Just got out my calculator and did a quick, rough estimate of FAIRX's expected performance today. Came up with (0.22%). Easily consistent with the actual performance of (.19%)
Looks like there is no reason to believe there have been any major changes to the portfolio. Sorry everyone.

1. Fannie Mae up 4.36%
2. Sears up 1.02%
3. St. Joe up .95%

FAIRX was down only .19% today -- a day in which AIG was down .76%. This result does not seem to be consistent with its most recently published portfolio, and implies to me that there have been significant changes made.

http://blogs.barrons.com/incomeinvesting/2014/09/23/strong-two-year-auction-draws-foreign-interest/?mod=BOL_hp_blog_ii
Super strong bidding today for 2 year notes at 0.589%, primarily from foreign central banks.

Like Div. ETFs? look at VYM +18% 12mos. .10% expense, NO commissions

Hmmm......Bruce Berkowitz has always said that his first rule is, Don't Lose Money....and his second rule is, Don't forget rule number 1."

Wasn't it Buffett who said that?
Berkowitz has always been "ignore the crowd", although sometimes following the crowd works quite well.
I think my question in regards to Fairholme and St Joe (JOE) is if Fairholme owns 24% of JOE and is influencing them to take on Sears loans, what are the other 76% of shareholders thoughts on that?

A few thoughts.
1. Of course, Fed dialogue and actions have an effect on my investments.
That said:
2. You have a market where people are making their choices (not saying that people here are, just sayin') increasingly based upon what the next words out of Yellen's mouth may be and I think that's the continuation of a market that is reliant to a concerning degree upon not only Fed action, but even the slightest of Fed discussion. The level of Fed speculation (the whole thing recently about whether "considerable time" would be changed or not) has gotten ridiculous. The view that bad news is good news because that means the Fed will be easier longer is dismaying for a number of reasons, a big one because it's focusing on the ultra short-term in an economy that I think desperately needs to plan a route for a sustainable long-term.
3. If you are all Asia because that's what you believe in, own it and accept the potential volatility and potential under/outperformance if something effects that region. If you are all income of various shapes and sizes because maybe you feel like its appropriate for your age or compound interest is one of the few things closest to an investment guarantee, own it. Know that Fed action will have a significant effect on your holdings, but believe that those in charge of your holdings are actively trying to prepare for the eventuality - and as some people (Heebner of CGM Focus, for example) have found out, the "inevitable eventuality" is not happening nearly as quickly as they thought it would. Have the longer term view and continue to reinvest in income holdings if you get lower levels.
Own your best ideas, whatever or whereever they may be. You don't have to own them for decades, but I do think Buffett's "Only buy something that you'd be perfectly happy to hold if the market shut down for 10 years" is a good question to help filter out things you are trying to decide whether or not to invest in.
So yes, what Yellen says and does has an effect. If you are making decisions based upon what Yellen may say next, I just think that's only going to result in unnecessary stress and problems.

One index I have been following this year is the Russell 1000 Growth. I can track the index itself with IWF. Late last year I put some money in ACDJX and added a bit more in the spring. This one has done well.
The breadth of the market is not completely participating in the bull. The Nasdaq is a good example of this.

In the below linked article Bespoke Investment Group provides their take on the major indexes; and, will the S&P 500 Index follow the others?
http://www.bespokeinvest.com/thinkbig/2014/9/22/dropping-like-flies.html

I guess At least Fartiromo has left CNBC and he is not fawning all over her. Incidently I think that was the reason his fund didn't do well in 2011. He wasn't focused. I guess I should owe Fartiromo.

VintageFreak, did Berkowitz do an interview with Maria Bartiromo on CNBC. And was "fawning all over her"?
Anyway, good move buying it in the dumps....the lower, the better. I think it went down 32% in 2011

I bought FAIRX when it was in the dumps in 2011. I guess I am just going to stick to my guns and just ignore the tape. Let Berkowitz do whatever he wants. At least Fartiromo has left CNBC and he is not fawning all over her. Incidently I think that was the reason his fund didn't do well in 2011. He wasn't focused. I guess I should owe Fartiromo.
WTF am I saying ?!?! Let me just stick to Technical ANALysis instead of PsychoANALysis.

I think if you wanted you could use the historical information from the Fed to graph or create a table of what has historically happened to 10 Years when the Fed Funds rate changes, or pretty much any other comparison you'd want to do.
federalreserve.gov/releases/h15/data.htm
If you do that I'm sure lots of people, including myself would love to see the graph :)
The following link shows the history for the Fed's target for rates. To my surprise when rates have gone up historically they've gone up pretty quickly.
newyorkfed.org/markets/statistics/dlyrates/fedrate.html

Great resources from the Fed, LLJB. Thanks for posting that.
The historical Fed Funds rate was very interesting. Last month is shows the Fed Funds rate was 0.09%. In June 1981 it was 19.1%. That gives plenty of information for interest rate and bond market forecasters to work on.
You're right, it would be very instructive to compare changes in the Fed Funds rate with what happened to the 10-year bond. Or just a comparison between the Fed Funds rate and the 10-year Treasury. Hmmm....maybe Charles would love to sink his teeth into that data.

I'll call BS. I do not see rates at 3.75 by end of 2017.

I agree with this.
Lets say they start raising in June 2015. That would mean 2.5 years to run it up to 3.75. The economy would have to be doing very well for that to happen.

I agree with you Dex. The economy would have to be doing very well for that to happen. But we are talking bonds, not stocks. Yeah, the economy doing very well would be great for stocks, and I hope that's exactly what happens. And in the scenario you mention, "2.5 years to run it up to 3.75", bonds would tank big time. Certainly the U.S. Aggregate Bond Market Index. In that scenario, junk bonds probably do OK. And corporates much better than Treasuries.
Personally, I have no forecast for interest rates, the bond market or the stock market. I'll leave the forecasting to others.

I think Berkowitz is going off the deep end with respect to Sears, St Joe, having 49% of the Fairholme Fund invested in one stock, AIG, owning Fannie and Freddie which supposedly are going to "end" as companies.
Hmmm......Bruce Berkowitz has always said that his first rule is, Don't Lose Money....and his second rule is, Don't forget rule number 1.
St. Joe (JOE) is a risky company. Sears (SHLD) is a risky company. Above it says that Fairholme Capital Management owns 24% of each of those risky companies.
Add that to the 49% weighting of AIG in FAIRX;
Owning Fannie and Freddie which are scheduled for termination.......a 14.4% weighting in BAC in the Fairholme Fund
Can anyone convince me that Bruce is investing according to the rule of "Don't Lose Money"? Are these the actions of a risk averse investor whose stated objective is not to lose?
No, they are the actions of a risk taker whose first rule is Take Risk To Make As Much As Possible
Don't get me wrong, I think Bruce Berkowitz may very well succeed, and hit home runs and grand slams. He may one day again be the Morningstar Manager of the Decade. But don't do it under the guise of being a risk averse investor who is trying to protect his shareholders from capital loss.
Check out his returns in 2000, 2001 and 2002. They were brilliant.
But also look at the return of FAIRX in 2011.

So what? What Scott said. Keep calm and carry on. Are you going to fret ginormously for 3y? Exhale, man. Odd how well (or well enough) FSICX, FTBFX, DODIX, and AOK have done the last 2-3y of rate anxiety. Check it out. I exclude anything Pimco. Do you really think those four vehicles are going to be down 10% or whatever 3y from now? I doubt it.

I'll call BS. I do not see rates at 3.75 by end of 2017.

I agree with this.
Lets say they start raising in June 2015. That would mean 2.5 years to run it up to 3.75. The economy would have to be doing very well for that to happen.

http://www.insidermonkey.com/blog/bruce-berkowitzs-fairholme-affiliate-in-talks-with-sears-holdings-corp-shld-regarding-short-term-loan-328818/
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-09-19/sears-needs-10-times-loan-from-lampert-corporate-finance.html
"St. Joe Co. (JOE) may contribute as much as $100 million to the loan, according to a filing yesterday. St. Joe, a real estate and timber company, is 24 percent-owned by Bruce Berkowitz’s Fairholme Capital Management, which also has a 24 percent stake in Sears."

I believe, although I couldn't find the details again of what I've read, that two of the most hawkish members of the Fed, Fisher and Plosser, will rotate off as voters next year. This should make the Fed more dovish on balance. At the same time, Yellen has shown herself to be pretty dovish so far and to the extent that history provides any evidence, the Fed's chairperson usually gets what they want even though there's a committee that "votes" on whatever the Fed does. At the press conference after the meeting finished Yellen commented on the "Dot Plot" specifically and my interpretation was that she essentially said it just reflects each member's expectations about a future that hasn't happened yet and it doesn't tell you anything about how much confidence each member has in their own projections.
In terms of what happens when the Fed raises rates, in theory at least, the longer the term the less the rate should adjust. That's because what people believe about the next 10 years shouldn't have a 1:1 relationship with what happens today (although admittedly it does sometimes) and because future rates should already discount what's expected for the future.
I think if you wanted you could use the historical information from the Fed to graph or create a table of what has historically happened to 10 Years when the Fed Funds rate changes, or pretty much any other comparison you'd want to do.
federalreserve.gov/releases/h15/data.htm
If you do that I'm sure lots of people, including myself would love to see the graph :)
The following link shows the history for the Fed's target for rates. To my surprise when rates have gone up historically they've gone up pretty quickly.
newyorkfed.org/markets/statistics/dlyrates/fedrate.html

I'll call BS. I do not see rates at 3.75 by end of 2017.
"the Fed just said last week that this is what they expect to do! "
And how many times has one Fed governor said one thing only to have another Fed governor say the opposite a few days later? How many times have they changed their forecasts? How many times have they moved the goalposts?
Go about your business and invest in a way that is appropriate for you. This whole situation with what the Fed is doing and analyzing whether or not a couple of words ("considerable time") were the same on the last Fed statement has really brought this whole thing into a new realm of utter ridiculousness. (Yellen: "No mechanical interpretation of "considerable time" - in other words "it depends on what your definition of is is".)
Edited to add, and sure enough...."http://headlines.ransquawk.com/headlines/fed-s-kocherlakota-says-should-be-very-cautious-about-starting-to-raise-rates-with-inflation-so-low-23-09-2014"