AQR Funds https://funds.aqr.com/news/aqr-funds-distribution-estimates-2017
Artisan Partners https://www.artisanpartners.com/individual-investors/resources/tax-center/distributions.html
BMO Funds https://www.bmo.com/gam/pdf/BMO_Funds_Capital_Gains_2017.pdf
Conestoga Small Cap http://www.conestogacapital.com/conestoga-small-cap-fund/
Lyrical Value Fund https://lyricalvaluefunds.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/2017_Distribution_Estimate-1.pdf
Manning- Napier Rainier (new) https://www.manning-napier.com/Portals/0/FundsDocs/distributions/summaries/distributions-4Q17.pdf
Marsico Funds https://www.marsicofunds.com/funds/content/distributions.fs
Morgan Stanley
https://www.morganstanley.com/im/publication/forms/tax/2017-estimated-yearend-distributions.pdf?1509384603818
Motley Fool Funds https://foolfunds-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/media/funds/2017_Capital_Gains.pdf
Oak Associates http://www.oakfunds.com/downloads/CapitalGainsEstimates.2017.pdf
RiverNorth Funds https://www.rivernorth.com/mutual-funds/rncix-rncox
Tributary Funds https://www.tributaryfunds.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/TRB-Funds-Capital-Gain-Estimates_2017.pdf
Wells Fargo
https://www.wellsfargofunds.com/assets/edocs/communications/20171103-productalert.pdf

Whether there are penalties imposed by the brokerage and/or short term redemption fees imposed by the fund depends on the fund and the brokerage. Generally speaking, Rydex, Profunds, and Direxion funds are designed for rapid trading, and brokerages don't impose penalties for doing this.
For example, here's E*Trade's footnote (2) on NTF trading there:

To discourage short-term trading, E*TRADE Securities will charge an Early Redemption Fee of $49.99 on redemptions or exchanges of no-load, no-transaction-fee funds that are held for less than 90 days. Direxion funds (other than the Indexed Commodity Strategy Fund DXCTX), ProFunds, Rydex mutual funds, and all money market funds are not subject to the Early Redemption Fee.

Of course, these "specially designed funds" come with those high ERs that hank was talking about.
Here's an earlier MFO thread on the same topic:
https://mutualfundobserver.com/discuss/discussion/5395/penalty-fees-for-short-term-holding

@Sven ---
>> I have invested with DESUX [[assume you mean DSEUX]] several months ago and it has hold its own comparing the DSEEX. At Fidelity, the institutional shares required $5K minimum.

With a $50 fee, no? I also show $100k min for Fido - ?.
I did buy some DLEUX, ntf.

I pass, even with the institutional share with ER 1.35% and a minimum of $250K.

The only item I'd disagree with is the speed of moving money between investments.
If the market goes up more than it goes down, it is preferable on average not to be out of the market longer than necessary. So faster movement is a desirable feature whether you trade several times a month, or a few times a decade.
Having the funds inside a brokerage keeps your time out of the market to a minimum. Otherwise, one can mitigate the problem with funds if one has a cash allocation. If one has, say $10K in cash, and is moving a $5K investment from security A to fund B, one can simultaneously sell A and buy $5K of B out of cash. Later replenish the $5K with the proceeds from the sale when it settles.

@MikeM, I have invested with DESUX several months ago and it has hold its own comparing the DSEEX. At Fidelity, the institutional shares required $5K minimum. The domestic market is moving up due to the expecting tax reform (lower corporate rate) to pass this year. I prefer oversea market with better valuation basis and they are in the early cycle of improving economy.
@jlev, which indicators from Dash of Insight you follow that you found reliable?

https://www.thestreet.com/story/1305526/1/make-a-bundle-on-the-sps-rejects.html

The S&P 500 is often mischaracterized as a passively managed index of large stocks, but in 2000, its managers became seriously aggressive -- adding (and subtracting) four new stocks each month, on average. In the process, the index was systematically stripped of small and mid-sized value stocks from Jan. 28 to Dec. 11 in favor of large-cap growth stocks -- largely from the technology sector, and at exactly the wrong moment.
You didn't know that stocks are sometimes removed from the index for subjective reasons, just as they are at any ol' mutual fund?"

2000 was merely the culmination of five years of irrational exuberance on the part of the S&P committee: "Starting in 1995, it has evicted old stocks from the S&P 500 and stuffed in new ones at an unprecedented pace"
http://money.cnn.com/2001/06/13/zweig_on_funds/zweig_on_funds/a.htm (Jason Zweig)
----
"Good luck on picking a recent winning fund and having that fund repeat its superior performance."
Do I detect a bit of bias? Many of us look at length of management (irrelevant to recent performance), MPT statistics (generally not even available for recent periods under three years), etc.
M* analysts, for whatever else you may think about them, often award gold and silver metals to funds with abhorrent recent performance. YACKX (gold, 87th percentile YTD), BERIX (silver, 91st percentile YTD), DODBX (gold, 77th percentile YTD), FMIJX (gold, 97th percentile YTD), MAPOX (silver, 77th percentile YTD), OAKLX (gold, 89th percentile YTD).
Recent winning performance is not a necessary condition for selecting funds going forward, and I doubt many people here constrain their selections so narrowly.

This includes how Bill Miller considered the S&P 500 index. https://www.mutualfundobserver.com/discuss/discussion/32935/on-beating-the-s-p-500-a-mutual-fund-manager-s-perspective#latest

Again to clarify - I meant that you (or anyone using Vanguard funds as opposed to its brokerage) could use automatic exchanges in lieu of directed dividends.
Advantages of VBS over individual funds are limited, but they do exist:
- For Vanguard funds with both investor class and ETF class shares, the latter cost less; of course you'd need a brokerage account to hold the ETFs.
An alternative is to buy enough to reach Admiral class, assuming you have enough money and assuming Admiral shares exist for the fund; for example VSS has only VFSVX Investor shares, not Admiral shares.
- You can move money from outside investments to Vanguard funds without being out of the market for days.
In a brokerage, you have access to the pending settlement proceeds immediately. But if you want to buy Vanguard funds outside of the brokerage (say, you sold BRK.B in a Vanguard brokerage), you'd have to wait days - for the trade to settle and then to place the order to buy the Vanguard fund. Vanguard says this will take at least four days. I suspect that's old info, given the change from T+3 to T+2.
- Reduced paperwork.
A single 5498 instead of one per fund (for IRAs), a single 1099DIV rather than one per fund. Personally, I think this is little more than a technicality - handling a few extra papers isn't a big deal, especially if you download the tax statements directly into tax prep programs.
---
Curiously, VBS doesn't offer one advantage that I was expecting - the ability to write smaller checks. Checkwriting features of mutual funds usually require some minimum amount for the checks. In Vanguard's case, that's $250. In contrast, brokerages usually have no minimum requirement - you can write checks for a penny if you want. But VBS still has the $250 min.

About 15% of my self managed portfolio has been in DSENX. I decided to start moving some of that money to the International (Europe) fund, DLEUX. I started the process last week.
DSENX has made me a believer in the Shiller CAPE method. I've done well with the domestic fund. Though I told myself I would give the newer fund some time to prove itself, I decided to jump in sooner than later. The CAPE value method seems to work, at least when we are in a value market. My thought here is there is more value right now in Europe than the U.S. I plan to keep moving from domestic CAPE to the European model until the 2 are closer to 50:50.
FWIW, from their website, the 4 sectors DLEUX is invested in as of the end of the 3rd Q.
Consumer Discretionary
Consumer Staples
Health Care
Utilities

Indexes for USAA domestic ETFs
MSCI SELECT VALUE MOMENTUM BLEND INDEXES [home page]
https://www.msci.com/msci-select-value-momentum-blend-indexes

The MSCI Select Value Momentum Blend Indexes are designed to represent the performance of a strategy that seeks higher exposure to value and momentum factors within the parent index while also maintaining moderate index turnover and lower realized volatility than traditional cap weighted indexes...

MSCI USA SMALL CAP SELECT VALUE MOMENTUM BLEND [pdf]
https://www.msci.com/documents/10199/1f9001e4-29fa-4d23-a274-e740dbb6e292
MSCI USA SELECT VALUE MOMENTUM BLEND [pdf]
https://www.msci.com/documents/10199/21e2d160-e14b-426f-9202-f1f501d0c2d7
MSCI Select Value Momentum Blend Indexes Methodology [pdf]
https://www.msci.com/documents/1296102/7137327/MSCI_Select_Value_Momentum_Blend_Indexes_Methodology_August2017.pdf/81e66bd3-db44-4e75-b733-9f765c609ab6
(Don't know how to post images, sorry)
See links above for links to home page and pdf 'factsheets' for each of the above two indexes.
These indexes are the indexes used in the USAA ETFs:
ULVM (large cap)
https://www.usaa.com/investments/etf-details?lookAndFeel=iframe_gadget&ucsp=lookAndFeel#0411
USVM (small cap)
https://www.usaa.com/investments/etf-details?lookAndFeel=iframe_gadget&ucsp=lookAndFeel#0412
While large cap 'looks great' in backtest, anyone else 'troubled' by the underwhelming performance (in the 'backtest') of the USVM/Small Cap index?
Believe it may be due to higher transactions costs for small stocks. A consideration of these is discussed in the following post, which references an apparently-unrelated-to-specific-MSCI-strategy Gerstein Fisher article on combinations of value and momentum strategies.

Hi Guys,
I apologize if these S&P study results were previously posted on MFO. I miss plenty, but much more importantly, the S&P findings conclude that active mutual fund management misses even more. Here are two recent research Links from that firm.
The first essentially concludes that globally about 95% of actively managed funds underperform their Index over periods that exceed 3 years. The specific numbers change but the underperformance is dramatic, is persuasive, and is not too surprising. The second Link talks about fund performance persistence. Again, a very dismal set of statistics is presented. Persistent superior performance simply does not exist, with perhaps a very, very few exceptions.
https://us.spindices.com/documents/spiva/spiva-us-year-end-2016.pdf
https://us.spindices.com/documents/spiva/persistence-scorecard-december-2016.pdf
Enjoy, but much to much detail in these reports. However, the bottomline conclusions are significant and easy enough to understand, Owning a portfolio of actively managed mutual funds is likely ( high probability ) a losers game. Good luck on picking a recent winning fund and having that fund repeat its superior performance. The outlook is not encouraging given the probabilities and the potential excess plus or minus returns relative to a fair Index.
There's a simple solution here.
Best Regards

Cash is trash? That’s a dumb statement.
I wouldn’t tell that to my 88-year old widow neighbor. And while something surely will outperform cash over the next decade, it’s a fool’s errand to pretend to know which asset. Bonds are overpriced. Equities probably so. That leaves real estate, industrial metals, agriculture/timber resources, precious metals and energy. My guess is it’s one of the last group - but only a guess. That’s a pretty short interview. Dalio didn’t say, but I’d have to think a hedge fund would use cash at times while waiting for better opportunities to come along. Another approach is to sell markets short - but it’s expensive and can be deadly if you get caught leaning the wrong way.
-
Added 10/29 The comment by Dalio prompted me to look back in time. Had he said “Cash is trash today” he’d be nearer the mark. Those with short memories may not recall that we got into this situation because Dalio’s “superior“ asset classes mostly crashed and burned beginning in late ‘07 and continuing until March ‘09 when they began turning up. Today’s 1% cash rates are mostly the result of intense efforts by central banks around the world (and here at home) to reflate those assets.
Here’s a link to a longer term interest rate chart. Note that cash wasn’t always so trashy. For many years, especially in the ‘80s bank CDs of relatively short duration yielded in the vicinity of 7-12%. The chart doesn’t show money market fund yields. But my memory is that money market fund yields of 15% or higher were common for several of those same years. http://www.bankrate.com/banking/cds/historical-cd-interest-rates-1984-2016/
Is cash a good inflation hedge? No. Do yields on cash roughly track inflation? Yes. Looking to diversify further, a few months ago I added a limited term bond fund (OUSGX) to the small segment of my portfolio earmarked as an inflation hedge (areas expected to outperform during times of higher inflation). It joins a global bond fund, real estate, a real asset fund and an infrastructure fund in that category. Yield isn’t great right now (around 2%) but it would likely increase if severe inflation were to return.
As a daily reader of one European newspaper, I can tell you parts of the continent, notably the UK, have been dealing with meaningfully rising inflation. I’ve seen anecdotal signs it may be stirring in the U.S. In specific: lumber and construction supplies and fresh produce. The later may be linked to the reduced number of temporary immigrant farm workers coming into the U.S. for harvest and other ag functions.
Sorry so long winded.

I have, what I consider to be, a great fund SVAAX (Federated Strategic Value) that uses both dividend yield and dividend growth strategies plus it pays a monthly distribution with a current yield of about 3.2%. I have owned this fund for better than eight years and my cost basis per share is about $3.80 with a current price of $6.35. My brokerage account statement reflects my annual rate of return on the fund at about 13.0%.
With this, I'm thinking as @Mark wrote above ... "one can have both." But have ... "Patience" ... "Trust the Process" ... "Time to Execute" ... etc.
Indeed, from my perspective, the fund has served me well and makes up about a 50% position in my growth & income domestic equity sleeve. It's other two sleeve members, at about 25% each, are ANCFX (growth strategy) and FDSAX (yield strategy).

This has to be disheartening to Billionaires (or even Millionaires) when the very thing (their financial valuation) is trash. What are future Trillion-aires to do?
I still think many Hundred-aires and Thousand-aires find cash a necessary part of their everyday life and are impacted greatly by its "trashiness".
Here is an interesting read on today's financial alchemy which, in part, explains why "Cash is Trash" and other assets aren't much better.
Volatility and the Alchemy of Risk:
Artemis_Volatility+and+the+Alchemy+of+Risk_2017
Ray on Volatility:

Actually I think one can have both dividend growth and dividend yield if one has a plan, and has the patience to execute it. Trust the process:
https://seekingalpha.com/article/4117315-trust-process?uprof=46&isDirectRoadblock=false
Some on this site think it's utter bunk because of the source (Seeking Alpha) of the linked article but I can say that it has worked for me. I'll leave it to you to draw your own conclusions.

FYI: (Click On Article Title At Top Of Google Search)
Investors need to balance the two popular payout strategies.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.google.com/search?ei=tyL2WarLL8b-jwSH9pigBA&q=Dividend+Growth+Or+Dividend+Yield?+Barron's&oq=Dividend+Growth+Or+Dividend+Yield?+Barron's&gs_l=psy-ab.3..35i39k1.30064.34591.0.34886.9.9.0.0.0.0.84.570.9.9.0....0...1.1.64.psy-ab..0.9.569...33i22i29i30k1.0.DI8-x6mjhBE

FYI: (Click On Article Title At Top Of Google Search)
The first six agenda items for next month’s Vanguard shareholder meeting cover riveting topics such as the appointment of trustees, service agreements, and the investment objectives of certain index funds. The seventh and final item concerns genocide.
That got serious in a hurry.
A group of activists is asking Vanguard to adopt a new policy...
Regards,
Ted
https://www.google.com/search?source=hp&ei=0kD0WameIoKUjwSG6pko&q=Vanguard’s+Genocide+Problem+Barron's&oq=Vanguard’s+Genocide+Problem+Barron's&gs_l=psy-ab.3...6307.11470.0.11775.12.11.0.0.0.0.76.646.10.11.0....0...1.1j2.64.psy-ab..1.8.564.6..35i39k1j33i160k1j33i21k1.104.S6R5KWZ3TXA

FYI: UBS AG (UBSG.S) will pay a $3.5 million civil fine to settle U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission claims that it overcharged customers on mutual funds, the regulator said on Friday.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-ubs-sec/sec-fines-ubs-3-5-million-for-overcharging-mutual-fund-customers-idUSKBN1CW2Z5

To take a medical deduction, you need proof of two different things:
1) That a qualified medical expense was incurred, and
2) That you paid the expense.
Old checks should suffice for #2, but you should also have proof of #1. That check to your dentist might have been for an electric toothbrush. Your doctor might be your next door neighbor who just sold you his old lawnmower.
EOBs and doctor bills seem to be good ways to show what services were paid for.
Regarding using HSAs for Medicare premiums - watch out for a gotcha.
From IRS Pub 969: "if you, the account beneficiary, are not 65 or older, Medicare premiums for coverage of your spouse or a dependent (who is 65 or older) generally aren’t qualified medical expenses."