WF is the 3rd largest holding in both DODGX (don’t own) and DODBX (do own). In the latter (a balanced fund) WF accounts for 2.5% of holdings. WF is up 12% over the past year. I respect the decision of a manager to unload a company that has exhibited such poor ethical standards as WF. In some of the cases cited the reason for selling doesn’t appear to be based as much on ethical standards as the fact that a criminal investigation + civil lawsuits presents a whole new series of unknowns - detracting from the company’s desirability as an investment.
I won’t criticize D&C for continuing to hold the fund. The question that’s often asked (and never fully answered): When one starts excluding from their investment portfolios stocks of companies with whom they have basic moral / ethical disagreements, where does it stop?
Is marketing to the public destructive weapons better suited for warfare any less objectionable than peddling unwanted insurance or misleading a home buyer at closing? In the second instance, money is lost. But in the first, the consequence is often loss of life. Is marketing a highly addictive often abused medication any less objectionable? How about exporting high paying U.S. jobs to low-wage third world nations? Should you rid from your portfolio those corporations known to have cheated on taxes in the past or to have deprived workers / retirees of previously earned pension benefits? Finally, what do you do when the manager of your highly successful high-octane mutual fund voices support for (and contributes to) a candidate or office holder whom you detest?

@bee,
Not trying to be nitpick here. Please let me clarify what I said earlier. Prior to forming SFGIX, Andrew Foster was the lead manager of several Asia-centric funds at Matthews Asia Funds since 1998. This places his track record back to 20 years, not 10 years. His stellar record is exemplified in Matthews Asia Growth & Income fund, MACSX from 2003-2011 (8 years), the Dividend fund, MAPIX for 6 years and the India fund, MINDX for 5 years.
David Snowball has written a detailed profile on Foster's approach and I couldn't come close to write a such as thoughtful analysis. So here is the link.
mutualfundobserver.com/2013/03/seafarer-overseas-growth-income-sfgix/
I started to invest with MACSX in 2000 when I noticed the fund is holding up much better than VWO during the height of tech bubble from 2000-2002. It taught me a lesson that those "tortoise" funds are more likely to be successful for their investors because they limit the downside loss. When the annual returns are compounded over time and through several market cycles, the total return can be fully captured. Many investors who move in and out of the mutual funds tend to have much lower returns than the market returns.
Coincidentally, I also like MAPIX (Bob Horrocks), FMIJX (Alex English), and PRWCX (David Giroux).

An investment 10 years ago in VGENX has been a challenging ride. I really would like to get excited by this sector. A better 10 year play has been FSCHX which uses OIl & Gas as its feed stock or Utilities such as GASFX and FSUTX which transport and covert these resources into electricity.
10 years chart comparing these funds:

I guess if your goal is to chase everyone away except those who agree with you, you have made a lot of progress. I've noticed that a lot of posters who I have enjoyed reading in the past are no longer here. So, congratulations are in order!

I agree with you, @little5bee. Used to be a good site, but now it is nothing but personal attacks and political snipes. Nothing has been done to clean it up. So be it.
Please delete my user account here.

M* has a long current discussion of SFGIX:
http://socialize.morningstar.com/NewSocialize/forums/p/384620/3946110.aspx#PageIndex=1
A poster there pointed out it is 50/50 EM/developed markets.

@Sven. SFGIX hasn't been around for 10 years. Inception date looks like 2/15/2012...so closer to 6 years. I'll agree that it has out performed the index (a fund such as VWO), but SFGIX is not an all equity fund (closer to 70/15/15 over its lifetime).
70% EM
15 % of his fund is in LT and IT Treasuries
15% of his fund is classified as "Ex - US Develop"
I compared his fund to a "2 fund combo of PRMSX & PREMX" (70/30). The trade off here is SFGIX opts for US Treasuries where PREMX is most EM Corporates.
Similar results...so nothing special here.
But, over shorter time frames he does a good job of managing downside risk.
I Like MAPIX, FMIJX, PRWCX for the same reason.
Fund managers that manage downside risk and deploy into opportunities are hard to find.

recent egregiousness:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/business/wp/2018/07/27/a-black-woman-says-wells-fargo-didnt-want-to-cash-her-check-shes-suing-for-discrimination
https://seekingalpha.com/news/3375122-wells-fargo-wealth-management-sales-goals-reported-focus-probe-wsj
man

Same here. I'll be 64 tomorrow. Age, yes. Though I want to stay mostly in equities, while still collecting monthlies from my bond funds, because wifey is just 45, yet. And I get quarterlies from one or two, still. I let go of SFGIX because it wasn't producing--- regardless of age or anything else... Oops, 28th July, just past midnight in the East.

@little5bee,
Wow, you have now gone completely off the rails, so if you're somehow incapable of engaging substantively or even owning your erroneous whattabout cheapshots, fine, just don't post it. Benghazi, Whitewater indeed. smh

Damn. I closed the wrong page. Had part of a contribution erased. Here we go again: SOURCES: How about well-known George Will? He has my respect and admiration. Thoughtful, intelligent. Even though I most often disagree with him, apart from his writings about baseball. I want to mention William F. Buckley, but he's passed on. And G. Will raised a disabled son together with his wife. THAT takes BIG balls.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/this-sad-embarrassing-wreck-of-a-man/2018/07/17/d06de8ea-89e8-11e8-a345-a1bf7847b375_story.html?utm_term=.ec9c2cd14c1c

Seriously, Crash?

No. Not seriously. I was being sarcastic, with a reference made by S. Bee in the video-clip. Anyhow, there's already enough dirt on President Pussy-grabber. And these statistics still are shocking:
"Overall, 54% of women voted for Clinton, much higher than the 42% of women who voted for Trump. But when the women’s vote is divided by race, it becomes clear that black women actually largely drove the so-called gender gap against Trump. The majority of non-college educated white women (64%) voted for Trump.

@little5bee
But the base remains diehard loyalists and the thing is so what if the economy is doing well? Economies have done well under other corrupt regimes. It doesn't paper over every other sin, and there is no real historical equivalent--certainly not the Clintons--with this kind of behavior. If the Clintons or Obama had behaved in this way during their tenure with this Congress they would not only have been impeached. They would be in jail right now.

@Lewis Braham "so what if the economy is doing well"? I'll be sure to ask this question to my stepson...but he may be too busy to answer right now with all of the overtime he's working, as well as his parental duties of supporting a wife and 3 children under the age of 6...two of whom are autistic. But even better would be for you to deliver your lecture in person to his co-workers...I'm sure it would be enlightening for all parties involved.
As far as false equivalency, would that be like the "diehard loyalists" on the Democrat side comparing Trump to Hitler?
Whitewater, Travelgate, Lewinsky, Troopergate, Clinton Foundation and misappropriation of funds, Benghazi, Bill giving speeches while Hill was Secretary of State...conflict of interest.

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1047112/000139834418010656/fp0034773_497.htm
As previously communicated to shareholders in a supplement dated May 25, 2018, and an information statement/prospectus dated July 2, 2018, the reorganization of the Marsico Flexible Capital Fund (or “Acquired Fund”) with and into the Marsico Global Fund (or “Surviving Fund”) (the “Reorganization”) is expected to take place on or about August 3, 2018.
Regarding the Flexible Capital Fund/Acquired Fund, on August 1, 2018, in anticipation of the Reorganization, the Flexible Capital Fund/Acquired Fund expects to make a distribution to its shareholders who are holders of record as of July 31, 2018, which will have the effect of distributing to its shareholders all of the Flexible Capital Fund’s/Acquired Fund’s investment company taxable income, if any, for the taxable period ending on or about August 3, 2018 (computed without regard to any deduction for dividends paid) and all of its net capital gains, if any, realized in the taxable period ending on or about August 3, 2018 (after reduction for any available capital loss carry forwards). Such distributions may be included in the taxable income of Flexible Capital Fund/Acquired Fund shareholders, depending on a shareholder’s tax status. Please refer to the Marsico Funds’ website for additional information concerning the distribution.
Regarding the Global Fund/Surviving Fund, Marsico Capital Management, LLC (“MCM”), the Funds’ investment adviser, has entered into an expense limitation agreement with the Fund in which MCM has agreed to reduce the current contractual net expense cap for the Fund by 5 basis points from 1.50% to 1.45% upon the closing of the Reorganization at least through September 30, 2019...

The fund's already gone through minor (no pun intended) tweaks. I believe it started out as Gold and Precious Metals. From its 1994 prospectus:

The Gold & Precious Metals Portfolio invests in the equity securities of
foreign and domestic companies engaged in the exploration, mining,
fabrication, processing, or marketing and distribution of gold, silver,
platinum, diamonds or other precious and rare metals and minerals. The
Portfolio may also invest up to 20% of its assets directly in gold,
silver or other precious metal bullion and coins.

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/734383/0000893220-94-000267.txt
In May 2001, it changed from a diversified fund to a nondiversified fund:
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/734383/000093247101500144/precmetals523.txt
Apparently at or near the same time, it dropped the "Gold" from its name, becoming simply Precious Metals,. The next change came May 24, 2004. Mining was added to the name, and mining stocks played a bigger role in the portfolio:

FUND TO REOPEN WITH BROADER INVESTMENT MANDATE AND NEW NAME
Effective on or about May 24, 2004, Vanguard Precious Metals Fund will reopen to
investors with a broader investment mandate and a new name.
The board of trustees has decided to expand the fund's investment mandate.
On the effective date of this change, the fund will invest at least 80% of its
assets in the stocks of foreign and U.S. companies principally engaged in the
exploration, mining, development, fabrication, processing, marketing, or
distribution of (or other activities related to) metals or minerals. The
majority of these companies will be principally engaged in activities related to
gold, silver, platinum, diamonds, or other precious and rare metals or minerals.
The remaining companies will be principally engaged in activities related to
nickel, copper, zinc, or other base and common metals or minerals.
The board of trustees acted in response to the increasing concentration of
the metals and minerals industries, a trend that limited the options available
to the fund's investment advisor. The decline in the number of precious metals
issues on the market, combined with the advisor's stringent quality criteria,
made it difficult to keep the portfolio fully invested while maintaining the
overall quality and diversity of its holdings. The trustees therefore decided to
broaden the range of stocks in which the fund can invest while adhering to its
traditional investment strategies.

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/734383/000093247104000482/precious032004.txt
I have no idea what Vanguard is trying to do with this latest change. Investing in companies/industries with declining CAPEX sounds like investing in cash cows. That's an income play, the opposite of what I'd expect from a fund that will continue to keep over 25% in precious metals and mining.
I'm confused.

They sure need to change something. :)
Currently the top 10 holdings all appear to be miners and make up over 40% of the fund’s investments. The fund lags most other mining funds for 1 & 5 years. Admittedly, mining hasn’t been a great place to be over that time. The 0.36% ER is low. But, for whatever reason, resource funds generally have lower ERs than might be expected.
Couldn’t tell from the blurb exactly what they intend to change besides the name. Would guess they’ll move more to an infrastructure approach while retaining a sizable exposure to the miners. With a mandate like “infrastructure” the door is pretty much wide open to a variety of investments. Price used to include financials in their old infrastructure fund. The idea was that if a company loaned money to infrastructure companies or projects it belonged in an infrastructure fund. (TRP closed the fund in 2014, merging it into their Real Assets fund, PRAFX.)

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/734383/000093247118006377/globalcapitalcycles485a.htm
Investor Shares
Vanguard Global Capital Cycles Fund Investor Shares (VGPMX)*
(*Formerly known as Vanguard Precious Metals and Mining Fund)

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/751173/000119312518228850/d566740d497.htm
497 1 d566740d497.htm MANNING & NAPIER FUND, INC.
MANNING & NAPIER FUND, INC.
(the “Fund”)
Supplement dated July 27, 2018 to the Prospectus, Summary Prospectus and Statement of Additional Information (“SAI”) dated May 1, 2018 for the following Series and Classes of the Fund:
Strategic Income Conservative Series (the “Series”)
Class I and S
This supplement provides new and additional information beyond that contained in the Prospectus, Summary Prospectus, and Statement of Additional Information, and should be read in conjunction with those documents.
The Board of Directors of the Fund has voted to terminate the offering of shares of the Strategic Income Conservative Series and instructed the officers of the Fund to take all steps necessary to completely liquidate the Series. Accordingly, effective immediately, the Series will be closed to new investors. Effective August 31, 2018, the Series will stop selling its shares to existing shareholders and will no longer accept automatic investments from existing shareholders.
The Series will redeem all of its outstanding shares on or about September 27, 2018 and distribute the proceeds to the Series’ shareholders (subject to maintenance of appropriate reserves for liquidation and other expenses).
As is the case with other redemptions, each shareholder’s redemption, including a mandatory redemption, will constitute a taxable disposition of shares for those shareholders who do not hold their shares through tax-advantaged plans. Shareholders should contact their tax advisors to discuss the potential income tax consequences of the liquidation.
As shareholders redeem shares of the Series between the date of this supplement and the date of the final redemption, and as the Series increases its cash positions to facilitate redemptions, the Series may not be able to continue to invest its assets in accordance with its stated investment policies. Accordingly, the Series may not be able to achieve its investment objectives during the period between the date of this supplement and the date of the final redemption.
PLEASE RETAIN THIS SUPPLEMENT FOR FUTURE REFERENCE

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/809707/000080970718000027/fist1convertiblesoftclose072.htm
FIST1 P1 07/18
SUPPLEMENT DATED JULY 27, 2018
TO THE PROSPECTUS DATED MARCH 1, 2018
OF
FRANKLIN INVESTORS SECURITIES TRUST
(Franklin Convertible Securities Fund)
The prospectus is amended as follows:
I. The following paragraph is added to the “Fund Summary” and “Fund Details” sections for the Franklin Convertible Securities Fund to read:
Effective at the close of market (1:00 p.m. Pacific time or the close of the New York Stock Exchange, whichever is earlier) on August 29, 2018, the Fund will be closed to new investors. Existing investors who had an open and funded account on August 29, 2018 can continue to invest through exchanges and additional purchases. The following categories of investors can continue to open new accounts in the Fund: (1) clients of discretionary investment allocation programs where such programs had investments in the Fund prior to the close of market on August 29, 2018; (2) employer sponsored retirement plans or benefit plans and their participants where the Fund was available to participants in such plans prior to the close of market on August 29, 2018; (3) employer sponsored retirement plans or benefit plans that approved the Fund as an investment option prior to the close of market on August 29, 2018, but that have not opened an account as of that date, provided that the initial account is opened with the Fund on or prior to February 28, 2019; (4) other Franklin Templeton Funds and Funds for which Franklin Templeton investment managers provide advisory or sub-advisory services upon prior approval by the Fund’s investment manager; (5) trustees and officers of the Trust; and (6) members of the Fund’s portfolio management team. The Fund may restrict, reject or cancel any purchase order, including an exchange request, and reserves the right to modify this policy at any time.
Please retain this supplement with your prospectus for future reference.

@bee, thanks for the update. This is only the early phase of tariffs and the impacts are felt across the board. Next is the threat of $500B tariffs.
With respect to the theft of intellectual property, this has been an on-going issue for a long time particularly with China. In addition, US government failed to have a comprehensive and consistent policy governing these matters and enforcement though the World Trade Organization. Companies are also to blame as well as they are so willing to compromise their own intellectual properties just to gain access to those countries who don't respect or enforce intellectual property. Below is a case of IBM for sharing the computer codes with Russia that enable them to hack the West.
https://reuters.com/article/us-usa-russia-tech-insight/under-pressure-western-tech-firms-bow-to-russian-demands-to-share-cyber-secrets-idUSKBN19E0XB
The ZTE case you pointed out is just disappointing all around.

@little5bee

Exactly how I felt/feel about the Clintons. Yet despite his many faults, the economy boomed under Clinton

Will the false moral equivalencies and whataboutism between Trump and the Clintons ever end? During the Nixon era, Republican politicians finally turned against the president when they realized the evidence of corruption was too great and they decided to put country before party, but not today:

There are a handful of Republicans who represent the intellectual base of true conservatism like David Frum and Bill Kristol who recognize the threat he really poses to our democratic institutions: https://nytimes.com/2018/05/24/us/politics/republicans-democrats-coalition-trump.html
But the base remains diehard loyalists and the thing is so what if the economy is doing well? Economies have done well under other corrupt regimes. It doesn't paper over every other sin, and there is no real historical equivalent--certainly not the Clintons--with this kind of behavior. If the Clintons or Obama had behaved in this way during their tenure with this Congress they would not only have been impeached. They would be in jail right now.