I agree with @heezsafe that GP funds do well against the competition. For me, it was a bad idea to be invested in EM and international in the same way that it was a bad idea for me to be in small value and dividend funds last year. I guess the search function on the discussion board did not pick up "Rainier" when I put it in before writing my post. This board is like being in a trench in 1916: put your head up and someone will fire.

This is pretty much the way I see 2016 too. This is why I have been moving towards raising my equity alocation in my foreign dividend paying equity and hybrid funds and reducing my allocation in my domestic equity and hybrid funds with the exception being FDSAX. However, I have been keeping my allocation in the overall growth & income area at its target of 35% for the overall portfolio.

FYI: Investing is becoming more of a grind. Expect it to stay that way.
Analysts, mutual-fund managers and other forecasters are telling investors to expect lower returns from stocks and bonds in 2016 than in past years. They're also predicting more severe swings in prices. Remember that 10 percent drop for stocks that freaked investors out in August? It likely won't take another four years for the next one.
Regards,
Ted
http://bigstory.ap.org/article/52194e6899d24c6db2484be02aaea2e1/expect-less-and-buy-antacid-2016-investment-forecasts

I'd never taken a close look at those bar charts to see what they actually represent. My current working hypothesis is that they are simply the 10 year risk and reward ratings on the ratings & risk tab. If my theory is correct, funds that have not been around at least 10 years will not have these bar charts on their quote pages.
The three year performance/risk buckets are above average/average. Since the manager has been around for just two years, that would seem to be the better set of ratings to look at in any case.
The next question is how FPBFX could be rated as average performance vs. category over 10 years when it landed in the 7th percentile, with 60% better performance than the category average (6.31% vs. 3.88%).
This suggests either the performance rating is wrong, or "category" is defined differently for "category performance" in the quote page table and for "return vs. category" on the ratings&risk tab. That is, the category comparisons might not be the same for the percentile figure and for the "average" bucket.

@BenWP GPEOX beat its benchmark by more than 300 bps for the year... That's a bad idea? GPGOX beat its benchmark by nearly 300 bps as well. And GPIOX finished 2015 more than 150 bps ahead... What exactly makes these bad investments?

@MFO Members: If I'm not mistaken, I link the news on 12/23/15.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.mutualfundobserver.com/discuss/discussion/24935/manning-napier-buys-a-3b-shop-on-the-west-coast-rainier-investments#latest

Hi @BenWP,
From time-to-time funds falter (sometimes even the best). This is one reason that I use a sleeve system which holds multiple funds (usually three to six); and, in this way, when one of the funds falters within the sleeve then there are the other funds that can offer production and move the sleeve forward.
For those interested, I am providing the details on my sleeve system below.
Sleeve Management System (12/18/2015)
Here is a brief description of my sleeve system which I organized to help better manage the investments that were held in five accounts. 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 fund sleeve and a ballast/special 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. Currently, going into 2016, I am bubbling on my target allocations noted below.
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, FISCX, 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: AJVAX, ANWPX, NEWFX, PGROX, THOAX & THDAX
Large/Mid Cap Sleeve: AGTHX, IACLX, SPECX & VADAX
Small/Mid Cap Sleeve: PCVAX, PMDAX & VNVAX
Specialty Fund Sleeve: LPEFX, PGUAX & TOLLX
Ballast/Special Investment Sleeve: None
Total Number of Mutual Fund Positions = 47

Hi Catch22,
Thank you for reading and responding to my post.
I really do believe that forecasting (especially the future according to Yogi Berra) is a terribly uphill slough. But if some error rate is acceptable, it is not an impossible assignment. As Yogi famously said: “When you come to a fork in the road, take it”. And when investing, there are countless uncertain forks in the road.
Study after study have demonstrated the high error rates when making forecasts. The long running CXO Advisory Group study that scored the forecasts of 68 financial professionals just reinforced the high hurdle that most experts stumble against. The CXO guru grades registered only about a 48% accuracy record.
Random successes are often followed by painful failures as the regression-to-the-mean iron law exercises its ultimate influence.
On a much larger scale, Phil Tetlock has organized and measures the accuracy of a large body of carefully selected, screened, and challenged political wiz-kids. These scholarly studies have been conducted over many years and across many iterations. Expert teams have been assembled based on earlier prediction prowess. Forecasting accuracy at the margins has been improved with team effort, but it remains a tough uphill battle. Here is a Link to a relatively recent Tetlock lecture:
https://www.aei.org/events/predicting-the-future-a-lecture-by-philip-tetlock/
Experts can be assembled that tilt the forecasting odds just a little. An informed team of bright folks can make a difference, especially if the team is dedicated and is composed of members with a wide ranging set of experiences and knowledge. The MFO contributors satisfy those criteria.
So, while I surely do not agree with all that is said on this wonderful site, I do learn and profit from the MFO exchanges. After 6 decades of moderately successful investing, I’m not prepared to “leave this game”.
An important lesson that I learned during those many participating years is that setting a satisficing goal is better than shooting for a maximizing goal in terms of anticipated rewards. If you are not familiar with the concept, here is a dictionary definition of 'Satisficing': “A decision-making strategy that aims for a satisfactory or adequate result, rather than the optimal solution”. An optimal portfolio return is a mythical target.
Additionally, I preach and practice portfolio diversification and patience as strong investment tools to embrace. Investing need not be complex.
Stay strong and healthy for 2016. The market challenges are forever present.
Best Wishes.

@BenWP Hey, you need to visit more often; JoJo caught it recently:
http://www.mutualfundobserver.com/discuss/discussion/24883/manning-napier-announces-agreement-to-acquire-majority-interest-in-rainier/p1

Josh wrote me (and presumably everyone else on the list) on December 30th, and asked us to complete the sentence, "In 2015, I learned that ..." Seized by uncontrollable whimsy, I sent him a rather longer answer than was publishable.

Hi, Josh.
In 2015 I learned that ...
... in the battle between a sensible strategy and a senseless market, the market wins (for now).
Other things we learned that probably wouldn't fit in your column:
Sometimes when they say dry-clean only they really mean it. Who knew?
The longest 3 seconds in sports is when your kid is circling under a fly ball.
When they describe a ghost pepper as insanely hot, they're telling the truth.
And, that I can't see Trump without thinking Mussolini (Duce! Duce! Duce!).
In 2016, I'm hoping to learn whether what they say about Irish milk chocolate is true.
Cheers for a joyful new year.

David

Hi, David.
Almost all of the winners in my retirement portfolio were Fidelity large growth funds (and Fido Japan Smaller Companies, bought some while ago at Ed's recommendation).
In Mr. Danoff's case, his major winners were Facebook (up 34%), Amazon (up 120%), various flavors of Google (up about 45% depending a bit on share class), and Netflix (up 135%). Decent gains on smaller positions in Visa and MasterCard, services important to your use of all of the above.
Berkshire Hathaway and Apple were negative and Chipotle was negative in oh so many ways.
For what that's worth,
David

I stumbled across this press release (http://rainierfunds.com/Documents/Rainier - Manning-Napier-press release.pdf) when looking into Rainier International Discovery. I had heard nothing of this proposed transaction. FWIIW, RISAX had a great year in 2015 and I was curious as to how they clocked my Grandeur Peak holdings. The big difference is in market caps; the Rainier fund, despite being classified as Sm-Mid Intl, holds 91% in lg-caps and mid-caps, and only 8% in sm-caps. GPIOX has no large caps and has almost all its holdings in small and micro caps. Apples and oranges, as the sage said. Grandeur Peak over-all has done very little since mid 2014, so GPEOX, GPGOX, and GPIOX are among my several bad ideas for 2015.

Towards the end of this article is:
Nuveen Quality Preferred Income 2 (JPS) has most its exposure to preferred stock issued by large banks and insurance companies, such as Bank of America and MetLife. Most preferred is perpetual, giving it a lot of rate risk, but credit quality is improving as banks and insurers build capital cushions.[my emphasis]
Why is so much MSM finance reportage persisting with this mantra? I don't get it; last time I looked, the rating agencies were giving yet another credit downgrade to many of the 10 largest banking institutions. Excluding Wells Fargo, aren't many now about one step from BBB? That's terrible! And most MFs that focus on preferreds have a boat-load of Big Bank preferreds. Perpetual pfds. No thank you. Put leverage into the mix? No thank you very much.
@Ted I know it increases concentration risk, and there may be some call risk in certain issues, but I just think it's be better to follow your route--- be patient, identify pfd targets, and when they hit a sensible buy price then go for it and build your own "Benz bucket," one by one, in a measured way. In this asset class, how else can one stay away from the banksters, and the illusion of their stability?

FYI:(Click On Article Title At Top Of Google Search) "Thornburg GlobalOpportunities:FreshAir, Freah Ideas"
Thornburg Global Opportunities typically owns fewer than 40 stocks spread out across at least 10 countries. The trade-off for the fund’s superior performance: higher than average short-term volatility
Regards,
Ted
https://www.google.com/#q=Thornburg+Global+Opportunities:+Fresh+Air,+Fresh+Ideas+Barron's
M* Snapshot THOAX: http://www.morningstar.com/funds/XNAS/THOAX/quote.html
Lipper Snapshot THOAX: http://www.marketwatch.com/investing/fund/thoax
THOAX Is Ranked #7 In The (WS) Fund Category By U.S. News & World Report:
http://money.usnews.com/funds/mutual-funds/world-stock/thornburg-global-opportunities-fund/thoax

FYI: (Click On Article Title At Top Of Google Search)
There are still plenty of places to find decent income in stock and bond markets, even with many key interest rates at or near historically low levels. Investors can get yields of 4% to 9% on a range of investments, including junk bonds, utility stocks, telecom shares, and real estate investment trusts. These look appealing in an environment of sub-2% inflation, 1%-to-3% Treasury yields, and minuscule yields on bank deposits and money-market funds.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.google.com/#q=get+yield+up+to+9%+Barron's

FYI: Annus horribilis or annus mediocris?
Regards,
Ted
http://www.mutualfundobserver.com/2016/01/january-1-2016/

This sure seems more reasonable and plausible to do than most such advice articles:
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/one-way-to-try-to-beat-the-sp-in-2016-2015-12-31
It would be to track going forward, and/or back-test, with a dummy portfolio.

Hi Guys,
Prolific Melody Beattie wrote: “The new year stands before us like a chapter in a book, waiting to be written. We can help write that story by setting goals”.
In the investing world we can certainly set those goals, but we are powerless with regard to controlling the final outcomes. I have been investing for over 6 decades and I still do not find any consistent rhyme or any repeatable reasons why the marketplace does what it does.
An excellent visual summary of the non-predictability of both the equity and the fixed income segments is available in the market’s periodic returns tables that are often referenced in these MFO exchanges. Here is a Link to an American Century version of these illustrative tables:
https://www.americancentury.com/content/dam/americancentury/ipro/pdfs/flyer/Periodic_Table.pdf
There is no rhyme, no reason to the steep yearly reversals in these category returns. Economies don’t change that rapidly; only investor sentiments are that volatile. If you can ferret some respectable pattern from these chaotic data, than” you’re a better man than I am Gunga Din” !
Sensible market actions are mostly an illusion. Our market experts are still trying to explain the Great Depression and coupled market meltdown. Some folks place blame on the Smott-Hawley tariff tax bill; others take exception. However, we’re all very inventive at generating seemingly plausible, but mostly wrong, causes.
Some folks believe that we were just due for a market correction after a rather long run of positive outcomes. That’s a fallacy; it is more superstition than factually based. Just because a coin toss has come up heads ten times in succession doesn’t alter the base rate odds that the next toss has a 50/50 chance of yet another head.
Historically, equities have returned positive results about 70% of the time annually. Although that didn’t happen this year, I expected that outcome and am disappointed. Next year, I expect that the positive return odds remain at the 70% likelihood.
I don’t change my portfolio construction based on forecasters. In 1933 Alfred Cowles published a paper with a questioning title, “Can Stock Market Forecasters Forecast?”. He answered in the negative. Not much has changed in the intervening decades. In that spirit, I agree with the comments submitted by MFOer vkt.
My contribution to a lessons learned list would not be new for 2015, but it surely would be persistent: Forecasters can’t forecast.
Best Wishes for a healthy and profitable New Year.

Also posted on M*.
I'm a long-time investor in MAPIX and have gotten in and out a couple of times; I am "in" right now. BUT, I'm not sure I'm getting the most bang-for-the-buck (pardon the cliche').
Absolute returns are good, not great, the downside has been okay, but not what I'd hoped, so I have been exploring other options in the Divers. Asia Pacific category.
I find myself looking closely at FIDO's Pac. Basin fund,FPBFX (my wife owns it in her 401K). It has a new manager since late 2013, so his track-record is very short and difficult to evaluate. When I compare it's returns and metrics to other funds (3 years and less), in particluar, MAPIX, FPBFX comes out mostly on top.
Returns favor FPBFX significantly; slight nod to MAPIX for M* "risk"/SD; Alpha, Treynor, upside/downside capture ratio favor FPBFX.
Furthermore, when I look at the "downside" Quarterly returns for 2013-2015, I find no real difference, if anything, it may favor FPBFX a bit.
Bottom line, what thoughts, suggestions and opinions do you have? Am i being too impatient and possibly "performace chasing"?
Thank you for any and all comments!!
Matt

Can't let it go, can you?
You asked how many of the 162 funds M* calculated this year. I'd say all of them. The vast majority of current bond quality averages were calculated for the past quarter (9/30/15). Though you're right, some fund families are more helpful than others.
Fidelity seems to have provided data ahead of what's legally required. M* was able to compute the average quality of Fidelity's conservative allocation funds as of 10/31/15, a month more recent than most.
There's a reason why you wander over to the reference section of your library. You put in time and effort assimilating information because you find value in the M* subscription material. Let's just leave it at that.