Kaufman's only fund management experience from what I can find on M* has only been the Thornburg Developing World fund starting in December 2009, so to @VintageFreak 's point we don't know much about how he'll do in a "real" down market. The downside capture ratio for THDIX over the last 5 years is only 81%. so at least he did well when the market was down without having a bear market.

@VintageFreak: Managers acquired Fremont in 2005, and then AMG acquired Managers. PIMCO is located in Newport Beach CA
Regards,
Ted
http://www.thinkadvisor.com/2005/01/24/managers-acquires-fremont-funds
http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/amg-to-acquire-the-managers-funds-lp-73550467.html

From SRI to ESG
5 Mutual Funds for Socially Responsible Investors
Bloomberg Screener
In this space, I would take a serious look at PARWX and VFTSX.
Kevin

related
http://www.wsj.com/articles/puerto-rico-worries-put-focus-on-municipal-bond-insurers-1435700816
https://www.google.com#q=Puerto+Rico+Worries+Put+Focus+On+Municipal+Bond+Insurers+

FYI: (The Linkster, who still has some skin in the game, lost $70,000 yesterday !
The world's 400 richest people lost a combined $70 billion on Monday as equity markets around the globe were hammered on fears about Greece and declines in China fueled by leveraged investors exiting the market.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-06-30/the-world-s-richest-people-lost-70-billion-yesterday

FYI: Some of the top-performing municipal bond funds over the past five years have held huge stakes in Puerto Rican debt. Now that Puerto Rico's governor has said the island's roughly $72 billion in debts are "not payable" and asked for U.S. bankruptcy protection for the commonwealth, investors in those funds may take a big hit.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.cnbc.com/id/102798839
Bloomberg Slant:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-06-30/puerto-rico-bonds-fall-by-most-on-record-as-debt-crisis-worsens

Did anyone notice that the math doesn't work in the "Fees and Expenses" table for the International Stalwarts Fund?
For the Investor class, but it's the same for the Institutional shares:
Management Fee 0.80%
12-b1 fee 0.25%
Other Expenses 1.28%
Total Operating Expenses 1.53%
They left out the management fee when they added, which either means the fee waiver has to be a lot bigger to get to the bottom line of 1.35% or the actual expense ratio is going to be north of 2% even after the fee waiver. The latter seems more likely because the fee waivers of the various funds are all in the same general neighborhood and this International fund has much higher "Other Expenses" than the domestic Stalwarts fund, which I tend to assume their not going to refund.
Does anyone have any idea when these new funds are going to be launched? The updated registration suggests as soon as practicable, which could be today in theory. But when they initially filed the registration statements in April and we were debating the change in direction for GP with the Stalwarts funds, they told me they expected to answer everyone's questions in July before the funds actually launched. I hope that's still true.

Mr. Gross' ramblings aren't even numerically correct. I stopped reading after the first paragraph, so much was wrong with his hyperventilating prose.
Governor Brown's executive order does not say that "all of us simple folk should cut back water usage by a minimum of 25%". It says that restrictions shall be imposed "to achieve a statewide 25% reduction in potable urban water usage."
More importantly, it does not impose this requirement uniformly, as Mr. Gross states. Rather, if you've been good about limiting water usage, you don't have to cut as much. For example, San Diego residents have to cut usage by 16%.
Mr. Gross even gets basic dollars and cents figures wrong. He writes about water and rails, saying that the high speed rail project will cost at least $25B. Wrong. It's an overhaul of the state's water system that will cost $25B. The rail project will cost $68B. Even when it was originally on the ballot, the projected cost of $43B was above Mr. Gross' stated $25B.
I expect better accuracy from someone handling my money. With "research" like this, I sure don't want him buying any muni bonds or transportation bonds for me.

I'm am not 85 but some of my friends are in their 90's. still active and have plenty of money, none were millionaires at retirement (not working) in their 60's........
How did they do it? wanta guess

Why invest money with the 40th to 50th best manager that you have found when you could give more $ to #1,#2#3...just wondering...
"My Cash has to work because I don't"......copyright TB

FYI: At Pimco, Bill Gross built a reputation as the world’s best bond trader. Now, at Janus Capital, he’s managing a much smaller fund—all while being measured against his younger self.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-06-29/gross-gets-personal-i-just-wanted-to-run-money-and-be-famous-

I am surprised that anyone follows these anymore. With all the information that is available online, and the fact that Forbes readership, like all print media, is shrinking, this ends up being just another of hundreds of MF lists. 25-30 years ago, before online data was available, these had some value. Sort of like the lists in Kiplinger and Money magazines, this is just not worth the time. Like other lists, the rankings, grades, stars have different calculations from each other. I question a lot of the list that I quickly scanned, just like I disagree with most of what the other publications tour as "The Best", and "What to Buy NOW."

Thanks @Crash. My stock app must have been slow to update that fund. It does show a 5¢ gain now.

JohnChisum must have been looking at the wrong day's numbers: DLFNX was up .05 cents. PRSNX was just unchanged. All else was Simply Red.

I know I'm coming out of left field (or is it right field :-) ) on this, but I don't think that multiple share classes is that big a deal. Sure they're there to be deceptive, but that doesn't mean the information isn't out there, in plain sight, to make the best share class decision. (The writers don't object to loads, just to multiple share classes.)
All you need, if you're working with a broker, is someone who has a fiduciary duty to act in your best interests, as opposed to finding suitable (but not best) share classes. The writers started by dismissing this obvious solution ("eventually we will all recognize the appropriate choice").
FXAIX is given as an example of a rock bottom-priced index fund. There are no administrative costs for this fund because it is only available in employer plans where "Fidelity provides recordkeeping services". (From prospectus, the reading of which they poo-poo.) Once you add back those (profit making) administrative fees, you realize that total cost of this fund is not so cheap after all.
They make Rydex and Invesco funds sound worse than they are by omitting details for these funds also.
IMHO, they're fighting the last war. Most fund families have already closed B shares. The new front is wrap accounts. With these accounts, brokers charge 1%/year (i.e. at least as high as they got from commissions/trailing fees) and use fund supermarkets (where the funds are paying undisclosed fees to the supermarkets for shelf space, and passing these costs onto the investor).
Here's my earlier post on that (updated to link to Schwab's 2015 fee disclosure).
http://www.mutualfundobserver.com/discuss/discussion/comment/46916/#Comment_46916

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-06-27/blackrock-seeks-sec-clearance-for-internal-fund-lending
"BlackRock Inc. is seeking government clearance to set up an internal program in which mutual funds that get hit with client redemptions could temporarily borrow money from sister funds that are flush with cash."
Hmmm.... so what's Blackrock expecting?
Additionally, I would not be thrilled if I owned an equity fund or a l/s fund and the fund was forced to lend to a bond fund facing significant redemptions.

What about next time ? Will it act the same. Probably not !
Derf

Thanks for baiting me. Lets look at this fund (YACKX) over the last two bubble drops:
Allow me to "cherry pick" a moment in time that would have been unfavorable for YACKX if mentioned at a cocktail party held back in March of 2008.
March 1998:
"So Bee, What the "buzz" on your hot tech stocks these days?"
"Buy Value, not growth"
Two years later the same acquaintance at a much swankier cocktail party asks in
March 2000:
"So Bee, how's that YACKX working out for you?"

Fast forward to 2015:
(If I hadn't fallen off the cocktail party list for this spring's soiree) I'd say,
"Pretty good"
My Take:
Value often falls out of favor because it's not considered "hot" or "flashy".
Value really fell out of favor in (March 1998) as (Tech Growth) continued to elevate for another two years (May 2000). Even with that under performance, value has held up better than growth long term.
YACKX has had a value matrix that has worked,
"But what about next time?"
I'll fall asleep thinking,
"Probably."