Being curious, I checked the following:
Both funds, Oct. 2000 to date:
http://stockcharts.com/freecharts/perf.php?TREMX,EUROX&n=4311&O=011000
Both funds, Jan. 2016 to date: both funds have had a decent run since Jan. 2016; is there may be more to be had??? If I were to invest in these areas, I would have to study more about the country holdings within the funds; as to economy, politics, etc. I.E.; Russia and energy, etc. for similar relative to a country. Turkey has political upheaval still in place. I recall Austria having severe banking problems after the market melt. I don't know the current status. Both funds have been flat to negative from Sept. 1. This is only an observation, as I don't know why this is the case......profit taking??? 'Course, the "markets" have caused fits for many since the market melt; and still cause head scratching, eh? "This time is different" is still in place, IMHO.
http://stockcharts.com/freecharts/perf.php?TREMX,EUROX&n=478&O=011000
I don't have recommendations for this area, as we are fully invested in other equity areas; and not a student of this particular area. For our own personal criteria; we tend to place no less than 5% into a given area to be meaningful for us and the overall portfolio.
Just my 2 cents worth on a Sunday morning.
Regards,
Catch

Indeed. Has both Great Owl and Honor Roll designations ...

Russia, Czech Republic, Hungary, and Turkey are among the cheapest markets. Although a lot of fund managers/commentators believe more traditional emerging markets such as those in Asia have more room to run, they have had a run up and may longer be cheep, but "reasonable" (although China might still be considered cheap based on PE according to below link of chart from 9/30/2017...however China has had a good couple of months since then so maybe no longer cheap?).
I'm considering putting a small amount into either EUROX or TREMX. From 9/30/2017, EUROX top 6 country holdings are 34.5% Russia, 15.4% Turkey, 14.5% Poland, 7% Greece, 4.6% Austria, 3.3% Hungary (it should be noted that Morningstar last listed EUROX as having a turnover ratio of 164% so this could be different now). From 10/31/2017, TREMX has top 6 country holdings of 50.5% Russia, 15.6% Turkey, Poland 9%, Georgia 5.1%, Hungary 4.7%, and Romania 4.5%. My overall impression from reading fund reports is that the manager of TREMX is very valuation conscious, which is good if seeking emerging Europe as a value play away from other EM, however that has hurt TREMX in it's 2017 performance by being underweight Poland, which has had a great year. Valuation has also led to it's overweighting in Russia, taking up half of its portfolio. TREMX had a turnover of 48% compared to 164% for EUROX. TREMX is also more concentrated with 51 stocks, compared to 102 for EUROX according to Morningstar. ER of TREMX is 1.75%, EUROX is 2.33%, a difference to consider.
Any thoughts on investing in this region? Any opinions as to whether to invest in EUROX or TREMX? Are there any other Emerging Europe mutual funds (not ETFs) out there to consider?
http://www.starcapital.de/research/stockmarketvaluation

Regarding cap gains on homes - interviewee (at 5:54) states correctly: "it's also important - always important - for individuals who own their homes to keep great records of the improvements they've put into their homes in order to try to eliminate or reduce part of the gain."
The proposed changes would not make the record keeping tasks any more onerous than they are now or have been in the past. Regardless of how home cap gains are taxed, you always want to show as little gain as possible. Just like stocks, where you keep track of your purchase prices, buying and selling commissions, net proceeds (after other taxes/fees are taken out), you should be keeping track of similar home costs. The purchase price, improvements, additions, special assessments, etc.
A proposed House change to the law would only affect high income people ($250K/$500K per year income). Those people likely own homes that already have big gains that are taxable (more than the $250K/$500K that homeowners can exclude). So this proposed change would have no effect on record keeping needs.
Both House and Senate are proposing requiring people to stay longer in their homes to qualify for the $250K/$500K exclusion. The main people this change would affect are those who are flipping houses to keep their gains under the exclusion amount. They don't get much sympathy for me, and they're probably already keeping detailed records to achieve their objective of avoiding taxation on their home gains.
Longer term, more and more people will need those records. The amount of gain you can exclude, $250K/$500K, was set in 1997. At the time, that sounded like a lot of money. Now, $250K won't buy you an entry level home in some neighborhoods, though it's still above the median price of a home in 80% of the states, including New York ($247K). In another 20 years, lots of people may have taxable gains in their homes.

HR 1 won't eliminate the step up. Here's the relevant text:

(a) In general.—Except as provided in subsection (b), this chapter [11, that taxes estates] shall not apply to the estates of decedents dying after December 31, 2024 ...
[and] Section 1014(b) is amended— [in paragraphs (6), (9), and (10) only]
.

So the bill wipes out the estate tax (after 2024) while leaving the step up in basis. That's in a the unchanged paragraph (1) of Section 1014(b) of the Internal Revenue Code Section 1014(b)(1). That paragraph that provides a step up on "Property acquired by bequest, devise, or inheritance, or by the decedent’s estate from the decedent"
The Senate bill does not eliminate the estate tax, despite what you might have heard in that tax proposal interview at 15:10. Neither the Washington Post nor I can find any mention of an estate tax elimination in the Senate bill. Since the Senate bill doesn't eliminate the estate tax, we don't have to worry about how the Senate bill treats the step up when the estate tax is gone.

Hi MikeM,
Yeah, the email......I can't find it right now. I deleted it and it's not in the trash. The gist of it was this: with rates rising slowly and measured, this should not be a problem for a while in the real estate space. And if you look at RAANX when I bought in June and July, you can see how the chart is rising in the face of rates right now. Again, we've discussed this fund, you and I,......it's not like all the others.....57.3% real estate, 10% about outside the U.S. It has cell towers and cloud centers as well as farms and water rights. And with rates so low, at what point does it matter? That's the question, really. And will it take a year or longer to get there? And if you put it on a chart and look at it from October to now, ..... look at the rise. A tech bump, maybe? Just saying.....
God bless
the Pudd

Is this where "re-gifting" finally loses it's negative connotation?

Estate planning moves main stream (...not really):
No way I will ever challenge the present $5M nor the proposed $10M limit, but why not sell assets keeping the new tax proposal (stepped up basis provision for transfer of estate) in mind.
So, if I have 100 shares of xyz stock that I need to sell for income. Instead of selling them from my taxable portfolio and paying the taxes on the capital gain, I instead, gift them "in kind" to my family member first.
-They receive the gift (with a stepped up basis),
-They then sell the xyz stock at the stepped up basis price,
-They pay no taxes on the capital gain since it was eliminated when I first gifted xyz stock to them,
-They then "re-gift" the proceeds back to me (cash proceeds)...minus a steak dinner and a few nights of sleepovers for the grand kids.
This sounds a lot like how a Roth IRA works, but better. It doesn't have pedestrian contribution limits ($20M for a couple), no withdrawal (age) limits, nor any Roth conversion costs (income tax).

Re “I remain in a cash build mode.”
Maybe a “cash build moat”?
moat - NOUN, a deep, wide ditch surrounding a castle, fort, or town, typically filled with water and intended as a defense against attack.
Source: https://www.bing.com/search?q=meaning+of+moat&qs=AS&pq=meaning+of+moat&sc=8-15&cvid=020AF923D25746F5A72AFD2AE8E0E89F&FORM=QBRE&sp=1

FYI: In a year full of political and economic drama, emerging markets have outpaced an aging bull market in the U.S. over the last 12 months. Still, the prospect of Beijing wielding a heavier hand in Chinese companies and economic reforms in India potentially slowing near-term growth means that investors who take a closer look now will need to pick their spots carefully.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.barrons.com/articles/how-to-play-emerging-markets-now-1511579482

Hello,
I do my monthly close on the last Friday of each month with the exception being in December where I use the 31st. My report follows.
For November Old_Skeet's barometer closed the month with a reading of 145 indicating that the S&P 500 Index is overvalued. The barometer consist of three feeds. A breadth feed, an earnings feed along with a technical score feed. At times other technical indicators are used along with a short interest reading. Currently, short interest for SPY is reported at 2.5 days to cover and currently is not a detractor to the reading.
The barometer from a technical basis reflects there are no major sectors within the 500 Index being scored undervalued or oversold. For the month the three best performing sectors were technology (XLK), consumer discretionary (XLY) and real estate (XLRE).
Within my own portfolio I have noticed that my bond duration has fallen from 3.4 years to 3.0 years over the past month. Many may remember my reporting that I have begun to move towards using a good number of hybrid type funds along with some multi sector income funds within my portfolio to make it more dynamic and adaptive to ever changing market conditions. So far, the addition of hybrid funds has now grown to the point where their use has enough influence on the portfolio to make it more dynamic. In addition, based upon a seasonal investment strategy I am overweight equities, at this time by 4%, over what my equity weighting matrix is calling for.
With the overvalued stock market, as measured by Old_Skeet's barometer, for now, I remain in a cash build mode while I await the next stock market pullback. However, with many of my mutual funds making some sizeable capital gain distributions come December I may reinvest some of this money towards the first of the year. One area I plan to look at is hybrid type funds both (convertibles and multialternative).
Listed below are what my five year average investment returns have been by sleeve and for two bogeys. The first percent number is the average yearly return and the second number is the sleeve's current yield. Notice, the higher yielding sleeves generally have lower yearly returns.
Income Area, Income sleeve ... 5.2% ... 3.26%
Income Area, Hybrid Income sleeve ... 7.5% ... 4.15%
G&I Area, Global Hybrid sleeve ... 8.4% ... 3.66%
G&I Area, Domestic Hybrid sleeve ... 9.7% ... 2.95%
G&I Area, Global Equity sleeve ... 11.4% ... 2.31%
G&I Area, Domestic Equity sleeve ... 12.7% ... 2.78%
Growth Area, Global Growth sleeve ... 14.7% ... 0.47%
Growth Area, Large/Mid Cap sleeve ... 17.0% ... 0.21%
Growth Area, Small/Mid Cap sleeve ... 13.8% ... 1.71%
Growth Area, Specialty sleeve ... 11.7% ... 1.18%
Master Portfolio (as a whole including cash sleeves, equity adjustment range +/-5%) ... 9.6% ... 2.5%
Investment Portfolio (without cash sleeves, equity adjustment range +/-5%) ... 11.2% ... 3.0%
Bogey Static 50/50 Index Mix (portfolio with no cash position, rebalance annually) ... 9.0% ... 1.8%
Bogey Active 50/50 Index Mix (portfolio with no cash position, equity adjustment range +/- 20%) ... 9.8% ... 1.6%
A recent Morningstar Instant Xray analysis listed my asset allocation as Cash 17%, U S Srocks 31%, Foreign Stocks 20%, Bonds 25% and Other 7% along with the yield being 2.51%. Five years ago the porfolio's yield was in the 3.25% range with the distribution yield being north of 5%. This year I'm thinking the distribution yield will be around 4% which includes interest, dividends and capital gain distributions.
For those looking for a way to consolidate multiple accounts into a consolidated report I have found Morningstar's Portfolio Mananger a good and accurate way to track investment performance along with other investment and portfolio metrics. Year-to-date both Portfolio Manager and a manual tabulation of account statements are producing the same total return number of 9.6% through Friday November 24th.
Thanks for stopping by and reading.
I wish all ... "Good Investing."
Old_Skeet
Note: Edited with current yield percent on 11/26/2017 and consolidated statement summary on 11/29/2017.

@Ted ... You do a great job of finding interesting articles!
... As for judging mutual funds, YTD is a bit arbitrary and too short IMO ...

I agree on both points. YTD Is fun to watch. I suppose we all do it. But unless you’re trying to grab a fast profit on a hot fund it’s quite meaningless.
I generally won’t buy a fund without looking at ‘08 in its prospectus. Such a telling bit of information. Too bad it will not show up in prospectuses after another year or two. I wish the SEC would require they go back at least 15 years in reporting a fund’s yearly performance.

Happy Thanksgiving all! And thanks Old_Skeet.
The list above is simply compiled from YTD numbers from the following M* categories:
Multialternative
Long Short Equity
Long Short Credit
Market Neutral
Managed Future
Options Based
Many of the funds listed above do not have 3-year track records. One of the few that do has a $750M minimum investment (Grantham's Special Opportunity fund)!
We're keeping our nose to the grindstone. Focusing on process and letting results take care of themselves.

So the Yacktman boys been able to add value, or continue to add value --- recent returns (3y and shorter) do not outperform SP500, but risk is lower.

There were 35 mutual funds and ETFs that turned 3 years old thru October.
Like it or not, the first 3 year performance mark can be crucial to a fund's commercial success and continued viability, since that's when Morningstar assigns its star rating.
Below please find leaders by AUM and leaders by MFO ratings (risk adjusted return based on Martin).
Three overlap: AQR Equity Market Neutral Fund R6 (QMNRX), SEI Emerging Markets Equity Fund A (SMQFX), and Ivy Mid Cap Income Opportunities Fund N (IVOSX).
Four get MFO Great Owl designations, which also first get determined at the 3 year mark: Leland Thomson Reuters Venture Capital Index Fund I (LDVIX), AQR Equity Market Neutral Fund R6 (QMNRX), First Trust Eurozone AlphaDEX ETF (FEUZ), and Schwab Fundamental Global Real Estate Index Fund (SFREX).

FYI: Foreign small caps can be better diversifiers because they have closer ties to their local economies.
Regards,
Ted
http://news.morningstar.com/articlenet/article.aspx?id=837750

Hi @jerry and others,
I don't track a 60/40 but the 50/50 Index mix that I do track has had the following returns. They follow: 2012/9.96% ... 2013/17.31% ... 2014/5.60% ... 2015/0.54% ... 2016/7.04% ... 2017(ytd)/10.87%. The cumulative return for this period is 53.85% with the average being 8.98%.
The reason I use the 50/50 mix is that now in retirement I only move my equity allocation +/- 5% from its neutral position of 50% unless market conditions warrant otherwise. Years back I'd go +/-10% from the neutral position thus a 60/40 mix might be a better allocation for this adjustment range.
My cumulative return on my own portfolio for the above period has been 57.47% with the average being 9.58%. Some will ask ... Has it been worth it to be active? For me, it has been as it has put a good bit of extra cash in my pocket vs. running with a static 50/50 mix. Plus being a student of the market has been rewarding in of that itself.
In addition, I use American Funds' Capital Income Builder (CAIBX), my third largest holding, as my global hybrid fund bogey because of its global allocation and yield. Its cumulative return is 49.55% for the period with the average being 8.26%. My return over the 50/50 mix is about 6% and over CAIBX about 16%. Generally, I have found, higher yielding hybrid funds offer lower returns. And, my portfolio does kick off a good yield and has a global orientation. I also, use the Lipper Balanced Index as another standard.
In looking at a sampling of some of the funds listed in the article the two I looked at GSOFX & USMYX did not have the history necessary for a compairson. However, I did do one against KCMTX listed by Morningstar as a multialternative fund. I found it's cumulative return for the period to be 67.01% with the average being 11.17%. KCMTX is co-run; and, one of its managers Parker Binion has started posting on our board. Parker's handle is @PBKCM in case you did not, and would like to, know. Interestingly, I was asked (in another thread) by another poster as to why I'd be a buyer of this fund? It is pretty simple ... in spite of its expense ratio ... it is putting up some good numbers for a multialternative fund plus it is currently carrying 5 stars by Morningstar. Folks, it cost money to actively engage the markets. It also reminds me of two other funds I invested in early on (but, no longer own) one being Ivy Asset Strategy and the other being Marketfield. They got to the size where they could no longer effectively position in a timely manner with the ever changing market conditions. So, I let them go as their performance waned.
Below is a link to the Morningstar report on Parker's fund.
http://www.morningstar.com/funds/XNAS/KCMTX/quote.html
Notice it is ranked in the top 1% on the rolling 1 year return period ... top 2% on year-to-date returns ... top 2% on the 3 year period ... and, top 1% for the 5 year period.
For me, the big question is ... How did a good skilled seasoned writer such as John Waggoner miss by not including Parker's fund? Perhaps, Mr. Waggoner reads the board? And, will kindly make comment.
And, so it goes.
I wish all ... "Good Investing."

seems to me outperforming the S+P 500 is not the critical test but rather that they outperform a 60-40 over a decent period of time / If they don't why bother

Thanks for posting, @Ted. You do a great job of finding interesting articles!
As for judging mutual funds, YTD is a bit arbitrary and too short IMO, although I understand why John would use the metric in an article this time of year.
Personally, I like to take a weighted average:
5/9 * the 5 year return
3/9 * the 3 year return
1/9 * the 1 year return
Because all three have the 1 year return, it actually gets the most weight, but not ridiculously so:
Last year = 33%
2nd Year = 22%
3rd Year = 22%
4th year = 11%
5th Year = 11%

Wow...ICMAX...Almost 60% Cash, 20% Bonds...ER=1.4% while the 1 Yr Investor Return was 1.44%. ... investors spent $2.475 M in management fees to achieve a CD rate return of 1.44% ...

Wow. Sombody’s holding more cash than I am!
:)

Even the bear market deviation metric (Identifying Bear-Market Resistant Funds During Good Times) is little help since there have been no bear market months, which M* defines as a 3% drop in S&P. It's been 21 months since last sighting, Jan 2016. Fourth longest stretch after 2007 (35), 1994 (27), and 1965 (22).