superb, wonderful aid and a tip of tshe hat to Accipiter !
I use aol.com and google chrome.
both are workable. philpill

Accipiter,
Should have had that third cup of coffee. Wouldn't ya know I tried India and Japan and without the space. Read the directions, Catch !!!!!
Used Russia and a few others.............all is well using XP/w IE8.
Catch

Hi Accipiter,
Ticker works fine............example: placed "ptt" to start, which I know should find Pimco Total Return. All classes for this fund did populate the list, and any one choice does highlight with a mouse hover.
The fund name lookup, as with your example of India or other names I used; did no operate.
Using IE 8.
Thank you for your time and efforts for this superb function.
Regards,
Catch

Reply to @Accipiter: How about MAXFunds.com ?

Howdy Accipiter,
I encountered the same problems as Maurice noted; but both areas are now normal.
Thank you.
Catch

Reply to @Investor:
The discussion board is now encapsulated within a WordPress page using the embedVanilla plug-in. Additionally the width is determined by the custom theme for WordPress that was developed by a talented volunteer. I can't easily see a way to change the width for just the discussion pages without changing the entire theme. However, you can gain maximum screen real estate by opening just the discussion board in a new tab or window. That eliminates the entire header and lets the board expand to full width. Alternately, you could try Accipiter's recommendation.
By the way, I do feel your pain. I most often access and work on the site with my laptop at a resolution of 1366 x 768.

Reply to @Accipiter:
First, I am sure you remember I have spent my personal time in various issues related to this site. In other words, I did volunteer as much as I can. Unfortunately, I do not have access to the site at a level to fix some of these silly stuff.
The only change that needs to happen is the removal of the width attribute from the frame specification that encapsulates the board. The board itself is capable of using the full width of browser and is artificially restricted.

Dear friends,
Chip and her stalwart programmer James completed the transition of the Observer to its new look and feel around dinner time on Sunday, November 27th. We hope you like it. While there are several adjustments left to complete - for example, they weren't able to move the Falcon's Eye to the new format yet, so it's functional vut looks the same as before - the basic look of the site should be settled now.
As Accipiter points out, you'll need to update any bookmarks to see the new pages. If you have the Fund Discussions bookmarked, start with our new homepage, click on the new link to "Fund Discussions" and then set your bookmark.
If you encounter problems, please do post them on the Technical Questions board or drop us a note.
Any changes in the board software, which we'd make only if that seems to be the collective will of the community, is still some weeks away. More on that topic around December 1.
Deepest gratitude to Chip and James for surrendering much of their holiday weekend to handle this transition.
As ever,
David

Reply to @Maurice: Hi, Mo!
Two separate issues. The status of the board software is open for discussion and we (Accipiter, Chip and I) are just starting to look at it. The other changes are fait accompli; the look was designed in great haste during the transition and the navigation was never as good as it could be, so I'm intent on trying to clean both of those issues up. The board, though, is a special part of the site and there especially, I want to be responsive to the needs and interests of its members.
Hope that helps,
David

Reply to @catch22: Hi, Catch.
Accipiter has the two boards set up and running on his own machine, and so I'll have to defer to him on the limits of the possible. In general, I imagine we could keep the current board as an archive, for a while or permanently.
David

Dear friends,
A friend of MFO and very talented website designer, Anya Z., took up the challenge of redesigning the Observer's look and navigation. She worked with my design preferences (clean, clear, navigable, friendly, vaguely dignified) and has made some substantial improvements. Beyond the cosmetic changes, we'll have better navigation, substantially better access to the archive, cleaner and more complete menus and far few headaches for Chip when it comes time to post new content.
Chip and two members of her staff have given over part of their holiday weekend to making the site transition happen. At the moment, they're making the page by page transition. The change will affect the background of the discussion board, but not its function or content.
There might be little bugs after the change. If so, just let us know and the technically competent folks (which is to say, not me) will get on it.
-----------------
On a related note: Chip, Accipiter and I are now discussing whether it would be in our collective best interest to re-initiate the discussion board using the software traditionally associated with FundAlarm's discussion board. That program, wwwboard, is old and no longer supported by its creator. It has none of the side features of Vanilla Board, the current software, and might be more susceptible to spam. Accipiter is looking at the prospect of needing to rewrite the software. That said, it's clear that the old software had a very open and welcoming feel. For those who might not have been active on the FundAlarm board, here's an archived snapshot of the old board (courtesy of the Wayback Machine): http://web.archive.org/web/20100722113832/http://www.fundalarm.com/wwwboard/wwwboard.html
Our plan is to email a survey to all of the board's registered users, almost 700 people, with special attention on the 150 or so people who visit regularly. (Surprised? I was. Chip reports that most evenings, there are about 150 folks visiting the board.) Accipiter has a series of questions, from which features of the new board folks find most useful to whether we should consider running the fund discussion board with one set of software and the off-topic board with the other.
Nothing has been decided. Mostly we're just listening to folks' concerns and trying to make this as good a place as we can.
Thanks for your patience and support. I'll share updated information as it becomes available.
As ever,
David

As some will remember, back on FA we were able to post a link which would transition directly to another thread within FA itself. I've been trying to do that on MFO, but on my browser at least, the results are very erratic and useless. I'm probably missing something here- any ideas?

Hi Accipiter,
I am not complaining; and I am not leaning on you, Chip or David for a fix. I am most pleased that MFO exists; and I sure can live without a full blown search function. I just could not determine why some searches were normal and the bee search did not work; thinking there was a problem at our pc.
Thank you for your time,
Catch

Howdy Accipiter,
Before I forget...........and thinking about birds of prey; had one of these on the wooden fence 10 feet from the house and it was not particularly afraid of my approach within 10 feet or so and just hopped from the fence to a nearby maply tree as I stood and watched. A very pretty bird.
http://www.allaboutbirds.org/guide/northern_harrier/id
Today, I presume the same bird; while I happened to be standing in the driveway glided quietly downward and snagged a dove for breakfast not 20 feet above my head. Farther north in Michigan, folks have lost cats and small dogs in the yards to the eagles.
The search: I found many post names without problem; but was looking for a post from bee . No luck. Search found nothing related at all......blank.
Thank you for your thoughts about this; and I would prefer a more full bodied search, too; but I don't use the function too much and not on a bitch list. The site is fine.
Regards,
Catch

Morning, Catch- dunno, I tried with a few different names and they all seemed to work OK. Tried with Accipiter, as I knew that he would have a whole lot of posts, and it did fine with him too. The search function apparently does not just look for posting names, but evidently searches in the posting text as well- ie, try "dunno" (without the quotes) and see what comes up. The search is persnickety about spelling, though, and I would guess that "close" does not count for this function.

I'm willing to think about it. There are four considerations that kept me from tracking "alarming funds" from the get-go.
1. I'd need to secure the technical expertise to create it -- I'm pretty much clueless on what would actually have to happen.
2. I'd need to find or hire a programmer to do the monthly updates -- in truth, I'm running flat-out as it is (the site, parenthood, three classes, 32 advisees, administrative responsibilities to the college and a desultory research program) -- and I'm not willing to dump more work on Chip and Accipiter.
3. as Investor notes, it'll cost - though I know not what.
And, most importantly,
4. it's clear how much predictive validity the model has. At base, I'm not sure whether 2010's "alarming" funds actually underperformed the market in 2011, for instance, or whether the "honor roll" outperformed it. It might be that the "most alarming" funds remain consistently alarming, but the research on the predictive value of winners' performance is pretty discouraging.
So, in any case, that's the sort of stuff I've been pondering. I want to the site to be as useful and accessible as possible, but I also want to be sure that we're able to sustain whichever initiatives we start.
Back to grading!
David

Reply to @Accipiter:
Hi A,
I often find this feature (edit) helpful...thanks for the work you do here for this forum.
Thanks for your response,
bee

Hi Accipiter,
Noticed the sideback time/date, too.....and this is a nice add-on.
Catch

Reply to @Accipiter:
Waiting to hear what Maurice and others think. Personally, I don't much mind the lengthy "track record" and imagine most frequent posters don't mind either. Am sure there's good arguments on both sides. As it kinda resembles warm stale beer, I'd purge. Just tossed it out as one possible answer to Catch's broader question. Added some hyperbole for good measure. (-: (-:

Hi Accipiter,
Thanks for ringing my bell. I recalled and found the FA archives link I had in the pc favorites list.
>>>>>matt, is this the portfolio mix you have on paper ???Posted by: Fundmentals
Date: November/December 2009
Subject line: Model portfolio design
Body of post:
I am sure many of you have come across the situation of a friend or a family member clueless about investing ask you to help them with a stash of money. The real-life requirements are usually "simple":
1. "Want your help to make some money. I can lose money all by myself"
2. "I can put it in the market for 5 years. Can leave it there longer if it is making money but not if it is losing money"
3. "Don't ask me to do anything more than once a year"
The following portfolio is designed specifically for people that are not
(a)expecting to beat the market
(b)don't want the portfolio to go down much (likely to panic and sell at the bottom if they went down 10% or more)
(c) would like some decent gains - more than what they can get with money market funds, CDs or even just bond funds without which they will not take the risk of investing at all and
(d) don't want to fiddle with it more than once a year.
The Portfolio
Domestic Equity:
5% Forester Value (FVALX) - Large Value
5% Amana Trust Growth (AMAGX) - Large Growth
5% Queens Road Small Cap Value (QRSVX) - Small Value
International/Global equity:
10% Forester Discovery (INTLX) - World Allocation
10% Matthews Asia Dividend (MAPIX) - Diversified Asia/Pacific
Alternate investments:
10% Robeco Long/Short Eq Inv (BPLEX) - Long/short equity
10% Arbitrage Fund (ARBFX) - Merger/arbitrage
15% Hussman Total Return (HSTRX) - Conservative allocation
Bonds
7.5% Managers Intermediate Govt (MGIDX) - Mortgage securities/Govt
7.5% PIMCO Total Return D (PTTDX) - Intermediate Investment Grade Bond
7.5% Weitz Short-Interm Income (WEFIX) - Short-Intermediate Term Investment Grade Bond
7.5% PIMCO GNMA D (PGNDX) - GNMA
Backtested performance
If portfolio invested on 1/1/2008, results as of 11/13/2009:
Total return: +15.05%;
2008 Performance: -4.79%
2009 YTD: 20.84%
Portfolio X-Ray:
Stocks 52.3%; Bonds 38.1%; Cash 9.6%
Stocks US 56.00%; International 44.00%
US equities
Large cap 27.4%; Mid cap 22.8%; Small Cap 49.8%
US equities
Value 36.9%; Blend 53.0%; Growth 10.1%
International equities
Europe 24.1%; Pacific 38.5%; Canada 18.9%; Emerging Markets 18.5%
Bonds
Taxable 78.70%; Uncategorized 21.30%
Credit quality High 78.7%; Uncategorized 21.30%
Duration Medium 20.2% Low 58.5% Uncategorized 21.3%
Costs: Portfolio average 1.72%
Portfolio construction notes:
The portfolio is constructed to solve a basic flaw in traditional portfolio construction. Diversification using high volatility equity funds (even index funds with market volatility) results in deep losses during bear markets as most such equities become correlated and go down together.
Just depending on bond allocation to reduce losses requires primarily allocation to Treasuries as it is the only type of asset that can be depended on to show negative correlation with equities in bear markets. But unlike in the past, Treasuries starting with the current situation of low interest rates cannot be expected to provide much gains going forward so the portfolio may turn out to be too conservative or too aggressive based on what happens in the market regardless of how much is allocated to Treasuries.
As a solution, portfolio picks only funds designed with a strategy to reduce/minimize losses during long bear markets and has some capital protection goals in place. The overall volatility is reduced by depending on each fund to reduce its own volatility rather than depend on lack of correlation to reduce the volatility.
Note that this is not the same thing as picking funds with the highest returns in either bear or bull markets or both. Nor are the returns attributable to some fantastic market timing in picking which stocks to buy and when to sell.
In fact, most of these funds will likely not consistently appear in the top 10% of their class except occasionally. But all of them will have shown the ability to limit losses by reacting to long-drawn down market conditions and make decent gains in long-drawn up market conditions.
In other words, the only market timing they will show will be in recognizing long bear markets as in recognizing the difference between 2008 and 2009, not what happens month to month. None of them try to time tops and bottoms.
Methodology
Portfolio Requirements:
1. Capital protection and lack of volatility extremely important. No long periods of losses. No "wait for 10-20 years or more" excuse for losses.
2. Asymmetric behavior - as much of the upside as possible, as little of the downside as possible
3. Simple portfolio with high quality no-load funds widely available in the main brokerages
4. Only annual tune-ups
5. Total return more important than income
6. No assumption of bull/bear markets for the portfolio as a whole, no forecasted assumptions of economy or any other indicators, doom/gloom predictions, etc.
Concrete requirements:
1. Not more than 12 funds.
2. No single fund with less than 5% allocation or more than 15% allocation
3. Portfolio must be diversified but not necessary to cover all asset/fund classes. Only asset classes that have shown consistent returns without long loss periods and small drawdowns. Riskier assets only within risk-managed funds.
4. No assumptions of correlation or lack of correlation between asset classes going forward but no gross overlaps between funds. Some overlap is fine.
Screening criterion for funds:
1. No-load, ER less than or equal to category average, been in existence for at least 5 years.
2. No losses in 3, 5 or 10 yr (if available) rolling periods (amazing how many asset classes or funds drop out here)
3. Manager has been around for at least the category average
4. Minimum initial purchase not more than $3000 (i.e., minimum not more than $60k portfolio)
5. Best 3 month performance must be better than worst 3 month performance over its lifetime (amazing how many funds you lose with this criterion)
6. Best volatility-adjusted performance (3-yr and 5-yr) in class, not necessarily the best returns.
7. Volatility of each fund on its own must not exceed 10% of total stock market index, total bond index or balanced index as appropriate.
8. Lowest volatility to break a tie all else remaining the same.
9. No bias towards active or passive funds as long as the above criterion are satisfied
10. Allocation percentages based entirely on relative volatility-adjusted returns (3-yr and 5-yr), no ad hoc allocation decisions. Individual fund notes:
end of Part 1