Perkins Mid Cap Value Fund (JMCVX) - is closed according to all the filings I can find, is closed at Fidelity, but M* says is open, and E*Trade says it will sell the fund to new investors.
Perkins Small Cap Value Fund (JSCVX) - will reopen Jan 1, per SEC filing
Why this matters.
Estimated distributions this week for these funds are around 20%. This is more than the appreciation of nearly every owner's shares since they purchased them. (For JSCVX, unless one purchased shares around 2008-2009, you'd have to go back to the last millennium to find shares that cost less than the ex-div price of these shares will be.)
So, one may be better off liquidating, recognizing the smaller (long term) capital gains in the share price than taking the (larger) distribution, some of which may be taxed as ordinary income (unknown). Because these funds are (or will shortly be) available to new shareholders, it's not as important to retain a position.
I'm not saying that these are bad or good investments. Just that from a tax perspective, this is one of those rare opportunities where selling around a dividend (sell, repurchase ex-div if one wants to stay with the fund) works for a lot of people. Often when that's the situation, it's because people have been selling off in droves, leaving the stragglers to split the fund's distributions among fewer shares.

Perhaps 2015 will be a good year for domestic small and mid caps. With this, I am still keeping my small/mid cap sleeve in tack and might do a little buying when they start to take command over their large cap cousins. Year-to-date my small/mid cap sleeve has return about 1.5% and over a full twelve month period about 5.5%.
Old_Skeet

Hi mnzdedwards,
So that is why cash has recently gone for plus twenty percent to about sixteen percent for EVBAX. I am still with this fund as I believe that it's manager, Kathleen Gaffney, has been recently buying plus, no doubt, there have been some redemptions. According to a recent Morningstar's Instant Xray analysis its current asset allocation is about 16% cash, 19% stocks, 42% bonds and 23% other.
I plan to stick around because I feel through a full market cycle this will be a good performing diversified income fund as Ms. Gaffney was trained by the legendary Mr. Dan Fuss and it has the flexibility to roam within a broad spectrum in pursuit of opportunity.
Old_Skeet

FYI: This year has felt like a hangover for owners of small-cap stock funds.
On several occasions, small-cap stocks have dipped by more than 7 percent in just a matter of weeks. All told, they're close to flat for the year, a letdown from 2013 when they surged 37 percent. And the performance looks even worse when compared with large-cap stocks, which are up 11 percent. The last time small-caps had this bad a year relative to large-caps was when Google was still operating out of a garage in 1998.
Regards,
Ted
http://bigstory.ap.org/article/627fba8bec31447aa05828863df05165/have-small-cap-stocks-suffered-enough
S&P 600: http://www.spindices.com/indices/equity/sp-600
Russell 2000: http://money.cnn.com/data/markets/russell/

DlphcOracl:
You mention CP. I own CNI and CP as two of my top investments and personally, I don't even think about them on a day-to-day basis.
If you asked me to mention stocks that I would feel comfortable holding for a few years, I could offer a lot of names. If you asked me names that I would feel comfortable holding for 5-10, there would be less. If you asked me for names that I can strongly imagine holding for 20-30+ years, it would be a short list and railroads would be at the top of it.
EPD (and ETE) I don't think about on a day-to-day and I just reinvest dividends (with the added 5% DRIP discount.)
CLR is really interesting, but I think my problem with this drop in oil is that it's effected things that I own beyond the oil-related (look at Ecolab/ECL, which is primarily a hygiene company, but because an aspect of their business is related to fracking, that's taken a hit. Ecolab's largest shareholder is Bill Gates and the company has raised the dividend I believe every year for something like nearly 30 years.
So, for me, it becomes difficult to add something like CLR. I say that now though, and maybe in a few days it winds up at a price I can't resist. Who knows.
LYB is something I've explored not much beyond the surface, but I think the first thing that I thought of was, "Well, isn't what they make their product from now cheaper?" I guess the issue becomes:
"LyondellBasell may be a producer of ethylene, but it has been one of the biggest beneficiaries of the U.S. shale revolution. It has converted much of its U.S. chemicals facilities to run on natural gas feedstock, specifically ethane, that is cheap and abundant thanks to new fracking techniques. That has given LyondellBasell and other U.S. chemicals producers like Westlake Chemical a huge advantage over foreign companies that use oil-based naphtha as a feedstock. Now that Saudi Arabia has cut prices for U.S. oil exports and Brent crude has hit a four-year low, the so-called ethane advantage has shrunk considerably."
http://www.forbes.com/sites/nathanvardi/2014/11/04/billionaire-len-blavatniks-lyondellbasell-trade-looks-a-little-less-great-after-oil-price-drop/?partner=yahootix
I think the LYB situation could certainly turn around within a reasonable time frame. The advantage that they have has shrunk, but the feedstock for the product they make is only now cheaper, so I suppose I'm questioning the decline in the stock, which seems overdone for the reason above.

Replies to linter, MikeM and Derf:
linter: When I bought those energy stocks in September it was for a ST to intermediate term "swing trade". I did not perceive that the energy stocks were in the midst of a bear market and I did not have any conviction that these were compelling stock values. Rather, I still thought the energy sector was in a bull market, as was/is the rest of the stock market, and that this was a correction that would quickly reverse itself. Wrong !!
My reason for putting 10% stocks underneath all of those positions once they had been completed is because I am, as most of you are, an amateur investor and I do not have inside knowledge or an "edge". It is a counter to my hubris that I "cannot possibly be wrong" and it gets me out of ST/IT trades when it becomes apparent that there is something else at work that I do not see or understand. That said, investing at current levels is an entirely different matter and whether I employ a stop is now stock and investment specific.
For example, Oasis Petroleum is a SC stock that has lost over 80% (yikes!!) of its value in six months and now has a price:book ratio of .66 and a PEG or .17. However, it is also has a VERY high debt level and I believe the steep selloff in this stock represents concerns about its solvency and profitability in the near future. I WILL place a 10% stop loss underneath this stock once I have finished averaging in because this is a highly speculative position. Conversely, Whiting Petroleum (WLL) has lost 70% in three months and has a price:book value of .66. However, it has a market cap of nearly 4 billion dollars and has been a very well managed company. Morningstar's energy analyst (and I always find M* to be overly conservative in its stock evaluations) believes in its most recent report of 12/02/2014 that the fair value of WLL based on its holdings is $84 per share. I will NOT put a stop under WLL because I do not foresee a situation where it could go to zero. I am prepared to ride this one out for 3-5 years. I feel similarly about investments in LYB, CP, and several of the high quality MLPs with high, safe dividends (WPZ, OKS, EPD, etc.)
MikeM: I agree with your points regarding usage of stops and hope I have clarified how I intend to use them this go-around in my reply to "linter". The majority of positions I am averaging into are stocks, ETFs (MLPI, PXI), and MLPs that I believe are high quality investments that are compelling LT holds and they will not have 10% stop-loss orders placed underneath them. My investing horizon for these positions is LT, i.e., 3-5 years. The few highly speculative "swing-for-the-fences" positions such as OAS will be stop-loss protected.
Derf: No one really knows where the price of WTI crude will bottom but one has to make an educated guess. Two of the most well-respected figures in the energy industry, both with many decades of experience and billions of dollars of skin in the game, are Boone Pickens and Harold Hamm (CEO of Continental Resources/CLR) and both thought it would bottom at around $60. Clearly, both have been proven wrong. CNBC's Dennis Gartman and the staff writer for Barron's (Gene Epstein) believe it could settle at $30-$40 per barrel. I'm placing my bets with Pickens and Hamm and investing accordingly.
One last word to frame this discussion and put it in perspective - these investments in beaten down energy stocks and peripheral stocks dragged down with them (chemical & railroad stocks), ETFs and MLPs will, in total, make up no more than 10% of my entire portfolio. The vast majority of my portfolio is held in ETFs and MFs that I do not trade in and out of. This is Madd Money, i.e. a cash position of 10% to 15% that I intermittently hold for employing into unforeseen investment opportunities. As stated above, every year or two one of these opportunities comes out of nowhere. It is an attempt to "juice" my overall portfolio. Any and all comments and criticisms are welcomed. This is still a learning experience for me, as well.

Short, sweet post from folks at Alpha Architect...in-line with DlphcOracl's position here:
Oil Stocks: A Real-Time Case Study in Value Investing

Ha! I take it back...a closer look at the monthly oil data shows that most of price drop in 1980s occurred over short few month period in early 1986. Steep, heavy drops happened again in 1991 and 2008!
Interesting to see that oil has never recovered to pre-financial crisis levels...we remain in the same drawdown, 78 months and counting...
Here's plot of data from Energy Info Administration:

DO says: However, ALL of them got stopped out when they hit -10% of my average NAV after I had completed those positions.
I ask: So if you had your stop at -10% then, I can only assume that you're using a similar stop now. If oil drops to $50, won't you be stopped out of all your positions well before that point? Or are you not using stops at this (low?) level?

I have been watching on the sideline on this " alternatives" while holding with a healthy % of cash and short term bond funds. I welcome another 10% drop as of this Friday - great entry points.

Really good thread! Thanks everybody for sharing. Thanks to DlphcOracl for starting. Enjoyed reading all points.
What strikes me is how fast it dropped. During the 1980 oil bust, which turned Houston into a ghost town, I believe the 70% decline took six years ($33/barrel in 1980 to $10 in 1986) ... this time we're almost there in just three months!
Here's a recent article related to Scott's energy debt posts...from the Houston Chronicle no less:
Memories of '80s oil bust keep bank regulators vigilant

Example sometimes Demo's best:
I had some extra money on Sept.17th bought VHT for $117.80 no commissions from vanguard Today it is 126.47 (+7.3% profit) in three months, after being down -2.53% this week like everything else, otherwise I make 10%+ for short term investing, still might before EOY ......just saying...Healthcare....

hank -
1. I was not implying that investing under these circumstances is a "no-brainer" - it never is. However, I AM saying that investing in sound, well-managed companies at the present time greatly shifts the odds in one's favor. That is all one can do, especially in buying individual stocks. MFs and ETFs are, to some extent, a different story.
2. Regarding Bill Gross: I have simply tuned him and Mohammed El-Erian out. They talk too much and say too little. I have never heard anything from either one that was investable or made any money for me.
3. Regarding my post of September 23 - I was flat out wrong and I lost money on those investments. As posted, I did indeed proceed to average into several energy stocks and complete those positions. However, ALL of them got stopped out when then hit -10% of my average NAV after I had completed those positions. I never dreamed that:
a. the price of WTI crude would drop this far this fast and certainly did not guess that it would drop below $60. I believe the gurus that believe it may fall to $50-$51 are credible whereas those calling for $40 oil are not.
b. Whiting Petroleum (WLL) would lose 70% of its value in three months and now trade at a price:book ratio of 0.8 or that CLR would lose 60% of its value.
c. Well diversified stocks with peripheral association with oil and energy would also sell off as much as they have, e.g. WLK, LYB, GBX, CP, TRN (although TRN has other issues as well). I cannot believe that buying a large-cap leader such as LYB with a dividend yield of 3.8% and price:book of 3.8 when it has lost 40% in three months will not be profitable in 2-3 years.
One final point: I share your disdain for the "don't catch a falling knife", i.e., don't invest as stocks are rapidly losing value, canard. It is the antithesis of "buy low, sell high" and it make little investing sense. If one uses it to mean "don't back up the truck and buy aggressively" in the midst of a steep decline, I agree. If it is used to say "don't invest when the stock market or a stock is going down, I disagree. At some point, one has to use his/her own best judgment and decide when a stock, MF or ETF has reached a value that makes it worth owning if one has a time horizon of years, not months, and slowly average into a position. It isn't foolproof but investing never is.

I bought going down (no Knifes) how long do you think there will be $2.00 gas and 50-60 oil? any bets?
Oil co's are big profit machines that pay big dividends on a "necessary" product, with shares being sold at reasonable/good P/E s
1+1+1+1 ( + my Profit)=5stars in Tampabay

Thanks guys. This is money in 401k.
It is confusing still. The 401k (T Rowe Price) shows a transaction buy cost of $25.60. Yahoo shows yesterdays closing fund value as $25.60. Morningstar's un-reliable data still shows previous day price of $28.53.
I'm guessing as you said Hank, that it gets sorted out.

Delphi - I think you miss most of my gist.
I have been dollar averaging into both an oil heavy commodities fund (QRAAX) and an energy heavy NR fund (PRNEX) for a couple of months now. I've actually taken some heat on this board for trying to catch a "falling knife" to the point that I won't even respond to Scott's "What are you buying ... selling..." threads any more.
The point I wanted to make above is that "buying down" is not an easy proposition. It's not the "no-brainer" you seem to imply. It's definitely not for everyone. Sorry if I ruffeled your feathers. No intent to do so.
Gross was commenting on recent Fed Governors' statements. That's all.
If he was dispensing any investing advice, I missed it.
BTW: Here's what you had to say about oil prices in Scott's thread on September 23: "The price of crude (WTI) may go a bit lower but not much - perhaps a few dollars..." http://www.mutualfundobserver.com/discuss/discussion/comment/47977/#Comment_47977
In fact, the price of WTI has fallen from around $91 on September 23 to $58 today.
http://www.traditionenergy.com/morning-energy-report/morning-energy-report-september-23-2014

Hank:
1. Bill Gross has been "right" about very little for several years. Not the guru I would take my investing lead from.
2. A 50% drop in NAV is not important in and of itself. However, when it results in a well-managed stock with clearly defined assets trading at or below its book value, it's called an "investing opportunity". If you do not invest under these circumstances, then "when" ??
3. Do not depend upon an MF manager to make the difficult investment decisions for you. Very few have the cajones to invest when good stocks are on sale and are no more likely to do so than you are. Look above at my reply to Derf and see how most MFs did in 2009. Whether or not they beat their bogey, i.e., their sector peer group average, in 2009 will separate the MF manager wheat from the chaff.

There are lies, darned lines, and ... Some of these figures are wildly off if read without the footnotes.
Ms. White's published speech footnote 1 says that the $63 trillion figure came from an analysis that tended toward double counting. That's generous, as the ICI figure (from 2014 Investment Company Fact Book) is less than half: $30.0 trillion invested worldwide, and "just" $17.1 trillion in the US.
Likewise, footnote 2 says "certain entities" were double counted in coming up with almost 10,000 funds. (The ThinkAdvisor reporting omitted "almost".) The number is actually closer to 7500. M*'s database (using its premium screener and "distinct portfolio only" filter) reports 7,353 distinct mutual funds (and 1672 ETFs), while the ICI reports 7,707 US funds, and 76,200 worldwide.
Ms. White talks about the need for "a more comprehensive approach ... to address the risks associated with ... the use of derivatives [by mutual funds]." Meanwhile, Congress is debating a relaxed approach to the use of derivatives by banks with FDIC-insured money.
When funds use derivatives (or any other vehicle) it's your money - you win or you lose. I'm not one to play fast and loose with my investments, but at least it's the same person who stands to win or lose by these risks. (So clear disclosure might be sufficient - investors can dial up or dial down their risk.) With the banks, it's heads they (their executives and shareholders) win, tails you (the taxpayer/FDIC) lose.

Hi Scott: You are are correct. A further 50% drop to the $25-$30 dollar area would signal something very wrong with the global economy. I won't, however, rule it out.
My point was more that percentage numbers can be deceiving. From a purely mathematical perspective, there's always another 100% left.
I liked Bill Gross's comments on Bloomberg Friday. In effect - the Fed appears to have their heads in the sand (my words - not his) on this deflation question.
Added rambling: There would seem to be strategic opportunities in all the service industries you cite for a good fund manager to make you some money if you have time to wait. I'm optimistic and will increase my allocation to the broadly diversified natural resource sector as we near $50 and $40. On the other hand, these funds will be facing enormous outflows as investors panic and flee. So, it will be a little harder for even the best managers to turn their funds around.

I wrote a thread with some concerns regarding the fracking theme in June: http://www.mutualfundobserver.com/discuss/discussion/13960/some-concerns-with-the-fracking-theme
I didn't think that the concerns would quite lead to this end result, but I do think that:
A. You still stay away from small, aggressive and over-leveraged. Oil feels like it has no bid and it could easily continue lower. If it does, you are already seeing distressed debt for smaller companies. You have $550B in energy debt and many of those companies weren't making money - now they REALLY aren't. There are values already for those with a longer-term time horizon, but I'd really stay with the more mid-to-large players and away from the speculative, smaller, highly indebted ones.
B. There are companies that are not oil companies that have gotten hit because of this. Railroads are down. Obviously, oil by rail is a big story, but railroads aren't going anywhere and oil certainly isn't the majority of what these railroads are carrying.
C. The pipelines have gotten hit but they are not price-sensitive, they are volume sensitive. Many of the pipeline companies that I follow have been positive - Interpipeline (IPPLF) had a great quarter and raised the dividend. Doesn't matter, stock still gets obliterated.
"Oil's lost 50% this year. Next year it can still lose another 50% .... and another 50% on top of that if it wants to."
If that happens, what does the market as a whole do, as that's saying something considerably worse than mere oversupply issues.