As you can see, at 4:15pm PST google has it's act together. M* certainly does not. Note the unevenness even within the AF (American Fund) and AC (American Century) fund families.

M*		
.INX 	2048.72	OK	-
ABNDX 	12.75	OK	-		AF
AIBAX 	13.53	OK	-		AF
AHITX 	10.99	OK	-		AF
ABALX 	26.11	OK	-		AF
ANCFX 	55.6	Error	No Update	AF
SMCWX 	49.7	Error	No Update	AF
CWGIX 	47.38	Error	No Update	AF
ANEFX 	39.97	OK	-		AF
TAFTX 	17.72	Error	No Update	AF
AMHIX 	15.44	Error	No Update	AF
AMCPX 	29.81	Error	No Update	AF
ACMVX 	17.84	Error	No Update	AC
TWSMX 	7.59	OK	-		AC
ABHIX 	6.04	Error	No Update	AC
BUFBX 	14.87	OK	-	
PRBLX 	41.21	Error	No Update	
VVPSX 	19.37	Error	No Update	
GABAX 	68	OK	-	
MAPIX 	15.62	OK	-	
LSBRX 	15.42	OK	-	
SFGIX 	11.52	OK	-	
MFLDX 	16.47	OK	-	
GASFX 	31.08	Error	No Update	
ARTGX 	16.05	Error	No Update	
RSIVX 	10.23	OK	-	
RPHYX 	9.95	OK	-	
WAFMX 	3.23	OK	-	
GPROX 	12.71	OK	-	
SCHD 	40.19	OK	-	

Wednesday 6:50 pm EST & 'my portfolio'@ morningstar is still not updated !!!
ralph
------------------------------------------------------------------
ALSO -- Here is a recent 'cut & paste' reply to another poster on the M* forum.
--Re: Incorrect mutual fund prices on Morningstar.com11-17-2014, 7:19 PM
"It's a sad state of affairs when we cannot trust the mutual fund quotes in Morningstar and have to go to other sources to find out what the correct price is."
-------------------------------------------
- Hello
---I have been checking 'other sources' for correct prices and M* has not gotten their act together.
---- for YEARS !!!!!
retris

@Charles: The S&P 500 can't be up every day.
Regards,
Ted
Groups:
http://finviz.com/groups.ashx

@fundalarm: Yes, Microsoft Corp. (MSFT), the world’s largest software maker, is proving the value of an AAA rating.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/print/2012-11-05/microsoft-plumbs-yield-depths-with-aaa-issue-corporate-finance.html

I wonder whether anybody has an opinion about Lyrical US Value Equity Fund (LYRBX, of LYRIX). It behaved wonderfully for quite a while, until the recent market correction. Apparently the manager was quite successful even before LYRIX, see http://online.barrons.com/articles/SB50001424053111904703704579507412703189836
What do you think?

FYI: The dividend mutual funds with the best 15-year average annual returns aren't among those bearing the highest yield. In fact, five of the top seven in performance yield less than the S&P 500's 1.87%.
Regards,
Ted
http://license.icopyright.net/user/viewFreeUse.act?fuid=MTg2Nzc5OTE=
Enlarged Graphic: http://news.investors.com/photopopup.aspx?path=WEBlv111914.gif&docId=727114&xmpSource=&width=1000&height=1152&caption=&id=727115

Hi Guys,
During the early phases of World War II, the US Army Air Force suffered brutal losses on its bombing missions. The returning planes were damaged by numerous bullet holes. What to do to improve the survival odds of our brave pilots and crew members?
A statistician was asked to research this dire problem. He examined each surviving plane and carefully catalogued the damaged areas. He recommended increased armor plating.
He surprisingly concluded that the additional heavy armor only be placed on those sections of the plane that were not damaged by enemy fire. Why? His thinking was that all enemy fire impacted each plane in a random manner. The returning fleet had survived their impacts and the missing members did not.
The statistician reasoned that the fallen planes must have been hit in the areas not damaged by the survivors. He theorized that it was those areas that were critical to continued flying. This interpretation dictated where the bulk of the additional armor protection was needed. His recommendation was executed and the rate of downed aircraft substantially decreased. Thinking a little outside the box with a full toolbox increases the odds of success.
Integrating statistics into tough decisions can work miracles. That’s true in wartime, and it’s also true when investing. Throughout his lifetime, Warren Buffett counted on a little rudimentary statistical analysis and Probability Theory to inform his decisions. He practiced a force multiplier effect when he merged simple math with a commonsense approach.
As a young boy Buffett published a racetrack tip sheet (stable-boy selections. 25 cents per copy) that was data intensive. He still uses elementary Probability rules when making his multimillion dollar investment assessments today.
Buffett said: “Take the probability of loss times the amount of possible loss from the probability of gain times the amount of possible gain. That it what we're trying to do. It's imperfect, but that's what it is all about."
This is nothing more sophisticated than a standard estimate of expected net returns. Of course, the challenging part of this exercise is to assemble reasonable probability and gain/loss estimates.
Buffett and his partner Charlie Munger are somewhat unique. In making their judgments, this brilliant team continuously use and update their probability estimates. This is a working illustration of a Conditional Probability (Bayesian) approach. We all do the same when coming to an investment choice, sometimes consciously, sometimes subconsciously, and perhaps even sometimes unconsciously.
It seems like Munger has been more forceful in extolling the virtues of rudimentary Probability Theory than Buffett: “If you don’t get this……. elementary probability into your repertoire, then you go through a long life like a one-legged man in an ass-kicking contest”. Munger has a way with words.
Munger advocates Probability Theory as just one tool in an extensive toolkit. He disclosed his investment thinking structure in a 1994 lecture at USC titled “A Lesson on Elementary Worldly Wisdom As It Relates To Investment Management & Business”. It is rather long, but delivers superior advice. Here is a Link to it:
http://www.trailblazercoaching.com/articles/worldly-wisdom-by-charlie-munger.pdf
Enjoy. If it works for the Buffett-Munger team, it can be made to work for us too with just a little effort. A complete investment toolkit is always more useful then one missing critical parts.
Best Regards.

Jerry is addressing the question of whether to liquidate completely (and implicitly, this year or across multiple years). That's because of extra taxes/higher rates that could kick in.
Edit: Upon rereading, I see Jerry largely addressed the item I also discussed below:
Let me address a slightly different question - assuming you are going to liquidate this year, do you do that before or after dividends? Simple rule of thumb: liquidate all your long term shares before distributions. Short term shares are (usually) better liquidated after distribution.
For example, suppose you have a LT share purchased at $100. It's now priced at $110. Suppose also that the distribution is going to be $3 LTG, $2 ord income. The price will drop to $105.
Sell before distribution and you have $10 LTG. Sell after, and you realize a $5 LTG. But you've also got a $3 LTG distribution, and $2 in ord income. That $10 realized LTG is better than the $8 LTG ($5 + $3) and $2 ordinary income.
The reasoning on the short term shares is the same, just backward. You're usually worse off realizing STG than getting the some of those gains as LTG distributions and some as ord income.

It really depends in part on your tax bracket and how close you are to critical levels such as $250k for married $200k for single. Check this link for more info on that issue http://www.irs.gov/uac/Newsroom/Net-Investment-Income-Tax-FAQs
Another factor to check out is the probability you will owe money to the Alternative Minimum Tax because of large capital gains. (small gains probably won't affect this)
\Obviously if you sell your entire position in one or more of these funds you will have a higher income and amount of "investment income " than you would if you just took distributions (presumably since you don't like the performance you will not be reinvesting the dividends.. If you are close to critical levels such as the ACA surcharge levels or the much lower levels where tax brackets for capital gains change you should do the careful calculation to determine your best action..All things being equal and given that we are near the end of the year it is likely that a good option (not necessarily the best)would be to sell one fund before distribution but only the shares on which you have a long term gain(because the distribution will include dividends taxed at a higher rate). Once you get into the new year you can reconsider the situation. One minor value in putting things off is that the market is likely (because it usually does) go up in the months at the end of a year.

We can add Mr Rodriguez to the list of names that have called for the end of good times in the market. Wilbur Ross put out a statement late last week I think.

Icahn has said it, now the other day he said 3-5 years. While people are looking for a Santa Claus rally and all that, I do think a pullback would be healthy.
Also, Wilbur Ross has some kind of bizarre shell company listing that went public not that long ago.

Eleven days ago I wrote to M* that their quote for HQL was based on the previous day's NAV rather than a real quote, and PM reflected the same. They wrote back more than a week ago that it had been forwarded so it could be fixed. The quote page and PM still show a price that's indicated as being from November 6th
cef.morningstar.com/quote?t=hql

Here's documentation of the M* quote.

I have MAPIX closing at $15.69 for those holding that fund.

Hi John- yeah, I sure hope so. As far as I'm aware, Google is usually pretty reliable for the day's results after 1500 PST, give-or-take.

FYI: U.S. stocks broke a five-day run of fractional moves and staged a micro-rally to close at record levels. Sentiment was boosted by stronger housing data in the U.S. as well as widely anticipated news of a snap election in Japan and better-than-expected data from Germany.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/sp-500-dow-rise-to-record-levels-2014-11-18/print
Reuters Slant: http://www.reuters.com/assets/print?aid=USKCN0J21A020141118
Bloomberg SlanT: thttp://www.bloomberg.com/news/print/2014-11-18/u-s-index-futures-little-changed-after-s-p-500-extends-record.html
Markets At A Glance: http://markets.wsj.com/us
IBB up 2.22% http://etfs.morningstar.com/quote?t=IBB

While politics does have an effect on investments (especially some sectors), one should be able to separate politics from broad investment choices, although I think some can't when it comes to their party versus the other.
Rodriguez should read Hugh Hendry's letter.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-11-18/hugh-hendry-i-believe-central-bankers-are-terrified#comments
"However, I clearly confused everyone with my choice of language. What I should have said is that investors are perhaps misconstruing rising equity prices as a traditional bull market spurred on by revenue and earnings growth, and becoming fearful of a reversal, when instead the persistent upwards drift in stock markets is more a reflection of the steady erosion of the soundness of the global monetary system and therefore the rise in stock prices is something that is likely to prevail for some time. There is more to it of course, as I will attempt to explain, but not much.
This should be a great time to be a macro manager. It is almost without precedent: the world's monetary authorities are targeting higher risk asset prices as a policy response to restoke economic demand. Whether you agree with such a policy is irrelevant. You need to own stocks. And yet, remarkably, the most contentious thing you can say in the macro world today is “I’m bullish”."
"October is simply another example. US stocks fell over 10%. I don't really know why. Was it the threat of the end of QE or a global pandemic or more misgivings as to the state of affairs in Greece and Europe's enduringly weak economy? It doesn't really matter. Such is the perceived risk in the financial system that enough investors now anticipate a policy response whenever the S&P falls more than 10%. This ensured that shorts were covered and volatility sold in mid-October. The fixed income market's expectations for hawkish future Fed rate hikes evaporated with stock price weakness and other risk markets soon rallied; the S&P is now back to its all-time high.
Pity the macro manager then who had to stop loss mid-month; that used to be me. But I widened my tolerance for loss. We have no desire to lose money but unless something tangible happens to challenge our narrative we are less willing to automatically reduce our risk taking in response to modest, if rapid, short term market gyrations. Making money requires making the right calls of course but just as importantly it necessitates that we provide trades with enough breathing space to develop and hopefully prosper.
So why all this enthusiasm for upside equity risk?
To my mind the current period is analogous to the Plaza Accord of 1985 when central bankers agreed to intervene in the currency market to drive the value of the dollar lower. The fast moving world of FX was deemed a more expeditious way of correcting for the huge US current account deficit than the laborious and slow process of waiting for the totality of countless micro wage and productivity deals to rectify the yawning trade gap. No one really knew for sure how high the yen or Deutsche Mark should trade back then but this didn’t stop macro managers from being very long such positions."
etc etc

Perhaps M* isnt the only one with reporting issues. Yesterday, after 8:00 pm PST, I updated my spreadsheet using Google Finance. I happened to check Google again a few minutes ago, and look at the discrepancies! I also happened to download the same report from M* yesterday, again after 8:00pm local. Note that yesterday's M* agrees with "today's" Google posting:

Was:	Now:		M*
ABNDX 	12.76	12.76	OK	12.76
AIBAX 	13.53	13.54	Error	13.54
AHITX 	11.11	11.04	Error	11.04
ABALX 	25.96	26.04	Error	26.04
ANCFX 	55.23	55.32	Error	55.32
SMCWX 	49.73	49.35	Error	49.35
CWGIX 	47.01	46.99	Error	46.99
ANEFX 	39.85	39.85	OK	39.85
TAFTX 	17.74	17.73	Error	17.73
AMHIX 	15.46	15.45	Error	15.45
AMCPX 	29.71	29.58	Error	29.58
ACMVX 	17.75	17.74	Error	17.74
TWSMX 	7.58	7.57	Error	7.57
ABHIX 	6.08	6.05	Error	6.05
BUFBX 	14.81	14.87	Error	14.87
PRBLX 	40.92	40.92	OK	40.92
VVPSX 	19.53	19.29	Error	19.29
GABAX 	67.72	67.73	Error	67.73
MAPIX 	15.69	15.62	Error	15.62
LSBRX 	15.42	15.45	Error	15.45
SFGIX 	11.53	11.45	Error	11.45
MFLDX 	16.56	16.43	Error	16.43
GASFX 	31.11	31.01	Error	31.01
ARTGX 	15.89	15.95	Error	15.95
RSIVX 	10.24	10.25	Error	10.25
RPHYX 	9.94	9.95	Error	9.95
WAFMX 	3.24	3.23	Error	3.23
GPROX 	12.82	12.71	Error	12.71
SCHD 	40.01	40.1	Error	40.01

WTF!!

@Junkster: You don't understand, he's a legend in his own mind. FPPTX Is Ranked #60 In The (MCV) Fund Category By U.S. News & World Report.
Regards,
Ted
http://money.usnews.com/funds/mutual-funds/mid-cap-value/fpa-capital-fund/fpptx

And what a difference a month and a half makes. His three year annualized return is now 10.64% vs. the 15%+ shown by U.S. News through 9/30. That compares to 21.42% in the S&P and 20.48% in FPPTX's benchmark.

"What’s your forecast for the stock market in 2015?
Lower! It will be easily 20% or 30% lower from what it is now."
Mr. Rodriguez, meet Mr. Clements.

Hello,
It is now about 8:35AM EST as I write.
For what it is worth ...
I contacted M* at about 8:15 AM EST and went through the pricing concerns again with their represemtative. This review lasted for about ten minutes as I had them access the thread itself. Finally, it was acknowledged that they had mispriced the security and would forward this on to the department that would be responsible to deal with this. They could not dispell the documentation that rjb112 provided. I asked that a copy of and note of the call be sent on to Carling Spelhaugh in Corporate Communications. By the way ... Joe@Morningstar is an email address to their customer service dept.
Hopefully, things will be improving.
Old_Skeet

Howdy,
Yeppers, the basic bullion ETFs are taxed as collectibles at 28%. This is very much an ouch and limits these funds, at best, to deferred or exempt accounts.
For taxable accounts, the Central Fund of Canada CEF is taxed normally. It contains, last I looked, 55/45 gold to silver in real hands on bullion in Canada.
Part of the issue with the bullion ETFs is that the crazy hoarders want hands on physical bullion and even some of the more rational investors prefer CEF or one of the Sprott funds for various reasons. In addition to counterfeit ingots showing up here and there, there is the issue of more paper bullion than has ever been mined and lastly, some folks just don't trust them.
peace,
rono