Hi again NumbersGal. Eye watering numbers...tears of joy long term and across full cycles, tears of pain during drawdowns...more severe than the annualized numbers show. But I suspect not many funds have beaten the SP500 3% annualized for the past 20 years. FWIW.
Hope all is well.
c

Fund is not diversified (can be up to 25% in one company). Per M* the management "team" consists of 1 person.
Their website http://www.matthew25fund.com/m25faq.html is not very informativ e (although they do give the reference to Matthew 25 text at http://www.matthew25fund.com/M25gospel2.pdf)
The fund had a tough time in 2007 (-19%) and 2008 (-40%) but still has good numbers over longer periods.

@MrRuffles Thanks for the input. Here is the MFO discussion of his leaving First Eagle.
Merry Christmas,
Ted
http://www.mutualfundobserver.com/discuss/discussion/16110/abhay-deshpande-resigns-from-first-eagle-funds

From the article (talking about not changing the name of the "Mutual Fund Store"):
"I look at this almost like AT&T — it's American Telephone & Telegraph — it's been years since there has been a telegraph in the United States”
It's been 20 years since the company was called American Telephone & Telegraph - the company rebranded itself as AT&T in 1994, memorializing its termination of telegraph service in 1991.
It seems all we've got these days is an alphabet soup of company names standing for nothing.

Mutual funds are a little weird when it comes to dates - I think I've got it right, but I'm not sure. Though I am sure that it's not T+3 (what Skeeter linked to was a page describing T+3 for stocks; a rule that also applies to ETFs). The ex-date is generally one (market) day after the record date; I've never seen longer, though I have seen same day.
It's often referred to as T+1, but that doesn't seem right, as I'll explain. For practical purposes though, with almost all mutual funds, if you own it on the record date you get the dividend, and if you own it one day later, you don't.
For stocks, what happens (with T+3) is pretty straightforward. You buy/sell on the trade date ("T"). If you're buying, you take "possession" of the stocks in three business days ("settlement date"). Until then, you've got a contract (at an agreed upon price) for the stock, but you're not the owner as far as the stock company is concerned. You haven't taken possession. Three days later you are the owner, so if the record date is then or later, you get the dividend.
That's why the ex-date is two (market) days before the record date. If you buy the stock two days before the record date, then by the time you're the owner of record three days later, you'll have missed the dividend. But if you buy three days before the record date, you'll be on the books just in time for the dividend.
So you would think that what T+1 for mutual funds meant was that if you bought the fund shares zero days before the record date, you'd have missed the dividend. That is, the ex-date would be the same as the record date. But it's not (usually).
Traditionally, open end funds were bought and sold directly from the fund distributor. So my theory (haven't found this anywhere) is that even if the settlement were a day after purchase (T+1), the "company" (distributor) knew about the transaction and had you on the books as the owner.
So if you bought on the record date, you got the dividend, regardless of the settlement date. That's what strikes me as weird about mutual fund dividends.
Skeeter mentioned some funds where "owner of record" is applied at the open, not at the close. I found that very helpful. I used to see (but no longer do see) many funds where the record date and ex date were the same date.
That makes perfect sense if the "owner of record" is determined at the open. If you buy on the record date, the transaction is effective at the end of the day, and you don't get the div. So the ex-date is the same as the record date. But if the ownership of record is determined at the end of the day (the usual situation), then if you buy on the record date, you are the owner when they check to see if you get the dividend.
Here's a page from Hartford saying that their funds check at the beginning of the record date: http://hmf.hartfordlife.com/hmf_help/hmf_helpgloss.htm#R
(See Record Date: "Only shareholders who are invested in the fund at the opening of business on the record date will receive the distribution.")

Hi Guys,
Thank you all for reading my post during this Holiday season, with a special thanks for you guys who replied. I’m a firm believer in the benefits of measured and respectful interchange and debate.
Upon reflection, several of Housel’s rules are simply reworded long standing, generic axioms.
For example, the rule (No. 6) that things change rapidly has been historically addressed from several directions.
Confucius noted that “Only the wisest and stupidest of men never change”. Machiavelli wrote that “There is nothing more difficult to take in hand, more perilous to conduct, or more uncertain in its success, than to take the lead in the introduction of a new order of things”. J. Paul Getty cautioned that “In times of rapid change, experience could be your worst enemy”.
For example, the rule (No. 8) against investing difficulty is just a restatement of Einstein’s famous proclamation. He famously voiced that we should “Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler”.
For example, the rule (No. 12) emphasizing a mind reset is a remake of John Maynard Keynes advice as follows: “When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, Sir?”.
Even with this limited MFO response, a sharp disagreement among members is clearly in evidence.
Dex said: “I'd say the less I read and watch the news the smarter I've become”. In contrast, Tampabay said: “….hard work, insite (insight?) of the future, original thought, unwilling to accept No for an answer ect ect is usually the Real reason for their success “.
The disparity of opinion illustrated here should always be welcomed on MFO. Based on the arguments and our own circumstances, we get to choose.
In this instance, I subscribe to the Tampabay perspective. I’m sure that surprises zero souls among MFO regulars.
But even the hard work ethic has its limitations when investing. I offer that all mutual fund mangers and their staffs are smart, well educated, and hard working folks, yet many fail to generate benchmark rewards.
The failures are not caused by a work or smarts shortfall; it is coupled to the overall market interactive complexity and the uncertain future. Hard work reduces risk when it is somewhat known in terms of frequency and impact; it falls short when uncertainty basically overarches and controls future events. It’s the unknowable future that kills performance, not effort.
Enough philosophizing for this year. Once again, and finally, thanks for participating. Have a wonderful Holiday season.

FYI: It may be the Mutual Fund Store, but company executives are not dogmatic about the "mutual fund" part.
Starting in 2015, the $9.5 billion registered investment adviser known for selling mutual funds and financial advice to the masses will add a product to its repertoire: ETFs
Regards,
Ted
http://www.investmentnews.com/article/20141223/FREE/141229997?template=printart

FYI: Though it’s easy to find a stock fund that beat the S&P 500 index, even over periods of 10 years or longer, buying such a fund seldom results in continued outperformance. But I’m going to tell you about a mutual fund that’s different. Let’s call it “Fund X” for now and later I’ll do the big reveal on the fund and toss in a key lesson.
Regards,
Ted
http://blogs.wsj.com/totalreturn/2014/12/23/a-fund-that-trounces-the-sp-500/tab/print/?mg=blogs-wsj&url=http%3A%2F%2Fblogs.wsj.com%2Ftotalreturn%2F2014%2F12%2F23%2Fa-fund-that-trounces-the-sp-500%2Ftab%2Fprint&fpid=2,121
M* Snapshot Of VTSMX: http://quotes.morningstar.com/fund/vtsmx/f?t=VTSMX
Lipper Snapshot Of VTSMX: http://www.marketwatch.com/investing/fund/vtsmx
VTSMX vs. VFINX: http://www.marketwatch.com/tools/mutual-fund/compare?Tickers=VTSMX+VFINX&Compare=Returns

FYI:
Regards,
Ted
http://online.barrons.com/articles/todays-top-5-stock-picks-finding-value-in-a-frenzy-1419446844#printMode
M* Snapshot Of SGENX: http://quotes.morningstar.com/fund/sgenx/f?t=SGENX
Lipper Snapshot Of SGENX: http://www.marketwatch.com/investing/fund/sgenx
SEGNX Is Ranked #6 In The (WA) Fund Category By U.S. News & World Report:
http://money.usnews.com/funds/mutual-funds/world-allocation/first-eagle-global-fund/sgenx

A colleague at work asked for guidance on selling a long-held mutual fund on the Record (12.26) Date but before the Ex-Dividend Date (12.29). I was not able to advise.
If they proceed with selling on the Record Date, will they get stuck with a higher tax bill, and the hefty distribution, once it goes Ex-Dividend, or will their profit benefit from a lower taxed long-term capital gain?

Merry Christmas MJG and Dex.
14. "There is no such thing as a normal economy, or a normal stock market."
Perhaps there is but it is very short lived and if you blink you'll miss it. Ever wonder why Bill Gross termed the phrase "the new normal?"
8. "There are no points awarded for difficulty. Yes, there is. It is called risk."
What do you get for risk? A lump of coal from Charles Jaffe.
15." It can be difficult to tell the difference between luck and skill in investing."
The modest investor will tell you it was luck. The braggadocio will say it was skill. ( my statement is not pertaining to anyone here)
Thanks again @MJG for this thread.

1. All past market crashes are viewed as opportunities - if you had the $ to buy
but all future market crashes are viewed as risks - if you have money invested.
2. Most bubbles begin with a rational idea that gets taken to an irrational extreme.
Tulip mania, pet rocks - enough said
3. “I don’t know” are three of the most underused words in investing. True
4. Short-term thinking is at the root of most investing problems. Because we are all dead in the long term.
5. Investing is overwhelmingly a game of psychology. True
6. Things change quickly—and more drastically than many think. Ya think!
7. Three of the most important variables to consider are the valuations of stocks when you buy them, the length of time you can stay invested, and the fees you pay to brokers and money managers. Have you seen the cost of trading stocks at on line brokers?
8. There are no points awarded for difficulty. Yes, there is. It is called risk.
9. A couple of times per decade, investors forget that recessions happen a couple of times per decade. Don't you mean about once a decade - did you forget?
10. Don’t check your brokerage account once a day and your blood pressure only once a year. I like looking at large numbers - it lowers my BP.
11. You should pay the most attention to the investor who talks about his or her mistakes.
Yes - there is something to learn.
12. Change your mind when the facts change. Maybe the important facts.
13. Read past stock-market predictions, and you will take current predictions less seriously. True.
14. There is no such thing as a normal economy, or a normal stock market. Why not?
15. It can be difficult to tell the difference between luck and skill in investing. Why?
16. You are only diversified if some of your investments are performing worse than others.
I think many here would disagree.

I think we have to remember that writers have to write a lot of articles - it is their job.
I'd say the less I read and watch the news the smarter I've become.

Hi Guys,
Everyone and his uncle offer year end investment forecasts and rules of engagement.
Typically the forecasts are trash and not worth the paper they’re printed on. Sometimes the rules are similarly trash, but occasionally some well integrated rules, that have been thoughtfully assembled from experience, do serve a useful purpose. They can act as a compass to guide your investment ship to a safe harbor.
There are many practical rules that have been cobbled together to make a consequential list. I have several favorites. One such list that is high on my personal hit parade is from Morgan Housel. He recently published that list in a WSJ article.
I failed to note the reference, but I did make a copy of his 16-point guideline. Here it is:
1. All past market crashes are viewed as opportunities, but all future market crashes are viewed as risks.
2. Most bubbles begin with a rational idea that gets taken to an irrational extreme.
3. “I don’t know” are three of the most underused words in investing.
4. Short-term thinking is at the root of most investing problems.
5. Investing is overwhelmingly a game of psychology.
6. Things change quickly—and more drastically than many think.
7. Three of the most important variables to consider are the valuations of stocks when you buy them, the length of time you can stay invested, and the fees you pay to brokers and money managers.
8. There are no points awarded for difficulty.
9. A couple of times per decade, investors forget that recessions happen a couple of times per decade.
10. Don’t check your brokerage account once a day and your blood pressure only once a year.
11. You should pay the most attention to the investor who talks about his or her mistakes.
12. Change your mind when the facts change.
13. Read past stock-market predictions, and you will take current predictions less seriously.
14. There is no such thing as a normal economy, or a normal stock market.
15. It can be difficult to tell the difference between luck and skill in investing.
16. You are only diversified if some of your investments are performing worse than others.
I think rule 7 is especially insightful. What you pay, how long you hold, and how much you keep after fees is the whole ballgame. Rule 8 advocates for simplicity. Rule 11 emphasizes that real learning takes place in what the military calls After Action Reviews that uncover faulty concepts and/or execution.
Note that rule 13 supports my position on forecasting futility. It’s fun each new year to project and to read forecasts. But only a fool acts on these historically and scandalously inept predictions.
I have a little time before our Christmas party moves into high gear, so I’ll research the Housel list. I just located the referenced article. Here is the Link so you can read the entire piece:
http://www.wsj.com/articles/16-rules-for-investors-to-live-by-1417789469
Enjoy! Best Wishes for a Happy Holiday season and a prosperous coming year.

@Dex Seems I've seen this before !
Merry Christmas
http://www.mutualfundobserver.com/discuss/discussion/17837/art-cashin-2015-market-outlook#latest

http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2014/12/art-cashin-2015-issues-to-watch/
Summary:
2014 happened and is over
2015 will happen

@MFO Members: Healthcare & Biotech having a rebound day, up close to 1%
Merry Christmas,
Ted

FYI:
Regards,
Ted
http://www.chartoftheday.com/20141224.htm?H

Howdy Doc,
I'm with Mark. I still accumulate but speculating in this market in the near term is borderline suicidal Recall that historically, commodity bull markets range from 13-15 years. The bull market in gold has been running since 2002 [rono scrambles to get his calculator . . . . figger, figger, figger . . . yup, it's been a great run, TYVM.] However, it really doesn't look that promising a place to play for speculation.
peace,
rono

I caught Steve Forbes discussion on his latest book, "Money", on Cspan. Gold is mentioned throughout the talk and I assume his book:
Money:
"Co-authors Steve Forbes and Elizabeth Ames talked about their book, Money: How the Destruction of the Dollar Threatens the Global Economy - and What We Can Do About It, in which they trace U.S. economic troubles back to the ending of the gold standard in the 1970s and discuss what a weak U.S. dollar means for the global economy. They called for a return to the gold standard to help stabilize the economy. The co-authors spoke at Politics and Prose Bookstore in Washington, DC. - June, 2014"
c-span.org/video/?319928-1/book-discussion-money

FYI: Nothing divides opinion like the yellow metal.
Regards,
Ted
http://blogs.wsj.com/moneybeat/2014/12/24/what-will-happen-to-gold-in-2015/tab/print/