Hi msf,
Thanks for your comments concerning John Neff. Certainly his illustrious investment career does not end with a bang, but more with a whimper. He underperformed in his final year.
Speculating, that might well have been a major influence on why he retired. Perhaps his time had passed and he recognized that he lost that magic feeling. But one year a career does not make.
I was definitely not rating the man on only the final years of his long tenure with Windsor. I did own that fund for some fraction of that period. I based my statement that he was a legondary fund manager on his entire tenure. I sure didn't know his complete record so I extracted it from the Imvestopedia website.
Here is the paragraph from that source that convinced me that he truly earned his reputation:
"John Neff\'s average annual total return from Vanguard\'s Windsor Fund during his 31-year tenure (1964-1995) as portfolio manager was 13.7%, against a similar return from the S&P 500 Index of 10.6%. He showed a great consistency in topping the market\'s return by beating the broad market index 22 times during his tenure and was regularly in the top percent of money managers."
If it interests you, here is a Link to that website:
http://www.investopedia.com/university/greatest/johnneff.asp#ixzz4XxnIh8Xn
I was presenting John Neff's complete total performance record. I hope the summary data presented by Investopedia was accurate. It was part of their greatest investor series. They quoted the CFA Institute as the source. You might be motivated to check it. I am not.
Best Wishes

From my most recent post here

"Vanguard actively managed funds have been and are managed by some famous investors. For a very long period legendary John Neff directed the Windsor Fund to outperform his benchmark until his recent retirement. He's just one of several examples."
Actually not so much. He did have an outstanding two decade record. Unfortunately, he managed Windor for another 11 years, "recently" retiring at the end of 1995.
Over the first ten of those years 1984-1994 (using fiscal years ending Oct. 31), he underperformed the fund's benchmark, the S&P 500, a bit, 14.5% vs. 14.8%. His final year was a relative (albeit not absolute) disaster, with a total return of 17.8% vs. the S&P's 26.4% (for fiscal 1995).
Those of us who became aware of him at the end of his career wondered what all the hubbub was about.
1995 Prospectus (for ten year records, 1984-1994)
1994 Prospectus (for 1995 record, and 10 year record 1985-1995)

Hello,
For those interested, linked below is information on American Funds different share classes.
https://www.americanfunds.com/individual/investments/share-class-information/share-class-pricing.html
Click on the F shares to view the different type of F shares available and details about these shares.
And, below is another link that covers frequently asked questions about fund shares.
https://www.americanfunds.com/individual/service-and-support/other-resources/share-classes-pricing-options.html
Click on the C share conversion tab for more information about C shares converting to F-1 shares.
I think this should posture my comments made in this thread earlier and clear the confusion that some might have.
Best regards,
Old_Skeet

Hi Guys,
There has been much discussion of Vanguard Index products (the Bogle Model) on this thread. The exclusionary emphasis has been on Vanguard Index funds. That's not too surprising given that Vanguard emphasis that segment of their business.
But Vanguard actively managed funds are worthy of portfolio consideration. There are a ton of them, and many have superior performance records. Personally, I own a healthy mix of both their Index and actively managed funds.
Vanguard actively managed funds have been and are managed by some famous investors. For a very long period legendary John Neff directed the Windsor Fund to outperform his benchmark until his recent retirement. He's just one of several examples.
A fellow named Dan Weiner has been monitoring Vanguard for quite some time and publishes a rather expensive newsletter. He also shows up at Money Show events. Here is a Link to an interview with him that was conducted a couple of years ago that might be of MFO interest:
http://www.kiplinger.com/article/investing/T041-C009-S002-dan-wiener-likes-vanguard-actively-managed-funds.html
I certainly follow one rule that he identifies in the referenced interview: " I’m not a buyer of mutual funds. I’m a buyer of managers ". So am I. For an actively managed fund, the name of the game is insightful and skillful managers.
Thank you all for your participation.
Best Wishes.

Yeah - if you can get a "high number" R-class (ie, R-5 or R-6) w/the AFs you are in good shape. I've got R-6 shares (no load, no 12b1, VERY low ER) in my 403(b) and am quite pleased.

I'm investing in the Balanced fund (class R shares) in my 401k account with my current employer. The fee is pretty low for that share class. We only had American Fund choices and I chose this fund as being relatively reliable.
This is a job to tide me over until actual retirement in five years or so and I'm just putting in the 6% to get the match. It is all going into this fund and I've been happy with it so far.

I'm investing in the Balanced fund (class R shares) in my 401k account with my current employer. The fee is pretty low for that share class. We only had American Fund choices and I chose this fund as being relatively reliable.
This is a job to tide me over until actual retirement in five years or so and I'm just putting in the 6% to get the match. It is all going into this fund and I've been happy with it so far.

Per the Feb commentary and morningstar, he's leaving the fund. Anyone know where or what he's doing next?
http://news.morningstar.com/articlenet/article.aspx?id=791999

@MJG - you're correct, I missed it (3-5-10). Actually I saw it but failed to connect the dots. Anyway, I am in agreement with Hank that 3 terms for the same item unnecessarily confuses the reader and the portfolio composition should have been stated up front. I also think he might have or should have provided a link to his data source but I don't intend for my nit-picking to detract from the basic premise that simple beats complex. Occam's razor always leaps to mind.

"With this, I'm thinking there is just no "free lunch" for the American Funds small retail investor. However, I do admire you for trying to find one."
Well, you are paying a 12b-1 fee (F-1 shares) that goes to brokers for NTF shelf space, so it's not exactly a free lunch. But that lunch doesn't cost more than dining on, say, DLTNX or any other NTF fund that's paying for shelf space.
Schwab and Fidelity offer 57 American Funds NTF (e.g. CIBFX at Schwab and at Fidelity). This is a new arrangement that was set up a couple of months ago.
Note that this is not the first time that American Funds has made class F shares available NTF. Around 2004, American Funds sold the shares NTF through some lesser known brokerages. It took me a fair amount of digging to find any info, but apparently this fact had been posted to misc.invest.mutual-funds in mid-2004 with a link to Firstrade's American Fund page.
That link no longer works, of course, and Firstrade is not one of the brokers American Funds is working with this time around. Also back then, the shares were called class F. It wasn't until a few years later, when American Funds added class F-2 (F shares without the 12b-1 fee) that the name was changed to F-1.
I know you can't believe everything you read on the internet, but if I see something that I had posted myself, well that's good enough for me. :-)

@MJG: Following are three excerpts from your linked article. Note the different wording.
(1) "As I’ve done in the past, I broke down these numbers to see how things stacked up against a ... "simple Vanguard 3-fund portfolio*."
(2) "...which I have labeled the Bogle Model."
(3) *The Vanguard portfolio is made up of ..."
---
For an article touting simplicity, Carlson makes the article unnecessarily complicated by using three different terms to represent the same thing. Even more reprehensible - he doesn't define for his reader the portfolio he's discussing until the end of the article (than in a footnote). Perhaps it was written for an audience of devote Bogle adherents for whom the omission and intermixing of vocabulary would pose less of an issue. But I'd say, generally speaking, he could benefit from some writing instruction or a good book on the matter.
Here's a link to On Writing Well by William Zinsser. http://kevevans.com/on-writing-well/
A couple excerpts:
The secret of good writing is to strip every sentence to its cleanest components. ... Clear thinking becomes clear writing; one can’t exist without the other.
A tenet of journalism is that “the reader knows nothing.” As tenets go, it’s not flattering, but a technical writer can never forget it. You can’t assume that your readers know what you assume everybody knows, or that they still remember what was once explained to them.

Hi Mark, Hi Hank,
Thanks for reading my post.
Please take a second look at the referenced article. It has both data for several,extended timespans up to 10 years, and does include a definition of the Bogle Model,which was invented by the author.
The 3 and 5 year data show that the simple Bogle portfolio that contains 3 Index funds outdistanced 75% of the top quartile of endowment funds and just marginally lost to the top decile of endowment operations. At the 10-year comparison period, the Bogle Model even outperformed that top decile endowment group. That's impressive. Simple beats complex!
A definition of the Bogle Model is provided at the bottom of the article. It is 40% of the US stock index fund, 40% total bond index fund, and 20% total international stock index fund. That's a respectable benchmark that is easily implimented by individual investors.
My portfolio is a little more complex with a mix of actively managed and passive products.
Thanks again for taking an interest in the post.
Best Wishes
EDIT: Sorry guys for my belated reply which was already covered by quicker. MFOers: That seems to be a constant with me: a dollar short and a day late. Thank you all for your help.
EDIT 2: Hank, the article did link Vanguard and the Bogle Model. To quote: " As I’ve done in the past, I broke down these numbers to see how things stacked up against a simple Vanguard 3-fund portfolio* which I have labeled the Bogle Model." That quote was just above the first table in the article.

What in hell is "The Bogle Model." This flimsy article doesn't explain it (and I've Googled it without success). Since it's called a "model" (and knowing a bit about Jack Bogle's investment philosophy) I have to assume it incorporates (some) percentage of (some type) of bond(s) into its holdings?
If I knew how the "model" was allocated during this apparently 10-year time frame, I might be able to offer some half-intelligent thoughts on the broader topic/comparison. Thanks for any additional insights.
I'll read the article again. Maybe I missed the definition. (Ich finde nicht)

Interesting. That 'alternative' stuff will get you every time.
Seriously though, I couldn't tell from the article but it seemed as though Mr. Carsons conclusions were based on the past years results. If so, what happens when you stretch that out 3, 5, 10 years and beyond? One commentator suggested that commodities might make up the bulk of those alternate investments and the current down cycle in same explains the poor comparison showing of endowments vs Bogle. Year by year that could have an affect if one is caught leaning the wrong way but it might balance out over the long run.....

FYI: I think a lot about happiness – what makes a person happy,
whether or not happiness should even be a life’s priority – things
like that. A good high school friend stunned me at the early age
of 17 by suggesting we should not necessarily try to be happy.
Sacrifice, service, devotion to a cause were higher orders, he felt,
although presumably, since those were choices, their pursuit could
secondarily lead to happiness
Regards,
Ted
https://17eb94422c7de298ec1b-8601c126654e9663374c173ae837a562.ssl.cf1.rackcdn.com/Documents/umbrella/bill gross/47655_ TL-Bill Gross Investment_ Happiness Runs.pdf

Hi Guys,
Our institutions have access to the best and the brightest in the investment world. Their deep pockets, their pride, and their goals govern their hiring policies and monitoring processes. These are among the Big Guys (read dollars) when making investment decisions. Are their results better than ours?
Ben Carlson writes excellent columns. He published one today that explores the market performance of the Institutional community. Here is a Link to it:
http://awealthofcommonsense.com/2017/02/how-the-bogle-model-beats-the-yale-model/
Carlson concludes that simplicity is superior to complex over short and longer timeframes. By simple his standard is a .3 component Vanguard fund set. The short term data is not very compelling; the luck of the draw could dominate these outcomes. The longer time period outcomes are far more meaningful. Simple also translates into lower costs.
Once again, are their results better than ours? Of course there is no universal answer to that question. It depends. My answer is No, and I suspect that a large fraction of MFOers would similarly respond with a definite No.
Please give the referenced article a little of your valuable time.
Best Regards

Hey American Funds - first timer ... (aka @VintageFreak),
Better take a closer look at those F shares ... I'm thinking most F shares are C share converts and the only way to come by them is to first buy C shares and over time (10 years) let them convert to F shares. Not sure if this is so; but, if you are sincerely interested you might pick up the phone and call American Funds to comfirm or dispel. Their listed phone number is 1-800-421-4225.
In addition, I believe, some F shares can be bought out right and are for advisor wrap account purchase programs. So, I'm thinking, although the F shares expense ratios might be low compared to A shares with sales loads some F shares will be subject to on-going advisor/broker wrap account fees and charges. Invest a million with them and I believe they will wave sales charges on their A share funds.
With this, I'm thinking there is just no "free lunch" for the American Funds small retail investor. However, I do admire you for trying to find one.
Skeet

Shiller Enhanced CAPE® & Shiller Enhanced Int'l CAPE® Webcast
Hosted by Jeffrey Sherman
Tuesday, February 7, 2017
1:15 pm PT / 4:15 pm ET / 3:15 CT
Please join us for a live webcast titled "Timing Equity Markets using the CAPE Ratio" hosted by:
Jeffrey Sherman, CFA
Deputy Chief Investment Officer & Portfolio Manager Jeffrey Sherman will discuss the strategy, sector allocations and outlook for the DoubleLine Shiller Enhanced CAPE® ( DSEEX / DSENX ) & DoubleLine Shiller Enhanced Int'l CAPE ( DSEUX / DLEUX ) for 2017.
Register
https://event.webcasts.com/starthere.jsp?ei=1129090

Dear friends,
There's always a balance between broader issues and discussions of individual funds. This month tilted in the direction of funds.
AMG Chicago Equity Partners Balanced (MBEAX): a singularly low-profile, low-risk balanced fund. US equities, including a larger serving of small and mid-caps than most, plus high-grade bonds. For any comparison period that takes down cycles into account, it has gold performance. For comparison periods that look narrowly at periods marked by rising markets (the easy-to-find 1/3/5 year stuff), it's a notch down. Even in those markets, it's risk-adjusted returns are better than its peers or Vanguard STAR.
T. Rowe Price Global Multi-Sector Bond (PRSNX): formerly TRP Strategic Income, we profiled it in 2011 and I own it in my retirement portfolio. It's the first in a series of profiles labeled "left behind by Morningstar." As Morningstar focuses more resources on passive products and big funds, bunches of funds that it once recognized by meritorious get dropped from coverage. In 2011, their final word was "promising but it needs a longer track record before we upgrade it." Five years later and it's a consistently top 10 fund but still no notice.
GQG Partners Emerging Equities (GQGPX): An Elevator Talk with Rajiv Jain about his new fund.
Symons Concentrated Small Cap Value, Institutional: an interesting possibility. It'll be by far the most concentrated small cap fund out there and is based on a successful small SMA cluster. $1 million minimum, so it's mostly FYI.
Osterweis Emerging Growth (OSTGX): just wanted to share word of Jim Callinan's return with the rest of the world.
My essay mostly focused on the wisdom of keeping your head when all those about you are losing theirs. Ed addresses the ugly reality that a number of big name firms are likely in their last decade. And Bob C begins walking folks through the decisions to be made in the transition to retirement.
For what interest all that holds, and with thanks for your patience and good spirits,
David

sma3,
Please order me a white clam well done from Modern.
Richard C. Lee 1973
Mona