@davidrmoran, if you are tentative about owning equity "funds", waiting for that inevitable drop, how about the idea of holding equity ETF's with a trailing stop order? I did this about a month ago with QQQ. I bought a chunk with a 5% stop-sell order. If we get a sudden drop the sell order will kick in and I will keep the profits, and then have time to reassess later. In the back of my mind I'm wondering if this is the way to go with most of what I hold in mutual funds now.

For the most part, I agree with you. If I liked the funds run by each management company, I might purchase 2-3 of them, perhaps because I couldn't decide, perhaps because I wanted to diversify management risk. Either way, I'd get the same result as Vanguard is getting, except I'd be paying more.
This is why I find VWIGX so intriguing. SCIEX (Schroder) and BGESX (Baillie Gifford) keep popping up on my radar.
But ... the scenario you described, or something like it, is how VINEX came to be. In early 2002, Schroder International Smaller Companies Fund SSCIX had an enviable long term record, though it had underperformed its benchmark in the previous one year.
Fund vs. Benchmark: (1 year) -22.52% vs. -16.38%; (5 yr) 9.19% vs. -1.31%; (10 yr) 8.73% vs. -1.41%
Schroder Funds 2002 Prospectus
This "international small-cap fund with an excellent performance record but limited assets" (around $26M) agreed to be acquired by Vanguard and to become VINEX. Schroder would remain the sole manager. Vanguard agreed the new fund would pay management fees of 0.66%. Along with "other expenses" of 0.09%, it projected the total ER of the new fund to be 0.75%. Under Schroder, the fund's stated management fees alone were 1.10%.
Since Schroder was turning over the whole fund to Vanguard, it would not be cannibalizing a competing fund it ran. In addition, because Schroder had been waiving 0.69% in fees and/or expenses in its fund, Schroder may have anticipated little if any decline in the actual rate of fees it would collect, net, under Vanguard. But even if wound up receiving a lower rate, it had so much to gain with Vanguard's marketing behind it, that what it lost in price it would more than made up in volume.

Given the competitive nature of the mutual fund industry, Schroders determined that it would be prudent to enter into an arrangement with Vanguard. Joining The Vanguard Group should enable the Schroder Fund (as reorganized into the Vanguard Fund) to grow assets due to Vanguard's strong market penetration and reputation as a low-cost provider. Schroders expects (but cannot guarantee) that assets in the reorganized Schroder Fund will grow considerably once it joins The Vanguard Group as the result of investments by new shareholders, which would result in a larger, more stable asset base for the reorganized Schroder Fund. As a result, expenses would be shared by a larger group of shareholders and expenses for existing shareholders may be reduced.

Vanguard 497 filing

David,
Are you advocating MMT? I don’t think the country should have a balanced budget but if interest rates rise, servicing the debt will take a bigger and bigger slice of the pie. I know you’ll say we are paying ourselves - but that doesn’t include foreign held Treasuries. Additionally, servicing the debt is just another transfer scheme. Taxpayers pay in, bondholders take out - the 2 groups probably overlap, but they are not one in the same.
Consider the following:
National debt as a share of the economy will reach a record next year, reaching 108% of gross domestic product — more than the 106% milestone we hit just after World War II. As things stand right now, debt will hit 121% GDP by 2030 and a staggering 220% of GDP by 2050. Deficits of this size will take years to rein in, so the sooner we start thinking about how to change the trajectory of our budget, the better.

@Rbrt ---
There probably are points where the debt/gdp ratio tips and alone all by itself there is really bad outcome from it, but I have not read that anyone knows where those tipping point ranges even are. As you probably have read, the WW2 deficit was never 'reined in'.
The key key key point is what the borrowing is spent on, investment and disaster relief and so on, improvements, or on services cuts and transfers to the already rich and corporations.

It hasn't particularly been on my radar, but has shown up atop several screens lately. Five-star but not a Great Owl. Sort of a mid-cap balanced fund (65% equity) with near-equity returns. 11.3% annually since inception with SD and DSD about 1% below a pure stock portfolio and a percent or two above a balanced portfolio. About 50% tech right now.
I was wondering if any of the folks on the board had experience with the fund or managers, Fred Martin and Rob Nicoski?
Curious as ever,
David

DODFX off 13.37% this year. Lipper ranks it at the bottom (1/5) in total return, capital preservation, tax efficiency and consistency . (But 5 in expenses ). M* gives it a 3. I know some smart people that own and like it. All I can make out is that it’s 30% invested in financials. That’s even more than for DODGX. I’d probably take a spec on it, but only after a bigger pullback.
And check out TCELX - 9 months old. Up nearly 40% YTD. (Did we call that one right last December?)

Hi, guys.
For what interest it holds, Palm Valley Capital is now available through TD Ameritrade. I assume that it will be added to the Schwab list soon, given the acquisition of TD by Schwab. The advisor is still working on Fidelity.
$11.7 million, with modest but steady inflows. 1.27% e.r. The managers have between $100-500,000 in, each, plus their stake in the adviser.
72% cash and up 15% YTD, 16.4% over the TTM. Depending on whether you consider it small value or small core, it's beating its peers by 25 - 30% YTD. It has the second highest returns YTD for either group.
Small core is led by Aperture Discovery Equity (ADISX), a fund with a record of less than a year which is advised by the US branch of a fairly large UK adviser. It's a long/short small cap fund that reportedly it booked a 60% gain in Q2. High expenses, negligible investment minimum with a manager from the private investment world; most recently, Diker Investments LLC, a small- and micro-cap specialist.
Small value is led by NorthStar Micro Cap (NSMVX), a hedge fund that converted about 10 years ago. We profiled their dividend fund last year. Neither Aperture nor North Star holds much cash.
I'll move some of my TD cash into Palm Valley today. I know that Mr. Cinnamond's discipline will disappoint then infuriate investors after small caps have had an extended run and are getting, by his lights, frothy, but I'm not sure that's an immediate concern.
For what interest that holds,
David

Imagine you're a money manager of an international small-cap fund with an excellent performance record but limited assets. Suddenly, Vanguard comes knocking on your door and says would you like to subadvise one of our funds and receive billions more in assets? The only problem is Vanguard will pay you a base management fee of 0.40% to run the fund, which with administrative costs, will run to a total expense ratio of 0.50% if the fund matches its benchmark. (If the fund lags, you'll receive even less than your 0.40%.) Now imagine that your current fund has a management fee of 1.0% and a total expense ratio with administrative costs of 1.50%. Would you agree to be the sole subadviser of that Vanguard fund and thereby cannibalize your own business by running a Vanguard clone of your fund for one-third the cost? Now let's say Vanguard tells you, hey, don't worry there will be two other subadvisers of this fund, so its portfolio won't be identical to yours. Then the proposition becomes much more attractive. The question is can Vanguard get the right group of subadvisers who can collectively outperform? Vanguard points out, correctly albeit incompletely, that funds with multiple subadvisers have the advantage of smoothing out performance as different managers' styles come in and out of favor. If you combine a top international small-cap value manager with a top international small-cap growth one, hopefully when growth is in favor and value isn't the fund still does reasonably well, and vice versa. The question is can Vanguard get the mix of subadvisers right? Evidently with VINEX this has been a problem. But it is possible now that this new sub has been added another one of the subs that's underperforming will be eliminated.

Geez - The boring markets are getting to me. Indexes have been stable except for the Apples, Teslas, and Amazons that seem to keep going straight up. (Inversely, the airlines seem to be going straight down,) Hard to get excited about bonds, even after the 10-year spiked to near 0.75% this morning. Heard recently that spreads are quite narrow on junk bonds which would mean they’re not a great play. I like energy, gold and the inflation hedges longer term, but they’ve come too far too fast IMO.
I’m hanging on to PRLAX which was down 50% when I bought it a few months back. It’s now “only” down 26% YTD - representing a nice 24% gain in less than 6 months. But I’m not seeing anything near as tempting now. If I had the capability I’d short some of the high flyers. But I’m not equipped to do that being in traditional mutual fund houses held directly with the institution. Going to cash as a spec move is another option - but knowing when to get back in is a tough call. As for shorting, the closest fund I have to that concept is TMSRX, but you’re putting a lot of faith in the manager making the right call, if he wants to short at all.
As always, if you knew which way inflation will run over the next 5 years, the call would be easier. Deflation would make bonds and paying off a 3.3% mortgage smart. Inflation would make those investments somewhat dumb. Than there’s the election, likely to roil the markets, but in unpredictable ways. Geez - They could do anything from staging a “relief rally” to taking a nose-dive and possibly a big bounce for metals, or for bonds for that matter. Of course, if the whiplash isn’t as bad as folks fear, the metals could tumble on the good news.
So how to make a quick buck near-term that you can later roll into your normal allocation for a leg-up longer term? Ideas? (Wiseacre answers prohibited.)

Large Blend, both, IRA and Taxable accounts.
That helps. I didn't know whether you were looking for a core fund or a good esoteric fund.
For the past several years, the more growthy a large cap international fund has been, the better it is likely to have done. This difference is not small, the margin is huge. The average category returns (per M*) over the past five years are: LCG 9.62%, LC Bl 5.28%, LCV 2.36%.
There's no guarantee this will continue, and using a large cap blend fund is a good way to hedge your bets. Even within this category, though, the more the fund leans toward growth, the better its history will look.
With that in mind, a fund worth considering is MDIDX. It's a fund of funds from MFS, a good family for international funds. While M* considers it a blend fund, it has been a bit growthy and Lipper classifies it as a multi-cap growth fund. But it just added MKVHX (LCV) as one of the funds it holds, and adjusted its allocations so that the fund should be an "honest" blend fund going forward. Part of that adjustment was to increase its EM component weight to 17.5% which is reasonable for a core fund unless you want to have a separate EM fund and control that allocation yourself.
It has a somewhat smaller than average market cap, which is why Lipper considers it multi-cap rather than large cap. IMHO that's another plus for the fund, especially if one is looking for more of an all-in-one fund.
It is fairly tax efficient, so it can be used both inside and outside of an IRA. The ER of the fund is 1.11%, which includes the expenses of the underlying funds it invests in. That's a bit higher than I'd like for a large cap fund, but it's not outrageous.
If you want a more growthy fund, SCIEX is a fund that M* calls blend and Lipper calls large cap growth. It's managed by Schroeder, which is one of the two firms submanaging VWIGX, a fine large cap growth fund suggested by Lewis above. (However, SCIEX isn't great on tax efficiency.)
If you want a more value leaning fund, TROSX suggested by Mulder420 above, is a good prospect.
Virtually all of the funds suggested in this thread come from families with excellent reputations for international investing.

If I make a surprising 25-50% on a stock in 2-3 months, especially if it was not expected given my own view of the markets and the underlying item(s) in question, I consider that worthy of locking in the gains. And no, this is all in taxable. My 403(b) is on autopilot and 100% invested in a single American Fund (RWMGX).

@rforno : What do you consider insanely high STCG profits. Best I could come up with during recent fall - rise was 12% profit. But if one put money to work on the lowest drop day for market , I'd guess profit would be another 3% to 4% profit.
And if you sold , I'm guessing it was in retirement account ?
As for me ,dry powder went both ways , so no sales so far.
Stay Safe, Derf

Across all accounts I'm about 75% in the market, nearly all in equities & equity funds. The remainder is mostly cash I've been trying to put to work for a while (few opportunities) or cash raised by stuff I bought in Feb that's run up to insanely high STCG profits that to not close them out would be crazy.
My plan right now is to continue nibbling opportunistically on stocks I want to build big(ger) positions in for the long-long term and capitalize on volatility between now and November. My hope is to go into 2021 with a very small cash pile, even if all I've done is move $$$ into my existing OEFs. But as always, I'll take what the market gives me.

Depending on your risk tolerance, here are a few choices:
For low fee and consistent performance, Vanguard International Growth fund, VHIGX, is a good choice. The Admiral share has even lower fee. VHIGX has 22% emerging market 14% US exposure while the rest are in developed market.
On the value side, the new Vanguard Global Wellington, VGWLX, is a global allocation fund with 65/35 stocks/bond. This fund held up well in March drawdown and it is the most conservative of the three listed here.
For smaller cap global exposure, Grandeur Peak Global Stalwarts Fund, GGSOX, is a solid choice with consistent performance. The portfolio has 14% emerging market and 45% US exposure. The ER is higher than the Vanguard funds above.

My favorite fund is MIOPX which is managed by Kristen Heugh. This is a strong international fund with broad exposure to Europe as well as emerging markets. Ben suggested their global fund which is also excellent. If you run the numbers you'll see that it consistently outperforms all other funds internationally over 3, 5, and 7 years. In a down market it will get hit, but it actually held up well in March this year. A second fund that I think highly of is FSEAX. This is focused exclusively on emerging asia so it provides strong China exposure. I am just watching this one right now because of tensions with China but it also is a strong consistent performer. MATFX from Matthews is also intriguing.

@Pat_F Yes, I think it will have its day, and David summed this fund up pretty well:
https://mutualfundobserver.com/2015/02/pear-tree-polaris-foreign-value-small-cap-qusoxqusix-february-2015/

David,
Are you advocating MMT? I don’t think the country should have a balanced budget but if interest rates rise, servicing the debt will take a bigger and bigger slice of the pie. I know you’ll say we are paying ourselves - but that doesn’t include foreign held Treasuries. Additionally, servicing the debt is just another transfer scheme. Tax payers pay in, bond holders take out - the 2 groups probably overlap, but they are not one in the same.
Consider the following:
National debt as a share of the economy will reach a record next year, reaching 108% of gross domestic product — more than the 106% milestone we hit just after World War II. As things stand right now, debt will hit 121% GDP by 2030 and a staggering 220% of GDP by 2050. Deficits of this size will take years to rein in, so the sooner we start thinking about how to change the trajectory of our budget, the better.

Today's entry: T Rowe Price filed a 497 - statement of material change - form with the SEC in which they announced that even if the S&P 500 and other broad-based indexes evolve in such a way that they are no longer diversified portfolios, Price's index funds will continue to track them.
Hmmmm ... I wonder what made them start to worry about that possibility?

David

Hi, guys.
Sorry about the delayed response. I was trying to learn a bit more. As far as I can tell, we're sort of at a confluence of three sets of changes that were mostly unrelated but overlapped in time. I'm still working on getting details that I can share.
Some of the changes at Matthews are sort of "clean up" operations that have been in the pipeline for a bit; that includes some manager reassignments and additions of analysts as Matthews tries to skate to where the puck is going to be. Some of it is "coincidencee," in the sense that at the five-year mark, Matthews Asia Value is not financially viable (at $14 million) and is not growing (money has been sort of dribbling away) although its been an exceptionally solid performer (up 9% in 2019 which was its only year with sub-par performance). Mr. Zhou is passionate about his vision of value investing; it was foreseeable that a decision to close the fund would occasion his departure. So while the three manager departures were announced together, I suspect they were two separate events overlapping in time.
The "consequential" change is Ms. Hsiao's departure for parts (as yet) unknown. China Small Companies is five-star, $500 million and a top 1-2% performer since inception. Asia Innovators is five-star and $1 billion; though she's not the lead manager there, it's been vastly stronger during the two years she's worked with it. I have no idea of her next steps but she certainly has the credentials to leave the public investing sphere altogether. Too, several larger firms are on the hunt for star management teams, so she might eventually resurface. Matthews has a deep bench and a healthy internal culture, so far as I can tell. The folks rotating into the funds are successful in their own right, both at Matthews and in the years before.
I'll continue asking around and I'll share what I can.
David

@Sven, (you might already know this but) sometimes those minimum initial investment amounts are not what they seem at Fidelity at least. I have bought some $1M funds with a $2500-5000 initial investment (TIBIX and one of the Eagle funds). I always try to enter a trade if I'm interested enough.

Possibly Overvalued: Hard question. I’m a bottom grubber, so high valuations normally drive me away. But probably my g/s mining fund OPGSX is due for a correction. May not occur for several months. And PRPFX may be overvalued as both the precious metals and bonds it holds are at lofty (ridiculous?) levels. And I always worry about PRWCX simply because it’s done so well for so long.
I’d agree with Leon Cooperman that today “bonds represent returnless risk.” But I still own them in funds - chiefly the non-U.S. issues.
Possibly Undervalued: In the undervalued camp, I still like PIEQX which is in developed markets of Europe, Australia and Japan just because those markets in aggregate have lagged for so many years. I think DODBX is likely undervalued due to value lagging for so long. At last check it had only 28% in bonds and my understanding is those tend to be short and intermediate duration which shouldn’t get hammered too badly when rates rise. As I’ve noted before, D&C has positioned their domestic funds (I can’t speak for their international) in anticipation of rising interest rates. So they’ve been underweight funds that benefit from lower rates and overweight those that do better in a rising rate environment. This - for at least the past 5 years. I’ll leave it for the pundits to decide whether they’ve been wrong or just early.

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1004655/000168386320012719/f6675d1.htm
497 1 f6675d1.htm VANGUARD INTERNATIONAL EXPLORER FUND SUPPLEMENT
Vanguard International Explorer™ Fund
Supplement Dated August 24, 2020, to the Prospectus and Summary Prospectus Dated February 27, 2020
Restructuring of the Investment Advisory Team
The Board of Trustees of Vanguard Whitehall Funds, on behalf of Vanguard International Explorer Fund (the Fund), has approved a restructuring of the Fund’s investment advisory team, adding Baillie Gifford Overseas Limited (Baillie Gifford) as a new investment advisor to the Fund.
The Fund operates under the terms of an SEC exemption, whereby the Fund’s Board of Trustees may, without prior approval from shareholders, hire a new advisor.
Effective immediately, Baillie Gifford manages a portion of the Fund’s assets along with the Fund’s existing advisors. Each advisor independently selects and maintains a portfolio of common stocks for the Fund. The Fund’s Board of Trustees determines the proportion of the Fund’s assets to be managed by each advisor and may change these proportions at any time.
In connection with the addition of Baillie Gifford to the Fund, effective immediately, Brian Lum and Stephen Vaughan are added as co-portfolio managers of the Baillie Gifford portion of the Fund.
Also effective immediately, the following other changes to the Fund’s investment advisors are made:
•  Mary L. Pryshlak, who leads Wellington Management Company LLP’s (Wellington Management) International Small Cap Research Equity team, is added as a portfolio manager of the Wellington Management portion of the Fund. She replaces Simon Thomas, who led the International Small Cap Equity team managing Wellington Management’s portion of the Fund since 2010. Mr. Thomas is removed as a portfolio manager of the Fund, and all references to Mr. Thomas and corresponding disclosure related to Mr. Thomas in the Fund’s Prospectus and Summary Prospectus are hereby deleted.
•  Luke Biermann is added as a co-portfolio manager for Schroder Investment Management North America Inc.’s (Schroders) portion of the Fund, joining existing Schroders portfolio manager Matthew Dobbs who will be retiring from that role at the end of March 2021...