Hi yugo,
I invest where markets tell me.
1995-2000 US LC 100% indexes
2000-2010 Value, SC, international mainly in 3 funds FAIRX,OAKBX, SGIIX
Since 2010 mainly US LC+ PIMIX until 2018. Then mainly bond funds.
In 2009 PAUIX(Arnott) + Cinsmond looked great, 6 months after the bottom they lagged badly, I sold both and never bought again.
The idea is not to fight markets but to join them. In my world managers must be at the top 30% in the last 3-6 (maybe 9 months). If they don't I sell, I don't care why they lag. So, this easy system guarantee that my funds are at the top. I also look at risk-adjusted performance.

Hi, yugo.
In general, I invest with people who've earned my trust. That generally has two components: (1) this isn't their first rodeo and (2) I've talked with them and came away impressed. As you'll note from my annual portfolio review, my typical holding period is decades.
I've written often about how I define "winning" when it comes to investing. First, winning is not "beating" anyone or anything else. You made more than me? Excellent!! The next round of drinks is on you. The market made more than me? That's nice. Second, winning for me is simple: "if the sum of your resources exceeds the sum of your needs, you've won." In that world, winning is driven by steadily accumulating resources (invest regularly and prudently, avoid losing money) and minimizing needs (my home is modest, my clothes last a long time, eating out is usually a celebration rather than a routine, in 45 years of driving I've owned one new car). Those two habits frees up a lot of brainspace for things that bring me joy.
To your "who" question: Mr. Romick, Mr. Foster, Mr. Sherman, Messrs Cinnamond and Wiggins, plus some collection of low-profile professionals at T. Rowe Price and Leuthold.
In general, Artisan is entirely a collection of stars who grew dissatisfied with their old haunts and were offered support and independence as Artisan Partners. Their misses as a firm are relatively few.
David

Don't know if the bull market needs the extra cash:
"Since 1950, there have been 30 five-month streaks in the S&P 500, including the most recent one, along with another streak that ended last July. In all but two of the prior 28 cases, the S&P 500 was higher 12 months later, with an average gain of 12.5% and a 93% win rate. This compares to a 9.0% average one-year return with a 74% win rate.
The bullish advantage decreases over shorter time frames, but critically, it doesn't disappear."
As regards PVCMX, it's interesting how they try to time the market..... and how they have done more with less (invested). That ~80% cash position is hurting them YTD. I will be adding a small position at some point. But for right now, the market just wants to climb.

Reddit doubles since debut, arguably driven by the options traders: This from Quartz, 3/26/2024

Reddit’s share price surged even higher Tuesday morning trading after a big rally the day before. The stock rose to a new high of $74.80 after market open — more than double its initial public offering (IPO) price of $34.
The reason? Analysts say the launch of options trading is giving bulls a chance to get extra bullish about where Reddit’s stock price will go — and that’s boosting its share price in real time. About 90,000 options changed hands on Monday, according to Reuters. (Laura Bratton, "Reddit stock has more than doubled from its IPO price after options trading started"

Quartz is a really solid news and analysis operation. Quartz launched as an offshoot for The Atlantic magazine in 2012, targeting mostly upscale consumers worldwide. It has, of necessity, reinvented itself several times. The staff describe themselves as "nerdy and creative." That works. It's a fascinating tale of journalism in a digital "I ain't payin' for nuthin'" age, with Quartz partnering with Facebook and making money, drifting away as Facebook's model changed, getting bought by a publicly traded Japanese firm, buying itself back, then getting bought by G/O Media. G/O as in "Gawker and the Onion."

I don't think that Eric Cinnamond is great, far from it. He looks good when markets collapsed and then he missed a lot of the upside. M* says that for one year PVCMX made under 8% while SPY made over 33% = 4 times more.
Please don't come back with.... it's not fair to compare to the SP500.. over diversification+ using special funds is a choice.
You want to use mangers that do well on both, see PRWCX over decades.
https://schrts.co/IZkdiRPw

PRWCX is a great fund which I also own and David Giroux is a great manager who's done a remarkable job while laboring under the weight of now $90B+ AUM. (Though it might be argued that others have done better in both return and risk categories: e.g. PKSFX - which I have somehow badly missed on - over the same period you have cited; or the much-discussed MRFOX - albeit over a shorter period.)
Now about Eric Cinnamond. IMO, you are short-changing him, though it could also be a matter of taste / risk tolerance. I won't bring up SP500 one way or another to articulate reasons for my appreciation of Cinnamond's management skills precisely because in the investment style he follows (and I favor): absolute return investing - comparison to indexes is simply not relevant or of much interest.
This is not to say that Cinnamond does not produce great returns in the long run. One has to look at managers' entire track record across various markets to appreciate their performance/skills. Unfortunately, I could not find information for the now liquidated ARIVX. So, for the sake of operating in the framework you have referenced - relative return investing - let me bring up this: if you look at his record at the still (barely) alive ICMAX, you will find that it returned ~ 100% over Cinnamond's tenure there (say, 2006 - 2011) while SP500 barely broke even.
We are simply in a different market right now: one less suited to Cinnamond's style and, frankly, my taste. But this too shall pass...

[snip]
@yogibearbull, I'm not seeing the turnover history at that link. I see a condensed M* summary of all their share classes.
[snip]

@WABAC,
According to the M* GQEPX One Page Report, here are the fund's annual turnover rates:
2019 - 155%
2020 - 163%
2021 - 143%
2022 - 125%
2023 - 211%

To my knowledge, through their history since 1970s, only 2 money market funds ever 'broke the buck'. So, statistically, any MM fund is as good as the other - apart from the yield (as well as management co and asset size, if one does not fully trusts statistics).
Personally, I always pick the highest yielding one (often quoted as "7-day yield"), unless other considerations - like min investment amount, sweep, trading allowance, etc. - are at issue.
Based on this Merrill link that would be PVOXX @ 5.37% for taxable as of yesterday. Of course, you may need to factor in the expense ratios but most top mm funds end up within a few 100'th % points, in my experience.

@David_Snowball
Thanks David - makes sense.
My main interest was along the lines of making sure I did not overlook anyone worth noting who'd left for private asset management and/or just decided to take an extended break - say, at least a year or more - but then came back for another spin-at-the-wheel.
Your example w Michael Fasciano is exactly the point: until your post and the subsequent reading of the MFO article I did not even know about the second round. Is a third coming coming - pardon the pun - else why the 2023 revision?
My own mutual fund investment decisions are ~ 75% based on the manager (historical performance, strategy, etc.), ~ 15% on asset allocation, and ~ 10% on everything else. So, as much as possible, I try to keep track when talented managers move around and follow (e.g., Robert Gardiner: Wasatch to Grandeur). It is easier to do when, as you put it, "star managers turned entrepreneur" since non-competes are typically up to a year (am I wrong?) but when it takes longer - one just drops off the screen, as was the case with Eric Cinnamond for me... Truly, I should have been reading MFO more assiduously!
I guess this leads to a natural follow up: You have cited several funds/families as products of first-tier managers leaving behemoths. But these are the funds with, often, a number of active/influential co-managers sharing in strategy development and asset picking. Also, many of these new shops have since diversified and grown into sizable hippopotamuses themselves, with founders spreading their talents thin across multiple offerings, assuming more supervisory/managerial roles, or leaving active association with fund management at their new ventures altogether (e.g., same Robert Gardiner).
So, if there aren't many examples of the Eric Cinnamond (and, perhaps, Michael Fasciano) variety: can you share who are, say, the 5 best managers still most active within those - or other - funds / fund families. I.e., what is your evaluation of the best active managers rather than of specific funds per se?

I don't think that Eric Cinnamond is great, far from it. He looks good when markets collapsed and then he missed a lot of the upside. M* says that for one year PVCMX made under 8% while SPY made over 33% = 4 times more.
Please don't come back with.... it's not fair to compare to the SP500.. over diversification+ using special funds is a choice.
You want to use mangers that do well on both, see PRWCX over decades.
https://schrts.co/IZkdiRPw

The $50.00 transfer/extortion fee will be covered by the value of some fractional shares.

You probably know this already, but for anyone else who is not aware: Schwab does reimburse transfer fees. So, this is just a nuisance - no loss.

No, @yugo. I did NOT know that. Good news. How does it appear, then? What should I look for?

It's a little more work but just a bit: you will have to provide Schwab w a statement from your TRP account that shows the amount charged for transferring out and Schwab will credit you this amount. There also used to be a form but I'd recently called them and was told that all you have to do now is upload/fax/mail the statement or give it to your local Schwab office and they will take it from there.
(If you are willing to wait, right now I am transferring to Schwab my account w BRUFX which has also promised to charge me a (modest) $15 fee. The funds are supposed to take a couple of weeks to arrive as they are held directly with the mutual fund, but I will be happy to update on how exactly the reimbursement process went.)

MBSF is a new fund launched on 2/27/24; the ER is 49 bps. Its still missing basic data on yield, etc. M* shows portfolio as lower quality (unclear what ratings are used for GSEs or securitized holdings), but it invests in floating rate RMBS from GSEs (Fannie, Freddie). It would be interesting to compare it with Treasury FRN USFR, TFLO, both with ER of 15 bps only. One would have to see if the yield advantage of RMBS floaters over Treasury FRNs is all eaten up by extra 34 bps ER.
https://www.regancapital.com/etf-mbsf/
https://www.morningstar.com/etfs/arcx/mbsf/portfolio

@WABAC, Thanks. Yes, that is a good commentary.
I can not believe it is the $67B (small relative to the size of the market) in covered call ETF strategies that could be the catalyst for any catastrophe (as the headline reads) but the general (robust / excessive?) option activity in the market place and the corresponding institutional counter parties' activities. If the market goes down, DIVO will go down as well (as should be expected) with or without its covered call activity. (Some strategies probably write calls on SPY (naked calls) rather than on individual holdings.) There are a lot of nuances and without each strategy being dissected it is very difficult to know which ones are taking excessive (or untested) risks or if the gun powder is $67B or $67K size. Hopefully, fund managers are providing good commentary of benefits and risks of their funds and owners of funds are reading those commentaries regularly.
Interestingly, JEPI and JEPQ have $50B AUM between them. May be owners of those can share their thoughts.
Re covered call ETFs, OP says, '[A]ssets in such funds has topped $67 billion, up from $7 billion at the end of 2020.] I must be missing something as JEPI and JEPQ are new and JEPI assets in 2020 were not much.

@sma3, that rule of thumb, 5% return for a 1% drop in rates, may be the case for a 5yr T-bond, but not necessarily for a bond "mutual fund" which includes total return, (yield + perceived value), right? I mean, even with no drop in rates to date, a lot of mutual funds already have returned 10% or more over the past year, just in anticipation of rate drops. Bond mutual funds have in general well surpassed CDs or treasuries in 1 year. Hindsight of course. Even the very conservative RPHYX (cash-like) is up over 6%.
Just saying, it is very difficult to predict the future return of bond funds. I believe they have a pretty good near term future and room to advance more, but if rate drop anticipation has already driven them up, it's anyone's guess when that trend will end or what it will look like in the future. Just my 2cents.

If you get any div and reinvest you have more shares at a lower price? So you net zero. You do have more shares going up IF rates go down. Am I correct that if rates fall by 1 per cent and you have a duration of 5 you might see a total return of about 5 %. Just want to make certain I understand.

You have to know" what interest rates will do and then still assume the funds duration will not change.
So in a year you will get the dividend plus the % change in interest rates time duration.
A 1% decline in rates will produce a 5% increase in NAV of fund with Duration of 5. If you are in LT Treasuries you will make 20% or more. But you could also lose 20% if rates go back up

I dread to get into this discussion because derivatives have been and always be a complicated beast. There is listed, Over the counter, and multiple types of instruments. There is the one thing we can see (because its easy) and the 99 things we can't see.
The FT Alphaville had an article:
https://www.ft.com/content/d9b964f0-7cc2-4684-b75d-80f47359d8a5
"JPMorgan blames JPMorgan for suppressed volatility
Once more unto the Vix discourse"
It should be free for those who sign up for FT Alphaville (its a free section of the FT).
Doing a thorough analysis needs something of this sort. One needs to measure (and continuously measure) the evolving greeks from derivatives funds to have any measurable market call.
Maybe its helpful to some...

Thoughtful piece by that title in the WSJ, 3/16-17/2024. One bullish argument for stocks is that there's an ocean of cash "on the sidelines" that might flood the market in the face of a dip.
Telis Demos, writing for the Journal, argues "not so much." Two reasons. First, while money is pouring into money market funds, it seems mostly to be moving from savings or checking accounts with negative real returns (the average yield on sweep accounts is 0.05% he claims, while my credit union is doling out a rich 0.01% on savings) to liquidity fund that are yielding 5% or so.
Second, when the money flows back out of money market funds, it usually flows into income investments rather than equity investments.
(I also suspect that the folks most desperate to buy Nvidia or DJT on a dip are not necessarily folks which huge cash reserves and vice versa, the folks like me who structure a 50% income sleeve into their portfolios are not apt to suddenly become memesters.)
Money markets hold $6.5 trillion currently, up $150 billion in two months. "[A]nalysts at Barclays estimate that ... what appears poised to possibly move into riskier assets is about $400 billion to $600 billion," including both equity and income investments. JP Morgan Chase strategists report that "companies with huge cash piles are still opting to be weighted toward money funds ... S&P 500 nonfinancial companies' cash investment portfolios hit a historical high of57% allocated to cash" at the end of 2023.
See "Market Bulls Won't Get a 'Wall of Cash,'" March 16-17, 2024, p.B12. The article is online but behind a paywall.
Palm Valley Capital Fund continues to putt along with about 80% cash and short bonds which implies that its microcap value stocks have been returning something like 15% a year for the past three years. (I'm assuming a 2% annual returns on the cash portion of the portfolio.) Stocks in the only microcap ETF (First Trust Dow Jones Select MicroCap ETF FDM), which is also value-oriented, 2.92% annually for the same period. Translation: the fully invested microcap ETF returned 2.9% while Palm Valley, with only 20% invested, returned 4.3%.

Covered-call funds, about which Devesh has written a series of essays (two more will appear in our April issue), are artificially and temporarily suppressing volatility, if Charley Grant and the WSJ are to be believed:

The stock market is calmer than it has been in years. Some worry that a popular strategy is contributing to the tranquility.
Measures of market volatility have fallen to levels last seen in 2018 ...
Investors are seeking protection from potential losses by pour money into [covered-call ETFs] ... assets in such funds has topped $67 billion, up from $7 billion at the end of 2020."

Their argument is that this sort of herd trade (in volatility ETFs) "blew up in spectacular fashion six years ago." The options trade now exceed stocks in value, with ever covered-call position necessarily matched over an opposite position in "call overwrites." The concern is that this is a complex, leveraged structure that might be catastrophically vulnerable to an external shock that causes a cascading rush to the exits.
To be clear, Devesh and the Journal are competent to comment on the risks. I'm not. Mostly I wanted to highlight the prospect that your hedges might become your anchors. (See Charley Grant, "Popular bet weighs on volatility," WSJ, 3/26/2024, B1. It's online with a paywall and a slightly different title.)
Curious for them to repeat a story unless their anxiety is growing. (Might call for Zoloft.)

What is the best bond fund total return one can HOPE for in the next twelve months? Assume dividends are irrelevant because they will be reinvested,,, assume low default rate because you have chosen a fund with high quality portfolio. And said fund has a duration of 5.8 years. And let us imagine that in the next twelve months interest rates are cut 1%. More specifically 4 cuts of .25%. So what would be the best possible total return under this scenario? Just wondering.

@BaluBalu. You gave me a good laugh. I'll keep it on the watch list for now.
I'll need some cooperation from Mr. Market before I have more cash to sink into equities for the IRA. And then I'll have to think about whether I want more of the equity sleeve in the larger, and growthier cap boxes. At this point its main competition would be AMAGX if I go larger and growthier or GTSGX if I want to keep the current spread. Or I could just stick with the funds I have already condensed into, as described on the buy, sell, why thread
@yogibearbull, I'm not seeing the turnover history at that link. I see a condensed M* summary of all their share classes.
I have looked at the history of its weight in the M* boxes on the portfolio page.
@raqueteer, AUSF has 245% yearly turnover because of a specific sector rotation type of strategy that makes sense to me for the purpose I bought it for. So I own it for now.
When it comes down to humans saying this stock is something I need to buy, or sell, right this minute, there's Charlie Munger turnover, and then there's Rajiv Jain turnover.
Seems to me that the more often a manager is selling and buying stocks, the more often he has to be right.