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.

David and others,
I am in their RNDLX, my only bond fund, but I do not understand spreading over so many CEFs with 1 to 2% in each of them. CEF itself is a diversisifed fund, right ?
Then what difference those CEFs make if they spread so thin. I do not have holdings in front me now, but looked odd to me the last time I looked at them.
Mrc

Thanks. I guess 1.2% is not really bad. That is what you might have to pay as a minimum to get an advisor who deals only with Close end funds

This ties in with my question in another thread regarding the calculation of long-term profit or loss.
I "spent" a certain amount of money investing in RPHYX. Over the years there have been lots of distributions, and unhappily, movement downward in the NAV. So how has that investment done? Do I now have more or less than what I put in, and by what percentage? (And is that more or less than keeping up with inflation?) While I do keep track of all of this on a spreadsheet, there's no way that I'm going to take the time to account for each and every distribution of each and every fund as an additional amount invested. I don't really care about that. All I need to know is do I now have more or less than I put in.
I'm grateful for the responses that I received regarding this question.

Per M* tax data:

A combination of performance in both up and down markets makes VWINX compelling.
VWINX worst year wasn't much different than VTMFX/Cash, but much better most other time.

@msf: As of 9/3 rphyx adjusted close up 6 cents from the new year. I'm ahead of the game, or not ?
Derf

Yahoo hasn't incorporated the August dividend:
http://www.riverparkfunds.com/downloads/Distributions/RiverPark_Short-Term-High-Yield-Retail-Distributions-history.pdf
The fund opened the year at $9.89, and closed yesterday at $9.79. That's a loss of "just" 10c. In the meantime, it has distributed $0.1901/share.
If your total (combined fed/state) tax bracket is under 47%, then your after tax earnings on that 19.01c is greater than a dime, so you made money even if you don't get any writeoff on the 10c capital loss.
How much ahead you come out depends on tax brackets, if/when you sell shares, and so on. But there's virtually no way you've lost money so far this year, after taxes.

I'm having difficulty making a fund selection and hope to tap the wisdom of this group for any thoughts you may have, particularly since many of you are Vanguard investors and may be familiar with the nuances of the two funds I'm contemplating.
Here's the situation: in order to simplify my financial life, I recently moved our "emergency fund" (equivalent to about 6 months of our living expenses) to a new and separate brokerage account at Vanguard. One reason is the ability to add small amounts to Vanguard funds on a regular basis--this is not an account we are looking to drastically grow, but still would like to pop in a few bucks a month.
Half the funds are kept in cash; the other half will be in a conservative Vanguard fund. I'm really torn between the Wellesley Income fund and the Tax Managed Balanced fund, mostly because of taxes since it is in a taxable account. How worried should I be about this? VWINX has high portfolio turnover, and is certainly not as tax-efficient as VTMFX. However, Wellington Management is without a doubt stellar, and I think there is an opportunity for downside protection. VWINX held up quite nicely in 2008 and 2011. I also prefer the more conservative allocation of VWINX.
I anticipate this to be a *very* long-term holding, so I'm not concerned with short-term gains, but should I be considering the tax equation more and opt for VTMFX? Your thoughts are greatly appreciated.

There is never a bad time to swap out an under performing dog of a fund so long as you stay invested (sell, then buy).
I did this at the depths of the tech bust (2002) with a Vanguard "Dud of a fund" (VWUSX). I swapped proceeds into two of their Primecap offerings (VPMCX and VHCOX) and I never regretted the swap.
There's is never a bad time to upgrade your funds. Out with the bad in with the good.