Thanks David. Can you find a way to ask Litman Gregory if they would please lower the expense ratio of Litman Gregory Master Alt Strats Inv MASNX? The expense ratio is 1.91% (ouch). Yes, I know that category tends to have high expense ratios, but they could lower it......and their ER is even "above average" in their category, per M*. I do like their multi-manager concept, and choosing 'Masters'.
For the Arbitrage Fund crew.....don't know how you would ask this....but the fund seems to be 'dead in the water' with respect to performance. Not a happy shareholder. Their 2013 total return: 0.85%. 2012 return: 0.27%. No complaints about 2011. 2010: 1.44%. Not focusing on the category, but on an absolute return basis, can't they do better?

......Back to the original thread: I guess I own enough Jardine Matheson!!!
Top holding in MAFSX, as previously noted. (7.08% of the fund's holdings.) ALSO, just saw it is the top holding in MACSX. (3.57% of the fund's AUM.)

Hi David, thanks for asking. Maybe ask Bryan Krug what his strategy for the near future of ARTFX is, given that the HY spread continues to sink (~3.5) toward the record low shown in FRED data (~2.5). Best, AJ

Few here have complemented our master Linkster more than I on the quality of some of his links over the years. He finds some real gems and, like most, I greatly appreciate his service to the board. However, there's always room for more selectivity in the postings - and I don't think any one of us - no matter how brilliant or well intended - has a right to dominate the postings day after day.
Like most, my time is limited. I'll pull-up the board half dozen times a day to see what's new. When 15+ out of the first 20 threads are all from the same poster and all linked articles it's overwhelming. I generally turn away. That's unfortunate because there may be a fresh original comment in there somewhere from Scott or Crash or OJ or MJG that's been already rapidly dispatched to page 2 or 3 on my tablet computer. It's a bit like looking for that single can of creamed corn in a cupboard stuffed with string beans. (You know it's in there somewhere:-)
Self imposed discipline is always best. But structure could be created I suppose that would limit the number of threads any one individual can create in a single day to encourage more participation by a broader array of posters. Do many of us seriously feel a need to initiate more than a dozen individual threads in a day? Hopefully, others will come up with better ideas. That's just one.
Regarding civility, that's not normally too much of a problem to my way of thinking. Possibly I'm missing something here. But, yes, there have been some egregious cases of bullying in the past and - with perfect 20/20 hindsight - those mean spirited comments should have been deleted. Everyone, including the perpetrator, would I think have respected such a decision.
Thanks David for your interest in our rumblings and for all you do for our community. I'm ever grateful. I'll try to step aside and avoid any further comment on this. Hopefully many others will chime in in coming days. And, thanks also to Old Joe for bringing these issues to the front. Regards

Hi, guys.
I'm prepping now for the Morningstar conference; I wanted to give you a heads up and to extend an invitation. I've got a series of manager interviews scheduled, in addition to the regular panel presentations. I thought I'd sketch out the confirmed interviews and ask if folks had questions they'd like me to raise with any of these folks.
Wednesday is mostly panel presentations but we're meeting with Steve Owens, one of Touchstone's managing directors, at 5:00 to talk about their fund lineup and philosophy.
Thursday is long.
7:00 a.m. Breakfast panel with Litman Gregory. Talks by guys from Northern Cross (the late Hakan Castegren's firm, which does and Harbor International) and Water Island (the Arbitrage Fund crew). Some prospect for a question or two there.
8:45 Zac Wydra of Beck, Mack & Oliver Partners (BMPEX)
2:30 Bryan Krug of Artisan High Income, formerly of Ivy High Income (WHIAX). WHIAX is bloated but really solid; Krug substantially outran the comparable funds from Fidelity, T. Rowe and Vanguard during his tenure.
3:30 Josh Alderman, a managing director at Diamond Hill, who wants to do the "firm philosophy" thing.
5:30 Venkatesh Reddy and Kara Paik of Zeo Strategic Income (ZEOIX), folks who describe their philosophy as “short duration meets Benjamin Graham – we invest in short-duration corporate debt, carefully selecting each security in our portfolio of approximately 25 holdings."
Unscheduled but likely is an informal conversation with one of the Columbia Acorn folks (he remembers me from the days that he was a high school debater) and, with luck, a interview with the Whitebox folks to discuss Tactical Income.
If there are questions you'd like me to raise with any of them, let me know and I'll poke on your behalf.
As ever,
David

The "spliced index" seems to mean that Vanguard has changed index providers over time and they've attempted to aggregate the returns of the combined indexes (one index's return in 2005 is married to the next index's return in 2006 ...).
Here's the official word:
**Russell 2000 Index through May 16, 2003; MSCI US Small Cap 1750 Index through January 30, 2013; CRSP US Small Cap Index thereafter.
The index's homepage describes it as covering the bottom 2 - 15% of the investable universe with an average cap in the $1.4 - 1.9 billion range. The fund sits at about $2.7 billion, essentially average for a small-blend fund.
For what interest that holds,
David

It also has 20.55% in Europe and 8% in the Americas. Seems to be new territory for Matthews.
Yum's KFC and Pizza Hut have a large presence in Asia and still growing. That is still a big chunk of total assets.

4.38% of fund is in Yum! Brands. That not Asia--- though surely, there are a bazillion fast-food joints in Asia that come under the Yum! bumbershoot.
I dumped MJFOX for this one: MAFSX. Since the change-over, it's up exactly 2.6% for me. No great shakes. Overall, with respect to the switch, I'm still down from my original amount by -2.95%.

http://news.morningstar.com/articlenet/SubmissionsArticle.aspx?submissionid=191455.xml
It's not so full of small-caps, presuming you went to this fund for small-caps. Currently: 46% MID-cap. And 54% SMALL-cap.

FYI:
Regards,
Ted
http://blogs.barrons.com/focusonfunds/2014/06/10/vanguard-dividend-growths-kilbride-effect-in-a-chart/tab/print/
M* Snapshot Of VDIGX: http://quotes.morningstar.com/fund/vdigx/f?t=vdigx
Lipper Snapshot Of VDIGX: http://www.marketwatch.com/investing/fund/vdigx
Fund Ranks # 85 In The (LCB) Category By U.S. News & World Report:
http://money.usnews.com/funds/mutual-funds/large-blend/vanguard-dividend-growth-fund/vdigx

FYI:
Regards,
Ted
http://blogs.barrons.com/incomeinvesting/2014/06/09/guggenheims-minerd-sees-rates-falling-junk-bonds-getting-pricey/tab/print/
Video: http://live.wsj.com/?mod=BOL_hp_video&category=barrons-mostrecent#!54D0A656-3FA9-4215-8CCD-3AD7A6B0A36B

FYI:
Regards,
Ted
http://news.morningstar.com/articlenet/article.aspx?id=650405

I remember a poster on FundAlarm a few years ago. He was obviously a commissioned salesman, and he ranted continually on how wonderful equity indexed annuities were and how they were the be-all and end-all for everyone of all ages, no matter what their situation in life. He had nasty responses for those of us who questioned his 'knowledge', let alone his ethics. For a while, I and some other posters stepped aside. But eventually he crept away, although he did surface now and then only to be put back in his deserved place. My point is that people like this fellow are all around us. Some of them are less confrontational than him, some simply think they are too smart to be bothered by the discussions on this board but still want everyone to know that.
Over the years I have made a point to comment on things where I can contribute to ongoing education or try to keep someone from making a mistake, based on my 30 years of advising clients. Occasionally I say something dumb, and I always try to own up to it. And goodness knows if we could go back 3, 5 years and get a re-do on things, we surely would. So my tendency is to ignore the folks who become disagreeable. David can police this board and act accordingly. When I get attacked, and it happens very rarely, I usually take a respite and give myself some time to cool off. Most folks on this board are good people who are more than surface learners. We should all keep that in mind.

http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1016073/000119312514229977/d741039d497.htm
497 1 d741039d497.htm 497
DRIEHAUS MUTUAL FUNDS
(The “Trust”)
Driehaus Mid Cap Growth Fund
SUPPLEMENT DATED JUNE 9, 2014
TO PROSPECTUS, SUMMARY PROSPECTUS AND
STATEMENT OF ADDITIONAL INFORMATION DATED APRIL 30, 2014
IMPORTANT NOTICE
The Board of Trustees of the Trust (the “Board”) has determined to terminate and liquidate the Driehaus Mid Cap Growth Fund (the “Fund”). Effective as of the close of business on July 11, 2014, the Fund is closed and will not accept any purchase orders. As of July 31, 2014, the Fund will begin the process of liquidating its portfolio securities and shareholders should be aware that the Fund will not be pursuing its stated investment objective or engaging in any business activities except for the purpose of winding up its affairs. Shareholders who do not sell their shares of the Fund before the effective date under the Plan of Termination and Liquidation, currently expected to be July 31, 2014, will receive a liquidating distribution in cash equal to the amount of the net asset value of their shares. Thereafter, the Fund will be liquidated and dissolved, and all references to the Fund herein shall be removed.
PLEASE RETAIN THIS SUPPLEMENT FOR FUTURE REFERENCE
For more information, please call the Driehaus Mutual Funds at (800) 560-6111.

Baseball fan here. "Battering average" makes me giggle. So, Grantham is not a dumb shit after all, eh?

Grantham is certainly a very smart guy. And well worth reading.
But based on my read of his most recent articles [all available for free on the GMO website, and you can subscribe to get notified of them by email], if I were going to act based on his current beliefs, I'd be out of equities entirely.
IIRC, he thinks US stocks are 65% overvalued, and going to have a negative return over the next 7 years.
So if the 7-year return on US Stocks is going to be negative, why would I invest in them?
Of course, he may be right.
Some of the best stock market minds believed that the US stock market was significantly overvalued starting in January of 1996, but the market kept moving upwards for more than 4 years afterwards. A number of the best value stock mutual fund managers had or almost had their careers uprooted because they refused to buy the overvalued names from 1996-March 2000. Even Donald Yacktman almost lost his job. His own fund board tried to kick him off the Yacktman fund!

Hi Guys,
I’ll be investing in a mutual fund or ETF in the next few weeks so I’m currently doing a little fund specific research. Since I have accounts at both Fidelity and Vanguard, funds/ETFs from those houses are on my candidates list.
In the research process, I stumbled onto a nice direct comparison chart generated by Advisor Investments that just might service both my and your needs. Here is a Link to this Fidelity versus Vanguard tradeoff:
http://www.adviserinvestments.com/reports/FidVVanP2.pdf
The comparative analysis chart that closes the document is especially instructive. It offers 24 head-to-head face offs between these two behemoth fund organizations in many fund categories.
Not unexpectedly, results are a mixed bag. From that time stamped table, Vanguard has the highest percentage of winners for both the 10-year and 5-year time horizons.
Intrigued by this temporal result, I visited a local Fidelity outlet. A representative was familiar with the comparative table. She was anxious to show me an updated Advisor Investments release. It still had Vanguard slightly ahead in the winner number count over the 10-year period, but Fidelity was ahead in outperformers over the 5-year period.
The comparative results have tightened considerably. It’s a moving target. My interpretation is that both the company investment philosophy and its style join together with the current market cycle to produce these time dependent and constantly changing outcomes.
I believe fund managers and their staff are the dominant factor in determining performance. Fidelity and Vanguard use very different methods when selecting fund managers. Simply put, Fidelity emphasizes an inside approach while Vanguard exploits an outside approach. Fidelity fundamentally trains managers internally; Vanguard basically hires outside managers of institutional quality.
The history of Advisor Investments itself is quite interesting. It’s a union of two principle newsletter writers who competed against one another in earlier days: Dan Wiener who founded the Independent Adviser for Vanguard Investors newsletter, and Jim Lowell who publishes the Fidelity Investor newsletter.
These newsletters still monitor their respective target fund families. Although Fidelity and Vanguard practice fund management in a totally distinctive way, Wiener and Lowell have managed to merge their individual styles into a mostly friendly cooperative enterprise. They also recognized that they make more profits giving advice than writing newsletters.
Both Wiener and Lowell have toiled for decades to service Vanguard and Fidelity clients. I consider them fair, honest, and trustworthy public researchers. Neither gentleman is a tool for the fund giants they cover.
Both have prompted changes to be made at the organizations they monitor. They have successfully promoted the firing of several fund managers who cost customers their savings with badly informed decisions. Here is a Link to an interview of the dynamic pair conducted by Barron’s:
http://online.barrons.com/news/articles/SB50001424052970203594904576237053101928820?tesla=y
It’s great to have so many fine fund choices at a respectable annual cost.
Best Regards.

@jerry: Rob Arnott of Research Associates [Research Associates was referenced in the linked article] supports what you are saying to some extent. He has done a lot of research in this area, and he concludes that almost any way to construct an index has outperformed a capitalization weighted index. Part of it is what you said, the fact that you get an average lower cap of the stocks. Rob Arnott says that a big part of it is that a cap weighting overweights the most expensive stocks, the most overvalued ones [cap weighting=price X shares outstanding]. He also says that market cap weighting does not capture the economic footprint of a company. For example, although Apple is weighted the most heavily in a cap weighted index, iirc, Walmart has the most sales of any company in the U.S., which relates more to economic footprint. So he believes in weighting on more fundamental factors, such as [again, iirc] cash flow, dividends, etc, to weight by economic footprint rather than by market cap.
For Rob Arnott, the key thing is to NOT weight the portfolio by price, which is essentially what a market cap weighting is doing, as price x #shares. He says that by market weighting, you are pushing away value, and loading up on growth......favoring stocks that have higher valuations.
Here's an interview [with transcript if you prefer that] that adds to the discussion above:
http://www.morningstar.com/cover/videocenter.aspx?id=613699
By the way, I don't own any of the fundamental index funds. My index funds are the standard ones, which are cap weighted, mostly Vanguard. I haven't made up my mind wrt the best indexes to invest in, e.g., fundamental index methodology, different forms of factor weighting/"smart beta", etc. A while back I took a look at the performance of the Schwab Fundamental Weighted indexes, and I was not overwhelmed.....certainly not enough to want to sell my traditional index funds, pay the capital gains taxes, and purchase other index funds with a different weighting methodology.
What is being talked about a lot these days is weighting an index by size (smaller), value, profitability, and more recently, momentum. The DFA 'index' funds are now factoring these into their weighting methodology.
@mjg: from the trivia department......correct me if I am wrong, but the S&P 500 Index currently has 501 stocks.
It's the Vanguard S&P 500 Index Fund that has 504 stocks, but that is different than the Standard & Poor's 500 Index. Note that the Schwab and Fidelity index fund versions also contain 501 stocks.
Standard & Poor's has a nice fact sheet on their index:
http://us.spindices.com/indices/equity/sp-500
Finally, in the article which is the topic of this discussion, the author states that he is using a universe of the top 3000 stocks in the world, based on market value. So not the S&P 500.

"It is actually a very rich country with an educated population,...."
Umm, apparently Michael isn't aware that, during the past decade, 50% of the young adult population of Ukraine, between the ages of 18 and 30, has emigrated elsewhere.

YIKES!

"It is actually a very rich country with an educated population,...."
Umm, apparently Michael isn't aware that, during the past decade, 50% of the young adult population of Ukraine, between the ages of 18 and 30, has emigrated elsewhere.

Hi Jerry,
Thank you for joining the discussion.
Since each has been formulated with its own disparate weighting functions, I think of the Equal and Cap weighted S&P 500 Indices as entirely different animals. They are likely to react differently under special market circumstances. Some professionals believe that the Cap weighted variety will outperform in a more or less constantly rising Bull market.
Certainly you are correct that the Equal weighted version has historically outperformed for its entire history. But the relative performances have been marked with a bumpy ride; each has been a leader for brief time periods.
Regardless of the weighting, the S&P 500 is still a limited target of only 504 large firms at this moment.
Historically, the Fama-French academic work has concluded that small cap outfits offer a higher return over their larger rivals.
I suspect that the Blinded Monkey will still randomly toss a portfolio that outdistances either S&P 500 Index given an expanded small company and large company target field. The relative outperformance will be dependent on the Index yardstick selected, and will also be timeframe dependent.
I am not familiar with any study that specifically addressed your suggestion. So, at best my outcome suspicion is an educated estimate, and at worst it is a pure guesstimate.
Thanks again for your insightful participation.
Best Wishes.