@mrc70:
- what's your age?
- have you done a look through (X-ray or similar) for the asset classes?
- does this portfolio serve as your retirement portfolio or you have other goals for the moneys?
below comments are very high level.
the single and most important decision in investing is asset allocation. it looks like you're around100% equities with some tiny and emerging ones to scale your average volatility to may be twice that of the S&P500. and you don't have any duration to offset it.
if you are in your 20s or 30s and are very risk tolerant, that might work, but judging by a selection of funds that are new and introduced here at MFO, you're subject to the groupthink and will be buying most of the stuff profiled/popular here and then getting rid of it should volatility rise on the downside (the upside is usually taken as granted).
i am not commenting on individual positions, because @my tender age of 45, i would never have 100% of my money in a portfolio like this. or, scratch that, with a guaranteed government or private pension, i might load on equities -- but that is not a choice in my lifetime.
best of luck.
PS there are of course other methods to wealth: to find AAPL or FB while these are still in the garage stage; bet all your chips on the tightly controlled momentum play (a la Junkster); etc.

FYI: Assets under management in liquid alternative mutual funds have quintupled since 2008, reaching a total of $150 billion as of June 2014. The number of ’40 Act funds pursuing alternative strategies has also multiplied fivefold in that time, and now totals more than 450. As liquid alts are the fastest growing category in the investment world, many investors are understandably skeptical – the growth story seems too good to be true. But many of the common complaints against liquid alts are based in myth, as revealed by the Arbitrage Funds’ new report, 7 Myths About Liquid Alternative Mutual Funds.
Regards,
Ted
http://dailyalts.com/arbitrage-funds-dispels-7-myths-liquid-alternatives/

FYI: Many fund sponsors voluntarily provide that information. But at least one major ETF sponsor, Vanguard Group, doesn’t.
Regards,
Ted
http://blogs.wsj.com/totalreturn/2014/10/29/etfs-are-required-to-be-transparent-not-always/tab/print/?mg=blogs-wsj&url=http%3A%2F%2Fblogs.wsj.com%2Ftotalreturn%2F2014%2F10%2F29%2Fetfs-are-required-to-be-transparent-not-always%2Ftab%2Fprint&fpid=2,121

Why did they open an institutional share class for RiverNorth Core Opportunity Fund Class I (RNCIX)? They will accept more money from institutional investors in $5 million increments, but not from individual investors? I guess the strategy hasn't reached capacity yet.
"With the launch of this institutional share class for the RiverNorth Core Opportunity Fund, the firm feels confident that it is attracting the right kind of investors and that the integrity of the strategy will be maintained for everyone.”
That's too bad that RiverNorth doesn't think individual investors are the right kind of investors for them.

Hi, mrc70: A couple of things
(1) what's up with the 2 global funds? What's your thinking with them in the mix? It looks like the rest of your portfolio, w/o them, more than sufficiently covers the entire global, and just about all the bases (and then some);
(2) VGSTX-- what's that trivial position about? what of any significance do you envision that 2% position doing for you? Or is that where you intend to send most of your periodic out-performance in the stock funds, and slowly build that holding into a major holding over 5,10,15 yrs, while reinvesting the biannual distribution (of course)?

Can I assume this is a long term buy and hold strategy? At first glance, most funds are good. Most funds are large (more than 10B AUM) Do you invest in VDGIX or VDIGX?
I'd only keep 2 out of these four funds (maybe VDIGX and FPACX):
Vanguard Dividend Growth Inv 13.57
FPA Crescent 10.37
Vanguard Capital Opportunity Inv 6.38
Vanguard Selected Value Inv 5.68
I'd split VHGEX into GGPOX, ARTGX, and MACSX
I'd consider adding a domestic small cap fund.

Yes, sorry, number of funds. Spread / number of accnts does not matter. Think about what you wish to accomplish. Roths for the more aggressive, assuming they are tapped later. Trad or whatever other IRAs tapped earlier, hence less aggressive. See if you can cut by half. Leave along for 5y, then review.
At least this is what I did, exactly and in detail, reading the best sources. I am now, finally, down to like 4 funds plus 3 internatl. Or so I say. Gotta control that ooh new idea OCD.

Hi VF,
VHGEX is an old fund in the retirement account, held it since 2005, when Marathon Asset Management was the only sub-advisor. I bought it based on the advice by Dan Wiener in the trial subscription I tried out then. Vanguard messed up this fund by making it multi sub-advisor fund. I am holding it as one of the core holding along with VDGIX. If V'rd has a good International Lcap fund, I would have easily opted for it instead of VHGEX but both V'rd ILcap funds are mediocre.
TRF is speculative play on Russia, as its market being cheap realtively. I have progressively become aggressive in investing style over the last 10 years. I can't imagine holding some of these funds 5-10 years ago. :-).
Thanks,
Mrc

No, but funds like these I want heavy manager investment. Like at least $500K. One trustee and one manager does own in $100K range.
One manager has last name Wisdom and has written a book. Hmmm...
Here...
http://www.amminvest.com/files/Communications/Archive.html
No mention of fund on the website but maybe one can get some insight into the management. The way I look at it right now, this fund was around during the financial crisis, its name suggest they know value investing, it has "income" in its name and drops close to 30% in 2008 and then does not recover better than its category. In short, I'm not seeing a single plus point and lack of any literature on the AMM website tells me they don't even want you investing.

I think the spike has been written about...and debated. (eg, Montier). Some say it was an anomaly and should be ignored. I vote to ignore it...along with the entire 51% drawdown =).

Am I reading this right? The P/E ratio during financial crisis reached 150? How come we never heard about this when it did?
what happens when a company actually does not have a P/E ratio. Do they just ignore it in calculation or what???

I agree with davidrmoran. If I look at the last 30 days or the last 60 days, I can find a whole lot of funds that did better than the S&P 500 and better than the funds that were mentioned. But to conclude that what happened to any fund in the recent mini-correction is an indication of what will occur during a real sell-off is a stretch. With few exceptions, I really don't give a rat's behind how a fund does compared to the S&P 500, the exceptions being those funds whose benchmark is the S&P 500. I am interested, however, in how various allocations of funds do TOGETHER when the going gets more volatile. And for us it is much more important to keep a long view of things rather than faunch over what happened in a very, very short time period, which is often meaningless. FPA Crescent FPACX is run by a great manager, and we use it in many client portfolios. It has actually under-performed the S&P, but we don't compare it to that index, and we certainly will not make a decision on whether to hold it based on the last few weeks.

John, I'm too lazy to look it up- what's the time difference between you and San Francisco?
Thanks- OJ
Disregard- I found it... 7:15 PM there = 4:15 AM here
4:15AM?? What the hell am I doing up? Back to bed for me! Later...

FYI:
Regards,
Ted
http://www.chartoftheday.com/20141029.htm?T

Friends,
Here is my portfolio. Please let me know your review comments.
Some of the funds like VGSTX is there because I have no other choice. I recently sold SFGIX to put more money into ARTKX. I prefer SFGIX over MACSX due to its diversity, and would buy it to replace MACSX at some point in future.
Fund Name % Weight
************ *********
Vanguard Dividend Growth Inv 13.57
FPA Crescent 10.37
Vanguard Global Equity Inv 10.16
Akre Focus Retail 9.23
Whitebox Tactical Opportunities Investor 7.96
Grandeur Peak Global Opportunities Inv 6.92
Grandeur Peak Emerg Mkts Opps Inv 6.7
Vanguard Capital Opportunity Inv 6.38
Artisan Global Value Investor 6.26
Vanguard Selected Value Inv 5.68
Artisan International Value Investor 3.5
Wasatch Frontier Emerg Sm Countrs Inv 3.32
Matthews Asian Growth & Inc Investor 3.31
T. Rowe Price Health Sciences 2.98
Vanguard STAR Inv 2.28
Templeton Russia & East Europe Common 1.38
Total 100

that's why you may need both active and passive in your holdings, i would suggest perhpas 50/50 [that's what i have in my portfolio...]

I hold HQL and PRHSX and several other funds that are significantly overweight healthcare both in the US and in developing markets. I think HQL does perform just as well as the Fidelity funds over time. Its equal to FBIOX and a little ahead of FSPHX over the last 5 years, behind both over 10 years and comfortably ahead of both over 15 years. My portfolio is designed to be overweight healthcare, so I'm just using different vehicles to achieve my goal and target different areas.

Hi OJ, here's what the fact sheet says. Gross is 1.40 and net is 1.14 for the retail shares. Cheers, AJ
Class R (Retail)
NASDAQ Symbol: RNDLX
CUSIP Number: 76881N301
Minimum Initial Investment: $5,000
Minimum IRA Initial Investment: $1,000
Annualized Net Expense Ratio Annual Report: 1.14%
Gross Expense Ratio: 1.40%

@heezsafe
Hi there- Are you sure about the 1.15% ER? The reason that I ask is that when I downloaded the fact sheet, it does show 1.15 for RNSIX (the Institutional Class) but still 1.4% for RNSIX (R Class).
Thanks- OJ