HSCSX despite some manager changes a year and a half ago. It has easily beaten its peers across all periods and is very tax efficient.
I would hang on to JSCVX for now since small-cap value has been beaten up in recent years and it's hard to find a good fund in that area. Ever since management changed the strategy and composition of the fund in 2013, it has done very well compared to its peers.

@MJG Oh yes, and I can think of another infamous example of a 3rd and 4th (il)logic chain: :)

I really think the human mind is incapable of escaping this fallacy, it is so hard-wired into our cognitive processes as a species. About all one can do is be on the lookout for it and compensate as needed. And, for crying out loud, be amused by it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conjunction_fallacy

"I am particularly fond of this example [the Linda problem] because I know that the [conjoint] statement is least probable, yet a little homunculus in my head continues to jump up and down, shouting at me—“but she can’t just be a bank teller; read the description.” Stephen J. Gould[1]

(for those familiar with the history of biology, Gould's use of "homunculus" is terribly witty)
Also http://www.fallacyfiles.org/conjunct.html#Answer

When people are asked to compare the probabilities of a conjunction and one of its conjuncts, they sometimes judge that the conjunction is more likely than one of its conjuncts. This seems to happen when the conjunction suggests a scenario that is more easily imagined than the conjunct alone. Psychologists Kahneman and Tversky discovered in their experiments that statistical sophistication made little difference in the rates at which people committed the conjunction fallacy. This suggests that it is not enough to teach probability theory alone, but that people need to learn directly about the conjunction fallacy in order to counteract the strong psychological effect of imaginability.

And for MFOers who don't understand why we'd be prattling on about this, here is a recent mention of this fallacy by Clifford Asness of AQR on his personal blog site; he sounds a bit consternated, no?
https://www.aqr.com/cliffs-perspective/do-not-go-for-the-exacta

A veritable bargain at twice the price...particularly since item #1 above commits the site to being "interesting".

Hi Heezsafe,
Thanks very much for your submittal, but especially thank you for reminding me of the Conjunction fallacy. I am familiar with the work of Kahneman and Tversky so I am aware of the Conjunction fallacy, but I failed to recall that its common nickname is The Linda Problem.
I agree with you that we all fall victim to this behavioral fallacy at some time or another; it is a pervasive shortcoming. And yes it does appear on a few MFO posts; it is hard to escape from it if folks don’t think in terms of compound probabilities. Folks seem to resist that discipline.
For example, if you are invited to a financial investment meeting, what is the probability that a casual encounter will be with the money manager presenter if M people are present? The likely answer is 1/M or 2/M. Most folks would know that answer.
Now, what is the likelihood that the person you meet is a successful money manager? Most folks would not know that a high probability correct answer to that question is 0.1/M. Successful money managers are hard to find because they are a rare breed.
The Conjunction fallacy has been captured in many public media. It is often a major part of a movie theme. A terrific example of it is excitingly demonstrated in “The Enemy Below” movie. That film features Robert Mitchum as the destroyer skipper and Curt Jürgens as the submarine commander. It’s the great “he thinks I’ll do this, so I will not, but he knows I will not so…..” 3rd or even 4th level logic chain.
Here is a Link to that 1957 movie trailer:

I agree with the Keynes and the Zweig observation that multidimensional thinking and depth are required when making decisions. However, there is a practical limit and danger in the depth dimension.
Many of us are guilty of over-thinking an investment. Since we never have access to complete information, we often delay and delay a decision until the optimum investment point has passed. We are victim to paralysis caused by too much analyses.
As investors, it is a challenge to decide when enough information is enough to make a reasonable decision. That threshold balance point is hard to define, and likely changes for each decision. Firm rules don’t exist. Investing may seem easy, but is never easy to execute.
I have pontificated far too long. Thanks again for your comments.
Best Wishes.

Better yet to be in high yield munis such as ABTYX or PYMDX. That category was the star in 2014 ( EIHYX NHMRX) and again this year albeit more muted and without the volatility of the corporates. Yes, trends do persist. Some of the (so-called) experts are looking for a credit crisis in the high yield corporates still to be played out.

Hi Junkster,
I knew you would come through ;-)
Best Regards,
Mona

Better yet to be in high yield munis such as ABTYX or PYMDX. That category was the star in 2014 ( EIHYX NHMRX) and again this year albeit more muted and without the volatility of the corporates. Yes, trends do persist. Some of the (so-called) experts are looking for a credit crisis in the high yield corporates still to be played out.

@Mona: As of 9/30/15 POAGX held 11.53% of it's portfolio in non-U.S. Stocks.
Regards,
Ted

As a longtime AF holder, I am happy with their funds and fairly comfortable with their investment process/management, but these days, knowing what I know now versus 15 years ago, would absolutely refuse to buy more and/or institute new positions if I had to pay a load.
The last AF I purchased was in my 403(b) and a load-free, low-cost R-6 class share.

Mona: "I am still trying to understand why all the ink on MFO on RSIVX and not a drop on ASHIX ...."
Hi Mona, the Allianz fund is mentioned in this thread, and a few others. Search on ASHDX to find them, as that seems to be the share class people have referred to. Funny, the ASHDX share class doesn't trigger as a valid ticker now; it used to.
The big difference is that Allianz is into higher quality junk.
Cheers, AJ
Edit: Huh. ASHDX doesn't trigger because, apparently, the D share class doesn't exist anymore - at least neither M* nor Fidelity recognizes it now. There's an A share class that Fido offers load-waived - ASHAX.

Hi AndyJ,
No wonder I could not find a peep!
Now that you have, I agree with your post on October 19th where your said:
"Riverpark hasn't kept up with its real peers, e.g., ASHDX & OSTIX."
And, I am also in agreement with the post by willmatt72 on October 20th:
"As Heezsafe alluded to, RSIVX is not really a total return fund. I held this fund for about a year and, while it distributed a nice dividend, it never held its NAV during that time. As a result, I continued to watch my principal drop. It wasn't my cup of tea. I chalk it up to lessons learned. I've had better results with ASHDX and ZEOIX."
Personally I am glad to be long out of RSIVX and in ASHIX albiet it's has a bit of a rough past month.
Mona

FYI: When I mentioned in a post a few weeks ago that American Funds has 19 share classes, it raised a few eyebrows. So let’s take a look at why they need so many. By the way, the working title for this post was “Here a share, there a share, everywhere a share share”, but I thought it might go unappreciated by readers without small children.
Regards,
Ted
http://gordianadvisors.com/share-classes-galore/

Hi David,
Any updates since your post on May 1?
Mona

NYTimes report - the as yet unannounced cost will be 0.1% to 0.2% according to a phone rep (how reliable is that?).
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/21/your-money/fidelity-joins-growing-field-of-automated-financial-advice.html

Hi Guys,
This Jason Zweig article is very reminiscent of a very famous John Maynard Keynes story.
Zweig asked “Can you pick the guys who pick the guys who pick the best stocks”. Zweig concluded that “Picking market-beating stocks is hard. Picking the people who can pick market-beating stocks is at least as hard. And picking funds that can pick people who can pick market-beating stocks may be the hardest of all.”
That’s a variation of Keynes’s beauty contest insight. Richard Thaler defined this as an illustration of “third level” thinking. Here is a Link to Thaler’s recent article:
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/6149527a-25b8-11e5-bd83-71cb60e8f08c.html
In the Keynes beauty contest scenario, “each competitor has to pick, not those faces that he himself finds prettiest, but those that he thinks likeliest to catch the fancy of the other competitors.” The parallelism is evident.
The referenced article offers more. Thaler summarizes a number guessing game that has the same logic as the Zweig and Keynes insights. You might enjoy playing this single question game. Give it a try.
Various players use differing levels of thinking to arrive at their answer. Thaler presents data from a recent survey that included 583 individual participants.
Richard Thaler observes that “Keynes’s beauty-contest analogy remains an apt description of what money managers do.” The mutual fund manager performance data suggests that these managers would not do well at the Keynes beauty contest game. Investing is not as easy at it seems.
Best Wishes.

The Crowd by Gustave Le Bon published way back in 1895 yet as topical as ever. I really think RPHYX isn't all that bad albeit not my cup of tea. RSIVX I said before is a mediocre fund (actually less than mediocre now) and heavens forbid if Jim Rogers and Carl Icahn are correct in their assessment that something real ugly is brewing in corporate junk debt. As an aside, PONDX which has been mentioned favorably on MFO numerous times, just doesn't seem to get the love that undeserving RSIVX does. PONDX, swelled assets and all just keeps truckin on.
Nice post Junkster. And why all the ink on RSVIX and none on ASHIX that I can recall?
Mona

How about this hidden gem that was un-hidden this week? 1,111 carats...

@MFO Members: You will have to forgive those M* investor's who made comments to their hidden gems. Remember, they have yet to complete Mutual Fund 101, and I understand most of them are failing !
Regards,
Ted

Hi @Old_Joe
Here is my totally scientific short study regarding your question:
--- Manager: Bryan C. Krug
Manager Tenure: since 3/19/2014
Funds Currently Managed
Artisan High Income Fund Advisor Shares (since 3/19/2014)
Artisan High Income Fund Investor Shares (since 3/19/2014)
Funds Previously Managed
Ivy High Income B
Ivy High Income I
Ivy High Income Y
Ivy High Income E
Ivy High Income Fund Class R6
Ivy High Income Fund Class A
Ivy High Income C
Ivy High Income R
Education
BS, Miami University
This link is for the manager, Mr. Krug with several linked stories related to his move.
https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=Bryan+C.+Krug
My basic summary: It appears that the excellent returns of the Ivy High Income funds (example: IVHIX ) were highly correlated to Mr. Krug during his time with Ivy. These excellent returns are now showing at Artisan, ARTFX; during Mr. Krug's short management period to date; while the Ivy High Income funds (since his leaving) have suffered in line with many other HY/high income funds. Briefly, Mr. Krug is not new to this investment area and began with Waddell and Reed in 2001. I have not looked backward further regarding his investment employment. It appears from returns of funds involved with Mr. Krug's management; that apparently, there are those individuals whose active management can make a difference.
Lastly, to the HY/HI sector. We have not been invested in this area for about 18 months. Management choices as to how to deal with high yield issues that are related to commodity and energy areas will likely show us who the "lucky" folks are/will be in the next year or so.
Don't forget that my Econ. degree is from Whats-A-Matter U.; so as to place properly the evaluation of my thoughts to this topic.
Thanks for the discovery.
Regards,
Catch

According to Fairholme PDF, the payout was due to:
"... We are pleased that our investment in AIG generated over $2 billion in gains for shareholders and are optimistic for similar outcomes in the current portfolio holdings based on our estimates of their potential full value..."
Turner Emerging Growth will have another large payout year again with at least $13 for this year besides the $26+ payout from last year. I plan to sell it prior to record date and buy back in after payout since I will have a smaller gain on sale than than I would with another large CG payout. Since there is no loss being recognized, it is not an issue.

I received my first yearend mutual fund capital gain distribution this week from Thornburg Strategic Income (TSIAX) in the amount of 2.74 cents per share with a payout date of 11/19/2015. I anticipate receiving about a 3% capital gain distribution on the equity side of my portfolio. If this materializes, then the total distribution (interest, dividends, capital gains) received will be north of 5% on current valuation and better than 6% on amount invested. Thus far, this year, I have been able to have competitive performance with my portfolio's benchmark (The Lipper Balanced Index). Times are now tough for us yield seekers as I can remember my portfolio easily paid out better than 8% ten years ago.

FYI: Call it “the year of mimicking dangerously.”
A handful of mutual funds and exchange-traded funds seek to emulate such leading investors as hedge-fund manager William Ackman of Pershing Square Capital Management. Most of these funds are down 5% or more for 2015, and some have lost at least 10% over the past three months as the embattled drug company Valeant Pharmaceuticals International . and other holdings of top investors have tumbled
Regards,
Ted
http://blogs.wsj.com/moneybeat/2015/11/20/can-you-pick-the-guys-who-pick-the-guys-who-pick-the-best-stocks/tab/print/