Hi,
Could you please help me in identifying better choices in the following? I have IRAs with Vangard and TDA, where I have superb choices and invested in funds ike VDIGX, VHCOX, ARTKX, FPACX, AKREX, SFGIX, GPGOX, etc.
There are some good funds like OAKBX, Janus Enterprise, V'rd health care, bond funds, index funds, etc. in this list, but overall disappointing choices in my opinion.
I am comfortable with my allocation %ages for various asset classes, so where I need the advice is just in identifying good funds, not overall asses allocation. Appreciate all of your help.
LCap
****
Janus Enterprise Fund Class N (JDMNX) Stock
American Beacon Large Cap Value Fund Class Institutional (AADEX) Stock
Fidelity® Capital Appreciation Fund - Class K (FCAKX) Stock
Fidelity® 500 Index Fund - Institutional Class (FXSIX) Stock
Fidelity® Large Cap Growth Index Fund - Premium Class (FSUPX) Stock
Fidelity® Large Cap Value Index Fund - Premium Class (FLCHX) Stock
MCap
****
Fidelity® Mid Cap Index Fund - Premium Class (FSCKX) Stock
MFS Mid Cap Value Fund Class R6 (MVCKX) Stock
Fidelity® Extended Market Index Fund - Premium Class (FSEVX) Stock
Scap
****
Northern Small Cap Value Fund (NOSGX) Stock
Loomis Sayles Small Cap Value Fund Class N (LSCNX) Stock
UBS U.S. Small Cap Growth Fund Class P (BISCX) Stock
Fidelity® Small Cap Index Fund - Premium Class (FSSVX) Stock
Balanced
********
Oakmark Equity And Income Fund Investor Class (OAKBX) Blend
Sector
******
Cohen & Steers Realty Shares Fund (CSRSX) Stock
Vanguard Health Care Fund Admiral Shares (VGHAX) Stock
International/Global
********************
Deutsche Global Small Cap Fund Institutional Class (KGDIX) Stock
Invesco Developing Markets Fund R5 Class (GTDIX) Stock
Fidelity® International Discovery Fund - Class K (FIDKX) Stock
Bonds
*****
Fidelity® Total Bond Fund (FTBFX) Bond
Vanguard Inflation-Protected Securities Fund Admiral Shares (VAIPX) Bond
Money Market
************
Putnam Stable Value Fund Bond
Fidelity® Investments Money Market Government Portfolio - Class I (FIGXX) Short Term
Retirement Series
*****************
FIAM Target Date 2060 Commingled Pool Class S Blend
FIAM Target Date 2055 Commingled Pool Class S Blend
FIAM Target Date 2050 Commingled Pool Class S Blend
FIAM Target Date 2045 Commingled Pool Class S Blend
FIAM Target Date 2040 Commingled Pool Class S Blend
FIAM Target Date 2035 Commingled Pool Class S Blend
FIAM Target Date 2030 Commingled Pool Class S Blend
FIAM Target Date 2025 Commingled Pool Class S Blend
FIAM Target Date 2020 Commingled Pool Class S Blend
FIAM Target Date 2015 Commingled Pool Class S Blend
FIAM Target Date 2010 Commingled Pool Class S Blend
FIAM Target Date 2005 Commingled Pool Class S Blend
FIAM Target Date Income Commingled Pool Class S Blend

Evermore Global Value (EVGIX/EVGBX) looks interesting, but the expenses that investors actually pay according to the latest M* Prospectus are 1.53% and 1.78%, respectively. Of course, these actual expenses cannot be found on the M* front pages or expense pages of these funds.
I would also consider MEURX (1.05% ER) available according to test trades in retirement accounts at Wellstrade ($250 minimum) and TDAmeritrade ($100K minimum).
If it were my money, I would buy DLEUX/DSEUX (ER 0.91/0.66%) based on the excellent backtested performance of the underlying index posted previously by @davidrmoran:
Article
Kevin

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/890540/000113542817000035/kopernik-497.txt
DOCUMENT>
497
1
kopernik-497.txt
THE ADVISORS' INNER CIRCLE FUND II (THE "TRUST")
KOPERNIK GLOBAL ALL-CAP FUND (THE "FUND")
SUPPLEMENT DATED JANUARY 19, 2017
TO THE SUMMARY PROSPECTUS AND PROSPECTUS DATED MARCH 1, 2016, AS SUPPLEMENTED
OCTOBER 24, 2016
AND THE STATEMENT OF ADDITIONAL INFORMATION DATED MARCH 1, 2016 (THE "SAI")
THIS SUPPLEMENT PROVIDES NEW AND ADDITIONAL INFORMATION BEYOND THAT CONTAINED
IN THE SUMMARY PROSPECTUS, PROSPECTUS AND SAI, AND SHOULD BE READ IN
CONJUNCTION WITH THE SUMMARY PROSPECTUS, PROSPECTUS AND SAI.
Effective March 31, 2017 (the "Effective Date"), the Fund will be closed to
certain new investments because Kopernik Global Investors, LLC (the "Adviser")
believes that the implementation of the Fund's investment strategy may be
adversely affected if the size of the Fund is not limited.
While any existing shareholder may continue to reinvest Fund dividends and
distributions, other new investments in the Fund may only be made by those
investors within the following categories:
o Direct shareholders of the Fund as of the Effective Date and the date
of the new investment;
o Participants in qualified retirement plans that offer shares of the
Fund as an investment option as of the Effective Date; and
o Trustees and officers of the Trust, employees of the Adviser, and
their immediate family members.
The Fund reserves the right to modify the above criteria, suspend all sales of
new shares or reject any specific purchase order for any reason.
PLEASE RETAIN THIS SUPPLEMENT FOR FUTURE REFERENCE
KGI-SK-004-0100

"You may be thinking that, if passive is the way to go, you might as well make things even simpler. Why not just put your retirement money in the bank and forget it? While you can certainly do that, the results may be disastrous. If you want more than just Social Security for your retirement, you need your money to grow.
Consider this. In 1913, nine cents bought a quart of milk. In 1963, the same nine cents bought a small glass of milk. In 2015, nine cents bought seven tablespoons of milk. Clearly, putting money under the mattress doesn't work for the long term. The culprit of the declining purchasing power of that nine cents is inflation. The moral of this story is to make sure your money grows at least as fast as inflation.
That requires investing it. For example, it would require $13 today to equal the purchasing power that $1 provided in 1926. Had you put one dollar in the bank in 1926, you would have $21 today. Having invested the dollar in long-term bonds would give you $132. However, invested in the S&P 500 index (stocks), you would have $5,386."

I love this assertion that the past stock market's performance is prelude to the future market's performance. Let's assume that indexers are right and that stock performance truly is a "random walk," which active managers can't predict and therefore can't beat. Why accept the other notion indexers believe in then that in the "long run stocks always go up" if it is truly random? The 104 years of market history this author cites is less than a heartbeat in the history of the planet. Just because markets have gone up in the past is no guarantee they will go up in the future. Rising markets are not a law of nature like gravity in physics. There is no guarantee even that stock markets will continue to exist. There is a historical precedence for markets disappearing altogether as happened to Russia in the 1910s during the Russian revolution: https://the-international-investor.com/2011/st-petersburg-stock-exchange-1865-1917-diversification-pays-emerging-markets
Can an active manager predict when the next bubble will burst or some major geopolitical event is about to occur with any certainty? No, but they can at least react defensively to it when a blind mechanical index can't. What indexing's triumph proves is not that markets are efficient, always rising and therefore unbeatable. It proves that costs matter. Costs are the one thing in funds you can predict will have an impact with a fairly accurate degree of mathematical certainty. Not just expense ratios, but trading costs and market impact costs. But a low cost, low turnover actively managed fund with a manageable level of assets can be a better investment than a mechanical index fund.

One suggestion to think about Puddenhead, if your buy-out is taxable and you want to put it into retirement savings, a Roth IRA would be a better idea than a regular IRA, at least for the Roth IRA yearly max (not sure what it is now). If you get it before April I believe you can max both 2016 and 2017 with the money. Just a thought.

Scottrade offers both CENTX (world allocation) and CINTX (foreign LB) for $100 minimums in taxable and retirement accounts + TF as Kevin described.
Kevin

aah...i trusted M* fund page which still does not list Scottrade.

While I find M*'s "purchase" pages (lists of brokerage availability) some of the least reliable (usually errors of omission), in this case M* was spot on.
The CENTX purchase page and the CINTX purchase page each shows the fund available at "Scottrade TF" as Kevin described.
Regarding CETAX, the M* purchase page shows that you can already get it at TDAmeritrade NTF. TDAmeritrade confirms this; there the standard $5K min is required.

Scottrade offers both CENTX (world allocation) and CINTX (foreign LB) for $100 minimums in taxable and retirement accounts + TF.
Kevin

aah...i trusted M* fund page which still does not list Scottrade. Good to know, then it will be also available in TD Ameritrade.
Just checked at Scottrade, neither CETAX or CENTX is available NTF.

@kevindow

Scottrade offers both CENTX (world allocation) and CINTX (foreign LB) for $100 minimums in taxable and retirement accounts + TF.

Very helpful to know! Thanks for pointing it out. I certainly missed it. Best

Scottrade offers both CENTX (world allocation) and CINTX (foreign LB) for $100 minimums in taxable and retirement accounts + TF.
Kevin

Hi @msf
Yup, have held TEGBX (C shares); cause I/we wanted the fund holding at the time and the fund was only available via a company retirement offering. I don't recall all of the nuts and bolts of the share pricing at the time, but that the outright E.R. is/was .77%.
Our house history with this fund:
---Purchase about May, 2009.........sell May, 2012 total return for this period = +27%
---this fund ran about another year with solid returns; May 2012-May 2013 = +14%
---Two price peaks occurred near May, 2013 and again at Sept. 2014
---May 2013 return through present = -1%
---Sept 2014 return through present = -2%
I won't "dis" the manager's skill and/or knowledge of global bonds. Our house was merely attempting to wade through the nasty investing environment of the time. The U.S. was still moving to the next Q.E. policy, Euroland was still in austerity mode, Greece was blowing investing "stuff" up every 6 months or so and bonds were still having positive price moves (U.S. credit rating downgrade, Aug. 2011). TEGBX during our holding period was another diverse area in bondland, aside from investment grade and high yield. Playing in bondland is about as much of a challenge as one may choose in the investment world, IMHO. So, we got lucky with our "in" period for this fund, but apparently left when the leaving was good.
I will presume @JoJo26 never had to be concerned with "A" or "C" share choices inside an offered retirement program. We all have different plates of choice, at least involving retirement plan offerings via an employer.
I will nominate you, @msf for the MFO archiver award. :)
This link is overview of this fund and class info:
https://www.franklintempleton.com/forms-literature/download/406-FF
Regards,
Catch

PTIAX - Performance Trust Strat Bd Fd
NAV: 22.36 +0.01
POP: 0.00
52 Week High: 23.09
52 Week Low: 22.21
Trans. Fee Fund: No
Sales Load: None
As of 01/03/2017
Initial/Additional both regular and retirement
Minimum: $100.00/ $1.00)
http://www.schwab.com/public/schwab/investing/investment_help/investment_research/mutual_fund_research/mutual_funds.html?path=/Prospect/Research/MutualFunds/Summary.asp?symbol=PTIAX

This may not be hank's day for math. A 20% gain followed by a 10% gain is no different from a 10% gain followed by a 20% gain. Either way, one winds up with 132% of the original investment. That's because multiplication is commutative.
120% x 110% = 110% x 120%.
A reason why conventional wisdom says a large gain early is better is because in retirement you're bleeding off fixed dollar amounts each year. If the large gain comes early, then in the first year you're bleeding off a smaller percentage of the investment, leaving a bigger fraction to grow.
Say you've started with $100K, and are drawing down $10K annually. If the 20% year comes first, then starting at year zero you have:
0: $100K
1: $120K - $10K = $110K
2: $110K x 110% - $10K = $121K - $10K = $111K
If the 20% year comes later, then starting at year zero you have:
0: $100K
1: $110K - $10K = $100K
2: $100K x 120% - $10K = $120K - $10K = $110K
The first sequence leaves you with more money.

Good year, in 2016. I've been in it for a bit more than 4 years. Is it really up by about 15% in 4 years---or so? Double checking myself.

Lipper shows $10,000 invested in this fund at inception on 2/15/12 to be worth $12,368 today: http://funds.us.reuters.com/US/funds/overview.asp?symbol=SFGIX.O
Here's how I learned to do percentages:
1. Subtract initial value from current value = a difference of $2368 (represents gain).
2. Divide the gain ($2368) by the initial investment ($10,000) = 0.2368.
3. Shifting decimal 2 points to the right gives you the 23.68% increase in value since inception.
4. Dividing above by 5 (approximate years of existence) gives a very rough (slightly understated) return of about 4.74% per year.
You can further refine this by dividing that 23.68% increase in value by 58.5 (the approximate number of months the fund has existed) resulting in a monthly gain of aporoximately .405% and than multiplying that by 12 (number of months in a year) to arrive at an annual average gain over that period of: +4.86%. Geez - Considering the amount of risk assumed in investing in emerging markets, I'm not impressed.
Regarding Balvenie 12-year (from your later post), a check of the store shelf finds that selling for about $50 locally. The best I can afford, occassionally, is Tomatin 12 year, selling locally for $33. Doing the math I find your single malt priced about 51.5% higher than mine. I'm sure you find it better tasting.
I learned my best math from Miss Milton in Eigth Grade back in the late 50s. (She was actually the school librarian.) My high school math teacher, by contrast, was a dork. And, can't remember taking any math classes in college. I'll say, if you needed to do any math back in my younger days before the electronic calculator was mass marketed to the public it was quite an experience - and one you younger folks probably can't remember. :)
** There are several different ways growth can be expressed in percentages. For example, the figure I got is not the compounded rate of growth which I believe would be lower. But I still think my method useful for providing a rough comparison of performance with other funds during the same period. As for SFGIX: This fund is outside my normal risk perameters in retirement. While I might speculate in small amounts on this type of fund for short periods, it wouldn't do much for peace of mind or ability to sleep at night.

@VintageFreak, In the World Allocation space, I would prefer MTOIX, which is available in Fidelity retirement accounts for a $500 minimum + TF according to a test trade I just made.
Kevin

Thanks. Will research. Only Schwab seems an option for me since minimum is $25000 and I'm not going to plonk that much all at once using MTRAX.

@VintageFreak, In the World Allocation space, I would prefer MTOIX, which is available in Fidelity retirement accounts for a $500 minimum + TF according to a test trade I just made.
Kevin

There are other views that are better elucidated.
I just finished reading James Cloonan ( head of AAII) book on "Level 3 investment" where he makes the case that there has only been one ( 1929) situation where the SP500 has not recovered from a bear market in five years. So it must follow that that the only investment calculation required is to put four years of retirement expenses ( or college expenses or emergency money etc ) into safe assets and the rest into small cap (micro would be preferable he insists ) stocks and don't worry. He has interesting data to prove that as long as you didn't sell at the bottom in 2008-2009 you made out fine, even if you retired that year,
The question is will the next correction be equal to 1929, or will the general market take a decade to recover like the Nasdaq did?
I wonder how the market can keep climbing with job growth anemic, hourly average wages flat, declining stock earnings and the huge public debt.
If he is right we should be close to 80% invested... but what if he is wrong and the SEC has a good reason for requiring a statement "that past performance does not guarantee future results"?

Hi Guys,
I couldn't agree more with you that the referenced article is extremely weak and confusing. That's especially disappointing given the credentials and professional positions of the authors. The article could and should have been more informative and far more explicit.
There is little doubt that we grossly under-save for retirement. By how much? The shortfall is huge. Here is a Link that provides nice summary graphs that highlight the shortfall:
http://www.businessinsider.com/how-much-average-family-saved-for-retirement-2016-3
The referenced piece quotes Paul Samuelon. He's one smart economist. He famously remarked that " I hate to be wrong. But I hate more to stay wrong". So do I. Constant investment learning is crucial to success.
Having a diversified portfolio is necessary for that success. When young, a portfolio top-heavy in equities and other high return, perhaps volatile holdings, is very acceptable. Later, bond products could be added to,attenuate that volatility if so desired.
However, I personally recommend and practice retaining equity-like positions in my portfolio. Like most folks, I under-saved a little preparing for my retirement. Playing catchup is risky but sometimes necessary business.
Best Wishes.

FYI: There's no denying the importance and popularity of 401(k)s for retirement savers. Americans have $4.8 trillion invested in these tax-deferred savings accounts, according to the Investment Company Institute, and there are 52 million active 401(k) participants. BrightScope, a financial-information company that rates retirement-savings plans, compiled this list for Kiplinger of the most popular mutual funds in 401(k) plans based on funds' 401(k) assets under management.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.kiplinger.com/article/investing/T047-C009-S003-105-most-popular-funds-for-your-retirement-savings.html

FYI: At a conference hosted by Boston University in 2006, Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul A. Samuelson asked the audience whether personal finance was an exact science. He answered his own question with remarkable wit and wisdom: “Of course, the answer to that is a flat no. If this disappoints anyone in the audience, now is a good moment to rectify your miscalculation by leaving.”
Yet one of Mr. Samuelson's many contributions to the field of economics has been to build mathematical (dare we say, “scientific”) models to better understand how to optimize personal finance decisions, such as: How much should individuals save for retirement? How should they allocate their investment portfolio throughout their lifetime?
Regards,
Ted
http://www.investmentnews.com/article/20161222/BLOG09/161229981?template=printart