Reply to @MikeM: Before buying RGHVX I wondered about this up/down as well, and whether it would continue (roughly) or change. I went ahead and also did the equivalent purchase with ARLSX, which I see has not entered into this discussion. (Ted?)

Again useful, informative, droll, and more.
The Owl honor roll pdf is highly troubling to me. Any such listing whose criteria somehow leave off JABAX, GLRBX, various Intrepid funds including ICMBX, GABSX, FLPSX, all Yacktman products, PRBLX, while listing Weitz and D&C confuses me utterly. I believe I get why ARLSX is not present (time). And yes overall, I do see what the criteria are, and I have said in the past that I simply must study all of these data harder; so I'm going to redouble my efforts in these regards. Cuz I have to. Still, a puzzling honor roll for my brain.
Hasty example: To see the FFNOX / FAMRX value supposedly added by Dierdorf, Stein, Sharpe et alia over 1/3/4/5y, just compare their work with, say, AOA and AOR, in addition to the balanced vehicles given above.

A seemingly reasonable question, but as always, fire the manager based on the broadest and highest and longest overview you can muster, not just his or her longterm performance but your needs and wishes. We pay these guys to make these decisions. I clearly remember 15 or so years ago some important money manager giving an interview in which she said 'I simply cannot charge my clients [did not say 1% but it was clear] to put them into Romick holding so much cash.' Now, I myself am not an FPACX acolyte here like some, but have been in it since and may do so again (how's that for taking my own advice?). Yet Romick's record especially given a fair amount of constant cash speaks for itself loud and clear. Older, I now own ARLSX and sense Cinnamond may be aces. But ask yourself if you like so many here are trading waaay too quickly.

Reply to @hank:
PRWCX is a perfectly fine fund, but if you are (still) shopping, compare its 6y chart with GLRBX, JABAX, FPACX, MAPOX, and ICMBX (my fave in the bunch, from MFO). It had a nontrivially larger dip in 09 (which is why I chose 6y) with equal or worse recovery, fwiw. Its risk ratings in M* and Lipper are no better than the others. I see no compelling reason to *prefer* it, although its much more recent performance is a bit stronger. Just two cents to consider, since we presumably look to balanced funds for downside protection. (Thanks to MFO, I myself am now slowly adding or subbing in ARLSX and RGHVX for those nearer-term accounts where I have had balanced funds.)

Reply to @DavidV: On Beck, Mack, click on the Featured Funds tab at the top of the page to get to our profiles (written and audio) of the fund, plus an mp3 of a call with the manager and links to other resources.
On the second, it depends on the family. Tweedy, Browne has the same team manage each fund and they use the same discipline with each. F P A has six different strategies, two of which (absolute return income, SMid-quality growth) are quite distinct from the others.
In general, "absolute value" managers buy only when they find compelling values. Many of them have found nothing attractive in months, and have let huge cash warchests accumulate. These folks offer fair downside protection, though at the cost of some upside. Such managers include Mr. Romick at F P A Crescent (FPACX), Messrs Cook and Bynum of Cook & Bynum (COBYX), Mr. Pye of F P A International Value, Mr. Dodson of Bretton (BRTNX), Mr. Cinnamond of Aston River Road Independent Value (ARIVX) and Mr. Wydra of Beck, Mack. They often have very fine five (ten, fifteen and twenty) year years, but often look like slack witted losers in the one-to-three year range.
On the general topic of risk management, you might look at a long/short fund. I have a minuscule position in Aston River Road Long/Short (ARLSX), which I opened as a way of motivating much closer examination of the fund. We've already profiled it and I wouldn't be surprised to find myself move more money in before too long.
For what it's worth,
David

I've been thinking of opening a small position in PMHDX, not sure yet of the timing, but if I do, I'll consider it part of my stock allocation, and not so much as an alt fund for portfolio purposes. Seems to me it runs more like a lower-volatility stock fund, and less like a risk averse long-short.
For something lower on the risk scale that's readily available to an individual investor, ARLSX is pretty good.

Hi, Sven.
The record for ARLSX is too short to provide a meaningful comparison. If you overlap the charts of the two at Morningstar, it appears that MFLDX is modestly more volatile and has produced a modestly greater upside since the ARLSX launch. Charles might have a more fine-grained reading of the data than that, of course.
Off to teach!
David

Reply to @David_Snowball: Thank you for you input on ARLSX. How would you compare this fund to Marketfield, MFLDX in drawdown and absolute return?
The institutional share of Marketfield is closed to new investor. However, a new "P" share. MFPDX, is open with a transaction fee ($49.95) at Fidelity. No minimum $$ for tax deferred accounts,
https://fundresearch.fidelity.com/mutual-funds/summary/56064B662

Howdy.
I interviewed a bunch of long/short managers last year, some quite talented. The conclusion that I reached was that ARLSX had the most thoughtful, clearly-articulated risk management discipline of them all. I talk about that in the fund profile, which is on its Featured Funds page. Here's the highlight:

The strategy’s risk-management measures are striking. Through the end of Q1 2012, River Road’s Sharpe ratio (a measure of risk-adjusted returns) was 1.89 while its peers were at 0.49. Its maximum drawdown (the drop from a previous high) was substantially smaller than its peers, it captured less of the market’s downside and more of its upside, in consequence of which its annualized return was nearly four times as great.
It also substantially eased the pain on the market’s worst days. The Russell 3000, a total stock market index, lost an average of 3.6% on its fifteen worst days between the strategy’s launch and the end of March, 2012. On those same 15 days, River Road lost 0.9% on average – which is to say, its investors dodged 75% of the pain on the market’s worst days.

Its 3Q2013 maximum drawdown was one-third of the market's while it's long exposure was above 50% of it. Mr. Moran writes in his end-of-September commentary:

The portfolio did well given that it maintained an average net long exposure of half that of the benchmark during a period of generally rising returns for the market. Both the long and short portfolios performed well. The maximum drawdown from the Fund’s “high-water mark” during the quarter was -1.53%, just 35% of the market’s -4.36% drawdown.

Since inception, it's captured about 90% of the S&P 500's return. The guys consider themselves value investors. They're unwilling to short a stock just because it's overpriced and they're unwilling to buy a stock just because it's the least-overpriced option, so they're reluctantly (and resolutely, so far as I can tell) holding cash. In general, I'm more than comfortable with that decision.
Finally, my retirement and non-retirement accounts are in entirely separate mental buckets since resources are not fungible between them. That said, it's also limited to TIAA-CREF, Fido and T. Rowe which means that you have to be a little cautious in your attempts to invest in the offbeat.
Hope that helps,
David

ARLSX is 38.54% cash, I would prefer to be in cash than invested in this fund.

In your September revelation of your taxable portfolio you said referring to ARLSX: it would likely be as a substitute for Northern Global Tactical since the two serve the same risk-dampening function. Since the funds are very different, I also hold BBALX, I wondered what was the basis for presuming that ARLSX would serve the same " risk dampening objective.
I also wondered if your nontaxable holdings were covering the missing categories in your taxable.

Reply to @Charles: Thanks for your honest explanation. I might suggest you hold things for three years min, hardly an original thought with me, but I don't think I can say I have never done the same. I am using ARLSX (along with ICMBX and JABAX, as well as cash, which annoys me) currently to try to achieve some of the same ends in my shorter-term accounts.

Reply to @Art:
What are your thinking and decisionmaking about them with respect to ARLSX?

I Purchased The Institutional Shares At Fidelity. WBMIX Is a Long Short Fund - WBSLX Is a Market Neutral Fund - I Believe a Good Long Short Fund Will Out Perform a Market Neutral Fund!! I Also Own Shares In Another Long Short Fund - MFLDX - And I Am Considering Buying At Some Point Shares In FMLSX or ARLSX (leaning towards arlsx) David Had Good Information About These Type Of Funds, I Think In His July Commentary. I Wish You Good Luck In Picking One You Will Be Happy With!!!!

Shorting is expensive, ditto fund of funds running and composition, and the two together even moreso. I don't recall anyone on this forum complained about RNCOX (cheaper fund of funds) when David S wrote it up.
Per the prospectus, ARLSX is "1.7% Net Exp Ratio Excluding Div. & Int. Exp on Short Sales and Acq. Fund Fees; [one footnote adds"] The Advisor is contractually obligated to waive management fee and/or reimburse ordinary expenses through February 28, 2014. The total operating expenses are 3.16% for Class-N and 2.91% for Class-I. Total operating expenses includes dividend and interest expense on short sales of 1.41% and acquired fund fees of 0.05%,which are not included in the net expense ratio." There are other footnotes covering the area too. Fido has the ER as of Feb as 1.75%; their data feeds are usually pretty good, so perhaps it has dropped a touch since Feb.
Whatever. Just retired, I am happy owning a fair amount of high-trading ARLSX, but I know what I have and why it costs what it does. I think of it as a sort of balanced fund. ALSNX looks very interesting, though I'm not interested enough to buy.

Reply to @kevindow: ARLSX ER after waivers is 1.70 I thought. I don't think it sustains itself otherwise. I certainly will sell if they don't keep the waivers in place.
And nothing needs to be explained for stating the irresponsibility of M*. It does not exist for the individual investor, and only for the fund industry. Anyone who does not share that opinion is welcome to theirs. I'll keep mine.

Reply to @VintageFreak:
Hi VF,
Looks like you are actually paying 15 bp less for ARLSX (actual ER 3.16%) than ALSNX (actual ER 3.31%). ARLSX is indeed cheaper, but it is not cheap. Of course nowhere in the M* fund profile is there any mention of the actual ER for ARLSX, which is clearly seen, front and center, on the current prospectus. Yes, I know it is M* policy to understate actual expense ratios paid by investors for certain funds, but it is clearly misleading and irresponsible. Just my opinion.
Kevin

I did look at it, then bought ARLSX which is way cheaper. I'm the first one to ignore ER for a compelling story. However between the two funds I had to go with ARLSX.

Just put more into YACKX/YAFFX (depending on which brokerage I can buy them in n/c). Also PRBLX. Less into OAKIX and GABSX. Timing not optimal, but is it ever?
The reason is that I am rebucketing, so to speak, into soon moneys, later, and much later.
Some of my switching around is close to a wash, sell ARLSX, GLRBX, ICMBX, JABAX in one account and buy them in another.
Those plus some VNQ/VNQI are all I'm holding at the moment, plus cash, plus finally some low-vol ETFs I'm going to bail on when they break even this fall (I can tell the future, ha :)).

I forget just how mojo does it calcs, but I know I stopped referring to it when it left out of its lists Pinto (JABAX) and the ICMBX gang. Also the Jameses, but I guess they're not 'moderate.' Always compare with AOR, and since anyone interested in balanced funds should look to downside protection, always look for dip depth and bear performance and risk ratings. I do now more and more think of ARLSX as a sort of balanced fund (thanks to MFO).