Both of you are mincing words to avoid my point and to support your brethren. The fact is that Mark DIRECTLY blamed Florida's "moronic" governor for the death of his friends in Florida who were healthcare workers. He wrote: "I have lost friends in FL because of the moronic way the governor and money grubbing crowd in that state have chosen to deal with Covid." We can debate how bad California has done on Covid in light of its policies (even "morons" know that if you lock everything down you will reduce covid) but the FACT is that many healthcare workers in California still died even with "smart" policy. It's simply not a fair debate if you ignore the social impact of lockdowns. That's where reasonable people can disagree and it is a fair point of debate. Mark also said on the heels of MSF's post softening Cuomo's blame for the nursing home fiasco that Cuomo, unlike DeSantis "did as the scientific and medical advisors suggested." This is also untrue. Cuomo himself did not defend his decision based on science. He essentially though falsely said he followed Trump's CDC guidance (according to PolitiFact https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2020/jun/13/andrew-cuomo/new-yorks-nursing-home-policy-was-not-line-cdc/) Just as clearly, Cuomo did not follow the "science." The day after Cuomo issued his directive the AMDA responded that it was "over-reaching, not consistent with science, unenforceable, and beyond all, not in the least consistent with patient safety principles." https://paltc.org/sites/default/files/Statement on the March 25 NYSDOH Advisory.pdf

https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/vanguard-makes-rare-retreat-price-135614153.html
Derf

Thanks Lewis, you got to this before me. Though perhaps I can add a little context and data.
Here's a news report from KCRA Sacramento. This or something like it could be the source of this misinformation on rates. The headline is correct, but the body of the report (regarding rates) isn't.
Study: California leads in health care worker COVID-19 infections

A report release in September by National Nurses United, the country's largest nurses union, found that California is leading in COVID-19 infection rates amongst health care workers nationwide. The Golden State reported 35,525 infection cases, followed by Georgia at 17,317, then Florida at 16,380. California ranks third in overall health care worker deaths, behind New York and New Jersey.

Anyone reading that and having at least a passing familiarity with US states would realize that California couldn't have the highest infection rate. The Peach State's population is 1/4 that of California, making its infection rate roughly twice as high.
From the study's press release, echoing what you wrote about quality of the data:

Only 15 states are providing infection numbers for all health care workers on a daily, semiweekly, or weekly basis. In May, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) began requiring nursing homes to provide Covid-related health care worker infection and mortality data, which is publicly available from CMS. For the hospital industry, however, data collection on health care worker infections and deaths has been woefully inadequate.

The full report notes that just 16 states provide infection figures for all health care workers regardless of frequency. Table 6 there is labeled "Covid-19 Health Care Worker Infection Rates". In actuality, it gives the number of health care worker infections as a percentage of total infections. California has the 2nd lowest rate of the 16 states.
That comes with a qualification that could easily apply to the entire report: "Some variation among the states may be due to more aggressive testing of health care workers in some areas."

@Wxman123

but conveniently ignore that Gavin Newsome (another big science guy, right) has presided over the state with the worst covid record amongst healthcare workers (and pretty dreadful overall).

False, on both counts: First, there isn't good data on healthcare workers:
https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#health-care-personnel

Data were collected from 10,856,748 people, but healthcare personnel status was only available for 2,154,525 (19.85%) people.
For the 254,581 cases of COVID-19 among healthcare personnel, death status was only available for 189,845 (74.57%).

But more important, California's overall infection rate--3,391 per 100,000 people--and death rate--50 per 100,000 people--are among the best in the nation: https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#cases_deathsper100k
Florida's infection rate is 4,886 per 100,000 people and its death rate is 90 per 100,000 people.

@wxman123 - I'm done arguing with you and from now on I'm just going to let you be wrong.
Furthermore you said "Piling on is just an expression of your political views, IMO." Your opinion couldn't be further from the truth. What matters to me is the knowledge and the opinions of the scientific and medical experts in the field. I could care less about the politics as I have yet to meet a virus that is politically inclined. The difference between DeSantis and Cuomo is that DeSantis did everything that 45 and his political/money backers told him to do in managing this pandemic/virus while Cuomo did as the scientific and medical advisors suggested. Was some of it wrong? Possibly but that's how science works and this was a new virus.
The same lunacy is now being played out in MN and the Dakota's where the Dakota governors bowed to 45 and now have some of the highest infection and death rates in the nation. Gov. Walz of MN who followed the advice of the science and medical experts is being skewered by those two governors and their MN republican allies while meanwhile those same two governors are sending their covid patients to MN for treatment because their hospitals are full.

As long as the experts agree with you. You blamed the deaths of your alleged Florida-based healthcare friends directly on a "moronic" governor but conveniently ignore that Gavin Newsome (another big science guy, right) has presided over the state with the worst covid record amongst healthcare workers (and pretty dreadful overall). Did he kill his state's healthcare workers too? If you don't think you wear your politics on your sleeve, you are very badly mistaken. I'd bet my life you hate Trump and voted for Biden.
You have found fault with everything Trump and the R's have done (even operation warp speed) and defended Cuomo and the D's (even his criminal nursing home directive). I can find "smart guy" fact checkers and so-called researchers who will refute all of your "smart guys" with their version of "facts." So what? When I asked YOU to tell me a covid plan that's been successful all I heard was crickets. It is YOU who has used covid to make a political point no matter how artfully written. Fine if you don't respond, I could care less.

@wxman123 - I'm done arguing with you and from now on I'm just going to let you be wrong.
Furthermore you said "Piling on is just an expression of your political views, IMO." Your opinion couldn't be further from the truth. What matters to me is the knowledge and the opinions of the scientific and medical experts in the field. I could care less about the politics as I have yet to meet a virus that is politically inclined. The difference between DeSantis and Cuomo is that DeSantis did everything that 45 and his political/money backers told him to do in managing this pandemic/virus while Cuomo did as the scientific and medical advisors suggested. Was some of it wrong? Possibly but that's how science works and this was a new virus.
The same lunacy is now being played out in MN and the Dakota's where the Dakota governors bowed to 45 and now have some of the highest infection and death rates in the nation. Gov. Walz of MN who followed the advice of the science and medical experts is being skewered by those two governors and their MN republican allies while meanwhile those same two governors are sending their covid patients to MN for treatment because their hospitals are full.

Since it's my question and I was asking what changed at Oakmark while you commented and continue to comment on M*'s analyst (prospective) ratings, you are not addressing my question. Oakmark used to have 4-5* funds; they're now all 1-2*. As you wrote yourself, those are objective ratings. The question, again, is what changed at Oakmark to explain this objective decline?
I'll grant you that you did understand the question but chose to use it as an opportunity to criticize M* (an easy task) rather than answer the question. I had been trying to be more diplomatic.

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/773757/000119312520311432/d33073d497.htm
Columbia Multi-Asset Income Fund
Columbia Pacific/Asia Fund
497 1 d33073d497.htm COLUMBIA FUNDS SERIES TRUST I
Supplement dated December 7, 2020
to the Prospectuses, Summary Prospectuses and Statement of Additional Information (SAI), each as supplemented (as applicable), of the following Funds (each a Fund and together the Funds):
Fund Prospectus, Summary Prospectus and SAI Dated
Columbia Funds Series Trust I
Columbia Multi-Asset Income Fund----Prospectus and Summary Prospectus: 9/1/2020; SAI: 12/1/2020
Columbia Pacific/Asia Fund-----------Prospectus and Summary Prospectus: 8/1/2020; SAI: 12/1/2020
The Board of Trustees of the Funds has approved a Plan of Liquidation and Termination (the Plan) pursuant to which the Funds will be liquidated and terminated.
Effective at the open of business on January 11, 2021, the Funds will no longer be open to new investors. Shareholders who opened and funded an account with the Funds as of the open of business on this date (including accounts once funded that subsequently reached a zero balance) may continue to make additional purchases of Fund shares, including purchases by an existing retirement plan that has a plan-level or omnibus account with the Transfer Agent or other omnibus accounts relating to new or existing participants seeking to invest in the Funds. Effective January 11, 2021, any applicable contingent deferred sales charges will be waived on redemptions and exchanges out of the Funds.
Under the terms of the Plan, it is anticipated that the Funds will be liquidated on or about February 5, 2021 (the Liquidation Date) at which time the Funds' shareholders will receive a liquidating distribution in an amount equal to the net asset value of their Fund shares. For federal income tax purposes, the liquidation of the Funds will be treated as a redemption of Fund shares and may cause shareholders to recognize a gain or loss and pay taxes if the liquidated shares are held in a taxable account. You should consult with your own tax advisor about the particular tax consequences to you of the Funds' liquidation. Shareholders of the Funds may redeem their investments in the Funds or exchange their Fund shares for shares of another Columbia Fund at any time prior to the Liquidation Date (as described in the next paragraph). If the Fund has not received your redemption request or other instructions prior to the Liquidation Date, your shares will be automatically liquidated on the Liquidation Date.
As of the close of business on the business day preceding the Liquidation Date, the Funds will no longer accept any orders for the purchase of or exchange for shares of the Funds. Orders for the purchase of or exchange for shares of the Funds may, in the Funds' discretion, be rejected prior to the Liquidation Date, including for operational reasons relating to the anticipated liquidation of the Fund.
During the period prior to the Liquidation Date, the Funds' investment manager, Columbia Management Investment Advisers, LLC (the Investment Manager), may depart from the Fund’s stated investment objectives and strategies to reduce the amount of portfolio securities and hold more cash or cash equivalents to liquidate the Funds' assets in a manner that the Investment Manager believes to be in the best interests of the Fund and its shareholders. Shareholders remaining in the Funds may bear increased transaction fees incurred in connection with the disposition of the Funds' portfolio holdings. Any such transaction costs would reduce any distributable net capital gains.
Shareholders who hold their Fund shares through a retirement plan or account (such as a 401(k) plan or individual retirement account) and who receive a distribution of liquidation proceeds will be subject to taxes and, if under 59½ years of age, applicable early withdrawal penalties, unless the distribution proceeds are reinvested as a rollover in an eligible retirement plan or account within 60 days after the proceeds are received.
The Funds will seek to pay out all distributable net income and net capital gains prior to the Liquidation Date. Shareholders will receive liquidation proceeds as soon as practicable after the Liquidation Date.
Shareholders should retain this Supplement for future reference.

"Sorry you lost friends, but in Florida that was very likely a result of choices THEY made, unlike Cuomo who gave nursing home residents none."
Yes, they decided to become doctors and nurses. So stupid.

70% of COVID related deaths in CT occurred in nursing homes...Our elderly parents...and workers (more often low wage nursing home workers).
https://ctpost.com/news/coronavirus/article/Data-70-of-CT-coronavirus-linked-deaths-have-15271386.php
On Cuomo's executive orders:

Cuomo, who received praise for his early and high-profile response to the pandemic, has come under fire from state Senate Republicans, industry advocates and others for his administration’s handling of the outbreak at nursing homes and adult care facilities.
“Obviously the way it rolled out here was pretty disastrous for people — for residents and their families. … This hit us, perhaps, harder than it should have,” Richard J. Mollot, executive director of the Long Term Care Community Coalition, told POLITICO. “Some of this was avoidable, preventable — some of it still is if we take the appropriate actions.”

https://politico.com/states/new-york/albany/story/2020/05/06/cuomo-under-fire-for-response-to-covid-19-at-nursing-homes-1282821

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/917469/000168386320014977/f7564d1.htm
LOOMIS SAYLES FUNDS
LOOMIS SAYLES BOND FUND
LOOMIS SAYLES FIXED INCOME FUND
LOOMIS SAYLES INSTITUTIONAL HIGH INCOME FUND
LOOMIS SAYLES INVESTMENT GRADE FIXED INCOME FUND
(each a "Fund" and together the "Funds")
Supplement dated December 7, 2020 to the Loomis Sayles Funds' Summary Prospectuses, Statutory Prospectus and Statement of Additional Information ("SAI"), each dated February 1, 2020 as may be revised or supplemented from time to time.
Effective March 1, 2021, Daniel J. Fuss will take a significant step back from portfolio management and will no longer serve as a Portfolio Manager of the Funds. This is the latest phase of the Loomis Sayles portfolio management team's succession plan, which has been in place for more than 20 years.
Accordingly, effective March 1, 2021, all references to Mr. Fuss as a Portfolio Manager of the Funds in the Summary Prospectuses, Statutory Prospectus and SAI are hereby deleted.
Matthew J. Eagan, Brian P. Kennedy and Elaine M. Stokes will remain as Portfolio Managers of the Loomis Sayles Bond Fund, Loomis Sayles Fixed Income Fund and Loomis Sayles Investment Grade Fixed Income Fund.
Matthew J. Eagan and Elaine M. Stokes will remain as Portfolio Managers of the Loomis Sayles Institutional High Income Fund.
Change to Fiscal Year End of Loomis Sayles Bond Fund and Loomis Sayles Investment Grade Fixed Income Fund
The Board of Trustees of Loomis Sayles Funds I has approved a change to the fiscal year end of Loomis Sayles Bond Fund and Loomis Sayles Investment Grade Fixed Income Fund from September 30th to December 31st. The implementation of the change to the fiscal year end and the expected disposition and realignment of certain foreign currency-denominated positions over the next few weeks are likely to result in additional trading costs, increased realized capital losses and currency losses from the sales of portfolio securities, and increased audit, printing and mailing expenses for the Funds in the short term. Further, these changes are expected to reduce the future impact of currency exchange losses on taxable monthly distributions and reduce the amount of currency-related losses available to offset future taxable ordinary income for Loomis Sayles Bond Fund and Loomis Sayles Investment Grade Fixed Income Fund shareholders. Increased monthly income distributions going forward may result in an increased tax liability for shareholders who are subject to state and federal income taxes on their income distributions from the Funds.
LOOMIS SAYLES HIGH INCOME OPPORTUNITIES FUND
Supplement dated December 7, 2020 to the Summary Prospectus, Statutory Prospectus and Statement of Additional Information ("SAI") of the Loomis Sayles High Income Opportunities Fund (the "Fund"), each dated February 1, 2020 as may be revised or supplemented from time to time.
Effective March 1, 2021, Daniel J. Fuss will take a significant step back from portfolio management and will no longer serve as a Portfolio Manager of the Fund. This is the latest phase of the Loomis Sayles portfolio management team's succession plan, which has been in place for more than 20 years. Accordingly, effective March 1, 2021, all references to Mr. Fuss as a Portfolio Manager of the Fund in the Summary Prospectus, Statutory Prospectus and SAI are hereby deleted.
Matthew J. Eagan, Brian P. Kennedy, Elaine M. Stokes and Todd P. Vandam will remain as Portfolio Managers of the Fund.

@wxman123 - who said "I don't have any great ideas on how we could have dealt with Covid any better." So you think that denying that it even existed, calling it names (China virus), calling it a hoax and stating that it would just magically disappear was the way to go huh? How has that worked out so far?
You also said "How many lives were saved by shutting hair salons and gyms?" How would you even quantify this since the intent was to stop the spread of the virus between folks who don't frequently share their life's activities outside these venues. The same goes for wearing of the masks. I have lost friends in FL because of the moronic way the governor and money grubbing crowd in that state have chosen to deal with Covid. Unlike you I consider their choices as idiocy.
Edited Sunday morning to add:
Trump’s Operation Warp Speed promised a flood of covid vaccines. Instead, states are expecting a trickle.
So maybe just a 10th as brilliant.

So what approach worked well (outside of a few islands)? Gun to your head: had Hilary or Biden been in office do you think we'd fall more on the New Zealand side of the ledger or closer to the UK, France, Spain? Same question on the vaccine, do you think Hilary or Biden would have done better? Was Cuomo genius as DeSantis was "moronic"? Now, after one of the fastest vaccines in history is developed the liberal media is criticizing the speed with which it will get distributed, and before it even happens? Sorry you lost friends, but in Florida that was very likely a result of choices THEY made, unlike Cuomo who gave nursing home residents none.

She will be confirmed no matter what happens in Georgia, which some are optimistic about (https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/in-georgia-debate-loeffler-refuses-to-acknowledge-trump-lost-election/ar-BB1bGzrs)
The rest of any blunting of the last destructive 4y, who knows?
This is worth keeping in mind, for mental health.
(JRubin WaPo) --- overwhelming:
Biden not only received a majority of the popular vote, but also cleared 51 percent — the largest vote percentage obtained against an incumbent president since 1932 and a bigger percentage of the popular vote than any Republican president since George H.W. Bush in 1988, when Bush was essentially running for a third Ronald Reagan term. In the process, Biden amassed the largest total number of ballots in U.S. history. He pummeled Trump by more than 7 million votes (and exceeded Barack Obama’s 2008 vote total by more than 11 million). That margin is bigger than Massachusetts’s entire population; in fact, only 14 states have a population of more than 7 million. Biden’s popular vote margin by percentage (4.4 percent) far surpasses Obama’s 2012 victory over Mitt Romney.

All ratings have been updated on MFO Premium site, including MultiSearch, Great Owls, Fund Alarm (Three Alarm and Honor Roll), Averages, Dashboard of Profiled Funds, Portfolios, Quick Search, and Fund Family Scorecard. The site now includes several analysis tools, including Correlation, Rolling Averages, Trend, Ferguson Metrics, Calendar Year and Period Performance.
November marked the second time this year that the S&P 500 posted a greater than 10% return. The other month was April, the beginning of the current bull market … 8 months ago … or was that 80 years ago?
There are about 2,400 mutual funds and ETFs in the US Equity category (aka SubType). Their average 8-month return is nearly 50% and 24 of these funds have more than doubled, as described here.

> I tried VBILX, for YTD old M* chart was close at 9.05, new chart 8.77%, real number 9.06
Real number? According to whom? Morningstar? That's a secondary source.
>Chuck says VBILV 9.04 YTD I say I can live with .04, .05, or .06 !
Consider chucking Chuck.
That's a tertiary source: "Except as noted below, all data provided by Morningstar, Inc."
(Footnote on Chuck's page for VBILX)
Primary source, Vanguard: 9.05% YTD (Recent investment returns table, YTD as of 12/4/20 column)
https://investor.vanguard.com/mutual-funds/profile/performance/vbilx
Of course Vanguard is correct. You can prove it yourself.
Start with 100 shares purchased on 12/31/2019. Calculate the dollar amount of the divs paid each month and how many shares that buys based on the end of month reinvestment price. (Vanguard provides a table with all this data here.) Add those shares, rinse and repeat. After 11 months (divs for Jan-Nov), you'll have 102.107 shares.
Add to the current (12/4/20) value of those shares the accrued divs for four days. One can approximate that by taking: 4/30 x Nov div/share x 102.107 shares = 28¢
The increase in value (from $1181.00 to $1287.85) , is 9.05% of the original value.

Per share	Record/		Reinv	Bought	Total 	Share		Accrued
dividend	reinvest 	price	Shares	Shares	Value		Divs
(Now)		$12.61 			$1,287.57 	$0.284
$0.020830	11/30/2020	$12.66 	0.168	102.107		
$0.021910	10/30/2020	$12.55 	0.178	101.939		
$0.021760	9/30/2020	$12.65 	0.175	101.761		
$0.022890	8/31/2020	$12.66 	0.183	101.586		
$0.023520	7/31/2020	$12.75 	0.187	101.403		
$0.023540	6/30/2020	$12.59 	0.189	101.216		
$0.024980	5/29/2020	$12.47 	0.202	101.027		
$0.024320	4/30/2020	$12.34 	0.198	100.825		
$0.025300	3/31/2020	$12.10 	0.210	100.627		
$0.024390	2/28/2020	$12.30 	0.199	100.417		
$0.026390	1/31/2020	$12.09 	0.218	100.218		
$0.026630	12/31/2019	$11.81 	100.000	100.000	$1,181.00 	
(Share value + accrued divs - original purchase) / original purchase = 9.05%	

BTW, the new chart shows 9.0584% from 12/31/19 to 12/4/20. Take a closer look.

+1 Ben I sold OAKBX after its terrible 3Q 2011 performance: lost 12.8% compared to VFIAX loss of 13.9, during debt hostage negotiations ! Too many good choices in the 50-70% allocation segment to keep holding this laggard.

Chuck says VBILV 9.04 YTD I say I can live with .04, .05, or .06 !
Derf

I use mainly the new M* chart and only use the old for links because I can do more with the new charts. The old charts don't work if you want to see more than one newer funds + older funds. Try to see PIMIX+MWFSX+EIXIX on the same chart. You can start with MWFSX and add PIMIX but not EIXIX. If you start with PIMIX you can't add any of the others. MWFSX has more than 2 years history.
The new M* can handle all the above.
You can link to the old but not to the new. One plus to old M*.
New M* Charts show daily data for 1M, 3M, 6M, YTD, 1Y, 3Y, and weekly data for 5Y, 10Y, Max.
Old M* Charts show daily data for 1M, 3M only, and weekly data for YTD, 1Y, 5Y, 10Y, Max.
Huge advantage for the new M*.
Much easier reading with the new M*, it actually tells you the % instead of calculating it with the old which is harder when it's negative.
In the example of VCFIX from 2/25 to 3/25. The old shows you just chart numbers, the new shows you chart numbers + the % near the ticker at -19.72%
ETF: I tried HYG,HYD and they were wrong with the new. Then I tried BIV and it was accurate with the new.
I try to stay away from ETF and for comparison I use OEFs VBILX=BIV, VBTLX=BND.
10 years:
old M* 10K grew to: BND=14.36K VBTLX=14.356K
new M* 10K grew to: BND=14.3K VBTLX=14.3K
Then I tried VBILX, for YTD old M* chart was close at 9.05, new chart 8.77%, real number 9.06. So now the new chart is also bad?

>> [new M* charts] show reinvestments for mutual funds only, not for ETFs
wow, how dumb

What does this chart supposedly without reinvestments show? Just price appreciation, or price appreciation plus divs with 0% return (i.e. one just piles up the cash divs over the years), or ...?
Over the past decade (12/6/10 to 12/4/20), the new M* chart for BND shows $10K growing to $14,306.99. (The link is just to the page; you have to pull up the graph yourself.)
Over the past decade, using M*'s old ETF chart, the total (not annualized) price appreciation was 8.15%, i.e. $10K worth of shares appreciated to $10,815. NAV appreciation wasn't much higher, at 8.24%. So the new chart is showing much more gain than mere price appreciation.
FWIW, using div data from Yahoo, one gets another 28.29% in cash over the decade. If not reinvested these divs plus the share appreciation (28.3% + 8.2% = 36.5%) is much less than the total return shown in the new chart (43.07%). So whatever the chart is showing isn't just appreciation plus unreinvested divs.
The new interactive chart for BND shows that between 11/30/10 and 11/30/20, $10K grew to $14,327.71. Vanguard's performance page for BND has a graph showing growth of $10K ending 11/30/20. Set the tab to 10 years and mouse over the tail of the graph. According to Vanguard, $10K grew to $14,327.70.
Okay, M* is off a penny. It sure looks like these graphs are showing total returns, including reinvested divs, of the BND ETF.

Attached is a reply from M* Poster Yogibearbull, who is probably the most respected and knowledgeable poster on M* regarding M* Performance Charts:
"I don't like new M* charts. They show reinvestments for mutual funds only, not for ETFs. And they cannot be linked, and taking screenshots and uploading them all the time is a headache.
Old M* were/are great. We knew/know tricks to force reinvestments in almost everything. [They are not so good for CEFs as they work with NAVs only].
Now to the observed discrepancy for VCFIX.
New M* Charts show daily data for 1M, 3M, 6M, YTD, 1Y, 3Y, and weekly data for 5Y, 10Y, Max.
Old M* Charts show daily data for 1M, 3M only, and weekly data for YTD, 1Y, 5Y, 10Y, Max [these may change for funds with long histories as longer period views change to monthly]
[@Gary1952 (Customer)​ , note that Portfolio Visualizer data are monthly, so the drawdown shown there is different]
YTD view shows relevant Feb-April period and the data sampling then is different, daily for New M* Charts, weekly for Old M* Charts. But I also forced daily data in Old M* Charts by using a shorter custom window to capture Feb-April decline [see link below].
Old M* Charts weekly data show -16.33% decline from 2/28/20 to 4/10/20.
Old M* Chart daily data show -19.72% decline from 2/25/20 to 3/25/20 [matches New M* Chart data]
Old M* Chart VCFIX 2/15/20-4/15/20"

I think @davidmoran is correct about biases at M*. Oakmark is a « homey » with both firms growing up in Chicago. M* still has a value bias that seems to affect their overrating of funds hewing to traditional value criteria. What other factor beside bias accounts for praising Nygren and Herro despite their lousy performance? Washington Mutual should have been Nygren’s Waterloo, but he’s still getting interviews. Same goes for Herro, who gets trooped out every time international markets start acting as though they won’t continue to deliver around 5% per annum, with unacceptable volatility. I used to own Oakmark funds, including Mr. S’s, but have not for many years.