Interesting use of the word survivor. I noticed that the Putnam fund was described as the second oldest (presumably US) fund, not the second oldest surviving fund.
Until a decade ago State Street Research Investment Trust was undeniably the second oldest (US) fund. Managed by State Street Management and Research Company, the firm (and its funds) were sold to MetLife in 1982, who in turn sold it to Blackrock in 2002.
Around 2004 or so, Blackrock decided to clean up its fund offerings by merging several of them, and it merged this fund into an existing Blackrock fund. So the fund survives in the sense that it was not liquidated, it did not go bust, but the assets operate under a different name.
===
I found a 2008 talk given by John Bogle, that delves briefly into the beginnings of the mutual fund industry in the US. You'll find the relevant sections around pp. 3-7. Though curiously (and I'm still researching this) he refers to the State Street fund as the industry's third-oldest fund.
I like his description of the demise of this fund:

The merger [of State Street into Met Life in 1982] hurt the fund shareholders. “Performance lagged, and the manager’s position in the industry declined from tops to average.” By 2002, Metropolitan Life abandoned the fund business [to Blackrock] ... Among Blackrock’s first moves was to put State Street Investment Corporation out of its misery, merging the industry’s third-oldest fund into another Blackrock fund. I still refer to this event as “a death in the family.”

Bogle's refers to Incorporated Investors as one of the original "Big Three" of the fund industry (along with the State Street and MFS funds). This is actually a reference to the Putnam fund of this thread. Incorporated Investors was its original name, as Putnam documented in a PR release here.

LEXCX has had to endure a number of adoptions/step parents/foster homes, but its a survivor since 1935

FYI: Putnam Investors Fund's Jerry Sullivan is flying high above Boston's financial district as airline holdings like Spirit and Southwest rise.
Putnam Investors Fund's Jerry Sullivan is flying high above Boston's financial district as airline holdings like Spirit and Southwest rise. View Enlarged Image
The $1.8 billion Putnam Investors Fund is an old geezer. Its Dec. 1, 1925, inception date makes it the industry's second oldest stock fund
Regards,
Ted
http://license.icopyright.net/user/viewFreeUse.act?fuid=MTg1MjUxNDY=
M* Snapshot Of PINVX: http://quotes.morningstar.com/fund/f?t=PINVX&region=usa&culture=en-US
Lipper Snapshot Of PINVX: http://www.marketwatch.com/investing/fund/pinvx
PINVX Is Ranked #76 In The (LCB) Fund Category By U.S. News & World Report:
http://money.usnews.com/funds/mutual-funds/large-blend/putnam-investors-fund/pinvx
In Case Your Wondering:
Rank Name Date of Creation
1 MFS Massachusetts Investors Fund (MITTX) 1924
2 Putnam Investors Fund (PINVX) 1925
3 Pioneer Fund (PIODX) 1928
4 Century Shares Fund (CENSX) 1928
5 Vanguard Wellington Fund (VWELX) 1929
7 CGM Mutual Fund (LOMMX) 1929
6 Seligman Common Stock Fund (SCSFX) 1930
8 Fidelity Fund (FFIDX) 1930
9 Dodge & Cox Balance Fund (DODBX) 1931

@bee, I think you're exactly right! Easy monetary policy in Japan and a weaker currency will help stocks there just like it has sent stocks on a great ride for the last 5+ years in the U.S. I don't buy the idea that the U.S. is at risk of sliding into deflation although Europe is having more difficulty with that.
@Mona, I don't see anything on Matthews site or M* that suggests they've hedged currency exposure for MAPIX (I didn't check MACSX). I also believe the tax that's coming into effect in Japan in another month or two will hurt the economic numbers at the end of this year and into next year, which will either mean the BOJ will have to further ease to help the economy (sending the currency lower) or the currency will fall because the economy is worse.
I'm going to write a note to Matthews about currency hedging and I'll post whatever answer I get here but my experience with them has been that it takes a day or two for them to answer my emails.

Howdy @Old_Skeet
Fidelity's view of composition for EVBAX. I find their layout of data easy to disgest; and it is free to use.
Enter a ticker symbol at the top of the page, "keyword search". Note: not all fund tickers will process, dependent upon Fido's offering of a particular fund.
Take care,
Catch

Just saw the latest report and how the markets reacted. Maybe we can finish the week on a up note?
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-10-03/jobless-rate-in-u-s-falls-to-5-9-in-september-payrolls-jump.html

I hope my global fund managers are doing their job in finding good value throughout the global universe. At this time, I am making no major hands on positioning within my portfolio. However, I have been buying a little here and there as cash builds, through mutual fund distributions, within my portfolio not wanting to go over a 20% cash threshold.
I think that it is very interesting as to how Kathleen Gaffney has currently positioned EVBAX. As of my last Instant Xray look at her fund it was about 20% cash, 20% equity, 40% income and 20% other. While I am at about 20% cash, 45% equity, 25% income and 10% other within my own portfolio. Thinking of lowering my allocation to cash soon for the anticipated fall stock market rally and do a little equity “spiff” buying. Things are beginning to look interesting.

Hi John,
Thanks for the read.
On a lighter note ;-), with the Yen falling so much against the dollar, and excess capacity in China, does this spell trouble for a fund like MAPIX where 26% of its portfolio is invested in Japan and 25% in China/Hong Kong and MACSX with 28% in China/Hong Kong?
Mona

This is unbelievable. We are making so many intelligent comments here, we should have known why we invested in FAIRX in the first place. No one can feel happy when fund drops 10% in a day. However, one cannot seriously suddenly forget why they bought FAIRX. OR did they even think before they bought it? Which FAIRX shareholder did not see the risk in FAIRX where 1 holding makes up 50% of the portfolio? Suddenly BB is a gambler now?
If you bought FAIRX because of the performance you saw, then just sell without providing any reason, because it is obvious why you are selling. Yes, stock investing IS gambling. Let's not BS each other regarding value vs growth. One makes his projections and hope they come true. Berkowtiz has $160M if his assets in Fairholme. I'm imagining most of them in FAIRX. How do you think he liked that 10% loss the other day?
THIS is the real reason most people should invest in Index funds. It is not active vs passive. It is about us thinking we have this magic formula where we will always buy a fund that will only go up. WHEN vs WHAT people !!! You want to buy an actively managed fund then buy it when you are comfortable and then be prepared to hold it though up and downs and give yourself a long enough time horizon so you can do that. Or just don't buy it.

FYI: Following up on the success of the Gateway Fund, which now manages more than $8 billion in investor assets, Natixis Global Asset Management, Gateway’s parent company, has launched the Gateway Equity Call Premium Fund (GCPAX). The new fund, which began trading on September 30, invests in 200-400 stocks (including ADRs and REITs), and earns income by writing call options on stock market indices, such as the S&P 500 Index. This way, the fund generates income for the fund from the sale of call options in return for putting a cap on the upside of its underlying equity portfolio.
Regards,
Ted
http://dailyalts.com/gateway-launches-new-equity-call-premium-fund/

That is the argument of indexers. It is indeed hard to find active fund managers who can beat the index over long term.

Yes, Bogle is winning a lot of people over to his viewpoint. And in a year like 2014, active funds are generally doing very poorly in relation to index funds. Something like 30% of all fund assets are now indexed [?or is that 30% of all stock market assets, don't recall], compared to hardly anything in the 1990's. When you can get a fund like VTI at 5 basis points expense ratio, it's hard to beat. The Admiral shares of the same fund also have a 5 basis points expense ratio. Buffett is a big fan of the Vanguard S&P 500 index fund.

That is the argument of indexers. It is indeed hard to find active fund managers who can beat the index over long term. Those who take the most risk would have greater
standard deviations in their returns, which means they may appear to be much better than everyone in some years. Having said that I do own active funds, but keep a close eye. The only funds which I have owned for a long time (around 10 years) are FPACX, OAKBX and MACSX. More and more of my portfolio (started off with about 40%, but it has increased to about 50% because it did better than the rest) is in ETFs. There does seem to be some short term persistence in performance which I try to exploit.

David:
Thanks for comment and suggestions.
Portfolio Visualizer ("PV"): http://tinyurl.com/dg-vd-sp-wm-lex
I would not have thought of either MOAT or LEXCX in this context.
In the "don't try this at home" department, putting on my "factor investor" beanie...
Looking (FWIW) at the funds mentioned, plus what I had thought was my "go to" option for quality (VDIGX), and running them through the Portfolio Visualizer factor-analysis tool since SPHQ converted to current index (and using the WMW ETN in lieu of the MOAT ETF, since the ETN has longer history than ETF)....
After expanding PV link above to see the stats re: significance....
DGAGX has negative significant size load, along 3rd highest high quality factor.
VDIGX appears to be the strongest quality 'play'.
SPHQ closely follows VDIGX in its quality load.
MOAT (nee WMW) appears to be 'only' market play, with a pretty poor fitting regression and lots of alpha - must be a slug of 'moatness'.
LEXCX is 'mainly' a market & value play (as opposed to quality, FWIW), having beaten pants off of the others except WMW recently, with high alpha.
Now craning my neck to look (again) out back, I see:
SYMBOL.....DGAGX......VDIGX.......SPHQ.......WMW.......LEXCX
3Y TR *......14.51%......18.31%......19.73%....23.18%....20.49%
RANK.........5.................4................3..............1..............2
* Annualized, Source FT.com
Note: FT Fund comparison: http://funds.ft.com/us/Fund-Comparison
Full disclosure, I have dogs in this hunt, having bought some SPHQ earlier this year, liking the ETF efficiency, expense, diversity and 'story' of SPHQ, versus relatively concentrated WMW or other choices - but have owned VDIGX since forever.
PS: Falling for the fracking fairy tale, also figure that the high industrial weight of SPHQ should do just fine, as our energy gulping economy learns to sneer "Saudi Aray-be who"?
Finally, I wonder if turnover, when fishing in the large cap space, is somewhat over-rated as an attribute. Think (really guessing) that the ETF tax efficiency outweighs the market impact penalty, when comparing a fund to an ETF.

And so they tell us: The Legacy share class "is open specifically for existing Meridian shareholders. For example there are well over 25,000 direct retail, advisor, and institutional shareholders in Meridian Growth (Meade and Schaub's small/mid cap growth strategy), Meridian Contrarian and Meridian Equity Income funds that have access to the Small Cap Growth Legacy share class. Our intent was to encourage existing shareholders to stay within with Meridian family, especially during a time of investment advisor transition."
Hope that helps!
David

Something tells me this one headed to Supreme Court.

Charles I think those -50% one day losses we saw yesterday on Fannie and Freddie could just as easily be +50% and much more one day gains if the courts change their mind and rule in favor of shareholders. The stock prices on those seem to be 100% tied to court and government decisions about Fannie and Freddie. The stocks could really go thru the roof if the decision is made to return the companies to shareholders and allowed to funnel their profits to them.
I think both companies have already repaid the government what was borrowed, have they not? I think Bruce has a very strong argument, and having Ackman on your side always helps.
I just wouldn't be able to handle the volatility and uncertainty of FAIRX. FAIRX is like a hedge fund now. Certainly better to pay 1% versus 2%/20%

FYI: Below is our trading range screen of the 30 largest country ETFs traded on US exchanges. For each country, the dot represents where it's currently trading within its range, while the tail end represents where it was trading one week ago. The black vertical "N" line represents each ETF's 50-day moving average. Moves into the red zone are considered overbought, while moves into the green zone are considered oversold.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.bespokeinvest.com/thinkbig/2014/10/2/hello-oversold-world.html?printerFriendly=true

FAIRX year to date: -7.3%
I think it will go down a fraction more than 1% today, giving it a YTD of between -8% and -9%.
Sears had a big up day. Fannie and Freddie extended their sig. losses.

FYI: Global risk assets got pounded this morning, with gruesome price action in European equities putting big pressure on US equity futures as well as emerging market equities. Selling reached a crescendo at 11:30 AM ET as closing bells rang across Europe. Within 15 minutes, US risk markets bottomed and by 1:00 PM US small caps were positive
Regards,
Ted
http://www.bespokeinvest.com/thinkbig/2014/10/2/what-happens-at-1130-again.html?printerFriendly=true

Mike, PZA has been a dandy closed end muni fund, a picture perfect tight rising channel and its YTD return of 13.67% is far ahead of the other investment grade muni funds and not far behind the 15%+ return of the big three in the open end junk space - EIHYX, ABTYX, and NHMRX. PZA is ahead of HYD, the junk ETF and close to HYMB the other junk ETF. As far as getting out easier, someday should talk about the one day lag effect with the open end vs. the ETFs and closed end. 2% looks OK albeit at this stage in my life and nest egg I use smaller stops. But then I scamper back in pretty quickly if proven wrong. By the way, you know this as well as anyone, but the dynasty appears in shambles and the Bills have as much chance as anyone in that division.
As an aside, I got an email today from a friend who is almost as heavy as me in open end junk munis. He pretty much told me to STFU. His point, and a good one, is except for munis and maybe non residential MBS, much of Bondville from corporate junk to emerging market debt, to investment grade looks to have topped. The jury is still out on Treasuries. His point is munis and junk munis could well be next in line in this stealth top in bonds so lets enjoy the ride with as few on as possible. I think what he was trying to say is the more we talk about our winners and what is working, the more likely we are about to experience an immediate drawdown. I completely agree and that is a superstition I have discussed many times in the past. So will quit posting until 1/1/15. I won't be reading the forum until then so anyone can contact me at my email of
[email protected]

it wasn't... bond funds accrue daily dividends in their NAV, not like stock funds.

@fundalarm and other MFOers, in that case, the daily dividends increase the NAV?
Take a fund like the Vanguard Total Bond Market Index fund, what can change the NAV besides interest rates going up or down? [note: supply/demand will change bond prices, but that will raise or lower interest rates/yields on those bonds]

Taking the second question first, since it's easier to explain - defaults can change the NAV. Just think Reserve Fund. Its Lehman bonds defaulted, and the NAV of this MMF dropped immediately (broke a buck). That's because the bonds became worth pennies on the dollar, and the interest rate on the bonds fell (not rose) to zero - all money that the bond holders got was repayment of principal - no interest.
Regarding bond funds and accruing dividends - the NAV does not reflect the declared but unpaid dividends after the record date. Rather, once a record day passes, the dividend is set aside by the fund (or company, in the case of a corp) and distributed on the pay date. For example, MSFT has said that people who own shares on Nov 20th will receive $0.31/share on Dec 11th. They'll get that dividend even if they sell their shares on Dec 1st.
The shares of MSFT will drop $0.31 on the ex-date - the first day that the shares trade without the dividend. The $0.31/share is not carried as part of the price (NAV, if you wish). Same idea with mutual funds. They're also companies that declare dividends, have record dates, and pay dates.
Generally, a mutual fund's ex-date is one day after its record date. See, e.g. D&C schedule here. If you were the shareholder of record of DODGX on Sept 24th, you got a $0.50 dividend Sept 26th. It didn't matter if you sold your shares on Sept 25th. You still got that check in the mail (well, figuratively speaking). And that $0.50 div on the share that you sold on Sept 25th did not accrue in the NAV. That money was put aside for your check.
So to answer your question - the NAV did not go up on Sept 25th because of the dividend. The shareholder buying the share ex-dividend got the share without the dividend (even though it hadn't been paid to you yet). That's what ex-dividend means.
Funds can have daily record dates - they just set aside the money until the pay date (typically the end of the month). The NAV is adjusted down on a daily basis because each day the fund goes ex-dividend. But that adjustment is usually so small you never see it. MMFs adjust their NAV downward daily (they declare dividends daily), but they "never" break a buck. They just set aside the little bit of interest that they earn each day and declare that the daily dividend. So the NAV stays at a dollar even.
Bond funds can also have quarterly record dates. Loomis Sayles Inflation Protected Securities Fund (LIPRX) still declares and pays its dividends quarterly. (Link is to 5MB prospectus; wait for full doc to load - link is to specific section.)