FYI: Whenever the stock market is acting nutty, my hair gets shorter.
Not from pulling it out, but rather because I enjoy heading down to Pat’s Barber Shop and chatting with the guys about the market.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/how-to-keep-this-crazy-stock-market-from-driving-you-nuts-2015-09-06/print

VWINX is a newly added holding for me. Given that it has income as a main goal (and even "income" in the name), I am not sure it is suitable in a taxable account unless you do indeed want the income. That said, I took a quick look at the past distributions of VWINX vs. VTMFX, and I crudely estimate the annual income to be about 5% for VWINX vs. 2% for VTMFX. So if you're investing, say, $100k, then that comes out to be about $3000 of extra taxable income for VWINX vs. VTMFX. Depending on your tax bracket, that may or may not be a big deal.

I do not understand spreading over so many CEFs with 1 to 2% in each of them. CEF itself is a diversisifed fund, right ?

I think you need to understand that for the CEF portion of RNDLX, the strategy isn't really about investing in bonds, it's about investing in CEFs. Unlike mutual funds, CEFs aren't priced solely based on NAV. Instead they trade like stocks and bonds, meaning that investors will pay a higher or lower price depending not just on the NAV, but also on how they expect the CEF will perform in the future. So when buying a CEF, you have additional risk that its value will go up or down regardless of the NAV of the underlying stocks/bonds. This is likely why RNDLX needs to diversify among so many CEFs.

I wonder how many fall into my category. Over the years I collected a large number of fund mostly good ones.While I would not now buy at least 10 of the funds I own I do not wish to sell for tax reasons though I would sell if they started doing badly but its more they have been mediocre(one example I will sell when the manager dies is Gabelli Asset) as I resent the management fees.A fund I certainly would not buy today is Acorn.They are fairly easy to manage since I mostly take action in Roth and 401k accounts where taxes are not a concern raising or lowering equities depending on my view of market prospects but I never take very big moves..For about two years I have been nervous about the market but the action I took in taxable accounts was to stop reinvesting dividends. I used the income to take trips, eat out more and buy i bonds when the rate was reasonable. I regret that money market funds pay little and have not purchased a CD in at least 5 years.

I find the attitude expressed in that article reminiscent of Alfred E Neuman's "What me worry?"
One of the most storied investors on Wall Street was the late Marty Zweig. Mr. Zweig was famous for admitting with great frequency, when queried about the stock market that he "was worried".
Admittedly, the stock market will do what it will, whether we worry or not. But worry is a very salutary phenomenon -- it's nature's way of focusing the mind. Consider an investment landscape without people "worrying":
1. Company management: Nothing to worry about if we miss our numbers, we don't hold costs down, or revenues decline.
2. Company auditors: Nothing to worry about if we don't catch fraudulent numbers.
3. Security analysts: Nothing to worry about if we miss the problems at a company.
4. Ratings agencies: Nothing to worry about if we wrongly characterize a firm's liquidity and solvency.
Ever more all-time highs in the stock market is not guaranteed -- at least in a timeframe relevant to individual investors. It took something like 25 years for the stock market to regain its 1929 levels. Japanese investors are still well below the highs they experienced in 1989. How do you say "no need to worry in Japanese?"
Not worrying is the enemy. Worrying is your friend.

I well remember those 3% Fido loads, especially on the Select family. I started my 401k in the 1980s and we could put a portion in Select Technology for no load. In the early 1990s ditto for FLPSX, thank goodness, which had started at the crack of 1990, $15 stock price limit, flexible. I had gone on to work at other tech companies, often enough ones with low share prices, so that caught my eye, plus Tillinghast was a young NE guy, and Fidelity was rocking; my Midwestern father had owned Trend decades earlier. The quote you cite shows a little bit of default laziness on the part of Money magazine, I say, and I am sure if I dig in Boston Globe archives I can find interviews through the 1990s and beyond with Tillinghast and also probably FLPSX shareholder reports in the bottom of boxes in the basement likewise explaining the actual spread of holdings' capitalization (pretty narrow, given the $15 limit, raised a decade later or so to $25, now $35). But not everything SC by any means. As recently as 2001 it was still technically classified as SCV, so there you go, even as its holdings were not much like any other SC fund, and that was true a decade earlier to some extent.

>> FLPSX started as a domestic small cap value fund,
It did? Not doubting you, just have been in it from very early on and don't quite recall it that way. Should check.

Hard to find anything going back that far, but I did come up with this from Nov. 1997:
"Don Phillips, 35, president of Chicago fund rater Morningstar, ... has invested 75% of his portfolio in 25 mutual funds ... all but four of them are value-oriented. The exceptions are Brandywine, Fidelity Emerging Growth, PBHG Growth and Strong Growth. The others include large-company stock funds Clipper and Selected American Shares, mid-size company, Oakmark Select and small company, Fidelity Low-Priced Stock."
That is, FLPSX was small company, value-oriented.
I'll bet you don't remember it being a load fund, either :-)
Fidelity Removes Loads From Five Funds, The Street, 06/23/03.

The investment approach of the Meridian Value fund was maintained, along with its managers, and their office. But the Growth Fund was changed. Morningstar published an article on October 15, 2013, “Arrowpoint and Meridian Funds a Good Fit,” which partially described how Meridian Growth would be run:
“While Arrowpoint will keep most of AIM’s staff, the office in California, and the Meridian name, fundholders should brace for Arrowpoint to make some changes.
Mainly, Meade and Schaub will overhaul Meridian Growth, whose Morningstar Analyst Rating is currently under review during the transition. Aster built this portfolio by searching for companies capable of growing their earnings at least 15% a year. He avoided overpaying for his best ideas, which meant the portfolio’s price multiples were often lower than the mid-growth category average. He also kept the portfolio focused on just 45 to 55 holdings and routinely avoided commodities and energy, investments he deemed too volatile. Aster posted a 12.8% annualized return over a 28-year stint, outpacing the typical peer by two percentage points.
"Under Meade and Schaub, the fund is likely to diverge from its historical profile in several ways. First, Meridian Growth will become more diversified. At Janus Triton, the pair ran a portfolio of 70 to 90 holdings. They’ve also stated that they will largely wind down the fund’s existing large-cap holdings, restricting it to stocks roughly below the $10 billion market-cap mark. The fund is also likely to sport energy stocks, too, because Janus Triton owned those types of firms. In all, shareholders should expect the fund’s historically low turnover to increase in the near-term as the new managers reposition the fund. “

I don’t want to make a big deal about this. I’m just suggesting an asterisk. I'm concerned that someone may simply rely on the GO rating and not realize that there has been a material change. Anyone considering an investment in this GO would probably be better served by studying the past record of Janus Triton and not Meridian Fund.

I've had successful fund managers retire on me, but never has one died while actively managing the fund. The difference in each case has been that there was succession planning, and the retiree had some influence on choosing and training the successor.

http://www.harborfunds.com/14198.htm (HAINX manager died)
A difference between MERDX and HAINX is that Mr. Aster's death was an accident. Regardless, your point about planned succession is important - all companies, not just investment management companies, should have succession plans in place just in case someone gets run over by a bus.

A team of investment professionals with a combined total of over 22 years of working closely with Richard Aster at Aster Investment Management Company have assumed management responsibilities for the Funds. The current investment management team will continue to manage the Meridian Fund portfolios using the same investment philosophies, processes, discipline and standards that Aster Investment Management Company has consistently and faithfully maintained over many years

http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/richard-f-aster-jr-passes-away-139575418.html

I understand your point (some of which I happen to agree with). At the same time, you seem to be selective in the changes that might be "asterisk'ed".
There was a previous change in managementt when Mr. Aster, the lead manager of the fund, died in early 2012. Mr. Tao, who had been an assistant manager since 2007 became co-manager along with Mr. England, who had been an assistant manger of Meridian Value since 2001.
The management company, Aster Investment Management, did not change at this time. When Aster Investment was later sold to Arrowpoint (Q3 2012), it did change mangers of Meridian Growth, as you noted. But it did not make changes to the management of MVALX, then called Meridian Value. (Mr. England managed that fund with Mr. Aster since 2001 and continues managing that fund, now called Meridian Contrarian, today.)
That seems to be more typical of management company changes. The company changes, but the managers simply wind up at the new company. If the change in management company were flagged for MERDX, it would also have to be flagged for MVALX, where it meant nothing.
The fund definitely changed direction, as signaled by its change in benchmarks from the Russell 2000 to the Russell 2500 Growth Index. But so did MVALX at the same time, changing benchmarks from S&P 500 to the Russell 2500, even though management didn't change. A change in direction can even happen gradually over time with the same manager and management company - FLPSX started as a domestic small cap value fund, and now looks like a mid cap global. So what should be flagged, and when?
While the fund did add new (and more expensive, some loaded) share classes at that time, the original share class persisted, with no change in fees. I believe that's the share class that Charles is using for his data. Again, this is not unusual. In the 90s, Michael Price sold Mutual Series to Franklin Templeton which added load shares and closed off the legacy Z shares. American Century added load classes and for a time closed some of its noload shares to new investors (from memory). And on and on. I believe the oldest share class is used in analysis, so these other classes don't matter.
The name of the fund did not change. It was, and is, Meridian Growth. What changed was that a share class identifier was added: Legacy, Investor, A, C. Just as Mutual Discovery (MDISX) became Discovery Z, and added A and other share classes.
Your overarching point, that this is not your father's Meridian Growth, is well taken. Though almost any event one would care to flag is not black or white - sometimes it matters, sometimes it doesn't. That's why one needs to dig into a fund, and not just choose it based on some screening criteria.

I prefer the incremental approach to things myself and I also prefer to increase my cash when I feel like the market is getting expensive. The problem for me, and for most people I suspect, is that figuring out when the market is expensive isn't particularly easy nor is figuring out when the market is cheap again. This is why I prefer a very gradual approach with the main goal being to dampen volatility rather than increase my returns.
I hope when Moraif talks about the top anything in terms of the stock market he's thinking in percentage terms because obviously a 100 point change is a lot different when the index is 1000 vs. 2000. In any event, the impression I've gotten from how he sells this stuff is that all these big days are not just "during" a bear market but they're during a downtrend. Depending on how you define the end of the bear market he might include the 6.4% positive day on March 10, 2009 as being part of a "bear" market. In less than 3 months the market was up 50% so you didn't have to miss the bottom by much to have lost a lot of upside.
Here's a good example. March 23, 2009 the S&P 500 was up 54 points and a bit more than 7%. This was the 8th largest point gain in history and the 4th largest percentage gain in history. Obviously in his mind these were during a bear market. By the time March 23rd happened we were more than 20% off the bottom. Maybe it was still a bear market but these were days you didn't want to miss because we never saw those levels again (so far).
What I've seen from this guy suggests he is extraordinarily good at saying things that, while technically true, make you believe things that are not true. All of those "false" conclusions are intended to make you think you need him and his advisors to help you. I suspect I'd do far better with a used car salesman.

I hadn't thought about WTIFX in a long time either, Slick; had it on watch for a while but never bought in. A few years ago it was predominately in industrials; now, from a quick look, it's 3/4 or so in industrials, tech, and consumer discretionary, and has been getting killed - close to dead last in the category for 2014 and 2015. No wonder they reopened it.

It might bea problem for the long term investor who picks the wrong day (or time of day to sell) I want to know what to do as the only lesson I learned is don't buy or sell in the first or last 15 minutes. What lessons should I have learned?

FYI: (Click On Article Title At Top Of Google Search)
Franklin Resources is an outlier, even among the depressed group of asset managers. Shares of the investment firm, which runs such giant funds as Templeton Global Bond and Franklin Income, are down nearly 30% this year, to $39, and trade for just 11 times projected earnings of $3.56 a share in the current fiscal year, ending Sept. 30
Regards,
Ted
https://www.google.com/#q=Franklin+Resources:+Too+Cheap+to+Ignore+barron's

I remember the jokers from Salomon Smith Barney coming to my workplace during the teck-wreck, making this very same argument. (SSB served as "advisors" --cheerleaders really -- for our 401k, offering monthly "education" [i.e. propagandizing for an equity culture] during lunch at our company.)
About once a year, they tossed out the "you must stay invested, lest you miss out on the few big "up" days...." They were hacks, and the argument is fallacious. And the idea about missing (only) the top up days is a buy and hold MYTH.
The overwhelming number of the biggest up days (%age-wise) in the US stock market, occur during BEAR markets. -- The big up days are essentially violent, but BRIEF counter-trend rallies (probably driven by a combination of short-covering and traders looking to buy, then bank a very quick profit) during down-cycles. Most of of these big up days occured during the 1930's, then again during the 08-09 crisis. Another was in the aftermath of the one-day sell-off in 1987.
It is unlikely in the extreme that an investor would be invested in the stock market virtually all the time, but then haplessly trade OUT of the market just prior to a giant up day, only to then re-enter the market --- and then repeat that same error again and again...
Much more likely: If you are "unlucky enough" to miss most of these big up days, its probably because you also missed a a good piece of the major down moves during which these brief counter-trend rallies occur --- and are thus well ahead of the buy-and-holders.
A good primer on this fallacy is explained in more eloquent detail in the book "Buy Hold and Sell" by financial advisor Ken Moraif (he repeatedly makes the annual Barron's Top Advisor list)

But what if you miss the 10 worst days instead?
http://mebfaber.com/2008/03/27/noise-the-10-best-days/

You know it's been a tough year when this fund turns green. Today's +0.56% gain puts it ahead at about +0.34% YTD. The contrarian fund is still in the red over 1, 3, 5 and 10 year periods. (I like to track a few that I don't own every day just to get a better feel for what's happening.)
Not much else was up today. BEARX did well. High-quality bond funds showed small gains.
Board favorite PRWCX (I own this one) lost 1%. We'll see how long these guys (PRWCX) can continue to walk on water.

Wow- this is from the way back machine for me. Owned it in the late 90s early 2000s, sold when it had a major sputter. Did not again invest in intl small caps til 2013 when I added OSMYX. Much better and consistent. It has been mentioned before, retail version available at some brokerages.

Simple answer - assuming all dividends were reinvested, M*'s pages give you the pre-tax, total return (including dividends and price depreciation) numbers I think you are looking for:3.86% in 2011, 4.20% in 2012, 3.39% in 2013, 2.65% in 2014, and a less impressive 0.91% YTD (through Sept 3, 2015).
Depending on whether this is in a taxable account, what tax rates you apply to ordinary income and capital losses, this may or may not have beaten inflation. Eyeballing the figures (see the first graph in linked paged above), it is pretty clear that even after tax everyone came out ahead except possibly in 2011, where the net gain was 3.86%, while inflation was 3.0%. If you were taxed at 25%, your after tax return was under the 3.0% inflation rate.

http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/357204/000100329715000387/wc4979-4.htm
497 1 wc4979-4.htm
WESTCORE TRUST
Supplement dated September 4, 2015 to the Westcore Equity and Bond Funds Prospectus, dated April 30, 2015, as supplemented July 6, 2015 and July 22, 2015, and the Westcore International Small-Cap Fund Summary Prospectus, dated April 30, 2015.
Effective September 15, 2015, the Westcore International Small-Cap Fund (the “Fund”) will reopen to new investors.
All references to the Fund being closed to new investors are deleted from the Westcore Equity and Bond Funds Prospectus and the Westcore International Small-Cap Fund Summary Prospectus.
If you own your Fund shares through a financial intermediary (your “Service Organization”), you may wish to contact your Service Organization directly to verify the Fund’s availability for new purchases as some Service Organizations may require additional time to reopen the Fund.
Please retain this supplement for future reference.