If the last thirty years are any indicator of future trends in Healthcare, maybe a 90/10 portfolio of VGHCX / VFISX vs Warren's VFINX / VFISX: (click on each image for better clarity)

FYI: The Sage of Omaha’s proposed 90/10 asset allocation could provide superior upside potential and downside protection, a study has found.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.ai-cio.com/channel/ASSET-ALLOCATION/Warren-Buffett-s-Way-to-Invest-for-Retirement/

Something never mentioned about these shareholder costs is that these are risk free returns for the Fund company.
Regardless of the gyrations of the market, asset under management never return a negative profits for fund managers. A fund that charges an ER of 1% on $1,000 invested will earn $10 return/year. If the market correct 50% and that $1,000 investment falls to $500 the fund company still earns a positive 1% or $5.
To me, this is the reason why there is such a motivation for the fund company to add assets under management (AUM). Profits for fund companies are often less about growing the mutual fund share price (fund performance) and more about growing the assets under management.
To me, the dirty secret is that fund management fees are always positive and are only more or less positive as it related to assets under management at any one time. Investors who pay these fees are additionally exposed directly to losses due to market risks. Fund managers deal with market risk by growing assets under management, not necessarily by focusing on the performance of the fund.
- The mutual fund shareholder, not the fund manager, assume market risk. If an equity fund experiences a 50% market correction the equity investor must absorb a 50% loss.
- Fund companies are profitable regardless of market performance. The fund manager continues to make a profit, sometimes a smaller profit, but still a profit.
- Fund managers deal with "lower profitability" from market risk by increasing their assets under management.
As an aside:
It would be interesting to look more closely where these fund manager invest their profits since most fund managers commonly don't invest in the own mutual funds.

@VintageFreak
From a legal perspective it's important to recognize that A) Most investors are not as sophisticated as you, but B) and more important, even if they are many don't have much of a choice as to the funds they invest in. Those invested in 401ks have a limited selection of funds to choose from and for many investors with limited assets and time to research investing that is the only place they invest. So the question as to whether adequate economies of scale are being recognized for those imprisoned investors is relevant to these law suits. I know this from personal experience. I have a relative for instance who has a retirement plan with terrible fees on its funds, but there's no way she's not going to participate in that plan because of the generous match from her employer for every dollar she contributes. She is stuck with that plan and those funds. For that kind of investor this questions regarding economies of scale and total dollar fees is vital from a legal perspective. Regulators, judges and fund boards of directors should be paying attention to this kind of fee analysis for shareholders, but they aren't.
Regarding your comparison of $1,000 invested in both American and JOHCM, your comparison is valid for the individual shareholder, but again that misses the point of these hidden market impact costs and loss of active share. The expense ratio doesn't measure those and most investors are not paying attention to the SAI. At best they may go to the Morningstar report and see the "Low" fee label on one fund and the "High" on another and ignore the rest. Of course, that "Low" rating also factors into Morningstar's "Gold, Silver, Bronze" ratings on funds. And that drives assets to those funds.

PARNX is also fossil free as of Feb. 18, 2015.

I actually assumed all Parnassus was "fossil free".
PS Someone needs to file a pattent on Fossil Free Mutual Fund quickly. In fact, I'm expecting FOSFX launch soon now. Fossil Free Large Cap. Wisdom Tree Small Cap. Tree of Wisdom. Free off Fossill.

I didn't do much with my taxable portfolio. I did do some trading for tax planning and reduced my equity exposure slightly. I'm cautiously building it back up, but will observe distribution projections for my funds while doing so.
In my retirement portfolio, at one point I was completely out. I'm at 60% allocation now. I might have mentioned I do my own ANALysis to come up with short, mid, long term models which tell me whether to be 33%, 66%, 100% invested, and I follow them blindly using index funds / target funds in my retirement accounts.

I understand what you are trying to get at. I do. Matter of fact on M* Bogle also made point as much as half of "fees" go to parties outside the fund manager.
http://www.morningstar.com/cover/videocenter.aspx?id=685180
There are fixed costs incurred by a fund. So many funds with low asset bases close because those assets cannot fund - no pun intended - the beast, where now fund company ends up operating fund at a loss.
The SAI of a fund does indicate where the expenses charged by the fund is going. Would we benefit from more disclosure? Sure. I'm saying there is enough information already. If expenses are the end all and be all, then we are all crazy to invest in actively managed funds.
I'm not saying your article is not relevant. I'm saying this problem if we accept it exists, is unsolvable unless we start capping fees for management as well as fixed costs, with trading costs being the only variable to account for the rest of the fees - more assets can possibly cause more commissions when fund has to buy larger quantities of shares of stocks it owns. The devil is in the details and the devil is here already. My point, investors have to share equal blame for investing in funds that are charging them too much.
As an investor, to me the ER is amount of $ I spend for every $1000 invested. My perspective is different from someone else's who's sitting on the side with an excel spreadsheet. JOHCM is collecting less fees, because it is managing fewer assets. The difference in assets between that fund and the American fund is so large, the ER becomes irrelevant since the percentage works off a much large asset base at the former. JOHCM is being fiscally responsible and investors should stay with that fund because they should believe JOHCM has investors best interest in mind and will be able to overcome any impediment of the ER over the long haul as opposed to the American fund.
I am not seeing the point saying American as a company is raking in more dollars but their fund has smaller ER. As an investor and IF I didn't pay the load, I would indeed pay less per $1000 would I not with the American fund? If both funds returned the same return, and everything else regarding taxes remaining the same, will I not keep more of the returns with the American fund? If not, American should be hauled into court because they are hiding stuff in their SAI.

@Sven
https://www.sec.gov/litigation/admin/34-49741.htm
(Above link sometimes doesn't work. You should, however, be able to pull up this 2004 SEC document doing a Google search. It's good reading.)
From the SEC Complaint: "From 1998 through 2001 and in 2003, Strong frequently traded 10 Strong funds, including one over which he was the portfolio manager, making approximately 660 redemptions inconsistent with the limitations of the prospectus in the forty accounts that he controlled. As a result of his trading, Strong had gross profits of $4.1 million and net profits of $1.6 million. SCM failed to disclose Canary's trading agreement, and the inherent conflicts of interest involved in allowing such trading, and Strong and SCM failed to disclose Strong's frequent trading activities, to the Boards of Directors of the Strong funds or to the shareholders of the funds ..."
---
Regarding his personal accounts, 660 redemptions (1998-2003) is an eye-grabber. Anybody here ever come close to that number of trades over a 5 year period? As a former shareholder I can tell you they didn't tolerate such frequent trading by most clients. I was cautioned once after doing about 6 trades in one of their funds over a year's time.
Here's a story detailing the rise and fall of Strong Capital Management and which references the takeover by Wells Fargo in May 2004.. http://www.pionline.com/article/20120806/PRINT/308069980/one-time-powerhouse-strong-financial-down-to-a-staff-of-1
Strong appealed to many small investors in the Midwest. Low minimums, flashy literature and promotion, and a sizeable stable of competitive funds. Strong himself, through one of his publications, taught me: "Pay Yourself First." That saying probably didn't originate with him, but I heard it first from him and it was inspiring and helpful at the time. A fairly charismatic figure, he appeared as a guest once on Rukeyser's Wall Street Week - though you could tell old Lou wasn't too impressed.

@VintageFreak As the author of the article, I obviously disagree. But I wonder if you read it in its entirety. I think there are two good reasons why total dollars in fees matter. One is this question of economies of scale, which has huge legal ramifications. The perspective that a fund with $128 billion that is collecting $903 million in fees a year has "low" expenses because its expense ratio is 0.83% of assets seems misguided to me. It is relevant to these law suits filed by employees of 401k plans arguing fees are too high. Simply examining the expense ratio leads regulators and judges to say fees are fair when anyone looking at the massive asset growth and thus total dollars in fees the industry has experienced in the last twenty years would realize that economies of scale are not adequately being realized. If a pension plan with $128 billion hired a money manager to run its portfolio directly and not via the mutual fund route, there is no way it would be paying 0.83% for that service. Yes, there are ancillary costs such as shareholder services and broker placements, but these still are not enough to counteract the basic fact that for fund companies opening a new fund is essentially like opening a toll booth. Once you've built the booth and hired the clerk to man it the profits just grow and grow no matter how many people drive through.
The second reason is actually more relevant to MFO readers. These giant funds suffer other costs not recognized by the expense ratio, namely market impact costs that makes it more expensive to trade illiquid securities. Asset growth also makes it more difficult to have a high active share ratio as fund portfolios become more index like as assets grow. The comparison in the story is highly relevant as the JOHCM International Select Fund is run by a small boutique shop that closed the fund to new investors at around the $3 billion mark. As such, it faces much less of the market impact cost and closet-indexing problems of a much larger $128 billion fund. It also happens that it is collecting much less in total dollars of fees as a result. Yet because everyone is looking at expense ratios instead of total dollars in fees it gets penalized for having a higher expense ratio by Morningstar and investors. That seems unfair to me. It also happens that JOHCM International Select is a fund David has reviewed for MFO. So I think the story is relevant here.
I don't necessarily disagree with you about load funds and the high front-end commissions, but that is another story entirely--not the one I wrote in this case.

Hi @Ted and others,
Ted, it is nice to see you posting again; and, with this, I hope you are feeling better. I can assure you that you were indeed missed.
I have mixed feelings about your price target for the 500 Index (2059 X 6.7%=2200). Currently, I feel stocks in the Index are richely priced with a current TTM P/E Ratio of 22.7 and on forward estimates at 17.9. What concerns me is the spread between reported (TTM) and estimates is better than 25% with Friday's market close price of 2079 (October 30) for the Index. With this, I am thinking forward estimates will be getting revised downward and at your price target of 2200 then this puts stocks as expensive at yearend and vunerable for correction as they are today assuming earnings do improve and stay in step with your anticipated price improvement. If your anticipated price target is achieved then I hope earnings estimates come through to support this price target; and, that they do not get revised downward so the beat rate, by analyst, looks good for 4Q2015 reporting. I think the average investor is, at times, mislead by beat rate reporting not knowing that this most often happens as a product of analyst's making revised downward earnings expectations up to and sometimes just before companies report. Thus, the beat rate continues. I personally do not see much continued upside in the markets until corporate earnings and revenue improve. This could continue to be a challenge with a strong dollar and a rising interest rate environment on the horizon. I have no plans this year to make a special investment position for an anticipated fall stock market rally because I think stocks, as a whole, are currently overbought.
With this, I am Ieft pondering; and, standing pat with my portfolio's current asset allocation of about 25% cash, 20% income, 50% equity and 5% other assets as of my last Instant Xray report (October 30, 2015).
Again, it is nice to see you posting.
I sincerely wish you the very best; and, take care of yourself.
Old_Skeet

Sorry, but I don't understand.
I totally get one should look at how much the fund company is raking in. That's why one needs to observe if ER is going down when assets are going up or not. One also has to look at the management fee portion of the total ER since some fund strategies are costly to implement and one must weigh that before purchasing any actively managed fund.
What I don't get is the comment about whether it needs really $1B to run a $128B. Of course not. Since when has it been about that? The larger the fund asset base, the larger the management fee as a percentage. A fund manager is successful when he generates more revenue for his fund company. Are we going to pretend it is anything else? If the asset size of fund grew more because of appreciation and less because of asset accumulation, then didn't the investors think it is worth it. You pay more for an iPhone than other phones right?
VFINX ER is 0.15 (or whatever it is does not matter). What if the assets of VFINX were 10th of its current size. Are we going to ANALize how much it is going to cost to run this fund based on its asset size now? Someone of Bogle's standing IMHO should do more about railing against investors. Tell them to vote with their feet and SELL funds with $128B in assets who are raking in $1B in fees. Or is he suggesting capping fund expenses beyond a certain asset size of a fund? That would be a fantastic regulation. I
Finally, anyone who buys a load fund needs to have their head examined. If it is because they are working with an advisor, then as I have said many times we need to put that occupation out of business. I want Bogle to write articles about advisors who are selling loaded funds with 5.75% loss upfront. I want him to rail about M* doing analysis about how American funds (who can do no wrong) are cheap because even if most people pay a load, over time they cost less because their ER is lower. I listen to Bogle when he rants about indexing vs active management. Indexing is what I use largely in my tax deferred plans. If I was saying same thing for 50 years, I would think it is quite enough and at age 85 take a chill pill.
BTW, Alan Greenspam. Please go away as well. No one needs to hear your expertise on how to (mis)manage the fed.
I'm sorry, but this "news" is only slightly less annoying than "who killed marilyn monroe" shows which TV channels show whenever nothing else interesting is happening in the world. Does anyone have an original idea to help investors?
End of rant.
PS. For the record, I do NOT want Mr Lewis Branham to go away. I DO WANT Greenspam and BogleMyMind to go away or comment on some other topic. Write a cookbook or something.

Don't know much about the tax angle, but VEIPX is one of the best V'rd LCap value funds in the last 5-10 years.

Good point. Even in what has been largely a "Growth" environment, this "Value" fund has done quite well. Might be a good candidate to DCA into.
Thanks for the heads up!

That's certainly thorough. Thank you! And yet, why can't "year-to-date" simply mean that??? That is to say, starting at 01 January--- up to the moment??? I'm just grousing.

Don't know much about the tax angle, but VEIPX is one of the best V'rd LCap value funds in the last 5-10 years.

I likely wrote a bit too compressed.
The M* figures in the article are as of 9/30/2015. When one quotes YTD figures, one has to be clear on what the "date" is in "year to date". (The Nov 2 dateline of the article is the date the article was written, not necessarily the date of the data within the article.)
M* shows YTD (D = Nov 3) for PREMX of 3.14%. Likely rounding was done differently by Bloomberg; I'm not going try to figure out why the two figures differ by 0.01%. They're basically the same.
If you're looking at YTD performance that includes October and part of November, it would be nice to know what was in the portfolio that produced that performance. Unfortunately, funds report their portfolios with a 30 day lag (at least I think that's the delay), so the best you're going to get is a portfolio as of 9/30/15.
It seems to me that if that's the portfolio one is looking at, then one should also be looking at the performance that this particular portfolio achieved - that is, the returns through the same date, 9/30. Not that it makes a big difference. The portfolio is in constant flux, day by day and even minute by minute, so a snapshot still doesn't tell you what happened along the way to achieve the performance shown.
The raw data for holdings should be the same regardless of the source of you data. That is, Bloomberg, M*, the fund page, should all report exactly the same holdings for a fund on a given date.
But any analysis of the holdings (average credit rating, percent in cash, etc.) is going to vary from source to source. That's because while two sources (M*, fund page) may use the same names (e.g. percent in cash), their calculations may be different.
M* throws bonds with maturities under 1 year into the cash bucket. So if you have a portfolio that is filled entirely with bonds where half mature in six months and half mature in 10 years, M* will say that your portfolio is 50% cash, 50% bonds. My guess is that when M* analyzes the country exposure of the portfolio, it only looks at the 50% in long term bonds. And the country exposure of those bonds may be different than the country exposure of the short term bonds. So what's reported as country exposure might depend on whether you look at just the long bonds or all the bonds.
I haven't even gotten into derivatives, in part because I haven't tried thinking through how one might analyze them. Suffice to say that TGBAX plays enough games with currency exposure (it bears no relationship to the bond country exposure) that one should be able to come up with very different figures depending on how one treats derivatives.
Ideally, one should read up on how all of the numbers are calculated. (I've posted before about how M* computes average credit quality in a way that gives a lot more weight to lower graded bonds.)
If one doesn't fully understand what the numbers mean (I certainly don't), the next best thing is to stick with one source (M*, Bloomberg, some other aggregator). That way, any summary figure (e.g. average credit quality) is computed the same way for each of the funds one is comparing. M* will compute credit the same way for PREMX as for VTBIX.

Howdy @heezsafe
Listening to sounds for investing................and happened to read your thought about the market place. while this was playing (below). Perhaps not totally relevant for all the words for investing, but.............
As crazy as the markets and the science of money may be, there is too much moving around looking for a place to play, eh? We're riders on the money trains if we choose to participate. I think about the many I know who don't have the concerns, cares or thoughts that pass across the typed pages here. There are days when I think about running away from home (investing that is); but, I know what I know and am pleased that I have enough knowledge and time into this game to participate with some success.
I wouldn't have it any other way, among the various other areas in my life today. Next month or next year I may run out of the desire. I hope I am able to see and understand when that day arrives, and it will.
Regards,
Catch
"Déjà Vu" Crosby, Stills, Nash & Young, 1970
One Two Three Four
If I had ever been here before
I would probably know just what to do
Don't you?
If I had ever been here before on another time around the wheel
I would probably know just how to deal
With all of you
And I feel
Like I've been here before
Feel
Like I've been here before
And you know it makes me wonder
What's going on under the ground, hmmm
Do you know? Don't you wonder?
What's going on down under you
We have all been here before, we have all been here before
We have all been here before, we have all been here before
We have all been here before, we have all been here before

Some may have to double click the play arrow.

I own another microcap fund from a fund company that also flies a bit under the radar, Buffalo Fund's Emerging Opportunities Fund (BUFOX). The fund has 53 holdings with a recent concentration in Technology. It's off its high by 20%, but boosts a 5 yr avg return of over 15%. The reality is that this fund experienced a MAXDD of 48% and it took 6 years to dig out of that hole. These funds are not for the faint of heart and in my opinion require an entry and exit strategy. These funds move in cycles so attempt to buy the lows.

@PopTart
This link is for all Fido funds by type....select, domestic equity., etc.
http://fundresearch.fidelity.com/mutual-funds/fidelity-funds-daily-pricing-yields?refpr=MFRes_016
Lastly, as you probably are aware; at the search/get a quote box, at the top right, on the Fido pages and after entering a fund ticker, the overview page that pops up is quite nice, especially the "composition" choice. At least it is easy on my eyes and easy to soak up the info. Underneath the BUY/TRADE icon the "compare" (charts, time frames, etc.) may be of value too and a bit to the right of that is a + Similar Funds icon. This is sometimes handy for viewing similar funds to one that is being reviewed. And the similar funds are more than Fido offerings. Once in a while you might encounter an institutional or other fund ticker that won't display data; being that it is likely not available for purchase to a retail investor. All items about a fund are usually available without being logged-in or having a Fido account. This applies to etf's and stock tickers, too.
Take care,
Catch

@MSF: I guess I'm a hard case. WTF? The dots aren't connecting for me re: the (admittedly often unreliable) Morningstar numbers.
Bloomberg: PREMX y-t-d (after the close on 03 Nov, which was a good day) shows a positive number: +3.13%.
http://www.bloomberg.com/quote/PREMX:US

James Funds:
http://www.jamesfunds.com/our-funds-distributions.php
Janus Funds:
https://17eb94422c7de298ec1b-8601c126654e9663374c173ae837a562.ssl.cf1.rackcdn.com/Documents/retail/planning page documents/Supplemental Tax and Distribution Information/2015/Janus Funds Preliminary Distribution Estimates 2015.pdf
JP Morgan:
https://www.jpmorganfunds.com/blobcontent/547/655/1323436047000_2015-JPM-Funds-Capital-Gains.pdf
Keeley Funds:
http://www.keeleyfunds.com/funds/distributionsummary.php
Kinetics Funds:
http://kineticsfunds.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/KMF-2015-distributions_est.pdf
Kopernik Global Fund:
http://kopernikglobal.com/sites/default/files/KGI CG MEMO 930 2015.pdf
Leuthold Weeden Funds:
http://lwcm.com/sites/lwcm.com/files/Nov_2015_Cap_Gains_Estimates-1.pdf
Liberty Street Funds:
http://www.libertystreetfunds.com/sites/default/files/docs/Dividend & Distribution Info - Liberty Street Funds_2.pdf
Litman Gregory Masters Select Funds:
http://www.mastersfunds.com/distribution-estimates
LKCM Funds:
http://www.lkcmfunds.com/media/pdfs/LKCM_Distribution_Estimates.pdf
LMCG Funds:
http://www.lmcgfunds.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/Distribution-Letter_Oct-2015.pdf
Longleaf Partners:
http://longleafpartners.com/sites/default/files/categories/Documents/Longleaf-Partners-Funds-Capital-Gain-Distribution-Estimate-2015.pdf
Loomis Sayles Funds:
http://www.loomissayles.com/internet/internet.nsf/content?readform&ctype=capitalgains&channel=mf
Lord Abbett Funds:
https://www.lordabbett.com/en/resources/tax-center/capital-gain-distribution.html#la_Estimated_Capital_Gains
Lyrical Value Funds:
http://lyricalvaluefunds.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/2015_Distribution_Estimate.pdf
Madison Funds:
http://madisonfunds.com/individual/tax-info
MainStay Investments:
http://www.nylinvestments.com/polos/MSSR06-10-1556540.pdf
Manning & Napier:
https://www.manning-napier.com/Portals/0/FundsDocs/distributions/2015-year-end-distribution-estimates.pdf
Marsico Funds:
http://www.marsicofunds.com/funds/content/distributions.fs
Matthews Asia Funds:
http://matthewsasia.com/investor-resources/fund-distributions.fs
Meeder Investment:
http://www.meederinvestment.com/Resources/Doc/Meeder Funds 2015 Capital Gains Distribution Estimates.pdf
Meridian Funds:
http://meridianfund.com/literature/tax-information/
Metropolitan West Funds:
https://www.mwamllc.com/documents/MWFunds_DistributionEstimates-1115.pdf
Mirae Asset Discovery Funds:
http://investments.miraeasset.us/files/4114/4562/4737/2015_Estimated_Capital_Gains_Distributions.pdf
Muhlenkamp Fund
http://muhlx.muhlenkamp.com/distributions/
Natixis Funds:
http://ngam.natixis.com/us/investor/1250204324790/Year-End+Distribution+Estimates+for+2015
Northern Funds:
https://www.northerntrust.com/documents/white-papers/mutual-funds/individual/2015-preliminary-estimated-capital-gains.pdf?bc=24089026
Nuveen Funds:
http://www.nuveen.com/Home/Documents/Viewer.aspx?fileId=49964
Oak Associates:
http://www.oakfunds.com/OakLibrary/Distributions2015.aspx
Oakmark Funds:
http://www.oakmark.com/News/News-and-Insights-Placeholder/2015-Fund-Distribution-Estimates.htm
Oberweis Funds:
http://oberweisfunds.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/2015CapitalGains.pdf
Oppenheimer Funds:
https://www.oppenheimerfunds.com/advisors/doc/2015_Capital_Gains_Estimates.pdf?dig_asset_metrics=done&cb=42653008356
Optimum Funds/Delaware Investment:
https://delinvest.fgsfulfillment.com/download.aspx?sku=CGE-OPT
Pacific Life Mutual Funds:
http://www.mutualfunds.pacificlife.com/public/performance/perf_updates/2015/w30027.pdf
Palmer Square Fund:
http://www.palmersquarefunds.com/uploads/2015 Estimated Capital Gains Distribution.pdf
Payden Funds:
http://www.payden.com/mutualFunds/distribution/2015CapGains.pdf
Pear Tree Funds:
http://www.peartreefunds.com/sites/default/files/2015 Distribution Estimates.pdf
Perritt Capital:
http://www.perrittcap.com/news-events/events/
Pinnacle Value Fund:
http://www.pinnaclevaluefund.com/historicalresults.asp
Poplar Forest Funds:
http://www.poplarforestfunds.com/pdfs/2015_PFCapGains.pdf
Primecap Odyssey Funds:
http://www.primecapmanagement.com/prices_and_performance/distribution_information.html
Principal Funds:
https://secure02.principal.com/publicvsupply/GetFile?fm=MM3682&ty=VOP&EXT=.VOP
Prudential Funds:
https://www3.prudential.com/email/pi/a/capgains2015.pdf
Quaker Funds:
http://www.quakerfunds.com/performance/tax/2015distributions
Rainier Funds:
http://rainierfunds.com/Documents/2015 Distribution Estimate.pdf
Ridgeworth Funds:
https://www.ridgeworth.com/includes/files/assets/files/1446127496_2015-YearEndCapitalGainsEST.pdf
Riverpark Funds:
http://www.riverparkfunds.com/downloads/News/2015_EstimatedDistributionInfo.pdf
Roosevelt Fund:
http://www.rooseveltmcf.com/files/documents/2015-513B-RooseveltEst.Distributions.pdf
Royce Funds:
https://www.roycefunds.com/news/2015/10/open-end-funds-2015-year-end-distributions
RS Investments:
http://www.rsinvestments.com/wps/RSContent/Render?content_id=268e4044-807c-48d4-8a73-5caf92294b91&channelname=financialadvisors
Salient Partners:
http://www.salientpartners.com/static/pdfs/rpf/Salient 2015 Preliminary Capital Gain Distribution Information.pdf
Schroders Funds:
http://www.schroders.com/en/SysGlobalAssets/staticfiles/schroders/sites/americas/schroderfunds/documents/2015-year-end-distribution-information.pdf
Schwab Funds:
http://ims.schwab.wallst.com/repository/?doc=2008DistAct
Scout Investments:
http://scoutinv.com/resources/documents/literature/taxinfo/2015YearendDistributionEstimatesMemo.pdf
Seafarer Funds:
http://www.seafarerfunds.com/fund/distributions
Selected Funds:
http://selectedfunds.com/document/read/2015_estimated_year_end_capital_gains_distributions
Sentinel Funds:
https://www.sentinelinvestments.com/pdf/capgainsdist-est2015.pdf
Sit Funds:
http://www.sitfunds.com/services/2015distribution-estimates.php
Smead Value Fund:
http://smeadcap.com/files/9914/4683/5862/2015_Dividend_Distribution_Estimates.pdf
Sound Shore Fund:
http://www.soundshorefund.com/cap_gains.asp
Sterling Capital Funds:
http://www.sterlingcapitalfunds.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/Estimated-Capital-Gains-2015.pdf
http://www.sterlingcapitalfunds.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/Estimated-Capital-Gains-2015-Stratton-Funds-v1.pdf (Stratton Funds)
SunAmerica Funds:
https://www.safunds.com/pdf/capital-gains-estimates-as-of-9-30-15-with-nav.aspx
TCW Funds:
https://www.tcw.com/~/media/Downloads/TCW_Funds/Distribution_and_Tax_Information/FUNDsb.ashx
T Rowe Price (financial intermediary link; individual link is below...figures look similar)
https://www4.troweprice.com/tpw/ivp/public/fiTaxInformationPage.do
Third Avenue Funds:
http://thirdave.com/top-news/2015-estimated-income-capital-gain-distributions/
Thornburg Funds:
http://www.thornburg.com/products-performance/mutual-funds/dividends-capital-gains/
Thrivent Funds:
https://www.thrivent.com/tax-resource-center/files/28341.pdf
TIAA-CREF Funds:
https://www.tiaa-cref.org/public/tcfpi/InvestResearch?shareclass=retail class&view=distributions&subview=projectedview
Tocqueville Funds:
http://www.tocqueville.com/sites/default/files/Distributions_2015_prelim_2015-10-09.pdf
Touchstone Funds:
https://www.touchstoneinvestments.com/documents/pdf/TSF618.pdf
Transamerica Funds:
https://www.transamerica.com/images/capital-gain-distributions_tcm73-37718.pdf
Turner Investments: (TMCGX another large payout)
http://www.turnerinvestments.com/tax-information/
USAA Funds:
http://www.advisorusaa.com/~/media/Files/U/USAA-RWD/documents/forms/pronotification-letter041115.pdf or
https://content.usaa.com/mcontent/static_assets/Media/MutualFundDist_PreNotification.pdf?cacheid=3881185387_p
Victory Funds:
http://www.vcm.com/docs/default-source/Victory-Fund-Forms-and-Documents/2015-estimated-capital-gains.pdf?sfvrsn=2
Virtus Investment Partners:
https://www.virtus.com/vsitemanager/Upload/Docs/7065_capgainsestimate.pdf
Vulcan Value Partners:
http://www.vulcanvaluepartners.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/MF-Estimated-Cap-Gains-2015.pdf
Waddell & Reed Funds:
http://fulfillment.dstweb.com/showpdf-sku.cfg?sku=WRCAPGAINS&clientcode=wrf
Walthausen Funds:
http://www.walthausenfunds.com/index.asp
Wasatch Funds:
http://www.wasatchfunds.com/Email/docs/2015_Yr_End_Dist_Est_Mobile_v1w0.pdf
Westchester Capital
http://www.westchestercapitalfunds.com/media/pdfs/2015_Est_Distributions.pdf
Westcore Funds:
http://westcore.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/2015-Distribution-Estimates.pdf
Westport Funds:
http://www.westportfunds.com/files/Tax.pdf
Westwood Funds:
http://www.westwoodfunds.com/pdf/2015-estimated-distribution.pdf
William Blair Funds:
https://www.williamblairfunds.com/resources/docs/funds/other/Estimated Distributions 2015 I and N.pdf
Wilmington Funds:
http://www.wilmingtonlit.com/downloads/performance/capitalgains/December_2015_Capital_Gains_Estimates.pdf
Wintergreen Fund:
http://www.wintergreenfund.com/reports/dividends/distribution.php
Van Eck Funds:
http://www.vaneck.com/van-eck-funds-2015-yearend-estimated-distributions-pdf.pdf
Vanguard:
https://personal.vanguard.com/us/insights/article/estimated-yearend-distributions-122015