http://fpafunds.com/docs/fund-announcements/2015-11-16-sor_press-release-final.pdf?sfvrsn=4
@BenWP Yup, graph out 1-yr returns and it kinda slaps ya in the face, doesn't it? Shades of FPA Perennial. Just a month respite, after butchering their shareholders on that one, Eric Ende said he'd had enough and was heading for the retirement hills, looks like they rolled up their sleeves and got to work on SOR. (see p.2 of above doc for what was intended by the Board of Directors when they authorized the share buyback; your hunch is correct)

Thanks to all for the excellent advice.
As a pure short-term trade, I bought AMLP on 2/18/16 merely because it gave me decent exposure to the MLP space and most importantly, it was very liquid.
I have purchased CEFs before, but I never was comfortable with the discount/premium issue, and felt that smarter investors would game me. And I don't have the time or expertise to carefully research individual MLPs. I really want one mutual fund/ETF/ETN to cover the MLP space.
So after reading THIS and THIS, I am leaning toward owning AMJ or EMLP in my retirement account. Between the two, I am leaning toward EMLP due to the risk metrics, although EMLP is not a pure MLP play.
Kevin

Wow! You're likely to get a plethora of widely different reactions. Sorry for the redundancy that follows. (I also require 20 minutes to change a light bulb.)
Premise: First, you need some sense of your goals, investing philosophy and the degree of risk you're willing to take.
Than you need a plan.*
Than you select funds that fit the plan.
-
To the heart of the question, here's what I look for:
- Below average fees
- Reputation of the house for integrity, consistency and client service
- A fund's long term performance with a proven track record extending back well over a decade. (I tend to focus on Lipper's category ratings.)
- I like larger funds. They've grown large for a reason. There should be some economics of scale. And the detrimental effects of hot money chasing short term performance and than leaving in droves is likely to be less.
- I also favor larger longer established houses thinking they can afford deeper research staffs.
* For what interest it may hold, here's one plan that might be suitable for a moderate-risk investor 20 years into retirement (like myself).
80% Buy and Hold: (1) 22-25% diversified income, (2) 22-25% balanced, (3) 30-35% hybrids (three uniquely different funds positioned somewhere between income and balanced on the risk spectrum), (4) 7-10% international bond funds, (5) 7-10% inflation-sensitive funds (like real estate and commodities).
20% Flexible Portfolio: Nominally, 50% cash / 50% equity. Since this portion is by definition flexible, the cash could range anywhere from 0% to 100%. Currently, I'm a bit overweight equities and tilted slightly towards an energy/NR fund where I still perceive some value.
I too have trouble limiting the number of funds. Goal is 12. Currently 14. :)

Here are two local links regarding Bernie Klawans:
Obituary: http://articles.philly.com/2011-12-22/news/30547045_1_mutual-fund-retirement-community-engineer
http://www.bizjournals.com/philadelphia/stories/2003/01/13/focus2.html

http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/102681/000116204416001738/valley497201604.htm
497 1 valley497201604.htm
[valley497201604001.jpg]
Valley Forge Fund, Inc.
TICKER: VAFGX
Supplement dated April 20, 2016 to the Prospectus dated April 22, 2015
The Board of Directors of the Valley Forge Fund, Inc. (the "Fund"), has concluded that due to the relatively small size of the Fund, it is in the best interests of the Fund and its Shareholders that the Fund cease operations. The Board of Directors has chosen to close the Fund and redeem all remaining outstanding shares on May 27, 2016.
Effective as of the date of this Supplement, the Fund will no longer pursue its stated investment objective. The Fund will liquidate its portfolio and will invest in cash equivalents such as money market funds until all shares have been redeemed. Any required distributions of income and capital gains will be distributed as soon as practicable to Shareholders. Shares of the Fund are not available for purchase.
Prior to May 27, 2016, you may redeem your shares, including any reinvested distributions, in accordance with the "How to Redeem Shares" section in the Prospectus. Unless your investment in the Fund is through a tax-deferred retirement account, any redemption is subject to tax on any taxable gains. Please refer to the "Taxes" section in the Prospectus for general information. You may wish to consult your tax advisor about your particular situation.
ANY SHAREHOLDERS WHO HAVE NOT REDEEMED THEIR SHARES OF THE FUND PRIOR TO MAY 27, 2016, WILL HAVE THEIR SHARES AUTOMATICALLY REDEEMED AS OF THAT DATE, AND PROCEEDS WILL BE SENT TO THE ADDRESS OF RECORD. If you have questions or need assistance, please contact your financial advisor directly or the Fund toll-free at 1-800-869-1679.
IMPORTANT INFORMATION FOR RETIREMENT PLAN INVESTORS
If you are a retirement plan investor, you should consult your tax advisor regarding the consequences of any redemption of Fund shares. If you receive a distribution from an Individual Retirement Account or a Simplified Employee Pension (SEP) IRA, you must roll the proceeds into another Individual Retirement Account within sixty (60) days of the date of the distribution in order to avoid having to include the distribution in your taxable income for the year. If you receive a distribution from a 403(b)(7) Custodian Account (Tax-Sheltered account) or a Keogh Account, you must roll the distribution into a similar type of retirement plan within sixty (60) days in order to avoid disqualification of your plan and the severe tax consequences that it can bring. If you are the trustee of a Qualified Retirement Plan, you may reinvest the money in any way permitted by the plan and trust agreement.
This Supplement, and the existing Prospectus dated April 22, 2015, provide relevant information for all Shareholders and should be retained for future reference. Both the Prospectus and the Statement of Additional Information dated April 22, 2015, have been filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, and are incorporated by reference, and can be obtained without charge by calling the Fund toll-free at 1-866-869-1679.

Not all ownership information is contained in the SAI. Many SAIs list only the holders of 5% or more of a fund's total assets. Some show only board members' holdings, not the managers' holdings. There is no requirement for how each fund must show ownership. My M* data base has more fund manager ownership detail, but it, too, is woefully incomplete and inaccurate. Fund companies differ in how management teams must invest their company retirement plan dollars, their bonuses, etc. Some companies require all of these dollars be invested in funds the company runs, some are more specific. Alas, because of the inconsistent reporting of data, we always ask managers to provide this information to us. Most do it matter-of-factly. Those that don't, we remove from our screening. Another thing...new funds, young managers, etc. can present problems in terms of how to evaluate. We just try to verify as best we can.

If you own the fund in a taxable account and have a large, unrealized gain, maybe best to hold but watch. If in a retirement account, at least move to watch status with no additional purchases, or sell if you are so inclined. Keep in mind FPACX has underperformed its category in 2015 and 2016 YTD, not a long period. Performance itself is not problematic for me. The fund should not be compared to an S&P Index. Yeah, it was convenient for management to do this when their numbers looked good by comparison, but we never compared it to the index. The sudden change of comparable index by management, however, is troubling, especially when the selected index does not resemble the fund in any way.

@davidmoran
I hope your Selects did better than mine. I just played around a year or two with non-retirement money. Probably little gain or loss.
Memories! In '81 my joints didn't ache. And I could consume half a case or more and still function the next morning. :)

Since I hold both OAKBX and FPACX in retirement accounts I have been looking at replacements. I like GAVIX and FPURX . Any other suggestions from those of you that have sold or recommend selling?

Hi, Mona.
Because risk moderation is generally tax-inefficient and for some of the asset classes that interest me (Asia income, for example) there aren't any tax-efficient vehicles. You could try to invest in low-beta stocks and a low-turnover fund, but that's sort of working at the edges of risk reduction.
So I keep good records, absorb the tax hit now and might book a taxable loss (as in the case of Artisan Small Cap Value) when I eventually sell.
Cheers,
David

Hi David,
Thanks for the explanation and I understand the choices.
I too have been hurt by the likes of Artisan (ARTMX) in the past few years with a poor returns and a big tax bill (on the way for the same in 2016), so I have mostly gravitated to Index and muni bond funds in my non-retirement account.
I certainly am not saying ARTMX offers any risk moderation (just the opposite high SD) like SFGIX and MACSX, but I have become very shy about putting any more actively managed funds in my non-retirement account. And the dilemma is, my non-retirement account is larger than my retirement account. I fill up my retirement account with other tax-inefficient funds (PIMIX, DBLTX, MACSX, PTIAX, VWEAX and one or two others), but the point is I have less room and have become conscious of asset location.
So now in some ways I let the tax tail wag the dog, but I sleep better if I continue to build my non-retirement account with funds that are tax-efficient, with a low ER and give me market returns.
I have owned ARTMX since 2006 in my non-retirement account, reinvested dividends each year (except last year), and like you did with ARTVX, I just need to bring myself to cutting the cord and before the November capital gain distribution.
Best Regards,
Mona

In my case, I have positions in SFGIX, MACSX and MAINX in my non-retirement portfolio and FTEMX in my retirement one.
For what that's worth,
David

Hi David,
Why relatively tax-inefficient funds in your non-retirement portfolio?
Mona

I agree with the folks: there aren't many better options than Seafarer. You might imagine Mr. Foster's mantra as "safe and sane." If you wanted more of the same, you might consider DRESX, which offers hedged exposure to EM small caps, or FTEMX, which mixes EM stocks and bonds. If you wanted to go in the other direction and look for a (small!) position on the wild side, then I'd consider specialists in small companies, small countries and/or frontier economies.
In my case, I have positions in SFGIX, MACSX and MAINX in my non-retirement portfolio and FTEMX in my retirement one.
For what that's worth,
David

Ted, can they keep it up forever after they grow beyond bound with boomer retirement rollovers?

Agree that AF goes nuts with the # of share classes. However, they run pretty good funds with low recurring costs ... I hold several of them both in taxable and retirement accounts.
I'd like them even more if they nixed the 12(b)-1 fee and insane front end loads, though. If I knew then what I know now about OEFs, I'd probably not have bought them. But those front end costs are more than paid for now.

M*'s take (from the WSJ giving quotes on reactions to the final regs that I cited in another thread):
Scott Cooley: "“One of my fears was that people who had already had paid a commission on their retirement accounts would be moved into fee-based accounts and then have to pay 1% of assets a year after they had already paid a commission. [But the DOL has] “indicated that it would have to be in the best interest of the client to shift them to a fee-based account from a commission-based account. That’s unambiguously pro-consumer.”
https://www.google.com/search?q=Reactions+to+the+Labor+Department’s+Fiduciary+Rule&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8 (top link for WSJ quotes)

FYI: (This is a follow-up article)
Brokerages will need to proceed carefully in their plans to shift many of their retirement savers to flat-fee investment accounts.
Regards,
Ted
http://blogs.wsj.com/moneybeat/2016/04/11/wealth-adviser-daily-briefing-brokerages-need-to-tread-carefully-in-fee-push/

This is a story that deserves a lot of thought and discussion.
One of the fundamental beliefs we’ve had when investing in funds is that we will get our money back when we want it. Sure, we’re vaguely aware that somewhere in the legalese (those pesky lawyers) there is language that distributions could be delayed during difficult times, but we figured that we weren’t the type to sell during those times of distress and that once the selling panic was over the funds could resume normal operations. And we might have read somewhere that distributions could be made in the form of stocks instead of cash, but we believed that couldn’t happen in the good quality funds that we invested in, those were simply things that happened in small high risk funds run by fraudsters.
But now it’s happened. A highly respected fund has refused to cash out one of its investors, and has instead given an investor some crummy stock that the fund doesn’t want, that probably has a tax obligation that the fund will avoid by distributing the stock. The investor will have to pay the fees to sell the stock, incur the risk the stock will decline in value, and may have to pay the capital gain on the sale.
Talk about breach of fiduciary duty!!!
This is a risk that I’m not sure I want to take with my retirement funds. I’m going to take a closer look at my funds and if they are not backed up by a big reputable fund family I’m going to question if they could be subject to this sort of risk.
It may also make sense to reconsider investing the old fashioned way: Buying stocks one at a time. Anyone still subscribe to Value Line?

@Junkster thanks for the reply. I was watching munis (and have a position in them) since you and another poster Dox? mentioned them.

The name is not Dox it is Dex. While reading past threads I came across some good posts he made about cash flow in retirement which changed my mind about its importance.

"a low tolerance for risk"
Ummm ... you might reflect on that conclusion in light of the positioning of my portfolio, which I publish annually. In the non-retirement portfolio, about 50% of my money is in equities and 50% in income-producing securities. Within the equity sleeve, 50% is international and within international more than 50% is a combination of small, emerging and frontier. Domestic is overweight small- to micro-cap which a distinct value pitch. I have no savings account (0.01% APR does nothing for me) but instead balance very conservative income-oriented investments (the aforementioned RPHYX) with quite aggressive ones.
It might be a bit misleading to point to one fund and generalize from it. I mean, really, why is substituting RPHYX and RPSIX for CDs and a savings account "risk averse"?
My self-description would be closer to this: "I will accept no risk unless I perceive a serious assymetry, in which the probable upside is substantially greater than the probable downside." One measure of the ability of a manager to achieve that goal is to look at a risk-return ratio over a meaningful period of time. My default is Sharpe over a full market cycle. The FMC orientation simply reflects the fact that I have better things to do than try to time my portfolio; I have neither the interest nor the discipline to pull that off. Some folks do, although the evidence suggests a far larger number simply thinks they do.
So, if you start with my premise - high risk-return ratio over meaningful periods - which small caps should I be looking at? When I screen for open, retail small cap funds - domestic, global, international - no-load or load-waived at Scottrade and sort by descending Sharpe, the top ones are:
1. Intrepid Endeavor, first by a lot. ARIVX is a near-clone in terms of risk-return but it doesn't have a full cycle record.
2. Westwood Mighty Mites
3. Homestead Small Cap
4. Pinnacle Value
5. Tributary Small Cap.
If you play with the risk-reward measure (Sortino, Martin, Ulcer Index) you get a slight shuffle of the top ten with the addition of Queens Road SCV and Royce Special.
I'm not enamored with the Royce or Gabelli organizations. Love Homestead's low minimum initial investment ($500), don't love the $1.2 billion size as much. Queens Road is very much worth a look. Tributary really would qualify as "in the shadows." And still the numbers point most consistently to ICMAX and the much-derided ARIVX.
I bet you're wondering why I buy and sell funds so rarely. Briefly, I go through this sort of pondering with every single one.
David

FYI: The California Public Employees' Retirement System recently opened a new chapter in socially responsible investing (also known as environment, social and governance, or ESG, investing) when its investment committee decided to start requiring that the boards of the companies it invests in include climate change experts.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.bloomberg.com/gadfly/articles/2016-04-04/can-calpers-live-with-responsible-investment-returns