I think some were musing about this topic the other day with respect to the Hodges Pure Contrarian Fund. It sure is hard!
And The Best Small-Cap Fund YTD Is ?: What A Dfference A Year Makes: 2015 Down -(36.93)%

I am the most patient investor I know, not always that way but age and time will do that.
I saw the opening was on Bonds, so I looked at my only 4 bond funds TGEIX, PIMIX MWTRX, TGBAX for 1yr and YTD. The leader YTD is TGEIX-Emerging Market Bond, for 1 yr.TGEIX. The worst TGBAX for both YTD and I yr. No changes planned. For 5 years none are loosers.

FYI: When I worked as an investment banker selling, among other things, economic forecasts, I was given the following advice: If you are going to forecast, forecast often, because eventually you’ll get one right—even a blind squirrel occasionally finds acorns.
The financial media anoints as an “expert” any forecaster who happened to get the last forecast right. However, as Jason Zweig, a columnist for The Wall Street Journal, pointed out: “Pigs will fly before you’ll ever see a full list of the expert’s past forecasts, including the bloopers.”
Regards,
Ted
http://www.etf.com/sections/index-investor-corner/swedroe-ignore-gundlachs-forecasts?nopaging=1

Hi Guys,
“Investing is full of ironies. Here's a big one: With few exceptions, everyone thinks they're a contrarian.”
This was the opening statement from a Morgan Housel article that appeared about 2 days ago. If Ted referenced the Link (most likely), I apologize for repeating it here:
http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2016/04/20/when-everyone-wants-to-be-different.aspx
Being a contrarian investor is hard. It’s a tortuous road that is hard from both a study and decision perspective. It is never easy to challenge the wisdom of the crowd. It demands a committed work ethic, and discipline to stay the course. As Joe Granville remarked: “If it’s obvious, it’s obviously wrong.”
Being somewhat lazy, I like to simplify as much as possible. I am a great fan of the many 10 rule sets that purportedly guide us to investment success. The 10 Commandment size is the standard for the conventional investor. But it is not so for the Contrarian outlier.
One of the more famous investors who claim the Contrarian mantle is David Dreman. You likely remember him as the author of the popular “Contrarian Investment Strategies” 1998 book. It is an excellent read.
Dreman also assembled a compilation of his rules for a successful contrarian investor. Contrarian investing must be more difficult for an investor since his rule set contains 41 elements instead of the conventional 10 rule array. Here is a Link to the Dreman rules:
http://mebfaber.com/2011/08/04/dremans-contrarian-investment-rules/
These rules summarize much investment wisdom. Although I do not consider myself a contrarain investor (the crowd is statistically more often right), I do use many of Dreman’s insights. How about you guys?
Warren Buffett is an outstanding example of a highly successful contrarian investor. He famously said: "Most people get interested in stocks when everyone else is. The time to get interested is when no one else is. You can't buy what is popular and do well." That’s contrarian investing 101.
He also said: “By periodically investing in an index fund, the know-nothing investor can actually outperform most investment professionals.” Since I am now predominately an Index investor I suppose I qualify in the “know-nothing” class of investors. I seek and am satisfied with market returns.
Please enjoy and learn from the Dreman rule set. I did.
Best Regards.

FYI: The S&P 500 outperformed the three main mutual-fund style groups — growth, value and blend — over the past decade. Growth mutual funds almost took first-place laurels, but laggard performance by growth funds in the third and fourth quarters of 2015 and Q1 of 2016 allowed the big-cap bogey to cross the decade’s finish line first.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.investors.com/etfs-and-funds/mutual-funds/stocks-that-drive-the-decades-best-performing-blend-mutual-fund/

FYI: The market’s “defensive” stocks smacked on Thursday the bond-like stocks with high yields sold off with Treasury bonds.
Regards,
Ted
http://blogs.barrons.com/focusonfunds/2016/04/21/fade-defensives-two-day-smackdown-for-utility-etf-worst-since-august/tab/print/
XLU Currently:
http://www.sectorspdr.com/sectorspdr/tools/sector-tracker

I believe that VISA/MC networks charge a 1% fee; if your card charges less, the bank issuer is eating the cost. From the bank's perspective, this fee (like any fee) is "extra revenue", though here it may be for the purpose of covering its network costs.
See, e.g. http://www.creditcards.com/credit-card-news/foreign-transaction-conversion-fees-1276.php
More recent (2014) data:
http://www.creditcards.com/credit-card-news/credit-card-foreign-transaction-fees-disappearing-1280.php

The card charges 1% foreign transaction fee. That's somewhat insignificant in the sense that you still net a 1% reward (2% reward less 1% fee), but that net is less than Quicksilver, with 1.5% cash back and no foreign transaction fee.
Here are the Fidelity card Terms and Conditions.

I'm probably one of the few here who still keeps money directly at the several houses rather than using a brokerage.. Without trying to defend this archaic practice, I will say that it does impose some badly needed discipline on me and eliminates a lot of second-guessing as to whether I'm in the very best performing fund in its class. I'm afraid such constant comparing of funds would drive me nuts.
But have left a number of houses over the past two decades when they failed to meet my needs. Among those were Calamos, Strong, TIAA-CREF.

As someone who thrives on data, I'll look at funds from anywhere.
If getting a fund through a brokerage has no cost (or provides some benefit, such as access to cheaper shares), I'll use the brokerage. If there are reasons to own directly with the fund, I'll do that. So I've got quite a mix. Some families I own directly include:
Vanguard - cheaper to buy, easy to convert from Investor shares
T. Rowe Price - cheaper to buy, they were the first to offer a free individual 401(k) with a Roth option, they provide free M* membership (if you meet balance requirement)
Columbia - legacy Acorn funds that provide noload access into full family (and some fund Z shares are not available through brokerages)
Franklin Templeton - legacy Mutual Series (same reason as Columbia)
I don't hold Janus funds directly, but people who do are in good shape - they have access to cheaper D shares that are only sold directly. If you don't already have an account with Janus they won't let you open one.
Another reason to go direct is that some funds are only open if you purchase that way. At AC, there's ACMVX. At Vanguard, there's VWELX.
Buying direct isn't necessarily archaic. It can be cost effective, and may give access to some good funds that you can't get any other way.

"Cunningham said Thursday that he is retiring due to a health issue of a family member that requires his attention."
And, too, assets under management have declined by $13 billion - 25% or so - in three years.
David

T. Rowe Price Group Inc. said Tuesday it is diversifying its equity fund lineup, announcing the launch of three new funds and the renaming of another in a quantitatively managed series.
[...]
[Sudhir] Nanda has been managing T. Rowe's Diversified Small-Cap Growth Fund for about a decade. The fund functioned as a proof of concept for his methods. It's now been renamed the QM U.S. Small-Cap Growth Equity Fund. "It wasn't something which happened overnight," Nanda said. "I think we've reached a point where we think it's a pretty well-proven process."
[...]
The QM U.S. Small-Cap Growth Equity fund has about $4 billion in assets under management. It joins the newly launched funds, the QM U.S. Value Equity Fund, QM U.S. Small and Mid-Cap Core Equity Fund and QM Global Equity Fund.

http://www.bizjournals.com/baltimore/news/2016/04/19/t-rowe-price-rolls-out-new-quantitative-funds.html?ana=yahoo
For what interest it holds. PRDSX can be rather volatile, but it has had some very good years (e.g. 2013= 44%).
http://www3.troweprice.com/fb2/fbkweb/snapshot.do?ticker=PRDSX (SC Growth)
http://www3.troweprice.com/fb2/fbkweb/snapshot.do?ticker=TQMVX (Value)
http://www3.troweprice.com/fb2/fbkweb/snapshot.do?ticker=TQSMX&v_linkcomp=link&linkplmt=RN&v_link=findFundModule (SC/MC Core)
http://www3.troweprice.com/fb2/fbkweb/snapshot.do?ticker=TQGEX&v_linkcomp=link&linkplmt=RN&v_link=findFundModule (Global Equity)

Right now I'm trying to figure out VISAs to clear out of my wallet. I try to maximize cash (or cash equivalent) rewards and minimize foreign transaction fees.
One card that I have (but may dump) is what started as the Schwab 2% VISA. When it went to BofA, it was converted to a 1%/2% (groceries)/3% (gas) card. It also kept one feature from the Schwab card - no foreign transaction fee. In contrast, the "real" BofA Cash Rewards card charges a 3% fee.
My plan was to convert this to a BofA Travel Rewards (1.5%, but only as a credit against travel expenses), and boost that to over 2% with a "bonus" for money in a Merrill Edge account. The BofA rep that I dealt with couldn't figure out how to handle some details of card owners and converting cards, so I wound up with both cards for now.
I've been waiting for time to pass before cancelling one card - as you observed, one treads carefully in rearranging one's cards. Meanwhile, the original card (with the Merrill bonus) now gives me 3% on groceries and gas rebates near 5% (for those quarterly fill ups of mine). And it gives me cold hard cash instead of credits against my travel charges.
But the BofA Travel Card counts lots of stuff as travel, including monthly commuter transit fares. So it's easy enough to redeem as travel credits. This card also has no foreign transaction fee.
The last thing I need is another VISA card that pays less than the travel card (albeit in cash rather than credits) and has a 1% foreign transaction fee.

Here are two local links regarding Bernie Klawans:
Obituary: http://articles.philly.com/2011-12-22/news/30547045_1_mutual-fund-retirement-community-engineer
http://www.bizjournals.com/philadelphia/stories/2003/01/13/focus2.html

@jerry: "I remember many years ago when it for one year one of the top records." I believe that's when George Washington was the fund manager.
Regards,
Ted

FYI:
Regards,
Ted
http://video.cnbc.com/gallery/?video=3000511388&play=1

I generally have a positive opinion of the firm; however, when an asset manager is a public company, it always raises a bit of a stewardship concern in my mind (even a great firm like TRP). Manning & Napier has also been expanding their liquid alternatives capabilities, including them in target date funds and other allocations funds--something that doesn't excite me greatly.
The firm does have low investment minimums when you invest directly, and has been recommended on MFO for that reason. I held MSCBX, a conservative allocation fund, since its inception in 2012 but sold it a few months ago when I was simplifying my portfolio.

I owned two of their int'l funds at different times, years ago, EXWAX and EXITX. Preferred the latter although M* always talked up EXWAX and never even did a report on EXITX. They were decent performers until around 2011, and they haven't done much of anything good since then.
Have to wonder if there's any traceable connection with the ipo in late 2011.

FYI: Asset manager Manning & Napier (MN) announced on Wednesday that CEO Patrick Cunningham has resigned.
Regards,
Ted
http://blogs.barrons.com/focusonfunds/2016/04/20/manning-napier-ceo-patrick-cunningham-resigns/tab/print/
MFWire.Com Slant;
http://www.mfwire.com/common/artprint2007.asp?storyID=53877&wireid=2

1-2 percentage points less in U.S. stocks is next to nothing, especially considering most of this group has looked pretty weak anyway.

A queer and wonderful trail though, Ted. Bernie Klawans - an aerospace engineer, right Charles? - ran it for decades, from 1971-2011, likely out of his garage. One-page website, no 800-number, no reports or newsletters or commentaries. Brought on a successor when he was in his late 80s, worked with him for a couple years, retired in April and passed away within about six months. Then his chosen successor, Craig Arnholt, died unexpectedly within a year. The Board of Trustees actually managed the fund for six months (largely successful - they beat both their LV peers and the S&P) before finding a manager who'd run the fund for a pittance. The new guy was doing fine then ... kapow! He lost 22% in September and October of 2014, when the rest of the market was essentially flat. That was a combination of a big stake in Fannie and Freddie - adverse court ruling cut their market value by half in a month - and energy exposure. He's been staggering toward the cliff ever since.
Though the website's a lot nicer.