Harvard is having problems attracting good in house talent to mange the money because the faculty and students go ballistic when they hear that someone who can deliver market beating returns will not work for less than 2 or 3 million a year. Add to that the fact that every faculty member thinks s/he can do a better job
Yale' David Swensen figured this out years ago. Run a low key inexpensive shop. The Investment manger scouts for talent and then hires the best to run the money independently. It is hard for all the lefties to complain when all they see is 8 to 12% returns year after year... They do not know that the outside manger is getting 2 and 20
Swensen however is a Prince. For years he worked for $1,000,000 ( which goes farther in New Haven than Boston .. I should know I live in New Haven) I think they finally gave him a raise

FYI: Don’t fire your investment manager just because he failed to beat the stock market last year.
I can already hear the howls of protest: If trailing the market isn’t a fireable offense, then what is?
My answer: It’s not that past performance doesn’t count; what’s irrelevant is performance over the recent past. Calendar-year performance, for example, tells you next to nothing about whether your manager is a good bet for future returns.
This is an exceedingly difficult lesson for us to take to heart. Even Harvard University, with the largest endowment fund in the world, apparently is having trouble with it.
The university in late January laid off more than half its investment-management staff. Though the institution’s press release announcing this didn’t mention it, the layoffs come on the heels of a disappointing fiscal year in which the endowment actually lost money, lagged behind its benchmark by 3 percentage points, and trailed the total return of the S&P 500 Index SPX, +0.73% by 6 percentage points.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/harvard-teaches-investors-a-lesson-in-what-not-to-do-2017-01-31/print

@msf I get what you are saying about loads. However, for the longest time American funds retailed only through loads. So if you didn't have an institutional account, you were out of luck.
I did see the SAIs, and saw $1MM investements of its lead manager in all funds. Other managers however own around $100K. Given the asset size of these funds, I want to do a little more research.
Comparing with Vanguard - if they are anything like Vanguard, I would be silly to worry. I'm also looking at Franklin Mutual funds that may be available without load to me. Thanks for the endorsement on American funds.

Let me second what rforno wrote. They are a solid, conservatively manged fund house without esoteric funds. In other words, boring like Vanguard. Similarly solid. Not quite as low cost, but as noted above, fairly priced.
While you may not appreciate M*'s opinions, its star ratings (backward looking) are more objective. M* shows American Funds' asset-weighted (I think) fund ratings to be: 4.0 (domestic), 4.3 (international), 4.2 (muni), 2.4 (taxable bond). That compares favorably with Vanguard at 4.0, 3.1, 4.0, and 3.3. It probably looks good compared with any large fund house.
With respect to load families, keep in mind that PIMCO, Loomis Sayles, American Century, etc. are load families. According to M*'s data, even T. Rowe Price sells some load shares (1.9% of its AUM) as does Doubleline (0.2% AUM).
IMHO what matters is how much you pay for access, not how much others pay.

So now that American funds are available NTF, I've been toying with DCAing a small amount every month in them. Needless to say I will do so opportunistically, not regularly. Low minimum is attractive. However, I'm still distressed from the fact they used to be a load shop and from M* over the top praise for this fund family.
Given my age, I was thinking about the following funds instead of all equity funds. Thinking these are a little less aggressive and since I still have some hair left, reasonably steady.
BALFX, IFAFX, CIBFX, GBLEX.
The idea is to start with $250 in each = $1000, and then repeat $1000 multiple times. Eventually I would stop at $10K in each fund invested over time. This was money I was keeping aside for my daughter's college, and I'm happy to say it does not look like we will need as much as I thought we would (good I married smart and there was appropriate gene transfer). Now I don't want to buy more funds than I need so if only one or two would likely achieve the same outcome, I would rather do that. Starting this post with the hope those who have invested in American funds can offer some insight/opinion.

FYI: Investors have long taken comfort in the steady returns their bond funds have provided, particularly when stocks go on another of their gut-wrenching drops. But the safety blanket is getting more threadbare, a result of simple math. Bonds don't pay as much interest as they used to, following a decades-long drop in interest rates. That means bonds pay less in income and also raises the threat of a rise in interest rates. Higher rates mean prices for bonds, whether individual ones in your brokerage account or the ones in a bond fund you own, will fall because their payouts look less attractive than those of newly issued bonds.
Even though bond funds provide less cushion than before, they still are the best defense for a 401(k) account, fund managers say. Bond funds will still hold up better than stocks during downturns. And investors may be in need of some safety soon. U.S. stocks are more expensive relative to their earnings after more than tripling since early 2009, and Wall Street questions how much more they can rise without strong growth in profits. President Trump's promise to shake up the status quo could also mean big swings for stocks.
Regards,
Ted
http://bigstory.ap.org/article/f669cd236fa0432495631608bc0cde83/what-safe-part-your-401k-still-can-and-cant-do

+1 Best post of the year so far

At most intervals over the last 3y-plus (except for a hair at 1y), it's outperformed by the much smaller CAPE.
Yes, hope you're breathing easier.

Today, he sees the most opportunity in bank loans and asset-backed securities.
Is there anybody that does not like bank loans?? They have been stellar now for the past year along with junk corporates and emerging markets bonds. But this universal consensus worries me to death. From being 100% bank loans in late fall I am now 55% junk and 45% bank loan which is the reverse of where I was last week.
Of course junk worries me to death too. At least there I am comforted by the fact that the ultimate junk bond guru on the planet is still saying they are ridiculously overpriced. Something he has been saying for the past 15% on the upside. Then again, in this game it pays to always worry and not be complacent. That way you don't get blindsided by the likes of a 2000-02 or 2008.
Edit; Being a stickler for detail make that 58% junk bonds 42% bank loan

Hi, guys.
We suffered minor vandalism on the site at about 6:00 a.m. CST today. Apparently a fairly prolific hacker, perhaps an Indonesian hacking consortium, tagged us. In response, we've changed all of our internal passwords (they're now, Chip assures me, "mile-long strings of characters") and our ISP has completed security scans of the site. In short order, they're going to rollback the site to what existed last night. That means that any changes (both posts and hidden code) over the past 12 hours or so will disappear. We regret the inconvenience, but we're trying to be exceedingly careful.
I'll ask Chip to update you once we have more complete info.
David

FYI:(Click On Article Title At Top Of Google Search)
The ALPS Sector Dividend Dogs ETF has a three-year annual return of 12.91%, better than 98% of its Morningstar-category peers.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.google.com/#q=Betting+on+the+Dogs+of+the+S&P+500
M* Snapshot SDOG:
http://www.morningstar.com/etfs/arcx/sdog/quote.html
Lipper Snapshot SDOG:
http://www.marketwatch.com/investing/Fund/SDOG
SDOG Ranks #31 In The (LV ) ETF Category By U. S. News & World Report:
http://money.usnews.com/funds/etfs/large-value/alps-sector-dividend-dogs-etf/sdog

FYI:
Regards,
Ted
Lipper Equity Mutual Funds
http://www.allaboutfunds.com/performance/iops.pdf:
Lipper Fixed-Income Mutual Funds: (Taxable)
http://www.allaboutfunds.com/performance/fixed_iops.pdf As 10/13/16
Lipper 25 Largest Mutual Funds:
http://www.allaboutfunds.com/performance/lg25.pdf As 10/13/16
Lipper Mutual Fund Yardsticks: As 10/14/16
http://online.wsj.com/mdc/public/page/2_3023-fundyrdstick.html?mod=wsj_mdc_additional_mutualfund
Lipper Mutual Fund Indexes: As 1014/126
http://online.wsj.com/mdc/public/page/2_3020-lipperindx.html?mod=wsj_mdc_additional_mutualfund

SOPAX has had a tough year to date down 4.82%. That's surprising considering the markets have done fairly well so far for 2017.

http://www.investors.com/etfs-and-funds/mutual-funds/mutual-fund-managers-cite-tech-financial-energy-and-industrial-names-they-like-for-17/
Mutual fund stock managers and strategists name names.

Hi Mary and welcome. I'm of the opinion that like any tool in the box the VIX might have a use but I wouldn't use it to make any decisions on an average broad based mutual fund. The linked article below suggests that even those ETF's and ETN's designed to play with the VIX have quite a bit of trouble with that critter. Of course YMMV.
http://blogs.barrons.com/focusonfunds/2014/06/17/no-your-etf-doesnt-track-the-vix-volatility-index-and-here-are-the-numbers/

This is my first post and I'm hoping to learn some things about mutual funds I may not come across normally.
I was wondering if anyone sees any value in the VIX as giving some indication as to stock market highs and lows.
It is pretty low now which could mean a high in stocks.
https://finance.yahoo.com/chart/^VIX#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

There is plenty of research that shows that manger who has large amounts invested in his/her own fund tend to outperform those that don't. My experience, or lack thereof, does not invalidate my thoughts (for the record, I probably have more experience than most since I actually work in the industry). I understand the point incredibly well. I just don't agree with it. Either your best ideas are in the fund or not. If they're not, you're not serving shareholders first. If they are and you're not invested heavily, you're not maximizing your own wealth.

Confirmation bias at its best...

Like I said, why do you need research? I'll give you research. Searcrh on Google once. Search on google twice. RE-search. You just do what feels right. Sometimes when things smell, it is really the brown stuff.
Just like anyone else, you may have 4 things you look for when you buy a fund. Some of us have 5. Not sure why 1 more is so bad.

@JoJo26, I am sorry but when some manager comes out of nowhere and wants to manage my money, he better be prepared to lose his shirt like me. It's one thing blindly investing into GP funds knowing well before that they had a stellar record of managing and stewardship at Wasatch.
I will never invest in a funds without manager ownership. When I made a mistake I have sold. When others have pointed out no manager investment I have sold. And I don't even ask any questions later. It's not a matter of returns, it is a matter of principle. It is irrelevant to me what research says about manager fund ownership. If research showed companies like Wells Fargo who screw customers become the best of companies in the aftermath, does not mean I'm going to open an account with them or even consider doing so. They are dead to me until they are the last bank on earth (since I'm not a hypocrite, but they freakin' better be the last bank on earth). There is a clear choice between who you chose to invest and do business with, and when you have that choice I think we take it. THAT is the only control we have.
And ownership debate has to be relative. It is one thing staying invested in FAIRX when manager has no investment and another when you know he has $46 MM + (last time I checked fews years back). It does make a difference. One reason I never invested with Bill Miller who said he had $1MM investment and was buying a $70MM yacht.
It would be good to know a manager who has $500K invested in his fund, what his net liquid worth is. If is net liquid worth is less than $2MM (say) and he has $500K (for instance) invested that's commendable. We don't know. If I see GP managers start buying yachts for $70 MM I will sell.

As pass through entities, REITs generally don't report their breakdown of ordinary divs, cap gains, and return of capital until January 31. Likewise, funds pass through income, so they can't begin computing what they're passing through until they have info from their underlying REITs. Hence the delay.
Here's Vanguard's FAQ on real estate funds, and American Century's page about their real estate fund tax reporting:
https://personal.vanguard.com/us/help/FAQTaxesContent.jsp#1099REIT
https://www.americancentury.com/content/americancentury/direct/en/investment-planning/tax-center/real-estate-funds.html
I take it as a given that real estate funds report late. What intrigues me is why T. Rowe Price singles out PRSVX in addition to its real asset funds (including real estate) for late reporting.:
https://individual.troweprice.com/public/Retail/Planning-&-Research/Tax-Planning/Prepare-Your-Taxes/Tax-Information-Mailing-Schedule

@JoJo26 , in thinking about the managers investment into their own funds I agree with you. I don't think it matters much about "skin in the game". I may even argue it to be a detriment if the manager applies the portfolio to return what they need from the portfolio. There needs could be very different than yours. Also agree with the 401k analogy in buying company stock.