-to-vdmix
So I went back to look at cap gains distributions for the "regular" fund VDMIX (no ETF share class, not tax-managed):
Per share cap gains distributions (from the 2013 prospectus:
2013: - (six months ended April 30)
2012: - (full year)
2011: -
2010: -
2009: -
2008: $0.005
To put that last figure in perspective, total distributions/share were $0.387.

Hi, guys.
In a slightly-grumbly post last week, in which I described the current market as "senseless" and allowed that I was reluctant to judge sensible managers for their failure to thrive in its midst, I made the observation that the February bear low was still higher than most bull market highs. Setting aside the question of whether it's reasonable to disregard what might be several years of underperformance (it works for me as long as the full cycle performance is what I signed up for, but I recognize that other folks have shorter time horizons and more intricate sell disciplines), there was also a question about whether the "higher than bear lows" claim was correct.
Several fund managers I'd spoken to last week made that observation in passing. Here's the Leuthold description of current valuations, from their March 2016 Perception for the Professional:

While the past several month's reversion in [valuation] measures has certainly wrung some of the risk out of the market ... the potential downside risks remain substantial. We compared current readings on all four valuation measures [p/e on TTM earnings, p/e on 5-yr normalized earnings, p/cash flow, median price-to-book, all for S&P 500 stocks] to the average recorded at the last four bull market highs, and found that - despite the setback of the last nine months - the median stock still trades at a valuation about 1% above the levels seen at the typical cyclical bull market high. If the bear market reasserts itself ... potential downside is estimated at -29%.

The Total Stock Market is up about 2% since then.
To be clear: I'm not apocalyptic, I'm just wired to be cautious. More importantly, I detest making factual claims (as I did in my original post) without being able to point to the specific evidence behind the claim.
For what that's worth,
David

Graph DFA LC and SC since 1/1/99 against FCNTX and FLPSX and take a look. Can't be true, right? So saith all the wise.

"For example, when a new stock enters an index, a traditional index fund has to add it all at once. This can push the price up before the purchase is completed."
Bzzzzt. Wrong answer.
"The public at large has been fully aware of any changes scheduled to be made in an index fund portfolio before the index change is implemented. This is not to say, of course, that the manager of the index fund will make the change at the close of trading on the day that the index changes. Even the “manager” of the original SPDR had considerably greater flexibility than an exact timing match of index and fund changes. [Citation to SPDR 2001 prospectus.]"
2002, Gary L. Gastineau (managing director at Nuveen), Equity Index Funds Have Lost Their Way.
(It was easier to find than reading through prospectuses.)
The AssetBuilder column continues:
"DFA, by comparison, is working to characteristics, not names. So they build their portfolios differently. By doing so, they avoid the cost bumps of stock list-following index funds"
This is correct, and does represent DFA's difference. It's not so much a matter of timing of purchases but in how they they replicate indexes - they can even substitute one stock for another (e.g. Pepsi for Coke). The objective is to track the index, not beat it, as would be the case for a quant fund using the same stock substitution technique.

I use a timing model found within my portfolio itself that keys me when to load value over growth and when to switch and to load growth. I only do this with a small amount of the portfolio due to the many strategies that I may have engaged from time-to-time. I have found through the years this to be one of the better strategies and a most effective one. Just this past month, most of the large cap value funds which I own and are found in my domestic equity sleeve located in the growth and income area of the portfolio out performed it's growth counter part (large/mid cap sleeve) which is found in the growth area of the portfolio by about 10%.
During the recent selling stampede which took place during the first couple months of 2016 I bought in the value area of the portfolio and once equities recovered I then rebalanced and reduced my equity weighting in the growth area by selling two positions that were held in the ballast/spiff sleeve thus keeping my overall equity allocation at it's target weighting of about 50%.
Again, for those that have had their doubts about my sleeve system, I have found my portfolio fund management sleeve system to be beneficial in making investment and strategy adjustments within my portfolio. However, I respect your right to continue to voice your doubts as I feel my system is geered for the more accomplished investor and might not be right for everyone. In addition, to use the system effectively one needs to be somewhat a student of the capital markets and follow their movement as well as that of the portfolio itself. Please note I am not a professional investor, or trader, but simply a retail investor that sought out ways to improve my returns over both the near term as well as the long term that would come through better positioning with a moving asset allocation of sorts.
For those that might not be familiar with my system I have provided a blurb about it below along with the portfolio's current configuration as of March 22, 2016.
Old_Skeet's Fund Sleeve Management System (03/22/2016)
Here is a brief description of my sleeve system which I organized to help better manage the investments that were held in five accounts along with my current positioning. The accounts consist of a taxable account, a self directed ira account, a 401k account, a profit sharing account and a health savings account plus two bank accounts. With this I came up with four investment areas. They are a cash area which consist of two sleeves … an investment cash sleeve and a demand cash sleeve. The next area is the income area which consists of two sleeves. … a fixed income sleeve and a hybrid income sleeve. Then there is the growth & income area which has more risk associated with it than the income area and it consist of four sleeves … a global equity sleeve, a global hybrid sleeve, a domestic equity sleeve and a domestic hybrid sleeve. An finally there is the growth area, where the most risk in the portfolio is found and it consist of five sleeves … a global sleeve, a large/mid cap sleeve, a small/mid cap sleeve, a specialty & theme sleeve and a ballast & spiff investment sleeve. Each sleeve consists of three to six funds (in most cases) with the size and the weight of each sleeve can easily be adjusted, from time-to-time, by adjusting the number of funds and amounts held. By using the sleeve system one can get a better picture of their overall investment picture and weightings by sleeve and area. In addition, I have found it beneficial to xray each fund, each sleeve, each investment area, and the portfolio as a whole quarterly. Again, weightings can be adjusted form time-to-time as to how I might be reading the markets and wish to weight accordingly. All funds pay their distributions to the cash area of the portfolio with the exception being those in my 401k, profit sharing, and health savings accounts where reinvestment occurs. With the other accounts paying to the cash area builds the cash area of the portfolio to meet the portfolio’s monthly cash disbursement amount with the residual being left for new investment opportunity. In addition, most all buy/sell trades settle from or to the cash area with some nav exchanges between funds taking place.
Here is how I have my asset allocation broken out in percent ranges, by area. My current target allocations are cash 20%, income 30%, growth & income 35%, and growth 15%. I do an Instant Xray analysis on the portfolio quarterly (sometimes monthly) and make asset weighting adjustments as I feel warranted based upon my assessment of the market, my risk tolerance, cash needs, etc. Presently, I am about 20% in the cash area, 30% in the income area, 35% in the growth & income area and 15% in the growth area.
Cash Area (Weighting Range 15% to 25% with target being 20%)
Demand Cash Sleeve… (Cash Distribution Accrual & Future Investment Accrual)
Investment Cash Sleeve … (Savings & Time Deposits)
Income Area (Weighting Range 25% to 35% with target being 30%)
Fixed Income Sleeve: GIFAX, LALDX, THIFX, LBNDX, NEFZX & TSIAX
Hybrid Income Sleeve: CAPAX, CTFAX, FKINX, ISFAX, JNBAX & PGBAX
Growth & Income Area (Weighting Range 30% to 40% with target being 35%)
Global Equity Sleeve: CWGIX, DEQAX & EADIX
Global Hybrid Sleeve: BAICX, CAIBX & TIBAX
Domestic Equity Sleeve: ANCFX, FDSAX, INUTX, NBHAX, SPQAX & SVAAX
Domestic Hybrid Sleeve: ABALX, AMECX, DDIAX, FRINX, HWIAX & LABFX
Growth Area (Weighting Range 10% to 20% with target being 15%)
Global Sleeve: ANWPX, PGROX & THOAX
Large/Mid Cap Sleeve: AGTHX, IACLX & SPECX
Small/Mid Cap Sleeve: AJVAX, PCVAX & PMDAX
Specialty & Theme Sleeve: LPEFX, PGUAX, TOLLX, NEWFX & THDAX
Ballast & Spiffs: FISCX
Total Number of Mutual Fund Positions = 45

I use LPEFX to gain exposure to private equity; and, I hold this fund in the specialty / theme sleeve found in growth area of my portfolio. My historical annualized return since I purchased the fund in September of 2011 has been about 12.50% and my total return in the fund has been better than 70%. For me, it is a keeper plus it sports an income yield of about 4.5% on amount invested. Over time, I plan to keep adding to the position.