FYI: (Click On Article Title At Top Of Google Search)
A glance at the best and worst performers.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.google.com/#q=leaders+and+laggerds+first+quarter+2016+barron's

http://www.seafarerfunds.com/video/2016/03/quarterly-briefing/?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=2016-04-06 Quarterly Briefing Individual Investor - Monthly&utm_content=2016-04-06 Quarterly Briefing Individual Investor - Monthly+CID_093448545840c6355a189d212fe43027&utm_source=E mail Campaign&utm_term=Quarterly Briefing
For those invested-- or who just like to watch-- here's one "interpretive reading" of the continuing EM turmoil. (Maybe) every little bit counts.

I opened trust accounts with Vanguard and did not have any issues or complex paperwork to fill out. A copy of the trust was required and mailed with the application.
Vanguard customer reps kept me informed via email with the status of the applications (multiple accounts). Old_Joe, the 12 page application is a standard application for all types of accounts (including trusts), asks for information on contacts, address, funding and tax status which is basic for establishing an account. It was not difficult to complete, most was fill-in. I don't know what being legalistic means or being a big deal in your post, maybe you could elaborate.
Additionally Old_Joe, I had to provide the same information with my bank when opening a trust checking account. The experience of going to Schwab & Fidelity local office to establish/document & fund your accounts rather than mail is kind of of comparing apples to oranges. Now I'm not saying Vanguard is easier, better or whatever from Fidelity or Schwab but doing things by mail is different. Maybe you should re-think going to Vanguard and find a Schwab substitute for VWINX if your having trouble or doubts.

Vanguard is not that hard to deal with in theory. One needs to recognize that they are meticulous about following (and creating) rules. If one knows all the rules beforehand and plans on their being followed to the letter, things will go fine.
Realistically, most people are not so fastidious, and in unusual or complex situations get burned with Vanguard.
A couple of quick examples related to the estate I mentioned:
- Though I had POA, I expected Vanguard to freeze the accounts the instant I informed them of the death of the owner, and not to have access (even viewing access) until probate was started and I had letters testamentary. So I checked to see whether any last minute moves should be made (none needed), downloaded all records, and then called Vanguard. It took them a few hours to freeze everything, but otherwise they acted as expected.
- The deceased had written a couple of checks prior to death (I suppose "prior to death" goes without saying) that I really wanted to see clear. These were written against a Fidelity account. Fidelity said that they (like Vanguard) were supposed to shut down the account immediately, but that Fidelity would allow the checks to clear if they came through in the next couple of days. Much more reasonable, though likely not following the letter of the law.
With respect to min balances - I believe Fidelity will also close accounts that drop below the min balance. Vanguard says that it will convert Admiral shares to Investor shares if the balance drops too low. My experience there is that they do that conversion on closed funds but not on open funds they're not monitoring closely. So even Vanguard isn't 100% rigid.
Finally, regarding old MMFs - The original one was The Reserve Primary. After that, I believe was Dreyfus Liquid Assets (early 1974). Vanguard jumped in the next year with VMMXX.

Thanks fundalarm nice post above. So let's get off topic. Any insights on bank loan/senior loans/leveraged loan/floating rate funds???? Talk about a stealth bull market or at least one under the radar. Some of the open end ala EVFAX have had but one down day since 2/17 and a multi percentage rise. Plus juicy yields around 5%. I hold EVFAX and SAMBX overbought as they are. Not as exciting recently as NHMRX or the junk corps and emerging markets debt when they are moving, but real steady eddies. Below is an excerpt of some comments in early March in Barrons on this often misunderstood asset class.
>>>>>Most loan funds have attractive yields of 5% to 6%—up to 9% for closed-end funds. Loan funds have credit risk, but are much less volatile than junk-bond funds when credit conditions weaken; and loan investors get paid back before bondholders in the event of a default. The loan market has about 4% exposure to the troubled energy sector now, compared to 15% for junk bonds.
As an added bonus, most loans have interest rates that float with prevailing rates. So if the Fed hikes several more times, many loans will yield more. Without interest-rate risk, loans tend not to correlate with other fixed-income assets.
Now is a good time to buy, because these loans are selling at about a 10% discount to par. They sold off, along with high yield, as investors worried that the U.S. was going into recession, but they haven’t recovered. “The asset class has always offered a nice risk-adjusted return over a three-to-five- year time period,” says Craig Russ, co-director of floating-rate loans at Eaton Vance. “But the last two years they’ve underperformed, creating this attractive entry point.”
There’s another good sign, says Jean Joseph, a portfolio manager at Goldman Sachs Asset Management: The default rate priced into the loan market is 7.5%, when the average default rate historically is 3%; and the current rate is still below that. “The market is pricing in defaults close to 2.5 times what we expect this year,” Joseph says.<<<<<<<<

This is one of the better threads since I joined.
Any thoughts on how this liquidity trap will affect stocks? (I do not think I'm going into stocks anytime soon.)
My guess is that we have not come to the 'point of recognition' about the trap. Once that happens I'm guessing it would be a negative for stocks and then a trading range at a low p/e. Possibly, there would be another internet stock crash.

That point of recognition may be a long way off. The baby boomers have in their memory the early 1980s and their high interest rates. I think that is part of the reason people got into gold and expect inflation. They see the Fed 'printing money' and they think that it will cause inflation. They think it has to cause inflation all that money printing. There are many more pressures offsetting the Fed actions that the Fed actions don't really do anything.
The classical causes of inflation, full employment, full factory utilization and shortages of materials are not a factor when you are talking about world wide free trade.
Then there is automation and artificial intelligence. They have not really gotten started and will keep inflation down.
I feel I just talked myself into changing my weighting of stocks and bonds!

i hope you're now suggesting that Gundlach doesn't know how to calculate total return for a bond fund.
he was referring to spread widening which started in August. junk spreads went to widths that were unheard of outside a full blown recession at the time (and earlier this year.) they have contracted since as you and others have noticed...
best, FA

Total return charts are the only way to go with bond funds as they include reinvested dividends. Price only charts for bond funds don't *remotely* begin to paint an accurate picture. Don't mind me, just one of my pet peeves. I recall Gundlach saying on CNBC late last summer how junk bonds (JNK) were making 4 to 5 year lows. Nothing could have been further from the truth as he was just looking at a price only chart and completely ignoring dividends.

Not exactly. The first link in October 2015 he says junk bonds are at 4 year lows. REALLY WRONG! The second link from this January he says junk bonds are trading at levels below those seen during 2012. REALLY WRONG! I would have to look further but he also said something to the same effect late this summer. He says nothing about spreads but simply junk bonds. When I saw him on CNBC this summer he was using a chart of JNK. Gundlach likes to make news enhancing announcements. I hope there is a crash in junk bonds so he can be proven right about that many times prediction.
Edit: For the record, junk went into a steep decline in January and bottomed on 2/11. At its lowest point it hit levels not seen since 12/11/12. Junk bonds were never at 4 year lows at anytime. When he made his comments in early January of trading at levels below those seen during 2012 not even remotely close. To have been at levels below those seen in 2012 junk would have had to have declined another 12+% from its 2/11 lows.
http://citywireselector.com/news/gundlach-credit-concerns-and-what-happened-with-bill-gross/a847840
https://www.markettamer.com/blog/gundlach-on-the-feds-amazing-blunder

"a low tolerance for risk"
Ummm ... you might reflect on that conclusion in light of the positioning of my portfolio, which I publish annually. In the non-retirement portfolio, about 50% of my money is in equities and 50% in income-producing securities. Within the equity sleeve, 50% is international and within international more than 50% is a combination of small, emerging and frontier. Domestic is overweight small- to micro-cap which a distinct value pitch. I have no savings account (0.01% APR does nothing for me) but instead balance very conservative income-oriented investments (the aforementioned RPHYX) with quite aggressive ones.
It might be a bit misleading to point to one fund and generalize from it. I mean, really, why is substituting RPHYX and RPSIX for CDs and a savings account "risk averse"?
My self-description would be closer to this: "I will accept no risk unless I perceive a serious assymetry, in which the probable upside is substantially greater than the probable downside." One measure of the ability of a manager to achieve that goal is to look at a risk-return ratio over a meaningful period of time. My default is Sharpe over a full market cycle. The FMC orientation simply reflects the fact that I have better things to do than try to time my portfolio; I have neither the interest nor the discipline to pull that off. Some folks do, although the evidence suggests a far larger number simply thinks they do.
So, if you start with my premise - high risk-return ratio over meaningful periods - which small caps should I be looking at? When I screen for open, retail small cap funds - domestic, global, international - no-load or load-waived at Scottrade and sort by descending Sharpe, the top ones are:
1. Intrepid Endeavor, first by a lot. ARIVX is a near-clone in terms of risk-return but it doesn't have a full cycle record.
2. Westwood Mighty Mites
3. Homestead Small Cap
4. Pinnacle Value
5. Tributary Small Cap.
If you play with the risk-reward measure (Sortino, Martin, Ulcer Index) you get a slight shuffle of the top ten with the addition of Queens Road SCV and Royce Special.
I'm not enamored with the Royce or Gabelli organizations. Love Homestead's low minimum initial investment ($500), don't love the $1.2 billion size as much. Queens Road is very much worth a look. Tributary really would qualify as "in the shadows." And still the numbers point most consistently to ICMAX and the much-derided ARIVX.
I bet you're wondering why I buy and sell funds so rarely. Briefly, I go through this sort of pondering with every single one.
David

where to find a good source for a total return chart.

Here's one source. Stockcharts.com shows total return charts by default. You can also view price-only charts.
Here's a video that explains how to view both kinds of chart:
http://stockcharts.com/articles/mailbag/2014/01/how-can-i-plot-dividend-adjusted-data-and-unadjusted-data.html

FYI: Mutual fund management ain’t what it used to be.
Regards,
Ted
http://news.morningstar.com/articlenet/article.aspx?id=748371

Hi @Old_Joe
I thought you were also going to "trust" me; so that I might fund/direct monies to the local high school music/band program. Sadly, not much money arrives any longer from state education funds for such functions.
What is directing you towards Vanguard for this trust? And/or is Vanguard only one of several areas for these monies?
Edit: a quick look at Fido trust services indicates an annual fee range of: .85-1.70%, variable upon acct. and a minimum of $200k.
Thank you and take care,
Catch

No experience with trusts (though I did open an estate account with them), but here's where it seems you can find an account form:
- On the Vanguard (personal investor) home page, look to Forms at top right
- On the forms page, "open a nonretirement account", Trust
- Select Trust only form (which is really an all-purpose new account form)
On the form:
1) Type of account is trust
3-4) Trustee and trust info
11) Signature(s)
In #4 (and in the reminder at the end of the form) it says that you need to provide a copy of the trust agreement including trustee names and signature pages
I've no idea if this is sufficient, but this does appear to be the account-opening form you're looking for.
Here's a really old (2007) M* thread that seems to be consistent with the above. It notes that you'll also want to look at a change of ownership form if you're trying to transfer assets already at Vanguard into the trust once the account is open.
http://socialize.morningstar.com/NewSocialize/forums/t/192493.aspx
(There was another way mentioned in the thread on how to do this - use a lawyer :-) )

Macro View
The Global Liquidity Trap Turns More Treacherous
April 07, 2016 Global CIO Commentary by Scott Minerd © 2016 Guggenheim Partners,
As options for further QE diminish, negative rates have become the shiny new tool kit of monetary policy orthodoxy.
If Dr. Draghi and Dr. Kuroda do not get the outcome they want from their QE prescriptions—which is highly likely—then more negative rates will be on the way.
It would not be a surprise to see the overnight rates in Europe and Japan go to negative 1 percent or lower, which will in turn pull down other rates along their respective yield curves.
Negative rates at these levels would make U.S. Treasurys much more attractive on a relative basis, driving yields even lower than they are today.
If the European overnight rate were cut to minus 1 percent from its current level of negative 40 basis points, German 10-year bunds would be dragged into negative territory and we could see 10-year Treasurys yielding 1 percent or less.
https://guggenheimpartners.com/perspectives/macroview/the-global-liquidity-trap-turns-more-treacherous
@DanHardy
As @Junkster has observed,High Yield Muni's may be a bit pricey here.But an investor has to measure the possible tax advantages against current risks,I'm going to see my tax accountant tomorrow and I think that subject will come up.
Closed End Option
Nuveen Municipal High Income Opportunity Fund Price Premium +1.37% to N A V 52 Wk Avg -0.42%
NMZ Distribution Rate
Market (As of 04/06/2016) 6.48% Seeks to provide:
Attractive monthly tax-free income

Read more: http://www.nasdaq.com/symbol/nmz/stock-chart#ixzz45CK2V9m5
E T F Option Div/yield Monthly /4.47%
SPDR Nuveen S&P High Yield Municipal Bond E T F Stock Chart (E T F)
HYMB

This is actually pretty stunning. I'd bet Russell Kinnel did a double-take, if not a triple, on some of these.
From a Barron's blog note on this report:

Each year, editors at Morningstar pick the best 500 funds from the universe of roughly 8,000 that they cover and create a list known as the Morningstar Mutual Fund 500. Nearly half of these funds have seen at least a 10% decline in assets under management in the 12 months ended February. Some 61 have seen at least a 25% drawdown, while another 18 have seen at least a 40% reduction in assets. Here’s Kinnel:
“If we had just endured a brutal bear market, then the wave of redemptions would be par for the course. But this comes after a tremendous equity rally and therefore is unprecedented.”

http://blogs.barrons.com/focusonfunds/2016/04/07/unprecedented-outflows-from-u-s-stock-funds-could-leave-remaining-investors-holding-the-bag/?mod=BOLBlog
Of course, doesn't this suggest just how little worth a great many investors find in M* recommendations? :)

------ M* PORTFOLIO ALERT = RPHYX & FPACX
Portfolio Name: all
04/05/2016
FPACX: FPA Crescent
The Morningstar Star Rating for this fund has changed from 4 stars to 5 stars. For details, click here
RPHYX: RiverPark Short Term High Yield Retail
The Morningstar Star Rating for this fund has changed from 4 stars to 3 stars. For details, click here

@TSB_Transfer I always thought it was nuts that European countries such as Italy had lower 10 year yield than the USA.

@Dan Hardy: Some reading material regarding bond spreads.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.schwab.com/public/schwab/nn/articles/Corporate-Bonds-Tread-Carefully-in-High-Yield-Market-in-2016

When the article came out three months ago sentiment in junk bonds was at its most negative in recent memory - even more negative than in 2008. Gundlach was calling for a junk crash as he has for much of the past 9 months. So naturally what transpired was a vicious rally in junk bonds now positive for the year and leading the major market equity indexes in 2016.

@Dan Hardy: Some reading material regarding bond spreads.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.schwab.com/public/schwab/nn/articles/Corporate-Bonds-Tread-Carefully-in-High-Yield-Market-in-2016

Junk Sovereigns ?? A Real Reach?
Markets | Thu Apr 7, 2016 4:46pm EDT
After 15 years, Argentina set for bond market return
By Joy Wiltermuth
Now it will hold a five-day roadshow in the UK and the US as it preps a new bond expected to raise $12 billion - or more - to help pay off holdouts who had rejected a debt restructuring.
Finance Secretary Luis Caputo and Undersecretary Santiago Bausili will each lead teams meeting with investors in London, Boston, New York, Washington and Los Angeles.
Deutsche Bank, HSBC, JP Morgan and Santander are arranging the meetings, but few other details were immediately available.
"The dealers on it are keeping it hush-hush until they are ready to come to market," said Sean Newman, a senior portfolio manager at Invesco Fixed Income.
One of the lead banks told IFR that investors had not yet been given any information about the ultimate size of the deal or the potential currencies of issuance.
At US$12bn, the transaction would be the largest ever from an emerging markets borrower, according to Thomson Reuters data.
"It does mean something really huge for Argentina," said Bianca Taylor, a senior sovereign emerging markets analyst at investment management firm Loomis, Sayles & Company.
"They are back in the game with the curing of this longstanding issue with the holdouts, and they once again have access to the foreign capital markets."
One trader in New York said he had heard yields whispered in the 7.5 percent range, but said 8.5 percent on a 10-year bond was a more feasible target given the current climate.
But Taylor said a useful comparable would be a Brazil 10-year currently trading at 6.13 percent.
"The talk of 7.5 percent seems rich for a country still in a balance-of-payments crisis and just coming out of default."
In addition, after being unable to raise debt abroad for so long, Argentina might well come to market with a debt sale larger than US$12 billion in order to replenish its coffers and plug at least some of its fiscal deficit.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-argentina-bonds-idUSKCN0X42O6
@DanHardy You're not the only one expecting low rates to remain for some time.
Yield Curve Madness
Posted on April 6, 2016 by David Ott Acropolis Investment Management
,,yield on the 10-year US Treasury hit 1.73 percent. After starting the year at 2.24 percent, the benchmark yield dropped to 1.63 percent when the stock market bottomed out on February 11th and then climbed to 1.98 percent before falling again.
As low as your yields are today, they are among the highest in the developed world, as the chart below shows. The chart includes the G7 countries (with the benchmark eurozone rate representing Germany, France and Italy), Switzerland and Australia (each representing the highest and lowest rates in the developed world).

This chart is striking for at least three reasons. First, the overall level of rates is just appallingly low across the world. The idea that the highest rates are still a paltry 2.5 percent is troubling.
Second, and even more bothersome, is that three of the curves are negative all the way out to 10 years. There are other countries with negative yields like Denmark, but the idea that the euro benchmark curve is negative is striking.
Finally, there are only three ‘normal’ yield curves, where rates rise as the maturity goes out further into the future. The US has the steepest curve, although it’s far flatter now than it was six months ago.
http://acrinv.com/yield-curve-madness/

@David &Derf: All I have to say is ....................!
Regards,
Ted