FYI: As part of its ongoing series on 529 account owner
behavior, Vanguard recently reviewed the investment
saving behavior of a random sample of its 529 client
plan account owners. Our analysis revealed a number
of positive trends. First, we found that the use of 529
plans continues to increase, absolutely and relative to
other savings vehicles not specifically designed for
college. Second, 529 college savers are starting early,
giving them more time to benefit from the compounding
of investment earnings and tax savings. Finally, account
owners are contributing more regularly by making
automatic payments. As our results show, regular
contributors save more.
Regards,
Ted
https://pressroom.vanguard.com/nonindexed/529-plan-savers-earn-better-grades.pdf

Yea, even with my own millennials it's hard to convince them that investing in the tried and true hitters who spray it all over the field year after year is a better bet than the hitter who cranks out a grand slam once every 5-10 years.
However, if they wanted to construct an investing motif of their five to ten best tech stock ideas I wouldn't discourage them.

I don't give a hoot about meeting any particular performance benchmark but my own.
If a fund I hold gains 16% and everyone else gains 25% in a given year, I am not worried; it's still a very solid rate of return imho. Conversely, if a given fund loses significantly less than everyone else, I will chalk that up as a 'win' for the year, as it shows some concern over downside risks and/or good allocations.
And besides, one year does not matter if you're a long-term fund investor. Unless you're in a bubble, not everything moves equally and in the same direction at all times.

Attacking the fund in this environment is a failure to understand Foster's strategy. He is a defensive risk-averse emerging markets investor. When the average emerging fund is up 21.5% in 6 1/2 months like in 2017, this fund will probably lag. Anyone complaining about its 16.5% return instead of 21.5% is suffering from a bit of irrational exuberance. Foster ran Matthews Asian Growth & Income for six years with the same defensive strategy. It too would lag in go-go markets and shine in more stable or bearish ones.

With all due respect, I don't put much weight behind the fact that the fund has struggled for a year. Given Foster's history, I would give him the benefit of the doubt for now. As Ted said, the fund's 3 and 5-year performance is very good. I would give Foster the benefit of the doubt that he will turn it around. In addition, I don't believe SFGIX is considered a total EM fund, so it may lag other EM funds that are more comprehensive.

@BenWP: No question SFGIX has had a difficult time of it YTD and 1-Year, putting it in the 85 and 93 percentile. However, its 3 & 5 year performance is excellent with a 5th and 7th percentile ranking. I guess its a question of what have you done for me lately. I recommend if thing don't improve significantly by the end of 2017, I'd dump Foester
Regards,
Ted
M*: SFGIX Performance:
http://performance.morningstar.com/fund/performance-return.action?t=SFGIX&region=usa&culture=en-US

http://updates.seafarerfunds.com/t/ViewEmail/r/ABC6E0301B01329A2540EF23F30FEDED/A8EFEBE0ED2CC0EB4D402EFBD42943A3
Shareholders of SFGIX, myself included, probably received an email with Andrew Foster's latest video. I did not watch the whole thing but I did listen carefully as Foster struggled to explain why the fund has failed to keep pace with its bogey for four quarters running. Not buying Chinese internet stocks did not sit well with me as good reasoning. I know many on the board own the fund and I, for one, believed we'd be rewarded in a year when EM stocks have been on a tear. Do others share my disappointment?

Fake quote: snopes.com/quotes/einstein/interest.asp
Aside from its dubious provenance, the quote is incompatible with Einstein's overall political philosophy. Einstein was a socialist. He wrote an essay entitled "Why Socialism?" in which he stated:

The economic anarchy of capitalist society as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of the evil.

and

I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy, accompanied by an educational system which would be oriented toward social goals.

You can see the wiki on it here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Why_Socialism%3F
You can also read the essay in its entirety here:
https://monthlyreview.org/2009/05/01/why-socialism/
I suspect even the author of this link on investing doesn't believe Einstein said that comment about compound interest. He states:

It is alleged that Albert Einstein was asked what is the most powerful force in the universe and he replied: “Compound interest.”

It is alleged that such alleging is utter poppycock.

@Charles: I'm glad to see so many funds, although 9,500 wouldn't be missed ! That gives some MFO Members a greater number of funds to collect !
Regards,
Ted

FYI: If you’ve spent any time watching professional sports, whether live or on television, you’ve no doubt heard a variation on this phrase hundreds of times: “this is brought to you by brand X, the official sponsor of the league.” Now, there’s an exchange-traded fund that tracks those sponsors.
The ProSports Sponsors ETF FANZ, -0.05% which made its debut on Tuesday, only holds companies that partner with one of the four major U.S. sports leagues: the National Football League, the National Hockey League, Major League Baseball, and the National Basketball Association. This is separate from team sponsors; for example, Citigroup Inc C, -1.10% and the New York Mets, who play at Citi Field.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/etf-dedicated-to-pro-sports-sponsorships-steps-up-to-the-plate-2017-07-11/print

oh, sure
like a lot of macro types the points made often seem a little late, but that is built into that kind of role
this caused me to buy some EM
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/videos/2017-05-19/jurrien-timmer-on-being-bullish-on-emerging-markets-video
but again, not the newest new news exactly.

Looking at a total return graph comparing POAGX, RPMGX and VETAX on M* I fail to see the benefit of holding VETAX. It appears to track RPMGX like a shadow (or vice versa) so what benefit is being gained other than perceived manager diversification?

Thanks for the comment Mark. I'm quite sure that the folks at Victory Funds would be very pleased at the performance comparison with Brian Berghuis and the TRP Mid-Cap team. RPMGX is my single biggest holding, residing in both a taxable and IRA accounts.
You are absolutely correct in that their aggregate performance over 3, 5 and 10 year timelines are very similar. However, their performance by year varies dramatically...evidenced by the 2016 performance of RPMGX at 6.3%, versus VETAX at 20.66%. This variability works in my favor I believe, given how I manage my withdrawals.
A portfolio comparison shows very little overlap...perhaps explained by the AUM difference.
All in all...I think having 3 good management teams in one space is a good thing...IMHO.

We started rating Money Market funds this month. If for no other reason then to help track asset flows. Using similar reasoning, we also now include funds that are just one month old.
Lipper tracks 11 categories under the "Money Market" SubType (umbrella): Money Market, Money Market Instl, Money Market Tax-Exempt, Money Market Instl Tax-Exempt, Money Market U.S. Government, Money Market Instl U.S. Government, Money Market U.S., Treasury, Money Market Instl U.S. Treasury, Money Market California Tax-Exempt, Money Market New York Tax-Exempt, and Money Market Other States Tax-Exempt.
So, we now rate all US funds in Lipper database, which reflects 155 fund categories.
A quick breakout for month ending June ...
No. of Funds (All Share Classes): 29,322
No. of Funds (Oldest Share Class): 9,841
No. of Funds (Oldest Share Class) by SubType:

No. of ETFs: 2,000
No. of Fund of Funds: 1,266
No. of ETF Fund of Funds: 110
Assets Under Management ($B): 20,227
Assets Under Management ($B), excluding Fund of Funds: 18,694
Assets Under Management ($B) by SubType:

Fidelity manages the largest Money Market AUM by far with $457B, then JP Morgan $249B, Vanguard $213B, and Blackrock $201B.

FYI: Investing for good can also be a good investment. A number of the mutual funds that take environmental, social and corporate governance (ESG) into account when making investing decisions have proven to be stellar performers. Two of our top 10 ESG funds—selected using a formula that takes 1, 3 and 5-year total returns into account—beat the S&P 500 over all three periods. Investors are taking notice: Investments in these funds are up 33 percent in the U.S. since 2014, to $8.7 trillion. That’s 22 percent of all professionally managed U.S. assets. Harvard Management Co., which oversees Harvard University’s $36 billion endowment fund, recently announced plans to make sustainability the driving factor in selecting new investments for its natural resource portfolio.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2017-ten-funds-with-a-conscience/

I think the question is more how many funds do you 'want' in order to feel comfortable about your portfolio ...

Mark's comment got me thinking about the multiple redundant systems used on aircraft. I suspect some of that same type of thinking goes into portfolio construction by many.
A few excerpts from an article on the subject:
- A 747 can take off with two out of four engines out. A 737, 757, 767 and 777 can take off with one out of two engines out. A 727 can take off with two out of three engines out at sea level ...
- The 777 flight critical systems are quadruply redundant. There are 4 flight management computers, located in different parts of the airplane (so a collision will not take out all of the electronics). If the flight management computer system fails catastrophically, then the pilot can still use the autopilot to fly. If the autopilot fails, the pilot can still fly the airplane by hand.
- The 747 has 4 main landing gear struts. The 777 has 6 wheels on each main landing gear and has redundant structural elements controlling the main gear.
- The 747 has a quadruple redundant hydraulics. The DC-10 has triple redundant hydraulics. Why 4 instead of 3? It was a design decision back in the late sixties. But.... one day, a 747 took off from San Francisco airport and struck a light tower at the end of the runway. That took out three of the four hydraulic systems. The pilot was able to fly the airplane over the pacific, dump fuel, and return to the airport safely. This is not to disparage the DC-10, which is a fine airplane. But the 747 is better.
- The new airplanes have only two engines. But they also have a little gizmo called a Ram Air Turbine, or RAT. If the airplane should lose both engines in flight, the RAT will pop out of the belly of the airplane and power the electronics and hydraulics long enough for the pilot to make a dead-stick landing.
- The 777 has multiply redundant navigation systems. It has a strapdown inertial navigation system, which can measure acceleration and rotation yet it has no moving parts, so it can navigate without any outside reference. It also has a Global Positioning System receiver so it can navigate via satellite. It has the usual compliment of Automatic Direction Finders (ADF), Visual Omnidirection Range (VOR), and glide slope receivers, so it can navigate via radio. And finally, the pilot can always get on the radio and ask "where the hell am I?" ...
http://www.commercialventvac.com/fear.html
Note that what you need to fly isn't necessarily the same as what you need to fly comfortably and safely.
-
Article doesn't mention reserve fuel. By law aircraft need to carry enough to be able to divert to an acceptable alternative airport and than circle that airport for 30 minutes. I've heard there's a bit of a tug of war between pilots who like to "top-off" their tanks beyond that requirement with a few extra tons "just in case" and airlines who discourage the practice because carrying the additional weight is costly. Your cash might represent that extra "topping-off". Expensive to carry ... Under some circumstances, priceless.

http://www.cetusnews.com/business/Pimco’s-Daniel-Ivascyn-on-Staying-Ahead-of-the-Fed-.r1gITMEkrb.html
Since the Barrons article is behind a pay wall......
"Ivascyn’s fund (ticker: PIMIX) is Pimco’s largest actively managed bond fund, with $89 billion in assets and an enviable 99th-percentile ranking over the past five and 10 years. The fund is up 5% this year, versus 3.8% for the average multisector bond fund. Ivascyn has run the fund since its 2007 inception. He recently discussed with Barron’s his investment views and the outlook for the “new neutral,” a phrase that Pimco coined in reference to the current protracted period of unusually low interest rates."

FYI: The wheel of fate has turned, putting a stock-picking legend back on top for the third time in less than a decade in The Wall Street Journal’s Winners’ Circle contest.
The second-quarter 2017 laurels go to Bill Miller, this time at the helm of a different fund—his own Miller Opportunity Trust (LMOPX)—and operating independently from Legg Mason , the firm where he made his name and which he in turn helped make a household name. Mr. Miller and fellow portfolio manager, Samantha McLemore, left Legg Mason last year, but continue to provide investment services to the firm.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.wsj.com/articles/and-the-no-1-stock-fund-is-1499652481
M* Snapshot LGOAX: (A Shares)
http://www.morningstar.com/funds/XNAS/LGOAX/quote.html
Lipper Snapshot LGOAX:
http://www.marketwatch.com/investing/fund/lgoax
LGOAX Is Ranked #34 In The (MCB) Fund Category By U.S. News & World Report:
https://money.usnews.com/funds/mutual-funds/mid-cap-blend/miller-opportunity-trust/lgoax

FYI: How well will your stock fund hold up in a bear market?
To answer that question, traders and analysts often rely on statistical ways of measuring volatility—the most prominent among them being standard deviation, which tells you how far a series of returns swings from the average over a given period. But such metrics don’t always offer a clear picture of how resilient a fund is likely to be in tough times.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.wsj.com/articles/if-the-market-declines-two-funds-to-consider-1499652420
M* Snapshot YAFFX:
http://www.morningstar.com/funds/XNAS/YAFFX/quote.html
Lipper Snapshot YAFFX:
http://www.marketwatch.com/investing/fund/yaffx
YAFFX Is Ranked #151 In The (LCB) Fund Category By U.S. News & World Report:
https://money.usnews.com/funds/mutual-funds/large-blend/amg-yacktman-focused-fund/yaffx
M* Snapshot SEQUX:
http://www.morningstar.com/funds/xnas/sequx/quote.html
Lipper Snapshot SEQUX:
http://www.marketwatch.com/investing/fund/sequx
SEQUX Is Ranked #250 In The (LCG) Fund Category By U.S. News & World Report:
https://money.usnews.com/funds/mutual-funds/large-growth/sequoia-fund/sequx

FYI: The new tech successes driving fund results include Activision Blizzard, Salesforce.com, Micron Technology and Lam Research.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-surprising-reason-for-the-success-of-tech-funds-1499652181

Looking at my tracker, I notice HSGFX currently priced at $6.66. The number 666 is sometimes considered a bad omen - the sign of the beast - by superstitious people. However, if you like buying funds that have been beaten up (expecting a nice bounce) it could be a good omen in this case. :)
The fund is down 7.76% YTD and 15.8% for 1 year.
I believe a lot can be learned by watching various investment styles over time - both those that succeed and those that fail. That's why I track the fund along with a half-dozen or so other funds. Out of fairness, here's Dr. Hussman's latest weekly commentary from July 3: https://www.hussmanfunds.com/wmc/wmc170703.htm
In checking Hussman's more successful fund, HSTRX, I found it essentially flat both YTD and for 1 year. That one, as I recall, invests primarily in short-term T-Bills and seeks to enhance return with limited exposure to gold and utilities. The latter 2 often determine where the fund goes. Having a .79% ER, one can understand why it hasn't gained much in the current low interest rate environment.
Disclosure: I once owned both of the funds above, but haven't owned either for at least 10 years.
---
Related - Gold was hot for a couple months recently, rising to near $1280. It's tumbled over the past week and is now around $1215-$1225. Fed-Speak seems to have much to do with its fortunes from time to time.