From Julie Koeninger of GMO (the investment firm):
"Farmland investments consist of direct investments in rural land along with crop and livestock assets that produce food, fiber, and energy. Farmland investments focus on the productive capacity of the land base, and returns are based on the biological growth of crops and livestock, as well as appreciation of land and related assets. By their nature, farmland investments are long-term illiquid investments in real assets."

and,
"Investment Vehicles
Investors can participate in the farmland asset class through direct investments or through the use of a specialist farmland investment manager, that may offer funds, co-investments, or separately managed accounts. For most investors, developing a well-diversified portfolio of direct investments is prohibitively complex and time-consuming. Investing in farmland through a farmland investment manager can provide the benefits of diversification, experience, and scale. Closed-end funds have a fixed term with some potential for extension, but are generally illiquid for the term. As with private equity, fund terms can vary widely. Open-ended funds and publicly-traded REITs provide more liquidity, but valuation at entry and exit can be an issue in open-ended funds, and the performance of public REITs can be influenced by capital market trends and other factors apart from the underlying farmland investment. Co- investments and managed accounts often require a larger minimum investment, but offer investors a greater measure of control."
Full Primer:
advisorperspectives.com/commentaries/gmo_072114.php?WT.rss_f=CommentaRSS&WT.rss_ev=a&WT.rss_a=A_Farmland_Investment_Primer
Related Article from Barron's:
blogs.barrons.com/penta/2012/06/15/investing-in-timber-and-farmland/tab/print/

While the study's general conclusion is correct (few funds land in the top 25% every single year), it has from my perspective four serious problems.
1. The baseline period is March 2009 to 2010, which is to say they looked at the funds that had the greatest returns coming off a profound market bottom. The broad market return in those 12 months was 56%.
2. By picking a mid-year measurement period, they make it hard to test their conclusions since few public data sources allow you to screen for periods other than calendar years and trailing periods
3. There's no explanation for why the metric is reasonable. Few funds land in the top 25% every year, without exception. (a) Duh. (b) Who cares? If, hypothetically, a market is frothy and valuations stretched, do you really want a fund that's at the top of the heap? If you "win," by whatever standard you use with your portfolio, more often than you lose, does the "not every year" thing have any meaning?
4. S&P, author of the study and writer of indexes, uses the paper to justify investing in index funds. And so, we ask, how many index funds satisfied the researchers' criteria? That is, if the test is "top quarter every year," which of their preferred vehicles meet the standard? I suspect I can count the winners on the thumbs of one foot.
Just grumbling,
David

Maybe I can say this better than what I posted and deleted over the weekend. If you held this fund since inception you are ahead of the S&P. But besides being -4.54% YTD it has also underperformed the S&P by 8.12% and 6.65% per annum over the past three and five years respectively. Yes, I know its benchmark is not the S&P and I realize we have been in a long term bull since March of 09. But retirement and old age comes quicker than you might think and looking back in my younger years I would have hated to have been stuck in such an underperformer to the overall market over the past many years. Not my idea of building long term wealth. Then again, I admit to be biased against all these alternative/bear, and long/short funds that have sprung up out of nowhere since 2000.

A lot of dire forecasts for junk bonds in the various links of Ted original link above. Here's some more negative comments, these coming from Michael Aneiro's column in this week's Barron's. Mr. Aneiro has been a regular Cassandra on junk bonds for well over a year now. You know the broken clock analogy, so maybe Mr. Aneiro's time has finally arrived.
>>>Among current pockets of risk, as I've warned in this column before, is the corporate bond market. Not only are corporates rich, but they can also be harder to sell than they were just a few years ago. Since the financial crisis, banks have cut their corporate-bond holdings to keep pace with regulations. Inventory is down by 40% to 75%, according to various estimates, and if there's ever a rush to sell, fewer willing buyers could mean steeper losses, affecting bonds, mutual funds, and ETFs alike.
"THERE'S NO QUESTION that liquidity has decreased," says Gershon Distenfeld, director of high yield at AlianceBernstein, who says increased capital requirements have curtailed risk appetite among banks and dealers and made it more costly to maintain bond inventories. He adds that Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers, and Merrill Lynch used to represent more than a third of U.S. high-yield trading volume, and none of them exist as a stand-alone entity today.
Fixed-income trading at banks "is evaporating," says James Swanson, chief investment strategist at MFS Investment Management. He sees corporate bonds, particularly high yield, as increasingly perilous for investors. "Are those markets, given how low yields are, compensating you for the risk of illiquidity?"
Corporate bonds are often pulled in two directions: When equity prices fell amid last week's turmoil, riskier corporates slid, too, but the losses were tempered by gains in underlying Treasury bonds. That pattern can hold up for short periods but will be challenged during more protracted downturns, especially if nobody really wants to buy.<<<

FYI: Weeks of falling junk bond prices have started to spook some bond investors, signalling that the record run for the riskiest part of corporate debt may be ending.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/a-junk-bond-warning-investors-exit-as-yields-rise-2014-07-21/print?guid=58CC8F44-0E95-11E4-98A7-00212803FAD6

FYI: A look at some Morningstar Medalists with remarkable longevity and results
Regards,
Ted
http://news.morningstar.com/articlenet/article.aspx?id=656504

Thanks BobC for your comment I will add you as a hold in the poll. Always enjoy reading your comments. Last year I owned All Asset which was a topic on the board. At the time it was faltering and I gave it a full year to get its act together ... and, it did. Currently, ytd, it is the third best performing member of its six member sleeve. I am glad I continued to hold. As you say Mr. Arronstein is no doubt a very skilled manager but just how much money can one manager handle? Seems to me, Mainstay opened the gates and continued to build assets which results in more fees for themselves and makes it more difficult for the manager to effectively position.
I remember when Duke Energy merged with Progress Energy in North Carolina things seemed to be in flux when Mr. Johnson the then to become the CEO was fired within hours after the merge. Team Marketfield went short DUK and this little move had a good impact on the funds overall performance because of its much smaller asset base. Today, this would amount to no more than a drop in a big bucket. With its size today it has to look for much bigger macro opportunity.
Bob, I really value you comments that you make on the board ... but, it gets down to each of us have to do what we feel is best. For me MFLDX is a small holding overall within my portfolio, but it does equal about 25% of its five member specialty sleeve. And, it is currently the faltering fund member both within its sleeve and within the portfolio. I have some short term bond funds that are currently outperforming it. I just feel it is taking the manager too long to position the fund based upon ever changing macro themes ... and, that spells asset bloat as it is no longer the nimble fund that it was when I first purchased it. If I felt Mainstay would put a hard close on the fund ... I'd stay. I don't see this happening.
For me, it is now time to move on to something else. For those that wish to continue to hold it ... I wish all well.
Old_Skeet

Hmmm. Available in my retirement account. $5M minimum investment. Closed to new investors.
Sorry if I pry, but are you guys such high flyers that you trade in and out of a $5M minimum fund? Or maybe the minimum has not always been that high?

Minimum definitely wasn't $5M.

Hmmm. Available in my retirement account. $5M minimum investment. Closed to new investors.
Sorry if I pry, but are you guys such high flyers that you trade in and out of a $5M minimum fund? Or maybe the minimum has not always been that high?
There are several classes of this fund - including load classes and an investor class MFNDX at a $2500 minimum, apparently open. Are you invested in one of these lesser classes, and using MFLDX as a proxy for what you own?
JMO - I'd expect an investor with above $5M in MFLDX would be in the super-$25M investable assets range, and I would expect them to employ professional money management services. Maybe not ...

I'm not fond of that 2.25% front load on LALDX.
Coincidently, American Century has two funds opening in a week. Strategic Income and Short Duration Strategic Income. I can get in at the open. I'm waiting on the prospectus at the moment.

I'm not too sure about American Century. I closed my account with them. I owned ASIOX. I might buy that fund at a brokerage, but I don't see myself keeping an account with them. I have a smattering of their Equity Income in one 401k, rest everything is in index funds.

Janus Global Allocation is a mini-family: conservative, moderate, and growth. The allocations favor equities maybe more than you'd expect from the names, at least right now; for instance, Conservative, the one I have on a watch list, ~ 45% stock, 48% bond, and 7% cash and other. Growth, the one mentioned in the article, is more than 80% stock.
I'd guess the allocations are a reflection that Janus as a shop is still fairly far out on the growthy end of the spectrum.

I'm not fond of that 2.25% front load on LALDX.
Coincidently, American Century has two funds opening in a week. Strategic Income and Short Duration Strategic Income. I can get in at the open. I'm waiting on the prospectus at the moment.

As of Sunday AM 7:45 EDT, as I write, here is how I have scored the comments.
Undecided 1 (me) ... Hold (2) Old_Joe & Scott ... Sell (2) Chinfist & Decrow ... No Opinion (1) Junkster. Although, I scored Junkster's comment as no opinion I believe he is of the camp to do what one thinks is best within their own portfolio regardless of what others might be thinking. I respect that. However, I wanted to know what others were thinking that own, or recently owned, the fund. Even without knowing what others were thinking I am inclined to let it go since Mainstay bought it, it seems that it has become too large for its manager to effective manage it in a more rapid ever changing macro environment. It may turn out to be a good fund and I sincerely hope so for those that continue to hold it. I plan to move own and will redeploy my capital somewhere else, possibly FCHSX. I purchased the fund for what I felt was its ability to navigate an ever changing macro environment; however, over the past year it seems to be faltering in its mission.
For me, MFLDX is one of five funds held in the growth area specialty sleeve of my portfolio. So with this, it is not an extremely large position within the portfolio itself but it does make up about 25% of its sleeve. I will be leaving with some good jingle (profit) in my pocket.
Thanks for all that made comments. It is much appreciated.
Old_Skeet
Current Revised Poll Count 7/21 7:35 Am EDT... Undecided (1) Hank ... Hold (3) Old_Joe, Scott & BobC... Sell (5) Chinfist, Decrow, Old_Skeet, Vintage Freak & Ted ... No Opinion (2) Junkster & Timgr

Always good to know of lowest risk alternatives to MM funds given current interest rate environment. Good to know options for spreading manager risk for such holdings.

A lot of credit risk here.

I agree with you Mark. Additionally, I would think they must think rates are not going to rise while they hold these notes. I wish they had realized this, what 5 yrs ago? Interesting that M* and the like don't have any details, like maturity date, just 0.325*$18billion in 1.25% notes.
Evidently auction results are public (but not the buyers name): https://www.treasurydirect.gov/instit/annceresult/press/press.htm

CIPSX's five year returns are below average, but since inception, as Charles's charts show, it's beaten the S&P by 2.8% a year with below average risk. According to M*, since inception on 11/30/2004, 10K in CIPSX has grown to $25,131, vs $19,581 for the average small growth fund and $20,535 for the S&P.
If like me, VF bought it near inception, it's done well for him. I think it's best to judge funds over a full market cycle, including a bear, and on that scale CIPSX has done well.
That said, I think there are better funds (and I have too many), but I'd have to take a big capital gains hit so I'm planning to sell it only when I decide to cut back on equities. But I'm nearing that moment...

CIPSX and CIPMX have average absolute performance, as noted above, but great Martins...making them both Great Owls...


Unfortunately, they charge too much given their AUM.

@VintageFreak; Your CIPSX is one wing away from becoming a turkey !
YTD: 60 Percentile
One Year: 82 Percentile
Three Year: 53 Percentile
Five Year: 81 Percentile
M* Snapshot Performance Of CIPSX: http://performance.morningstar.com/fund/performance-return.action?t=CIPSX&region=usa&culture=en-US
CIPSX Is Ranked # 115 In The (SCG) Category By U.S. News & World Report:
http://money.usnews.com/funds/mutual-funds/small-growth/champlain-small-company-fund/cipsx
You are also the guy who likes to pay fund managers a fee for holding 12 cents of every dollar you invest in cash.
"Not seeing the problem. I one fund say I put 10K and put 5K in the bank. Or I put 15K in FPACX. What's the difference?"
Regards,
Ted