You guys really should try out the Active Trader Pro if you are placing limit orders for ETFs or want to avoid all the clicking and chaging pages. I notice that now there is even a web version activetraderpro.com It has much more things than you need but you can set up your screen with just what you want to see. All the widgets can be set synchronized so if you enter a symbol on one screen, say a quote, all the other sync widgets show data for that symbol like your current holdings, news, trends or whatever widgets you may be using at that time. You can also place trades from any widget as there is a trade popup menu next to the symbol.
One window I find useful for ETF orders is watching the real time sales for that ETF in a widget. The current price only uses the last round lot transaction of 100 or more but there are usually a lot of odd lot or small lot transactions going on that gives you a hint as to where it might be going next better than just looking at current ask and bid. This has always saved me some money by putting the sell limit order at the higher end of the small transactions going on while the current price and bids are shown is far from it or buy orders at the lower limit of transactions going on. The color coding on that screen shows whether the transactions are taking place below bid or above ask. This way you get the bid and ask to come to you than using current bid and ask and suddenly finding they move higher after you sell or move lower after your buy.
The service is free for Fidelity customers.

There's a proxy now to increase the management fee of OSMAX/OSMYX in a way that would increase it by 23 basis points (1/3 of its current 70 basis points). That's just the management fee; the total ER would likewise increase by 23 basis points. If you own shares, you can vote your proxy through Feb 11. Shareholder meeting is Feb 12.
The reason given is that while the management fees were once reasonable, now that other managers are getting more, these managers want in on the action too. Okay, a cynical paraphrasing; the exact phrasing is:
"(1) ... the Current Fee, which was established at the initial launch of the Fund in 1997, is no longer priced in line with the Fund’s peer group"
In case you didn't get that, it goes on to give another reason:
"(2) the Current Fee is below market and substantially lower than the fees charged to the Fund’s peers"
SEC filing: http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1041102/000072888915001798/proxy.htm

I am slightly decreasing the equity portion of my portfolio this year, but that decision is more dictated by my advanced age (81) then these specific calculations.
Best Regards.

You should be 20% stock and 80% bonds and asleep by now.

@llljb, you have it exactly right. BTW, I had to correct the numbers in my previous post from a bug in my earlier script that didn't calculate the percentages correctly, so YAFFX comes out second best below SMVLX in the average but your conclusion is correct.
As I mentioned in the first post, an average is just half the story. It is easily affected by outlier values, hence the distribution is important. I didn't put all the numbers in this post so people's eyes wouldn't glaze over.
The only difference between an A grade and an E is the rarity of that outperformance while both have good average expected values. Most investment periods in YAFFX history over last 8 years wouldn't benefit from the small period in which it outperformed.
To give some concrete numbers, while YAFFX had an expected average outperformance of 12%+ over 5yr periods, the median was actually -12%+. So half the periods not only saw negative alpha but also by a significant amount.
In terms of percentile, 0 or getting the same returns as an index happened at 57 percentile so if investors had invested spread uniformly across those 8 years, 57% of those investors would have seen negative alpha after 5 years in the fund. Hence the term lottery ticket for this grade and lower than a B which would have a lower alpha expected average but majority of people would at least see a positive alpha if not the maximum. Mainly because YAFFX outperformance was in such a narrow period. This is what gets hidden in cumulative calendar year returns listed everywhere.
In contrast, SMVLX had a long enough outperformance periods that any 5 yr period in its history would have enough overlap with an outperformance period to enjoy positive alpha. 0 is at 0 percentile for 5yr returns. So, investing on ANY day in the last 8 years would have given you a positive alpha between zero and the best, so even with worst luck in timing, you would not have suffered relative to the index and may have enjoyed respectable positive alpha. Hence the highest grade.
What is surprising to me is how poorly highly rated T Rowe Price funds in this category have done in this metric. Haven't looked at them closely yet to see what the explanation might be.

Hi Guys,
Along with a long list of other famous quotes, John Maynard Keynes is usually credited with saying “ When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, Sir?”
Well the equity market facts are changing given that January 2016 was a down month. Consequently, the expectations for a positive annual return should be revised to reflect this additional data. The obvious question becomes “by how much”?
Statistically, when new information is added to existing info to update a projection, the procedure is called a Bayesian analysis. Simply put, an original baseline projection is multiplied by the additional (new) data to provide the posterior odds. The method is attributed to Thomas Bayes who did the math work in the mid-eighteenth century.
Historical equity market data provides a departure point. I did a quick and dirty analysis to make an estimate using the S&P 500 as a benchmark. I went back to 1979 data because of easy access and divided that data into a 2 by 2 matrix. Entries were made into 4 boxes: both plus and minus January returns, and, plus and minus S&P 500 annual returns.
In rough numbers, the baseline anticipated S&P 500 annual return is historically positive about 70% of the time. How does that change if the January return is positive? If it is negative?
For the timeframe that I explored, January returns were positive 23 times and that translated into a positive annual S&P 500 return 20 times. That equates to an 87% likelihood. Not bad since the supplemental January data enhances the probability of a rewarding annual return from 70% to the higher value. But that’s not what happened.
For that same timeframe, January returns were negative 14 times. In 9 of those instances, the year end returns were positive. Those outcomes represent 64% of the examination period for a negative January. From a Bayesian perspective, these data suggest that the likelihood of a positive annual S&P 500 return is reduced somewhat from the baseline data set.
That’s not so good, but it is not a disastrous probability downgrade. Given current market uncertainties and the limited data set, it could be assessed as a marginal downshift.
That’s exactly my interpretation. I am slightly decreasing the equity portion of my portfolio this year, but that decision is more dictated by my advanced age (81) then these specific calculations.
I hope you find these simple analysis interesting, and perhaps even actionable. What will you be doing?
Best Regards.

OUSA looks compelling forbes.com/sites/trangho/2015/07/18/how-to-invest-in-the-stock-market-with-kevin-oleary-of-shark-tank/?utm_campaign=yahootix&partner=yahootix#11204b113f24

I'm not fond of Fidelity's latest website, but then again, I've found each iteration worse than the one before. Anyone remember their old color scheme (years ago)? To me it had a more attractive shade of green.
Some of the changes they've made over time have been gratuitous, others designed to organize more and more types of information and transactions, while the most recent changes have been in part to offer a common mobile/desktop presentation. In doing so, IMHO they dumbed down (er, "simplified") the pages.
This is an instance of a design quandary that's been around for decades - do you design an application to look uniform across platforms, or do you design an application to follow conventions on each platform (and thus look different on each)? As you might infer from the paragraph above, I think Fidelity made the wrong choice in this case.
All that said, their current website is (again IMHO) much better than it was when they first deployed it for feedback. I stopped even looking at the first cut, I found it that unusable. This final iteration of their current design is much more usable than that initial pass.
Regarding clicks - the IBD metric for site performance (just one of 12 different factors going into the overall scoring) is described as considering three subfactors - speed, reliability, and clicks. So already we're down to a weighting of about 3% for number of clicks needed. The text talks about clicks for trading stocks. For that, Fidelity seems about as efficient as possible. Ckick on trade, get a dialog box (no moving off current page), input the trade info (you'll get a quote in the dialog box, no clicks needed), and away you go.
On the other hand, activities I care about, like bill pay, have gotten harder to accomplish. You used to be able to indicate that you wanted bill pay for a particular account and get there in one click. Now you have to go to a bill pay page, indicate which account you want to use, and finally land on the right page. Getting quotes (without using the trade dialog box) seems impossible. If you enter a ticker in the search box (which says "search or get a quote"), it brings up the research page. No current price to be found anywhere.
The bottom line is that some perceived problems have to do with lack of familiarity, some with a less than ideal design, and some with the particular tasks one cares about (which is why any particular review, like IBD, may think more highly or less highly of a site than you do).

Updated Feb 9 with SCG grading
A follow up from my earlier preliminary study that I have named Rolling Alpha Returns Exposé (tm) RARE analysis of mutual funds to identify if mutual fund returns are sensitive to when an investor holds them (more sensitive they are, less likely most investors would have realized the fund's best returns even if they held it for a long time).
Having finished the remaining programming to find the distribution of returns, I am presenting a grading system for mutual funds using the following grades. Selected funds with at least 8 years of history from The Great Owls and the top 20-30 ranked funds at US News Fund ratings. They show significant differences in the sensitivity to time periods.
The grading scale:
A - Over-achievers : Significant alpha over index returns (1% or more per year) and for most investment periods regardless of which 3 or 5 yr period you pick in the last 8 years. So most investors would have seen that performance.
B - Steady achievers : Respectable alpha over index returns (0.5 to 1% per year) for most investment periods
C - Closet indexers : No statististically significant difference from index returns for most investment periods.
D - Pretenders : While some cherry picked returns look good, less than index returns for most investment periods
E - Lottery tickets : Significant alpha for specific periods but underperformance for most investment periods
F - Failures : Statistically significant under performance for most investment periods
X - Toxic : Very poor returns relative to index for most investment periods except for an insignificant percentage of intervals so unless investors caught that interval would have suffered significantly relative to the index
Selected funds can be index funds themselves but using a different index or a narrower index than the sector index but measuring themselves againt it.
Grades for selected funds:
(*) indicates Great Owl Funds
Large Cap Core/Blend US Domestic Funds
A+
SMVLX
A
JENHX(*), VSBPX
A-
VSLPX
B+
VITPX
B
POSKX(*), AWEIX(*), VTCIX, NMIAX
B-
JPDEX
C+
NOPRX(*), DTMEX
C
FLCEX, VQNPX, VPMIX
C-
PRBLX
E
YAFFX
F+
GLDLX(*)
F
PRDGX(*), TRISX(*), PRCOX
F-
WMLIX
X
CAPEX, SLCAX, SCPAX
Large Cap Value US Domestic Funds
A+
FDSAX(*), DFLVX, DPDEX, BRLVX
A
NOLCX, BPAIX, DDVIX(*), TRVLX, VWNDX, LSVEX
A-
VUVLX
B+
VEIPX, DODGX
B
MPISX, EVSAX
B-
TILCX, HOVLX
C+
FLVEX
C
TFFYX(*), DIVIX
D
EQTIX
F+
LCEAX, ILVAX
F
MEIAX
X
FBCVX
Comments on LCV funds in the post below.
Large Cap Growth US Domestic funds
A+
FDGRX, NICSX, GTLLX
A
TRBCX, TPLGX, TRLGX, FBGRX
A-
PLGIX, FNCMX, JIBCX
B+
PRGFX, PARNX
B
POGRX, VHCOX, RDLIX(*)
C+
TILGX, FDSVX, TLIIX,TILIX
C
VPMCX, FLGEX
C-
EGFIX(*)
D
JICPX, HACAX
D-
BRLGX, VWUSX
F+
MMDEX(*)
X
FCNTX, PRGIX
Comments on the LCG fund grading in my comment below
Small Cap Growth US equity funds
A+
PRNHX, DCGTX
A
PRDSX, HSPGX, BCSIX, RSEGX, TRSSX, JGMAX, WFSAX, JANIX
A-
PPCAX
B+
OTCFX
B-
WGROX, LSSIX
C+
TSCIX
C
PLWAX
C-
HASGX, GWETX
D+
WAMVX
D
DTSGX, FCAGX
F
CCASX, QASGX
F-
TISEX, GSXAX, SGPIX, TSGUX
X
BRSGX, MPSSX, TCMSX
PS: I do realize it is egg on my face for criticizing SMVLX and starting this analysis to prove my hunch while it came out on top of all the other funds. Sometimes intuitions can be wrong and hence the need for analysis. This is why startups pivot when intuitions about their markets aren't supported in numbers later on. Shows I didn't design the analysis to prove my hunch as can be easily done with statistics!
It appears that this analysis could be applied between any two similar funds to decide which one is less likely to disappoint if you weren't lucky enough to be in it for its best periods. This can be ONE fund selection criterion say for example if you wanted to choose between POSKX and VTCIX. This would help even more when there is no good index to compare a fund to like allocation funds or multi sector funds. More of such results later.

FYI: DoubleLine Capital, overseen by widely followed investor Jeffrey Gundlach, said on Wednesday it posted a net inflow of $1.95 billion in January, marking the firm's 24th consecutive month of inflows.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.reuters.com/article/doubleline-gundlach-inflows-idUSL2N15I232

Pull up a 10-year chart of the Nasdaq biotech index IBB and it will become apparent. The IBB gained 670% from the bear market bottom on 3/9/2009 to its peak in July 2015.
Although it has lost nearly 40% of its value in the last six months alone it, and other high beta, "risk on" equity holdings have much further to fall.
What goes up must come down. Way down.

To answer my own question above here is what was reported mid last year
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-04-08/drillers-26-billion-in-hedges-spreads-price-plunge-pain

For U.S. shale drillers, the crash in oil prices came with a $26 billion safety net. That’s how much they stand to get paid on insurance they bought to protect themselves against a bear market -- as long as prices stay low.
The flipside is that those who sold the price hedges now have to make good. At the top of the list are the same Wall Street banks that financed the biggest energy boom in U.S. history, including JPMorgan Chase & Co., Bank of America Corp., Citigroup Inc. and Wells Fargo & Co.

The systemic risk hasn't been as bad as in the mortgage crisis. Insurance companies like AIG have not been foolishly involved here.
But explains why investment banks have been laying off or getting rid of their commodities trading divisions and may be partly why financials have been tanking in this sell off.
What are all the investment banks going to do for their profits when most of their proprietary trading opportunities close one by one? Do banking?

FYI: Long ago and far away in the adolescent cauldron known as Los Altos High School.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.janus.com/bill-gross-investment-outlook
English Translation:
http://blogs.wsj.com/moneybeat/2016/02/03/bill-gross-says-central-banks-increasingly-addled/tab/print/

Your post reminded me to take a look at several funds which I liked in my past 401K, but were closed and unavailable to me in a rollover IRA. With a few more months of turmoil, there may be quite a few funds opening their doors.

Effective Feb. 1
www.wasatchfunds.com

@Dex and @Crash
Noted previous in this thread: "sea change that people are not talking about - free trade, population growth, robotics, free movement of money and movement of mfg to lower cost areas causing deflation and hardship for worker."
Like it's happening under our noses, but everyone looks past it. ...Or can't read the signs
A quick Google wordings search indicates the following linkage numerics directed towards papers, blogs and other related online postings:
--- free trade, 274,000 thousand finds
--- population growth, 47.4 million finds
--- robotics, 89.3 million finds
--- money movement, 84.2 million finds
--- manufacturing movement, 175 million finds
--- deflation, 7.7 million finds
--- worker hardship, 22.3 million finds
It appears that someone is writing/talking about some of these areas, eh?
I have mentally reduced the above finds numbers by 50%, due to redundant wording or multiple postings or similar.
I have not yet finished review of the sites information.
Regards,
Catch

@Crash
I don't think we are in for the 1930s right away. My way of thinking is what I have posted in the past we are in a sea change that people are not talking about - free trade, population growth, robotics, free movement of money and movement of mfg to lower cost areas causing deflation and hardship for worker.
So, I'm expecting a slow grind - years.
I don't the EU will change but they can show us what to expect a VAT to deal with the debt (for awhile) and social programs.

I do.
The previous two were the internet bubble and then the housing bubble.
This one probably will be the old fashion slow down in growth type caused by decrease in demand due to workers stagnating wages and over capacity in mfg.
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/hong-kong-pmi-falls-suggesting-extended-slowdown-2016-02-02?link=MW_home_latest_news

I have to assume he was just showing only funds that start with A - C because it looks like Vanguard Dividend Growth VDIGX beat those listed and also the S + P for 3, 5 and 10 years. Its been my choice as largest fund holding a while now, with additional money waiting on sidelines for a bit lower level.

Tradeking supposedly charges $9.95 to buy a no-load fund, and another $9.95 to sell one, regardless of the holding period. I contacted them a few years ago and was told that they charge no short-term redemption fees other than what an individual fund might charge for short-term trading. I've read that they offer 8000 funds. I've never bought or sold a fund through them, so can't vouch for their reliability. Their website seems to be down today, so maybe trying to trade funds through them would be a headache.

I think Scottrade is just coming more in line with its rivals. Tradeking is too obscure for my tastes. Just today and yesterday I paid out $160 more in fees to Scottrade than I would have prior to 2/1. In the good old days you could buy and sell funds with no fees whatsoever no matter how short your holding period. I had to adjust when they changed the rules to short term fees and will have to adjust again now that these fees have been raised.

Luckily I am grandfathered into the Wells Fargo 100 free trades per year with a PMA account. This works well to get funds not otherwise available NTF, so the only fee would be whatever might be charged by the fund itself. No fees from the brokerage until that free quota is reached. 100 trades is per brokerage account, so IRAs and after tax accounts each get 100 and is more than enough for any DCA or regular deposits or withdrawals or early withdrawals if and when necessary.
Not sure if they are going to remove that benefit in the future for the smallest change in any of the accounts.