FYI: Risk increases when portfolio managers fixate on a sector.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/these-diversified-stock-funds-spread-your-money-too-thin-2014-09-05/print

@kevindow, don't know when you please a trade at Fidelity on EVBIX. Maybe thing has changed a bit since you posted. It now required $250K for IRA account in addition to $49.95 transaction fee.

>> Most large-cap fund managers “will be forced to re-evaluate their portfolios or embrace the likelihood of drafting very disappointing year-end letters,” Mr. Kostin said.
What a fool thing to think. Not that what Snowball wrote isn't true, but I sure do not pay Ahlsten, Tillinghast, and the Yackts to outdo SP500 in a given year or even short period. More especially now.

Aren't Easy? How About Very Difficult ?
Goldman Sachs: Why Stock Pickers Have Suffered a Really Bad Year...
It isn’t a pretty picture,... Goldman says ... and may bode well ( ? )
Only 23% of large-cap mutual fund managers have outperformed the S&P 500 this year, rivaling the worst performance in the past decade, according to David Kostin, chief U.S. equity strategist at Goldman. By comparison, about 37% of fund managers have outperformed the benchmark since 2003. Only performances in 2006, 2010 and 2011 have been as bad or worse than the current year’s pace.
http://blogs.wsj.com/moneybeat/2014/09/04/goldman-sachs-why-the-bad-year-for-stock-pickers-will-fuel-rally-even-more/?mod=yahoo_hs
From David's September 2014 Commentary
"There are 500 domestic large core funds. I’d be amazed if anyone could make a compelling case for keeping 90% of them open. More correctly, those don’t matter to anyone but the advisor who needs them for business development purposes."
http://www.mutualfundobserver.com/2014/09/september-1-2014/

Keep on monitering , at the end of the year the S&P 500 will be up 25% in 2014.

Maurice: Yes, you correct ! 12b-1 fees have been the subject of nemorous attempts in Congress to eliminate them.
Regards,
Ted
Here is a Scott Burns article from 5/98 quoting Roy Weitz on fund fees.
http://www.uexpress.com/scott-burns/1998/5/17/its-not-the-fund-stupid-its

Just a few things we monitor daily. Just a day.....in the life.
VWO 46.05 -0.43%
ITOT 91.41 -0.22%
EMB 115.01 -0.02%
IBB 270.92 -1.65%
TIP 114.22 -0.38%
LQD 118.98 -0.71%
IEF 103.83 -0.36%
IWM 116.01 -0.39%
IYR 74.12 -0.19%
HYG 93.37 -0.33%

FYI: It’s been a long time since the S&P 500 has experienced a double digit loss. The last one ended in October of 2011, so we’re coming up on three years of relative calm in the markets.
Markets always seem easier with the benefit of hindsight, but there’s always an economic, market or geopolitical headline at the time that adds to the uncertainty. There have actually been a couple of double digit losses since the market bottomed out in early 2009:
Regards,
Ted
http://awealthofcommonsense.com/even-bull-markets-arent-easy/

Years ago, the Vanguard International Index Fund started out as a fund-of-funds, holding shares of the European Index and Pacific Index Funds.
At some point, it, too, converted to a structure in which the fund held foreign shares directly.
Does anyone recall whether or not investors in Vanguard's International Index fund incurred capital gains distributions? If not, how did Vanguard do it? Clever timing (i.e., conversions incurred at a time when there was a loss), or something else? Thanks.

First, a clarification on funds. The fund you're referring to was (and is) Vanguard Developed Markets Fund. As you wrote, it used to hold two index funds. In late 2008/early 2009 it switched to investing directly in stocks. Earlier this year, Vanguard merged it into its Tax-Managed International fund, and called the resulting fund Developed Markets Index Fund.
AFAIK, there isn't/wasn't a fund called Vanguard International Index Fund. There was (and is) however, a Vanguard Total International Index Fund. That fund used to be comprised of three index funds - European Index (VEURX), Pacific Index(VPACX), and Emerging Markets Index(VEIEX) funds. (Tickers are correct - Vanguard invested in Investor class shares, not Admiral class shares.)
About half a year or so before Developed Markets was allowed to invest in individual stocks, Vanguard started the same transition for its Total International Index Fund. Vanguard announced the completion of that transition Feb 27, 2009.
Here's a Bogleheads thread on the Total Int'l Index fund transition. In it, the second poster quotes from the Vanguard announcement:

The change ... is not expected to result in capital gains distributions to shareholders.

So that's part of the answer to your question.
As to how, your guess may be correct. Note that these conversions took place late 2008 early to mid 2009, when most funds were sitting on large losses due to the market collapse. Clever timing indeed.

Hi bee,
I am not familiar with Isralesen, so appreciate if you can share some reference point of credibility.

Ted provided this link to other referenced articles.
financial-planning.com/thought_leaders/israelsen.html
If youe're asking me, "Is he a quack?"
Well, he does have a PHD after his name (so he may like to Piles it Higher and Deeper).

Then there is the 8.3% in cash. Is this for planned withdrawals? If not, perhaps a ultra-short bond fund would be a more prudent option. Perhaps it would be better just to invest in a mix of 5-6 'dynamic allocation funds' like FPACX, TIBIX, MALOX, PRWCX, OAKBX, etc. In the end, there is no perfect allocation. The ideal allocation is one that an investor can live with when times are bad. I am not sure about this one.

I personally have no problem substituting "cash" with short term bonds or similar vehicles.
In another article by Israelsen as weighting in the other eleven pieces of the pie ebb and flow the cash position is available to help rebalance those positions.
There also is an age based adjustment to cash with his allocation strategies. From 50-60 years of age his startegy raises cash (from 8.3% to 20% cash), 60-70 (40% cash), and 70+ (60% cash). I start to worry about "growing" a portfolio when holding this much cash. Cash can buoy a portfolio during market down drafts, but act too much like an anchor when markets rise.
Finally, judging by the performance of the the three cash/equity allocations compared to the two "non-cash indexes" he used as benchmarks (Vanguard's Balanced Index and Vanguard's S&P 500 Index), cash does seems to have a dampening effect of portfolio DD% as shown here (check out the yellow highlighted results for 2008):

I never understand the kind of allocation advocated, where every piece of the pie gets equal treatment. And the 25% in 'alternatives' could be problematic. Then there is the 8.3% in cash. Is this for planned withdrawals? If not, perhaps a ultra-short bond fund would be a more prudent option. Perhaps it would be better just to invest in a mix of 5-6 'dynamic allocation funds' like FPACX, TIBIX, MALOX, PRWCX, OAKBX, etc. In the end, there is no perfect allocation. The ideal allocation is one that an investor can live with when times are bad. I am not sure about this one.

None of these are particularly aggressive. In fact Templeton, Fidelity and Loomis are among the more conservative international bond funds, and Loomis has almost 35% in domestic bonds. PIMCO uses their typical derivative hocus-pocus to reduce volatility.
All of these funds have been pretty tame in reality. STDs are pretty tame, not a lot more than most domestic bond funds.

It is unrealistic to expect shareholders to "elect" trustees for their mutual funds. First, investors do not own ALL funds at a shop, so they shouldn't be allowed to select trustees that oversee all funds at shops with multiple funds. It is an idea that can be explored at boutique shops with ONE fund.
Even at boutique shops with one fund, how does one elect trustee at inception?. Even otherwise after a few years, it would need a sufficient number of investors in the fund to make this meaningful. Then again why would someone who has $1M invested in a fund care about what someone with $1000 invested thinks about who is the trustee. And do we want our trustees to be politicians and campaign for election.
The problem is so many articles are written to sensationalize a concern but do little to offer real solutions. I know the world sucks, but what can I do about it? I do my research and FWIW land upon a fund I want to invest in. One fund sucks and trustees don't get paid anything. Another does well and pays trustees $100K each. Which fund do you think I'm investing in?
Berkowitz owns $150M (I believe this is correct) of FAIRX shares. The largest shareholder. He is the chairman of the board of trustees at Fairholme. Anyone else deserves to be? Shareholders should elect someone else? Why?
If someone is genuinely concerned about the problem then offer a solution. Telling me my fund company is doling out earnings made on collective assets of mine and other investors only gives me an ulcer. It does not give me any options. If WSJ really cares about investors, then be bold and suggest a regulation - a good one for a change - such as "A trustee receiving compensation to be on the board of a Mutual Fund needs to receive 50% of that compensation in fund shares in an IRA". OR "Trustee needs to have $100K invested in the fund". Maybe that will attract the right kind of "trustees".
This is about helping the investor. Otherwise an article like this is not even news. Yesterday I learnt my plumber overcharged me and that ticked me off. This article just ticked me off again.

FYI: Little-known, directors of mutual funds can pull in six figures—for what?
Regards,
Ted
http://online.wsj.com/articles/on-board-at-a-mutual-fund-1409757187#printMode

FYI: For long-term investors only: two intrepid world-bond funds and two emerging-markets bond offerings.
Mutual funds that focus on foreign bonds, while not especially large in number or in assets, are an especially eclectic group.
Regards,
Ted
http://news.morningstar.com/articlenet/article.aspx?id=663852

@VintageFreak.
Me too. My very first screening criteria was to look at min return over any rolling 3 year period.
But I think you are right that 5 and perhaps even 7 may better capture cycle for more patient investors.
Perhaps could start making available in screening tools max and min 3, 5, 7 rolling returns for all funds.
Will work on that!

We really REALLY appreciate the hard work you put into these things Charles. I'm sure you have so many other things to do and at the risk of stating the obvious, all of those managing MFO are true treasures.

Interesting that on a down tech day for the NASDAQ, MATFX held its share price. Nice to see all other Matthews Asia funds green.

@Gary: The farm is located north of Epworth, a little more than half way between Dubuque and Dyersville.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.dubuquecounty.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=l_5MpQakit0=&tabid=193

SEPTEMBER 03 2014
Aggressive central bank accommodation from Europe to Japan and a dovish Federal Reserve bode well for equities and bond prices.
Global CIO Commentary by Scott Minerd Guggenheim Partners
Back at home, we expect the Fed’s band will keep playing its merry tune for now. The voting members of the Federal Open Market Committee in 2015 will be even more dovish than the current committee. If there is a risk, it is that the Fed will keep monetary policy at a high level of accommodation for longer than previously anticipated.
Financial markets heard the sweet song of easy money from Jackson Hole loud and clear, sending equities up strongly while driving U.S. Treasuries’ prices higher and yields lower. The recent high of the New York Stock Exchange Advance-Decline Line supports this optimistic hypothesis, suggesting that stock prices will continue to reach new highs.
http://guggenheimpartners.com/perspectives/macroview/central-banks-pump-up-the-volume?