FYI: (Click On Article Title At Top Of Google Search)
The money-management industry’s push to bring hedge-fund-style trading to the masses has suffered a setback.
Investors yanked more than $5 billion so far this year from the largest and most popular “liquid-alternative” mutual fund as losses mounted on bad bets tied to the global economy, according to fund-research firm Morningstar Inc. Assets in the MainStay Marketfield fund have fallen 45% from a February peak of $21.5 billion.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.google.com/search?newwindow=1&site=&source=hp&q=hot+funds+take+wrong+turns++qsj&oq=hot+funds+take+wrong+turns++qsj&gs_l=hp.3...1711.13190.0.13531.31.31.0.0.0.0.76.1725.31.31.0.msedr...0...1c.1.60.hp..13.18.1048.ibd_QpaCRa4
M* Snapshot Of MFADX: http://quotes.morningstar.com/fund/f?t=MFADX&region=usa&culture=en-US
Lipper Snapshot Of MFADX: http://www.marketwatch.com/investing/fund/mfadx
MFADX Is Unranked the The (L/S E) Fund Category By U.S. News & World Report:
http://money.usnews.com/funds/mutual-funds/long-short-equity/mainstay-marketfield-fund/mfadx
Mutual Fund Wire.Com Slant; http://www.mfwire.com/common/artprint2007.asp?storyID=50446&wireid=2
Bloomberg Slant: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/print/2014-12-29/mainstay-marketfield-suffers-eighth-month-of-redemptions.html

Hi Dex,
Sorry for my long delay in reading and responding to your post. During this holiday season my dance-card has been especially full.
Thank you for your line-by-line review and commentary on the Morgan Housel rules of investing engagement list. I do not agree with many of your observations, but I appreciated all of them.
I really believe that we learn much more from opinions that run contrary to our own than from ones that completely coincide with our thinking. Diversity is good in many areas beyond the investment universe.
But I was flabbergasted by your heavy discounting of the value of reading. I seriously doubt you truly meant your closing statement about reading less and getting smarter.
I too almost totally abstain from viewing the TV business networks. They introduce murkiness and anxiety rather than clarity and calm. They encourage imprudent impatience and unwarranted trading action. I pass on them.
I do much reading from a carefully screened and selected group of market expert writers. I certainly concur that all writers are not equal, and some discriminating criteria need to be applied. I do so.
By way of an unfair comparison, I learn much more. with higher trust coefficient. from this cohort than from the MFO discussions. Often the MFO submittals are far too abridged to secure the required trust level, especially given that the contributor qualifications and incentives are unknown.
Currently, I count Charley Munger among my favorite investing writers.
Please note that both Munger and his partner Warren Buffett are dedicated and committed readers.
By not following that pattern you are choosing to ignore the advice and practice of these two giants. I suggest that you consider adopting their regimented approach. A summary of their method was provided in a 2013 article. It is titled “The Buffett Formula – How to Get Smarter”. Here is a Link to that excellent piece:
http://www.farnamstreetblog.com/2013/05/the-buffett-formula-how-to-get-smarter/
Please access this fine presentation of the Buffett-Munger study routine You could not do much better than to at least give their method a try. It works for them, it works for me, and it is likely to work for you if you give it some serious time. Good luck.
Best Wishes for next year.

Hi Puddnhead,
Yep, I remember the Studebakers ... Hawk, Super Hawk but most of all the Avanti.
Perhaps these links will be of interest ...
http://www.studebakerdriversclub.com/index.asp
http://www.streetsideclassics.com/showcar.php/atl/1866
and, this one where the Avanti broke 29 speed records to become the fastest factory stock production car of its day ... however, back in the day, they sold for about twice the price of a Cadillac.
http://www.theavanti.net/bonneville.html
Old_Skeet

Response to Hank:
My bet is that oil (price of WTI per barrel) will be between $70 to $80 by end of 2015. That is why I think buying into energy stocks that are not highly leveraged and energy & midstream MLP ETFs at this time is a winning investment strategy for 2015, with a small but well-defined downside and significant upside.

@JohnN: (Click On Article Title At Top Of Google Search)
Regards,
Ted
https://www.google.com/search?newwindow=1&site=&source=hp&q=etf+could+have+a+big+year&oq=etf+could+have+a+big+year&gs_l=hp.3...1398.10387.0.12119.25.25.0.0.0.0.145.1713.24j1.25.0.msedr...0...1c.1.60.hp..11.14.960.oJGURtnR280

"[Fund] managers don't get paid for delivering performance, they collect a fee from investors regardless of the amount of money they make for their client. The amount of money they make depends on the size of assets that are under management. "
Cramer (is it really worth commenting on him?) is talking either about the portfolio manager or the management company. I doubt it's the former, because there are often all sorts of incentives put in place for portfolio managers. Also it seems he's referring to the management company fee (what appears as part of the ER, and is paid by the investor) because that's the fee that's directly coupled to AUM.
Even here he's wrong. A minority, but a significant minority of funds have management (company) fees tied to performance. The family with the largest number of funds having performance based fees is Fidelity. A family with a particularly large performance adjustment factor is Bridgeway.
In 2012, BRAGX sported a -0.47% ER, due to prior poor performance. Let's see an index fund pay you to invest with them.

Those with oracle-like powers may wish to offer a prediction here. On December 1, 2015, will the price of WTI be closer to: (1) $40 (2) $60 (3) $80 ?
* It's nice to see David get the recognition. He always makes a great deal of sense to me.

3.

Some funds offer guesses with their year end estimates (e.g. T. Rowe Price), but they are few and far between. And not too accurate.
I generally look at the dividends, see what portion were short term gains (if they were broken out), and treat them as nonqualified. Beyond that, I just look at last year's percentage of qualified to total dividends, and use that as a first order approximation.
Another part of the problem is foreign taxes (foreign tax credit). That's added to your dividends (reported in box 1a), but you never see the cash. Harbor Funds provided an estimate, but they're a rare exception, and for the most part this really winds up being a wild guess.

I'm trying to figure my 2014 IRS tax bite, and make January's estimated tax payment reasonably accurate. Although no year-end statements are available yet (from Fido, TRP, and Vanguard), I know what dividends my funds returned by looking at fund activity. The problem is that I don't know how much of the dividend is qualified. Any suggestions, or must I wait for the statements?

Life time and last full cycle numbers not so great...so far anyway:

What Vanguard Does for me (my portfolio expenses) source morningstar 12/26/2014....
Tampabay:
Average Mutual Fund Expense Ratio (%) 0.37
Expense Ratio of Similarly Weighted
Hypothetical Portfolio (%) 1.17

Pop Tart, if you are amenable to ETFs, I would also take a look at RPG and SCHG.
And a compelling case may be made to own a 50/50 mix of RPG and RPV as detailed HERE.
In our portfolio, we cover our domestic LC needs with a combination of VOO, PRWCX, POAGX and PRHSX.
Kevin

A Vanguard ETF is simply another share class of a Vanguard mutual fund.
The table that I linked to shows for all funds with December prospectuses the ERs for all their share classes. Investor, Admiral, Institutional, Institutional Plus, and ETF. Regardless of whether a share class's fees changed.
For example, Vanguard Russell 1000 Growth Index Fund - the ETF share class ER dropped, but the Insitutional share class did not. Both figures are in the table.

Hi Guys,
The pantheon of exceptional financial article writers is not populated by an especially large number of souls. That limited number is greatly reduced if only currently active writers are considered.
In my opinion, two members of this distinguished group are Morgan Housel and Barry Ritholtz. Of course there are others.
I mention Ritholtz because of this most current contribution. It is a superb summary of investment rules-of-the-road that should benefit any investor who conscientiously and persistently practices them.
I mention Housel because his thinking and writing style are similar to the Ritholtz model. His many overarching rules lists should profit any investor who consistently applies them.
It is a challenge to write definitive articles on a regularly scheduled basis. These two guys mostly succeed with an occasional misstep that crosses into trivial territory. Given the difficulty of the task, it is easy to forgive when these rare exceptions occur. That’s particularly true given the present holiday season.
Since it is so demanding to develop original subjects on a strict timetable basis, I suspect these writers often look to each other for subject ideas. Frequently, the topics seem to cluster together on a time scale.
I believe that’s likely to have happened with Ritholtz’s present presentation. I referenced an article by Housel a few days ago that topic-wise is similar to the Ritholtz piece. Here is the internal MFO Link to that article:
http://www.mutualfundobserver.com/discuss/discussion/17880/rules-and-forecasts
I like both lists; they’re good stuff. They reinforce each other. For seasoned investors these references really do not provide anything we have not heard many times over and over again. Yet they are useful reminders of a successful time-tested investment process. These reminders help us to stay the course and to recover market-like rewards.
I read Ritholtz and Housel whenever possible. What do you do? I’m somewhat surprised and disappointed by the poor readership the present Ritholtz reference has received from the MFO Board regulars to date. Perhaps, it’s the holiday season?
Best Wishes for a Happy New Year.

@Tampabay: "VEWLX? must be old.... " inception date 7/1/29.
Regards,
Ted

@msf: They also reduced fees on their ETF's
Regards,
Ted
http://www.mutualfundobserver.com/discuss/discussion/17878/with-new-fee-cuts-vanguard-ties-fidelity-for-cheapest-sector-etfs-from-15-to-12#latest

Vanguard published a comparison table of old and new ERs for funds that issued updated prospectuses this month.
The broadest change is a drop of 14% across their sector funds, from 0.14% to 0.12%. A smattering of other funds will see drops in ERs; none are going up.
https://personal.vanguard.com/us/insights/article/expense-ratio-changes-122014