FYI: Fund-ratings firm Morningstar cut its forward-looking rating on Sequoia Fund (SEQUX) in the wake of a high-profile executive departure and sharp losses related to Valeant Pharmaceuticals International (VRX).
Morningstar sounded cautiously upbeat about the fund’s prospects, however, since Valeant’s collapse can’t get much worse at this poin
Regards,
Ted
http://blogs.barrons.com/focusonfunds/2016/03/28/morningstar-slashes-rating-on-sequoia-fund/tab/print/
MarketWatch Slant
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/sequoia-fund-suffers-yet-another-blow-from-valeant-stake-2016-03-28/print
M* Snapshot SEQUX:
http://www.morningstar.com/funds/XNAS/SEQUX/quote.html

Altruist Financial Advisors seems to have some curious notions regarding Vanguard:
"For those who do not have access to DFA, we suggest they limit their bond holdings to domestic bond funds." A blanket rejection of VTIBX without even mentioning it.
(That fund was started in 2013, and the page has information from at least 2014, so this is not a matter of the fund not existing at the time of the writing.)
" However, the existence of an ETF share class makes [VTMGX] quite a bit more capital-gains tax-efficient than it would otherwise be."
Vanguard has always stated that the tax value of ETFs (at least for cap-weighted index funds) is overrated (i.e. they are not "quite a bit more capital-gains tax-efficient'). The data bear this out not only generally but specifically for this fund.
The fund was created in 2014 as the result of a merger between Vanguard's tax-managed foreign developed markets fund and its "regular" fund. See:
http://mutualfundobserver.com/discuss/discussion/12700/what-happened-to-vdmix
So I went back to look at cap gains distributions for the "regular" fund VDMIX (no ETF share class, not tax-managed):
Per share cap gains distributions (from the 2013 prospectus:
2013: - (six months ended April 30)
2012: - (full year)
2011: -
2010: -
2009: -
2008: $0.005
To put that last figure in perspective, total distributions/share were $0.387.

Hi, guys.
In a slightly-grumbly post last week, in which I described the current market as "senseless" and allowed that I was reluctant to judge sensible managers for their failure to thrive in its midst, I made the observation that the February bear low was still higher than most bull market highs. Setting aside the question of whether it's reasonable to disregard what might be several years of underperformance (it works for me as long as the full cycle performance is what I signed up for, but I recognize that other folks have shorter time horizons and more intricate sell disciplines), there was also a question about whether the "higher than bear lows" claim was correct.
Several fund managers I'd spoken to last week made that observation in passing. Here's the Leuthold description of current valuations, from their March 2016 Perception for the Professional:

While the past several month's reversion in [valuation] measures has certainly wrung some of the risk out of the market ... the potential downside risks remain substantial. We compared current readings on all four valuation measures [p/e on TTM earnings, p/e on 5-yr normalized earnings, p/cash flow, median price-to-book, all for S&P 500 stocks] to the average recorded at the last four bull market highs, and found that - despite the setback of the last nine months - the median stock still trades at a valuation about 1% above the levels seen at the typical cyclical bull market high. If the bear market reasserts itself ... potential downside is estimated at -29%.

The Total Stock Market is up about 2% since then.
To be clear: I'm not apocalyptic, I'm just wired to be cautious. More importantly, I detest making factual claims (as I did in my original post) without being able to point to the specific evidence behind the claim.
For what that's worth,
David

Graph DFA LC and SC since 1/1/99 against FCNTX and FLPSX and take a look. Can't be true, right? So saith all the wise.

"For example, when a new stock enters an index, a traditional index fund has to add it all at once. This can push the price up before the purchase is completed."
Bzzzzt. Wrong answer.
"The public at large has been fully aware of any changes scheduled to be made in an index fund portfolio before the index change is implemented. This is not to say, of course, that the manager of the index fund will make the change at the close of trading on the day that the index changes. Even the “manager” of the original SPDR had considerably greater flexibility than an exact timing match of index and fund changes. [Citation to SPDR 2001 prospectus.]"
2002, Gary L. Gastineau (managing director at Nuveen), Equity Index Funds Have Lost Their Way.
(It was easier to find than reading through prospectuses.)
The AssetBuilder column continues:
"DFA, by comparison, is working to characteristics, not names. So they build their portfolios differently. By doing so, they avoid the cost bumps of stock list-following index funds"
This is correct, and does represent DFA's difference. It's not so much a matter of timing of purchases but in how they they replicate indexes - they can even substitute one stock for another (e.g. Pepsi for Coke). The objective is to track the index, not beat it, as would be the case for a quant fund using the same stock substitution technique.

I use a timing model found within my portfolio itself that keys me when to load value over growth and when to switch and to load growth. I only do this with a small amount of the portfolio due to the many strategies that I may have engaged from time-to-time. I have found through the years this to be one of the better strategies and a most effective one. Just this past month, most of the large cap value funds which I own and are found in my domestic equity sleeve located in the growth and income area of the portfolio out performed it's growth counter part (large/mid cap sleeve) which is found in the growth area of the portfolio by about 10%.
During the recent selling stampede which took place during the first couple months of 2016 I bought in the value area of the portfolio and once equities recovered I then rebalanced and reduced my equity weighting in the growth area by selling two positions that were held in the ballast/spiff sleeve thus keeping my overall equity allocation at it's target weighting of about 50%.
Again, for those that have had their doubts about my sleeve system, I have found my portfolio fund management sleeve system to be beneficial in making investment and strategy adjustments within my portfolio. However, I respect your right to continue to voice your doubts as I feel my system is geered for the more accomplished investor and might not be right for everyone. In addition, to use the system effectively one needs to be somewhat a student of the capital markets and follow their movement as well as that of the portfolio itself. Please note I am not a professional investor, or trader, but simply a retail investor that sought out ways to improve my returns over both the near term as well as the long term that would come through better positioning with a moving asset allocation of sorts.
For those that might not be familiar with my system I have provided a blurb about it below along with the portfolio's current configuration as of March 22, 2016.
Old_Skeet's Fund Sleeve Management System (03/22/2016)
Here is a brief description of my sleeve system which I organized to help better manage the investments that were held in five accounts along with my current positioning. The accounts consist of a taxable account, a self directed ira account, a 401k account, a profit sharing account and a health savings account plus two bank accounts. With this I came up with four investment areas. They are a cash area which consist of two sleeves … an investment cash sleeve and a demand cash sleeve. The next area is the income area which consists of two sleeves. … a fixed income sleeve and a hybrid income sleeve. Then there is the growth & income area which has more risk associated with it than the income area and it consist of four sleeves … a global equity sleeve, a global hybrid sleeve, a domestic equity sleeve and a domestic hybrid sleeve. An finally there is the growth area, where the most risk in the portfolio is found and it consist of five sleeves … a global sleeve, a large/mid cap sleeve, a small/mid cap sleeve, a specialty & theme sleeve and a ballast & spiff investment sleeve. Each sleeve consists of three to six funds (in most cases) with the size and the weight of each sleeve can easily be adjusted, from time-to-time, by adjusting the number of funds and amounts held. By using the sleeve system one can get a better picture of their overall investment picture and weightings by sleeve and area. In addition, I have found it beneficial to xray each fund, each sleeve, each investment area, and the portfolio as a whole quarterly. Again, weightings can be adjusted form time-to-time as to how I might be reading the markets and wish to weight accordingly. All funds pay their distributions to the cash area of the portfolio with the exception being those in my 401k, profit sharing, and health savings accounts where reinvestment occurs. With the other accounts paying to the cash area builds the cash area of the portfolio to meet the portfolio’s monthly cash disbursement amount with the residual being left for new investment opportunity. In addition, most all buy/sell trades settle from or to the cash area with some nav exchanges between funds taking place.
Here is how I have my asset allocation broken out in percent ranges, by area. My current target allocations are cash 20%, income 30%, growth & income 35%, and growth 15%. I do an Instant Xray analysis on the portfolio quarterly (sometimes monthly) and make asset weighting adjustments as I feel warranted based upon my assessment of the market, my risk tolerance, cash needs, etc. Presently, I am about 20% in the cash area, 30% in the income area, 35% in the growth & income area and 15% in the growth area.
Cash Area (Weighting Range 15% to 25% with target being 20%)
Demand Cash Sleeve… (Cash Distribution Accrual & Future Investment Accrual)
Investment Cash Sleeve … (Savings & Time Deposits)
Income Area (Weighting Range 25% to 35% with target being 30%)
Fixed Income Sleeve: GIFAX, LALDX, THIFX, LBNDX, NEFZX & TSIAX
Hybrid Income Sleeve: CAPAX, CTFAX, FKINX, ISFAX, JNBAX & PGBAX
Growth & Income Area (Weighting Range 30% to 40% with target being 35%)
Global Equity Sleeve: CWGIX, DEQAX & EADIX
Global Hybrid Sleeve: BAICX, CAIBX & TIBAX
Domestic Equity Sleeve: ANCFX, FDSAX, INUTX, NBHAX, SPQAX & SVAAX
Domestic Hybrid Sleeve: ABALX, AMECX, DDIAX, FRINX, HWIAX & LABFX
Growth Area (Weighting Range 10% to 20% with target being 15%)
Global Sleeve: ANWPX, PGROX & THOAX
Large/Mid Cap Sleeve: AGTHX, IACLX & SPECX
Small/Mid Cap Sleeve: AJVAX, PCVAX & PMDAX
Specialty & Theme Sleeve: LPEFX, PGUAX, TOLLX, NEWFX & THDAX
Ballast & Spiffs: FISCX
Total Number of Mutual Fund Positions = 45

I use LPEFX to gain exposure to private equity; and, I hold this fund in the specialty / theme sleeve found in growth area of my portfolio. My historical annualized return since I purchased the fund in September of 2011 has been about 12.50% and my total return in the fund has been better than 70%. For me, it is a keeper plus it sports an income yield of about 4.5% on amount invested. Over time, I plan to keep adding to the position.

FYI: Actively managed funds tout their ability to successfully rotate across styles (such as large-caps versus small-caps and value versus growth) or sectors (industries) and thus outperform passive strategies (such as index funds). It is certainly true that investment styles do move in and out of favor, presenting actively managed funds with an opportunity for asset managers to outperform passive strategies through the use of portfolio rotation strategies. In addition, the emergence of style- and sector-based ETFs has facilitated the ease and affordability of rapid portfolio rotation across styles and/or sectors, and thus improved the implementation capabilities of style-timing strategies.
Regards,
Ted
http://mutualfunds.com/news/2016/03/22/success-or-failure-the-evidence-from-style-rotating-funds/

FYI: The recent rise in the stock market has attracted a lot of attention — and it’s easy to see why. From the market bottom on Feb. 11 through Monday, U.S. stocks, as measured by the definitive Wilshire 5000 index, rose a bit more than 13 percent, or about $2.8 trillion.
A pretty nice five-week increase, isn’t it? No wonder so many people are talking about it.
But there’s another investment that has also turned positive — but has attracted far less attention.
I’m talking about taxable money market mutual funds. Yes, money funds.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/comatose-money-market-funds-have-finally-begun-to-wake-up/2016/03/21/0f20531c-ef76-11e5-89c3-a647fcce95e0_story.html
Highest Yielding Money Market Funds:
http://cranedata.com/

And the analyst who was most involved with the Valeant investment now departs as well (though Sequoia won't say who, the prime suspect is analyst Rory Priday):
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-03-24/ruane-cunniff-analyst-who-helped-champion-valeant-left-with-ceo
@Charles Yes, indeed, I've been waiting for the answer to that one for over a month. One passage in the above suggests that a certain person of importance never learned a damn thing:

At a board meeting last week, the directors realized that “we were at an untenable situation” because of Goldfarb’s “inability or unwillingness to sell the position,” Swiggett said. He declined to comment on whether the board forced Goldfarb to retire.

bee, it seems to me that SEQUX will be collecting $46 million in annual fees when and if their AUM goes down to $4.6 billion (and the ER is 1%). According to fundmojo.com, AUM as of 02/2016 was $6.04 billion, and AUM as of 05/2015 (the oldest date listed) was $9.04 billion. I believe that AUM decreased because of the drop in share price and shareholder withdrawals.

Not me; usually the inverse of good timing :( .
Such foreign and reit as I have I have not sold, just am not really seeking to traditionally diversify anymore, and am not adding to such positions.
Have modest MC (FLPSX) and I think almost no SC.
LC of quality will always do whatever they do
Plus a year-plus of cash, and SS for me starts in 13mo (at age 70).
I will sell some fund holdings over the next months to add to cash, if the market is flat or rises, as I anticipate; if the Yackts recover I will do this even at a slightly larger scale.
I too semiretired ~3y ago, forcibly. Am debating putting large percentage of cash into PONDX but not really seeing the point --- small beer, also risk.

@bee & MFO Members: In addition to bee's math, on this date,3/26/15, one year ago SEQUX was selling for $252.00 per share.
Regards,
Ted

Please check my math:
With $5.5 Billion AUM, SEQUX with its 1% ER nets $55 million in annual fees. These annual fees are obviously impacted by recent poor fund performance, but in a year when shareholders absorb a 25% share price loss, management will still collect close to $46 million in fees (based on 25% less assets under management due to a 25% drop in the fund's share price).
Share holders selling out of this fund would cause a 100% management fee loss and might be about the only way to properly voice their disapproval of management decision making.

Another reason that one might avoid SVXY, UVXY, VIXM, and VIXY is that they issue schedule K-1s. There is a list of such ETPs at: http://etfdb.com/etf-tax-efficiency/etf-tax-tutorial-complete-list-of-etfs-that-issue-a-k-1/

FYI: (This is a follow-up to the follow-up to the follow-up, I think Chuck's a little late to the party !)
In the stock market, there are bad times — and then there is what the Sequoia Fund is going through.
Bad doesn’t even begin to describe the situation for Sequoia SEQUX, -0.64% one of the most legendary mutual funds, which has seen its reputation torched by a bad bet on a controversial stock. The fund’s fall from grace culminated in the resignation of a co-manager after a 45-year career with Sequoia’s management company
Regards,
Ted
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/how-a-big-bet-on-one-bad-stock-broke-a-legendary-mutual-fund-2016-03-26/print
Sequoia's One Year Performance As 3/24/16: Source M*
1-Day (-0.64)
1-Wk. -(0.13)
1-Mo. -(7/19)
3-Mo. -(14.13)
YTD -(11.55)
1-Yr. -(24.03)

Over the last 10 years T. Rowe Price's Global Technology fund, PRGTX, seems to have edged out NASDX:

Charted Over the last 15 years:

FYI: Easter comes early this year, and U.S. financial markets will be closed on Good Friday, which falls on March 25, while U.K. and some continental markets will be closed for Easter Monday as well.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/when-do-markets-close-for-good-friday-2016-03-22/print

@hank- Oh, you mean like this...

The Southern Pacific, which my father worked for his entire working life, designed these to keep the tracks through the Sierras passable. Some of these are still in use.

@hank- What's a snowblower??
:)

OJ, It's a machine that you run.
Has blades that go round and round. Kind of like an electric Margarita mixer - only more fun. :)
http://www.amazon.com/Margaritaville-Premium-Concoction-Easy-Pour-Blending/dp/B000QH2JCO/ref=sr_1_22?ie=UTF8&qid=1458861547&sr=8-22&keywords=electric+cocktail+mixer+blender