I find it hypocritical that he is complaining about pay while his fund carries a 1.63% expense ratio for the institutional share class and 1.85% for the investor class.

?Time to tilt the portfolio away from small caps and in favor of large caps?
Morningstar says that DIA has a forward P/E of 15.01; S & P 500 forward P/E: 16.0
Russell 2000 forward P/E: 18.94

>>"Nothing comes close to MFLDX record over the last 3 and 5 years."
I just compared BPLEX and MFLDX at M* for the 5 year and 3 year periods ending yesterday (3/24/2014).
For the past 3 years, MFLDX beats BPLEX:
$10K invested on 3/24/2011 would have grown to the following amounts on 3/24/2014:
BPLEX: $12,514.96
MFLDX: $13,483.03
Long/Short Equity: $11,321.27
S&P: $15,210.64
For the past 5 years, BPLEX handily beats MFLDX.
$10K invested on 3/24/2009 would have grown to the following amounts on 3/24/2014:
BPLEX: $29,384.83
MFLDX: $21,123.45
Long/Short Equity: $13,448.10
S&P: $25,755.32
I'm curious to see what happens in the next substantial (10%+) downturn.

Hi David,
I regret that you are presently confronted with this delicate and sensitive investment issue. Indeed, with age, investment options vanish and emotions are high. We all are forced to address this issue at some point.
This problem is surely not in my competence wheelhouse. Also. I mightily resist making specific investment recommendations. However, my wife recently acted on this challenge, and even today, she is helping a daughter-in-law chase down some elder care options. So, currently, we are haunted by a similar problem with some tough choices.
As an initial step, I propose you assess a realistic life expectancy to scope the timeframe. Using recent social security tables, an 87 year old male has a current 12.4 % likelihood of passing away this year, and a projected additional life expectancy of 5.02 years. The 87 year old statistics for a female is 9.5 % and 6.03 years, respectively. So there is indeed a small probability that one member of the family could survive for a decade.
Based on these limited experiences and the life expectancy tables, I suggest you consider a short term corporate bond fund. Given their low costs in all categories, you might want to throw the Vanguard Short Term Investment Grade Admiral mutual fund (VFSUX) into the candidate hopper.
That fund, over timeframes of 1 to 15 years, has recorded a positive Sharpe ratio so it consistently delivers returns over government Bills and also outdistances inflation.
Over 1 year to 15 year time-spans it has registered standard deviations that are about one-half of its returns for each measurement period (data from Morningstar). That translates to a less than 5 % likelihood that the fund will generate negative returns for any single year. This low likelihood and low volatility should lessen the worries from older folks.
The low 0.10 % expense ratio for the admiral shares ( $ 50 K minimum) is attractive as is dealing with Vanguard’s management stability. A customer has easy and immediate access to the fund. This fund option is worth a moment or two of reflection.
I wish you good luck and success in addressing this emotionally charged matter.
Best Regards.

GO bonds
http://www.bondbuyer.com/issues/123_55/california-gos-different-226128-and-stronger-226128-than-detroits-1060904-1.html

wheat/russia ETF
http://www.etf.com/sections/weekly-etf-returns/21587-weekly-returns-wheat-russia-etfs-up.html
time to buy russia?
http://www.nasdaq.com/article/is-it-time-to-flee-russian-etfs-etf-news-and-commentary-cm337687
slv - ? silver bottom?
http://seekingalpha.com/article/2104383-has-silver-bottomed-down?source=google_news
glass half full
http://blogs.barrons.com/emergingmarketsdaily/2014/03/24/em-power-ranking-em-pared-losses-glass-half-full/
EM read - business wk
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2014-03-21/emerging-stocks-rise-as-valuations-reach-2004-low-micex-drops

@Ted: "This was joke played on members of the M* Mutual Fund Discussion by some jerk named Chang. I hope Kenster1_Global Growth has learned his lesson and doesn't bring any more of that crap from M* Board over to the number one Mutual Fund Discussion Board anywhere on the web."

---Ted, I'll gladly leave this board and will do so right now Life is too good to enjoy people who walk around like they have a permanent sour pickle stuck up their ass and happen to think they're so big after finding a Sheriff badge in a gumball machine.
You're the one with the issues following me over on M* with weird posts:
http://socialize.morningstar.com/NewSocialize/forums/p/336401/3523851.aspx#3523851
http://socialize.morningstar.com/NewSocialize/ViewPost.aspx?apptype=0&PostID=3522700
So Ted - look at yourself and learn your lesson too in not bringing over your crap including trying to call me out because you don't like my forum 'handle' and trying to bring it up as an issue. Stop being childish and go create your own sandbox and throw sand at someone else.

A couple points that might be worth mentioning in the bigger picture. Regardless as to how you determine funding for care keep these assets out of the facility's management. If the couple chose to move to another facility they will be able to do this without tying up the assets with the previous facility. Since they are a couple, make sure they are both equally represented on documents. Understand all aspects of elder care by seeking out an elder care lawyer. One designation to ask about is if the elder care lawyer is designated as a National Academy of Elder Law Attorneys (NAELA). These professional usually charge a nominal fee to initially meet and discuss matters. They are very well versed in all the moving parts...Medicaid, State support, trusts, inheritance, tax issues, etc. I'm sure they will have a better idea as to how to achieve the goals related to the protection of assets.
Here's an article I found from bloomberg:
businessweek.com/magazine/content/09_28/b4139074385496.htm

If it were anyone else except for Mr. Aronstein running the fund, we would probably have sold it, given the huge asset base. He insists the size will not hurt their performance. Keep in mind that long-short funds are designed to participate some in bull markets, but to shine in bear markets. We have not seen a bear market since 2007-08, and the fund held up well when it was launched at the end of 2007. Investors who expect it to keep pace with the S&P 500 in a long-run bull market have bought it for the wrong reasons. Have they actually READ the prospectus?
We would be comfortable if Aronstein would decide to do a hard close to new assets, and we would also like to see a lower expense ratio, given the large asset base. But until long-term performance becomes an issue (and it has not), we will hold the fund. Nothing comes close to MFLDX record over the last 3 and 5 years. PIMCO is up 22% in the last 12 months compared to MFLDX 8%. But PIMCO has no track record in bear markets, and I am very uncomfortable with the PIMCO hocus-pocus, not to mention the in-house political strife there. Wasatch has a good long-short offering, but they have tended to be long-long-long-short, with not much on the short side. IN the meantime, Aronstein and his team have made some very good calls over the last 2 years or so.

FYI: I will be watching IBB very carefully, especially at the open. I have a big stake in FBTCX and may take profits before the close of the day. I will also be watching the general healthcare sector movement today, and might cut back on PRHSX.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.thestreet.com/print/story/12539820.html

Given the choice of Fido and/or TIAA-CREF in my 403b, I opted for Fido ten years ago. Some of the Spartan funds seemed off-limits initially, but I think they are now available. Made some money in New Markets Income and quite a bit more in FBIOX, but was surprised to receive a "Personnal and Confidential" envelope this month advising me that I had been detected violating their frequent trading rules by buying FBIOX with 1% of my total Fido investment, then selling some FBIOX that equalled 2% of my total Fido investment a month later. Admittedly, I sold 25% of my FBIOX holdings when it seemed too frothy, but it was a trivial amount of their fund and not much of my total.
When I protested that it seemed irrelevant in view of the size of the fund and my total Fido holdings, I received an email largely restating the warning letter, after the initial "we appreciate your business" boilerplate. Apparently $1000 will trigger their restrictions. It appears I will be allowed to liquidate my holding in a fund while on suspension, so I won't be forced to ride a market meltdown, but my suggestion that they adjust their software to higher percentages and higher amounts before imposing their frequent trading proscriptions either fell on deaf ears or were addressed by someone too far down the food chain to engender a reasoned response, even though I mentioned that I was not an airline pilot with excess time on my hands.
I don't know if a letter or email campaign will attract their notice, but I encourage anyone holding Fido to suggest that they raise their thresholds for frequent trading amounts to see if we have any impact.

NAFAX. ER too big, and a 5.75% front-load. Thanks, but no thanks.

Howdy folks,
Apparently, this is an ETF that invests in the 'S&P 500 Aristocrats. These consist of companies that have not only paid but increased their dividends over the past 25 years.
Any thoughts? There are other vehicles than NOBL. I would think this might be a nice core type holding for an income portfolio.
peace,
rono

This has been my main US "small cap" fund for many years....exactly how many is clouded by trimmings that have occurred during annual portfolio rebalancings and by a change in share class I made along the way. Fidelity currently offers it NTF under WEMMX. The fund held up well during the downturn of 2007 to 2009. It declined "only" 37% from 07/01/07 to 02/28/99 vs. 54% for the M* small cap index and 49% for the SP500. Since 2/28/09 it has slightly lagged that small cap index but has keep pace with the SP500. The fund tends to go to cash when the market looks rich. Cash was at 25%+ on 12/31/13 per M*. For me, the "high" fee is offset by the funds positive attributes. Its a good "sleep well" small cap fund.

Interesting. Wish I had found it 15 years ago! Quite an amazing 15-year return. Price tag a bit high, 1.41%, to want to take a stab at it for an unknown future; can't believe that Mario Gabelli is doing much work with this fund but his co-managers look interesting. With a portfolio of 475 microcap stocks, I'd be more interested in finding a low cost microcap index. The most attractive microcap fund I've run across is the DFA US Micro Cap I (DFSCX). Too bad DFA only allows access to their funds if you go through a Registered Investment Adviser which I have no interest in doing.

I enjoy watching many of the funds members discuss here and so am reminded of a comment last year in which a member alluded to short positions held by MFLDX in gold futures. I haven't been able to verify that --- but. if correct, it would help explain the fund's lack-luster performance this year.

The fund was short metals (and the closed end fund CEF) for a while, but I'm not seeing it as of 12/31:
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1469192/000119312514091117/d654075dncsr.htm

All very interesting. "What's in a name ..." might apply here to some extent. Meaning: When we wash-out fund name, stated objectives, M* category or whatever - what most of us want is to make $$ consistently without undue risk to our principal. MFLDX displays an amazing growth of AUM for a fund less than 7 years old. My question is: Why? Is MFO (where it's received a lot of attention) that influential? Or, have other media sources also been singing the praises? ... My reply to the poster's original question is that such short term results don't mean very much. They offer neither reason to sell nor reason to buy a fund.
Crash mentioned PRWCX - obviously a much different type of fund. Yet, it's interesting that both funds' total listed AUM are very similar - at something over $20,000M for each. There are a couple very sharp contrasts: PRWCX has been around 28 years - compared to less than 7 for MFLDX. And while the listed ER on MFLDX is high at 1.85%., PRWCX by contrast has an ER of only .72%.
All said, my own experiences with "go-anywhere" funds haven't been favorable - but that's a different issue and I have no intent here to go down that path. Additionally, my own experiences with PRWCX have been highly favorable. The latter might well be considered "go anywhere" in the sense that the managers will invest in most anything that appears promising (translated: undervalued). Over the past 3 decades the fund's taken sizable (but temporary) positions in junk bonds, government bonds, growth stocks, utilities and even miners - and currently sells put-options on some of its equities to enhance income. It's not using short sales yet ... but I wouldn't rule it out some day.
I enjoy watching many of the funds members discuss here and so am reminded of a comment last year in which a member alluded to short positions held by MFLDX in gold futures. I haven't been able to verify that --- but. if correct, it would help explain the fund's lack-luster performance this year.

Similar concerns and uncertainty about PAUDX led me to sell it and invest the proceeds in index funds.

PAUDX and index funds are really apples/oranges, but right decision short-term, at least. I do think that PAUDX was disappointing last year, but it's a highly conservative fund (I believe the benchmark is CPI + 6.5%?) and anyone expecting home runs from it in general is absolutely going to be disappointed.