TimesSquare Capital is a welcome addition. However, it will start with only a small sliver of the fund. Vanguard might send new cash its way while not reducing the amount managed by the other firms. Just a possibility - one that would minimize turnover.

Following the transition, TimesSquare Capital will initially manage a modest portion of the fund (less than 5%), with its allocation expected to grow over time. Schroders, which has managed the fund since its inception in 1996, will oversee approximately 66 per cent of the fund. Wellington, which was added as an advisor in 2010, will manage approximately 29 per cent of the fund with the remainder in equitized cash investments.

http://www.wealthadviser.co/2017/08/02/254593/timessquare-capital-join-advisory-team-vanguard-international-explorer-fund
Schroder is also a fine fit for this fund. It ran the fund well from its inception as Schroder International Smaller Companies (SSCIX) through 2002 when Vanguard acquired and rebranded it, until mid 2010 when Wellington was added as a manager.
I remain less than thrilled with Wellington's international management skills (as I've commented about before). VINEX did not fare particularly well in the first couple of years after the mid 2010 addition of Wellington. 2011 (90th percentile) and 2012 (68th percentile) were not good years, though it has generally done much better since (except last year).
If you want to get a purer view of how Wellington management has done with international small caps, you can look at HNSYX. It's been co-managed by Simon Thomas (who is the Wellington manager for VINEX) and Daniel Maguire (also of Wellington) since 2006. An okay fund, but not one that stands out.
Note that HSNYX was closed in 2016. It currently has $422M AUM. VINEX currently has $3.6B AUM, 29% of which (about $1B, i.e. over double the size of HSNYX) will continue to be managed by Wellington, at least for now.
Finally, I wonder whether the addition of TimesSquare Capital will accelerate VINEX's drift toward growth stocks. My vague recollection is that VINEX started out as a value fund. M* still classifies it as blend, though its portfolio drifted into growth three years ago, where it has remained.
Perhaps Vanguard will reduce Wellington's AUM and shift them to TimesSquare. The numbers suggest that would help improve the fund.

Recently, mfs posted one of Old_Skeet's portfolio's dating back to December of 2015 that was linked back in 2016. For easy reference I am providing this same link beow.
http://mutualfundobserver.com/discuss/discussion/24926/old-skeet-s-new-portfolio-asset-allocations-2016
As there has been a good bit of changes in the holdings since then I am linking through this post the most current portfolio's holdings. A good bit of money has been moved left within the portfolio (since December of 15) into more conserative investments as the stock market has become more richly priced. Some sleeves and their holdings have been increased while others have been reduced. The growth area of the portfolio is where I am the most active with positioning naturally some takes place within the other sleeves as well. In tracking my portfolio through Morningstar Portfolio Manager it has had an investment return (excluding cash) year-to-date through July 2017 of 9.1% and for my bogey (The Lipper Balanced Index) 8.4%.
So, where did the money go?
From the reduction in the number of funds held in the growth & income area, the domestic equity sleeve was reduced from six funds to three funds. In the growth area funds were reduced from six to three in the global growth sleeve and from four to three in the large/mid cap sleeve. These monies were used to expand the holdings in the income area form thirteen funds to eighteen along with restablishing my CD ladder. So, indeed a good bit of money was moved left within the portfolio while some was added to current positions in the growth & income and growth areas plus there were also a holding change made within the global hybrid sleeve and some funds were moved from one sleeve to another. So, with this one can see Old_Skeet had indeed been active.
Sleeve Management System ... Here is how it works.
Now being in retirement here is a brief description of my sleeve management system which I organized to help better manage the investments held within mine & my wife’s combined portfolios. Currently, the master portfolio is comprised of two taxable investment accounts, two self directed retirement accounts, a health savings account plus two bank accounts. With this, I came up with four investment areas. They are a cash area which consist of two sleeves … an investment cash sleeve and a demand cash sleeve. The next area is the income area which consists of two sleeves … a fixed income sleeve and a hybrid income sleeve. Then there is the growth & income area which has more risk associated with it than the income area and it consist of four sleeves … a global equity sleeve, a global hybrid sleeve, a domestic equity sleeve and a domestic hybrid sleeve. An finally there is the growth area, where the most risk in the portfolio is found and it consist of five sleeves … a global sleeve, a large/mid cap sleeve, a small/mid cap sleeve, a specialty/theme sleeve plus a special investment (spiff) sleeve. Each sleeve (in most cases) consists of three to nine funds with the size and the weight of each sleeve can easily be adjusted, from time-to-time, by adjusting the number of funds and amounts held. By using the sleeve system one can get a better picture of their overall investment landscape and weightings by sleeve and area. In addition, I have found it beneficial to Xray each fund, each sleeve, each investment area, and the portfolio as a whole quarterly. Again, weightings can be adjusted form time-to-time as to how I might be reading the markets along with using a market barometer that drives an equity allocation weighting matrix as an aid to help set the stock allocation weighting. All funds pay their distributions to the cash area of the portfolio with the exception being those in my health savings accounts where reinvestment occurs. With the other accounts paying to the cash area builds the cash area of the portfolio to meet the portfolio’s monthly cash disbursement amount (if necessary) with the residual being left for new investment opportunity. Generally, in any one year, I take no more than a sum equal to one half of my portfolio’s average five year return. In this way, principal builds over time. In addition, most buy/sell trades settle from, or to, the cash area with some net asset value exchanges between funds taking place between funds.
Last revised: 07/31/2017 Master Portfolio
Here is how I have my asset allocation broken out in percent ranges, by area. My neutral allocation weightings are cash 20%, income 30%, growth & income 35%, growth & other assets 15%. I do an Instant Xray analysis on the portfolio quarterly (sometimes monthly) and make asset weighting adjustments as I feel warranted based upon my assessment of the market, my risk tolerance, cash needs, etc. Currently, according to Morningstar Instant Xray, I am about 20% in the cash area, 25% in the income area, 35% domestic stock area, 15% foreign stock area & 5% in the other asset area. In addition, I have the portfolio set up in Morningstar’s Portfolio Manager by sleeve and as a whole for easy monitoring plus I use brokerage account statements along with some other Morningstar reports for information and tools helpful in managing the portfolio.
Cash Area (Weighting Range 15% to 25% with neutral weighting being 20%)
Demand Cash Sleeve… (Cash Distribution Accrual & Future Investment Accrual)
Investment Cash Sleeve … (Savings & Time Deposits)
Income Area (Weighting Range 25% to 35% with neutral weighting being 30%)
Fixed Income Sleeve: BAICX, CTFAX, FMTNX, GIFAX, LALDX, LBNDX, NEFZX, THIFX & TSIAX
Hybrid Income Sleeve: APIUX, AZNAX, CAPAX, DIFAX, FISCX, FKINX, ISFAX, JNBAX & PGBAX
Growth & Income Area (Weighting Range 30% to 40% with neutral being 35%)
Global Equity Sleeve: CWGIX, DEQAX & EADIX
Global Hybrid Sleeve: CAIBX, PMAIX & TIBAX
Domestic Equity Sleeve: ANCFX, FDSAX & SVAAX
Domestic Hybrid Sleeve: ABALX, AMECX, DDIAX, FBLAX, FRINX, HWIAX & LABFX
Growth Area (Weighting Range 10% to 20% with neutral weighting being 15%)
Global Sleeve: ANWPX, SMCWX & THOAX
Large/Mid Cap Sleeve: AGTHX, SPECX & VADAX
Small/Mid Cap Sleeve: PCVAX, PMDAX & TSVAX
Specialty & Theme Sleeve: LPEFX, PGUAX & NEWFX
Spiff Sleeve: None at this time.
Total Number of Mutual Fund Positions = 46

Hi @DavidV,
Pursuant to your inquiry.
I had to go back in the stack and look for post that contained writtings about the barometer. Below are a few of the links dating back to February 2017 where the barometer was discussed in some detail. There are some others but you will have to troll to find them.
http://www.mutualfundobserver.com/discuss/discussion/31155/the-markets-and-more-january-31-2017#latest
http://www.mutualfundobserver.com/discuss/discussion/31176/the-markets-more-february-3-2017#latest
http://www.mutualfundobserver.com/discuss/discussion/31302/the-markets-and-more-tuesday-february-14-2017#latest
http://www.mutualfundobserver.com/discuss/discussion/31322/the-markets-and-more-wednesday-february-15-2017#latest
I hope this information is helpful.
Old_Skeet

Not Old_Skeet, but is this what your looking for:
@DavidV
There has been news of late that centers around possible war with North Korea and its effect this is currently having on a richly priced stock market. No doubt, my thinking is, big money has the markets levered up and with this recent news of possible war money is being called home to delever their exposure in the stock market.
Over the past three weeks Old_Skeet's barometer has move from a reading of 143 to 146 to 152 for its weekly close. The barometer measures certain elements of the S&P 500 Index. A barometer reading of 150 represents the mid point of fair value. A reading of 143 would indicate that the Index was about 5% overvalued and now with a reading of 152 just slightly undervalued. The barometer has three feeds. An earnings feed, a breath feed and a technical score feed. With this, it combines both fundmentals and technicals to produce a numerical reading. Generally, a higher barometer reading indicates there is more investment value in the 500 Index over a lower barometer reading.

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1004655/000093247117004797/whitehallmergedsupps.htm
497 1 whitehallmergedsupps.htm WHITEHALL 497E
Vanguard International ExplorerTM Fund
Supplement to the Prospectus and Summary Prospectus Dated February 23, 2017
Restructuring of the Investment Advisory Team
The board of trustees of Vanguard International Explorer Fund approved adding TimesSquare Capital Management, LLC (TimesSquare Capital) to the Fund’s investment advisory team.
Effective immediately, TimesSquare Capital will manage a portion of the Fund’s assets.
TimesSquare Capital and the Fund’s other investment advisors—Schroder Investment Management North America Inc. and Wellington Management Company LLP—each independently select and maintain a portfolio of common stocks for the Fund. The Fund’s board of trustees determines the proportion of the Fund’s assets to be managed by each advisor and may change these proportions at any time.
The Fund’s expense ratio, investment objective, principal investment strategies, and principal risks are not expected to change.
Prospectus and Summary Prospectus Text Changes
The following is added under the heading “Investment Advisors”:
TimesSquare Capital Management, LLC (TimesSquare Capital)
In the same section, the following is added to the list of Portfolio Managers:
Magnus S. Larsson, Senior Vice President and Portfolio Manager of TimesSquare Capital. He has managed a portion of the Fund since August 2017.
(over, please)
Prospectus Text Changes
The following is added to “Security Selection” section under More on the Fund:
TimesSquare Capital Management, LLC (TimesSquare Capital) employs a bottom-up investment process driven by fundamental equity growth research conducted by its investment analysts, with a particular emphasis on the assessment of management quality, an in-depth understanding of superior business models, and valuation discrepancies.
TimesSquare Capital invests the Fund’s assets in a diversified portfolio of stocks that it believes, based on its research, will generate superior risk-adjusted returns. TimesSquare Capital’s research process begins with a collaborative team of skilled and experienced analysts, which identify superior growth businesses with market capitalizations less than $5 billion at the time of purchase. Once a company is identified, rigorous fundamental analysis is performed, projected growth rate and return potential is calculated, and the company’s valuation is assessed on a relative and absolute basis. A company’s relative value is compared to industry peers, as well as firms with similar business models and at a similar point on the value chain. TimesSquare Capital’s sell decisions are based on the same research process, and securities would generally be sold when, among other things, there is no longer high conviction in the return potential of the investment, or when the advisor identifies a significantly more attractive investment candidate.
The following is added to the “Investment Advisors” section:
TimesSquare Capital Management, LLC, 7 Times Square, 42nd Floor, New York, New York 10036, is a registered investment advisor that specializes in small- and mid-cap growth equities. TimesSquare Capital’s institutional partner, Affiliated Managers Group, Inc. (AMG), a publicly traded global asset management company, indirectly holds a majority equity interest in TimesSquare Capital, with the remaining portion owned by TimesSquare Capital principals. As of June 30, 2017, TimesSquare Capital managed approximately $17.2 billion in assets for AMG funds, corporations, public funds, unions, endowments and foundations, retirement plans, and other institutional accounts.
In the same section, the following is added to the list of portfolio managers:
Magnus S. Larsson, Senior Vice President and Portfolio Manager at TimesSquare Capital. He has worked in investment management since 1995, has managed investment portfolios since 2000, has been with TimesSquare Capital since 2012, and has managed a portion of the Fund since August 2017. Education: B.S., B.A., University of Orebro, Sweden.
© 2017 The Vanguard Group, Inc. All rights reserved.
Vanguard Marketing Corporation, Distributor.
PS 126A 082017....

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1006783/000110465917051828/a17-20197_1497.htm
497 1 a17-20197_1497.htm 497
TURNER FUNDS
Turner Midcap Growth Fund
Turner Small Cap Growth Fund
Turner Titan Long/Short Fund
Supplement dated August 14, 2017
to the Summary Prospectus, Prospectus and
Statement of Additional Information (“SAI”) dated January 27, 2017
THIS SUPPLEMENT PROVIDES NEW AND ADDITIONAL INFORMATION BEYOND THAT CONTAINED IN THE SUMMARY PROSPECTUS, THE PROSPECTUS AND THE SAI. THIS SUPPLEMENT SHOULD BE READ IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE SUMMARY PROSPECTUS, THE PROSPECTUS AND THE SAI.
On July 20, 2017, the Board of Trustees of the Turner Funds (the “Trust”) determined to dissolve Turner Midcap Growth Fund, Turner Small Cap Growth Fund and Turner Titan Long/Short Fund (each, a “Fund” and collectively, the “Funds”) and therefore the Funds will begin the complete liquidation of their assets. In connection with the liquidations, the Funds may hold more cash, cash equivalents or other short-term investments than normal, which may prevent a Fund from meeting its stated investment objective. On August 12, 2017, the Board of Trustees of the Trust approved the closure of the Funds to purchases and redemptions and the liquidation of the Funds.
Accordingly, effective 4:00 p.m. (Eastern time) on August 14, 2017, the Funds will no longer accept orders from new investors or existing shareholders to purchase Fund shares. Each Fund may distribute a portion of its assets in cash pro rata to shareholders to avoid being subject to federal income or excise taxes. On or about the close of business on September 8, 2017 (the “Liquidation Date”), the Funds will no longer accept orders from investors to redeem Fund shares and the Funds will distribute as soon as reasonably practicable thereafter all of their assets in cash pro rata to their respective shareholders. All outstanding shares will be redeemed and cancelled and the Funds will then be terminated as series of the Trust.
Shareholders should consult their personal tax advisers concerning their tax situation and the impact of the liquidation on their tax situation.
PLEASE RETAIN THIS SUPPLEMENT FOR FUTURE REFERENCE

@LLJB,
Thank you for your question. I am sorry for the delayed response but I was out of pocket most of the day due to another family member's medical issues. I hate to be short with an answer but I also did not want my response to linger.
I use the Lipper Balanced Index for several reason. 1) It is easy to reference and track along with 2) it represents the combined performance of the most widely held hybrid funds plus 3) I have used it for a good number of years and have historical data that centers around it.
Since, my portfolio is pretty much a balanced portfolio with an equity allocation ranging form 45% to 55% equity. I use my market barometer which I have written about previsouly to drive an equity weighting matrix which in turn is used as an aid to help me throttle my equity allocation within my portfolio.
With this ... I felt the Lipper Balanced Index was a good choice for a bogey and, again, it has been my standard for a good number of years.
Thanks again, for your inquiry.
Skeet

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/almost-no-one-can-beat-the-market-2013-10-25
...
The author specifically noted that only about 1% of the investing public (that included individual investors and mutual fund managers) generate positive Alphas relative to a fair representative benchmark.

In only two places did the author specifically note the 1% figure:

"Fewer than 1% of mutual fund managers persistently beat the market based on superior market-timing or stock-picking skills," and
"research by Brad Barber of UC Davis and Terrance Odean of UC Berkeley who found that only about 1% of active traders outperformed the market."

The bottom line is that there's nothing in the column that specifically notes only about 1% of the investing public generate positive alpha. Just the opposite:
"The more frequently people trade, the worse they do." (Another quote from the column.) So the investing public at large (including both active traders and others who trade less) does better than these "active" traders alone, i.e. more than 1% beat the market.
It's not even close.
Since the 1% line about active traders was attributed in the column to Odean and Barber, why not go to the source? In the Table 1 that I mentioned above, is an entry summarizing an Odean and Barber paper. It states that "the average individual investor underperforms a market index by 1.5% per year. Active traders underperform by 6.5% annually."
Think about that. The average individual investor outperforms active traders by 5%. The terminology from research paper perfectly aligns with your terminology ("individual investors") and terminology in the column ("active traders").

Hi Guys,
These exchanges suggest a considerable misunderstanding of my posts. I'll accept responsibility that I did not clearly state my position or intent. Sorry about that failure. Someday I'll learn to express myself more precisely.
In no way did I mean to be critical of anyone's investment policy or tactics. That's far above my pay grade. We all have specific investment objectives that are unique to each of us. More power to the individual investor. We choose our own pathway to wealth and happiness.
I failed to clearly distinguish the difference between an active investor and a day trader. A day trader is definitely an active trader, but all active traders are not day traders. I'm not sure that I can precisely define an active trader. How many trades per year or what average holding period defines an active trader? Any inputs to this question are highly encouraged.
The 1% number that has been linked to my posts comes from an earlier reference that I made on these postings. For completeness, I repeat it here:
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/almost-no-one-can-beat-the-market-2013-10-25
That brief article opened wth the following paragraph:
"Year after year, decade after decade, evidence has piled up that neither individual nor professional investors can outperform broad market indexes consistently over long periods of time."
The author specifically noted that only about 1% of the active investing public (that included active individual investors and mutual fund managers) generate positive Alphas relative to a fair representative benchmark.
I assumed that that statistic is approximately accurate. It need not be exactly right! That statistic speaks to the hard challenges for all investors. It is goodness to be in that limited grouping. Old Skeet managed to fall into this highly successful, elite group. More power to him. I only meant to praise him for overcoming difficult odds. Hooray for Old Skeet!!
Sorry that my writing style did not make my good feelings for Old Skeet's success more positive.. I wish his success for all of us.
Best Wishes

@David: So the color coding does not align with the 1-5 ratings?

Hi @Old_Skeet, I'm just wondering why you chose the Lipper Balanced fund to benchmark your performance. Since it's an index created out of the largest 30 balanced funds and weighted by AUM (I believe), you end up comparing your portfolio to other mostly active funds. Presumably those funds, in total, have a similar asset class weighting to yours even though the range of the funds that make up the index seems to be fairly big. It also means the very large funds, like American Funds Balanced and Vanguard Wellington, carry more weight in the index than most others. I didn't do all the math so I can't say for sure but it looks possible that these two funds account for more than 35% of the index.
I track my performance against a collection of benchmarks, partly because my asset allocation adjusts more than yours does over time, but I just use a 60% Total Stock Market or Total World Stock Market and 40% Total Bond Market as my 'balanced' benchmarks. I'm wondering whether you might have better reasons than I did for choosing the Lipper Index?
Thanks in advance and congratulations on your results!!

Hi folks,
Old_Skeet did not have any intentions what-so-ever to start a riff in this thread. But, know it seems one might be forming (let's hope not). In addition, I have a few comments.
I am not a day trader by any means; however, form time-to-time I will position my portfolio to take advantage of what I am finding to be the faster moving currents within the markets and weight accordingly and to reduce risk as well when I feel it is warranted. In today's time it is hard to beat (from my perspective) the flash crowd through day trading activity although a few might be successful most, by my thinking, will fail. I have seen a good number of what I consider to be relative smart people lose a good bit of money day trading with some experiencing life changing events (and not for the good). Day trading is not for me and I have never ventured into any form of activity that might be considered day trading. Asset positioning is something very different. My high school engineer buddy was a day trader that lost a considerable amount day trading. Today, he is an indexer.
Since, some of my portfolio holdings have changed since December 2015 that was recently posted for reference by mfs, I'll update it with current positions and post it under the thread "What Are You Buying Selling and/or Pondering?" in the near future. Know, since my retirement I have been moving towards expanding my footprint in hybrid type funds for more than one reason. From my thinking this is making my portfolio more adaptive to the ever changing market conditions and increasing the portfolio's capacity to generate income. For those that might be able to do a look back to some of the old published portfolios I am sure you will easily find there has indeed been some holding changes.
Peace ... and, it's time to move on.
Skeet

I'm familiar with the paper you just cited. Its Table 1 summarizes other papers. Only in that table, in the entry where it summarizes the paper I quoted, does one find the 1% figure you attached to Skeet.
So once again I ask, why are you lumping Skeet in with day traders?
If you're not, then the 1% quote is irrelevant. For that matter, do you have any evidence that the paper you just cited is relevant to Skeet? It says that "Many hold poorly diversified portfolios." Really, do you think that this sounds anything like Skeet?
Old_Skeet's New Portfolio Asset Allocations (2016)
http://mutualfundobserver.com/discuss/discussion/24926/old-skeet-s-new-portfolio-asset-allocations-2016
You might want to take a closer look at another paper cited (indirectly) by the Marketwatch column: the 2010 Barras, Scaillet, and Wermers paper. You'll need to read the paper itself, not just the two sentences in the article referenced in Marketwatch.
The authors "find that 75% of funds exhibit a zero alpha (net of expenses)". So it's still not that hard for fund managers to outperform the market by enough to cover expenses - something that index funds can't do.

Hi Msf,
I specifically quoted from the Link that you discussed because of its brevity. MFOErs are busy folks and might not be inclined to read extensive documentation. Barber and Odean generated many documents that illustrated the futility of frequent trading. These included summarizes of their own studies as well as industry and academic works. Their documentation is often very extensive.
Here is a Link to one such survey study:
https://poseidon01.ssrn.com/delivery.php?ID=324008102071125095121123001096091092127013047085066030022006029120125110111114126108121034058014030047028087107017083080083069058066022051042120001093126080002011009017091099018123028093003020089116098026071106066082068022120015066030076121110&EXT=pdf
The conclusion from this 54 page report is presented immediately below for individual investors:
"They trade frequently and have perverse stock selection ability, incurring unnecessary investment costs and return losses. They tend to sell their winners and hold their losers, generating unnecessary tax liabilities. Many hold poorly diversified portfolios, resulting in unnecessarily high levels of diversifiable risk, and many are unduly influenced by media and past experience. Individual investors who ignore the prescriptive advice to buy and hold low-fee, well-diversified portfolios, generally do so to their detriment."
That's not me talking. It is Barber and Odean. Actually, I'm more optimistic than they are. There are many exceptions with returns far above a disappointing average.
Best Wishes

From Bloomberg - "Nir Kaissar is a Bloomberg Gadfly columnist covering the markets. He is the founder of Unison Advisors, an asset management firm. He has worked as a lawyer at Sullivan & Cromwell and a consultant at Ernst & Young."
Prospectus (of sorts) for Unison advisors LLC :
http://unisonadvisors.com/Unison-ADV-Part-II.pdf
It is dated 2012, at which time Mr. Kaissar appeared to be the primary owner.
"As of March 26, 2012, Unison managed $18,241,839 on a discretionary basis and $0 on a non- discretionary basis"
For comparison, T. Rowe Price (whom Mr. Kaissar tales a mild swing at) recently reported assets under management of $861.6 Billion. https://www3.troweprice.com/usis/corporate/en/press/t--rowe-price-group-reports-first-quarter-2017-results/jcr:content/article-pdf/pdffile/jcr:content
I've found in my near 25 years with Price that they are often early in their market prognosis - sometimes painfully early. But that they are seldom wrong.

Much of what Philidor did was to serve as the preferred pharmacy for Valeant's drugs. That meant that you could take a Valeant coupon to Philidor and get a brand name drug for a small copayment. I should know - I got a drug that goes for around $1200 for about $35 there.
Once Philidor closed down, Valeant moved its program to Walgreen's. Hardly a fly-by-night pharmacy.
http://www.valeantaccessprogram.com/
While this is common practice among drug companies, the federal government considers it a kickback, and prohibits the use of coupons if you're covered by Medicare. Thus Valent (and other drug providers) add the footnote:
"This offer is not valid for any person eligible for reimbursement of prescriptions, in whole or in part, by any federal, state, or other governmental programs, including, but not limited to, Medicare (including Medicare Advantage and Part A, B, and D plans), Medicaid, TRICARE, Veterans Administration or Department of Defense health coverage, CHAMPUS, the Puerto Rico Government Health Insurance Plan, or any other federal or state health care programs. "
Here's an article in Modern Health Care about these coupon programs, how they work, and how they're actually raising the cost of drugs to all of us.

Hi Old Skeet,
Congratulations on your investing success story. But not many share your experience. According to much investor research and many research conclusions, it is a rather rare happening.
That observation is "in line with research by Brad Barber of UC Davis and Terrance Odean of UC Berkeley who found that only about 1% of active traders outperformed the market. The more frequently people trade, the worse they do."
It's traffic that you are in that rare 1% grouping. Here is the Link that I extracted that quote from:
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/almost-no-one-can-beat-the-market-2013-10-25

Did I miss Skeet saying he was a day trader?
That's what the 1% figure from Barber, Odean, et al. is referring to. (It's notable that the quote is from the Marketwatch columnist, not the academics, and cites no paper. In other places in the column, the columnist gives links. That omission allows me a bit of play in pulling actual research to conclude that "active" trader meant "day" trader.)
Quoting from Barber, Lee, Liu, Odean, "Do Day Traders Rationally Learn About Their Ability" (October 2010):

Day trading is the purchase and sale of the same stock by an investors on a day. We argue that these intraday trades are almost certainly speculative. ...
We are not the first to study day trading, though the sample of day traders we study is much large and the time-series much longer than those in prior studies. The one exception to this generalization being [another paper by] Barber, Lee, Liu, and Odean who identify a small subset of day traders (less than 1% of the day trading population) predictably earn profits.

@shostakovich That depends on how you define legit. There are a lot of activities a business can engage in that are perfectly legal that are still signs of bad corporate governance and mismanagement. Much of Valeant's business I think is legal. The constant M&A activity done via leverage, the absence of R&D, the laying off of staff and jacking up drug prices were probably all legal, but not a sustainable or ethical business model. The activity with mail-order pharmacy Philidor is probably illegal and could prove a real avenue for prosecution. But this is a real business for the most part that is now dangerously overleveraged. If they could pay down a significant amount of that debt and its valuation stayed where it was now, it would now be a legitimate value investment worthy of owning if an investor doesn't care about ethics.
The thing is how does a fund reach Sequoia's level of concentration in a highly priced overleveraged stock with lots of governance problems without its money managers recognizing those risks and either reducing the position or selling it outright. If it was just a small 1% position in a 100 stock portfolio it wouldn't have been a big deal. But Sequoia allowed Valeant to grow to be in excess of 25% of the fund, and added to the position as these scandals broke. How can any manager claim to have done full due diligence on a position of this size and not recognized these risks posed a threat? And how can any manager claim at the time it was a good value stock? In 2015 when Sequoia's ownership of it peaked, the stock had a p-e ratio of 58, a price-book ratio of 5.5 and price-cash flow of 14.3. Those valuations were all in excess of double the average stock's in the S&P 500. And it was highly leveraged at the time and remains so. Today it's price-cash flow is 2.1. If it can get out from under its debt load, it will be a great value stock.

Hi Old Skeet,
Congratulations on your investing success story. But not many share your experience. According to much investor research and many research conclusions, it is a rather rare happening.
That observation is "in line with research by Brad Barber of UC Davis and Terrance Odean of UC Berkeley who found that only about 1% of active traders outperformed the market. The more frequently people trade, the worse they do,"
It's terrific that you are in that rare 1% grouping. Here is the Link that I extracted that quote from:
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/almost-no-one-can-beat-the-market-2013-10-25
There are dozens of such reports, all with similar conclusions. I particularly selected that reference because of its title. The title says it all: "Almost No One Can Beat The Market". Indeed you are in a very rarified atmosphere.
You make an excellent closing observation. Many MFOers greatly enjoy the investment challenge. That's a terrific reason to actively participate. Unfortunately, the assembled performance data demonstrates that it is a costly practice for the major fraction of most of us. Perhaps it would be less costly and more healthful to commit to some outdoor physical exercise or to do some indoor book reading.
But there are exceptions that motivate us. Again, a hearty well done to you!
Best Wishes

Please find the following links to our first-ever Zoom Webinars ... both sessions generated positive feedback and follow-up ... several questions in first session especially. As touted by chip, thought the process was easy, which bodes well for future sessions.
Please fast-forward past the funny looking host with spectacles at beginning! Will be sure to better align camera angle next time. The sound, intro charts, and live demos though came out well.
I've included link to our intro charts as well, which includes summary of concurrent chat session questions/comments.

• MFO Premium Search Tools Webinar Recording - Wednesday, 16 August 2017, 3 pm Eastern
  
• MFO Premium Search Tools Webinar Recording - Wednesday, 16 August 2017, 8 pm Eastern
  
• Intro Charts

Thank you all for attending and your continued support!
As David discussed in this month's commentary, gentle reminder that we will be providing a live, interactive walk through of the MFO Premium screeners and analytics.
Throughout our intention will be to highlight unique insights those tools provide individual investors and financial advisers … and the attendant benefits to themselves and their clients.
Plan on about 1 hour. There are two sessions scheduled for this coming Wednesday, one at 3 pm eastern, and one at 8 pm eastern.
If you have not already received a registration confirmation, you can register directly via the links below:

• MFO Premium Search Tools Webinar - Wednesday, 16 August 2017, 3 pm Eastern
  
• MFO Premium Search Tools Webinar - Wednesday, 16 August 2017, 8 pm Eastern