So as long as someone is honest about why they lost your money you're okay with it?

@JoJo26, yes I am ok with it because his long term tract record at Matthews and Seafarer warrant that. Do I think a fund manager isn't going to make a miscalculated stock choice? Find me one that doesn't have a miscue. They all do.
Your opinion on bloated assets is valid I suppose, but nothing substantial behind that opinion. Just a stab in the dark I'd say.

>> His philosophy should protect capital in down markets

Try going to the Seafarer website. This is explained in a video interview also. A manager who won't admit his mistakes is the one I am not ok with...

Clearly. Trying to imagine why you would charge such a thing. Guess you have not studied in detail its changing fortunes the last few years. 5.5y ago DS mentioned its defensive stance to an extent (http://www.mutualfundobserver.com/2013/03/seafarer-overseas-growth-income-sfgix/) but not more recently (https://www.mutualfundobserver.com/2015/05/seafarer-overseas-growth-income-sfgixsigix-may-2015/). See also its M* star changes over time.
In any case it invests in EM; who would think "philosophy should protect capital in down markets" of any such vehicle?
It is fascinating to me to read that investments which do not pan out, or not quickly enough, are somehow the result of defocusing, as though effort and will and hard thinking and other notionally causal behaviors can and will preclude outcomes like @MikeM quoted. That's why I wondered if he doubled down on those overreacted-to stocks.
I have been reading Foster for years, back to Matthews, interesting guy. But some months, and longer, the bear eats you.

>> His philosophy should protect capital in down markets
it does say growth in the name
I wonder if he bought more of those three companies.

And the name matters because.....
You clearly are not educated on the Seafarer approach.

>> His philosophy should protect capital in down markets
it does say growth in the name
I wonder if he bought more of those three companies.

@msf
Thanks for feedback. If i sell now do you know if I'll still get hit with the cap gains distributions they'll do later in year? That would be a double whammy of my cap gains plus the distributions from the fund

Nope - it's an either or. You realize gains on your own shares when you sell, or you hold and get hit with their distributions. Only way you get a double whammy is if you sell after the distribution. But even then, your sell price has dropped because of the distribution, so you don't see more income by selling just after instead of just before a distribution.
If you sell now and others don't, the AUM of the fund declines, and they get hit with even higher distributions. That $9B in gains is distributed among fewer owners (i.e. fewer shares).
(Each time I edit, I keep on thinking of more to write; let me know if a hypothetical numeric example would help.)

Harbor is saying that it will realize all gains in the portfolio this year. If all gains are realized, any attempt to optimize by selling lowest gain shares first would be pointless.
Still, I agree that the vast majority if not all of the net cap gains realized will be long term. That's for a few reasons:
- Very low turnover (13%), so on average, investments have been held for 4 years. Think of a portfolio filled with investments held 8 years then sold; half will be under 4 years old at the moment, half more. In any case, very few holdings owned for under a year.
- Net losses this year; YTD performance -2.73%. So holdings purchased this year may easily have dropped in value; at least enough so that short term losses should wipe out any short term gains.
- New management building a new portfolio - it's very unlikely that the new management is buying securities now just to dump within the fiscal year. They're not about to generate additional short term gains with their own purchases.
Here's the source for M*'s estimated 38% distribution.
https://www.harborfunds.com/HIF_manager_change_QA.htm#7
It's worth keeping in mind the dollar amount of the expected distribution, more so than the percentage. Harbor estimates that $9B will be distributed in cap gains: $4.5B already recognized, and nearly all of the $4.5B unrealized gains are expected to be realized.
The current AUM of the fund is $20.8B, so that comes out to 9/20.8 = 43%. (This is just slightly higher than the 41% one gets by taking Harbor's high end distribution of $27 and dividing by the current NAV of $64.94.)
So watch that AUM. As it drops (people sell), the $9B won't change, but the denominator will get smaller and smaller.

Ive held the fund for 24 years so lots of cap gains

@msf
Thanks for feedback. If i sell now do you know if I'll still get hit with the cap gains distributions they'll do later in year? That would be a double whammy of my cap gains plus the distributions from the fund

It seems the capital gains will be long term, so that would be the best type of gains to have for tax purposes. However, funds are not required to distribute in the most tax-favorable manner.
I used to own the fund until it became a stinker. I think this was a fund that gave off “sell” signals a long time ago. I wish all my sales had been so prescient.

So as long as someone is honest about why they lost your money you're okay with it?
His philosophy should protect capital in down markets, which it had done historically. This year not so much. All I'm saying is I think the new fund, asset growth and overall business growth has hurt (he's taken his eye off the ball). Consequently, I'd rather see him focus on the strategy versus growing more. The level today is more than sufficient for the resources at the firm.

So I'm one of the poor SOBs thats still in this fund. Have held since '94. I assume I should sell my position as soon as possible? Is there any way I can limit the cap gains I get hit with? Makes me sick thinking about it.

If the projected distributions (cap gains plus usual annual divs) exceed the gains you'll realize by selling, then sell. I've done this on rare occasions and even bought back after distributions if I liked the fund. If the gains you recognize by selling are greater than the projected distributions, then the large distribution isn't a reason in and of itself to sell.
That said, even if the gains you recognize will be greater than the distributions, this would be the time to sell the shares if you want out. With new management and a new portfolio, HAINX is effectively a new fund. Is this new fund one you want to own in preference to another fund (or cash)? I haven't researched the new management, so I can't comment on the new fund. There are other good, known funds available as alternatives.
Another way to avoid the gains is to donate the shares to charity. With the new tax laws, it's less likely you'll be able to itemize, but if there are donations you were planning to make anyway, this is a good way to do that.

So I'm one of the poor SOBs thats still in this fund. Have held since '94. I assume I should sell my position as soon as possible? Is there any way I can limit the cap gains I get hit with? Makes me sick thinking about it.

I'm not sure what you're saying here. Is it that Harbor should have fired Castegren in 2000, since that's the last good year you identify? In that case, perhaps it was Ivy International Growth (now Ivy Global Growth) IVINX that had the right idea. Ivy induced Castegren to quit in 2000 by refusing to close its fund.
More likely, it was Ivy, not Northern Cross that had no succession plan. I don't believe Ivy was expecting Castegren to quit. It plunked Reilly in as manager for 1.5 years, followed by McLachan for another year. Only then did it settle on a long term manager with Mengel. In those intevening couple of years, IVINX returned -17.26% (2000), -21.03% (2001), and -20.96% (2002).
In comparison, HAINX had returns of -4.97% (2000), -12.25% (2001), and -6.38% (2002).
For a frame of reference, TEMFX had returns of -3.67% (2000), -7.92% (2001), -8.64% (2002).
Northern Cross had a succession plan in place. For almost two years before Castegren died, starting Feb 2009, Castegren was joined by Ducrest, LaTorre, and Wendell. For the two years of overlap, and the two years following, HAINX put up good to very good numbers: 17th percentile (2009), 31st percentile (2010), 17th percentile (2011), 17th percentile (2012).
Those managers did not maintain their fine performance. However, the succession was planned and the fund continued to perform well through the transition.
The lesson to be learned is when a fund does not have a smooth succession plan (successful or otherwise), you may expect a portfolio overhaul and large amounts of cap gains realized. Harbor just fired Northern Cross. That's what caused the gains to be realized.

FYI: Below is a look at each country’s percentage of total world stock market capitalization based on Bloomberg indices. (We only include the 35 largest countries by market cap in the table.)
For each country, we show its current percentage of world market cap, where it stood on Election Day 2016, and where it stood ten years ago.
Notably, the US has just recently eclipsed the 40% level for the first time since 2005. At the moment, the US stock market makes up 40.01% of world stock market capitalization. Given dollar strength, gains in US equities, and declines in most international equity markets recently, it’s no surprise that this reading is at multi-year highs.
As the US’ share of world market cap has gone up, China’s share has taken the biggest hit. On Election Day 2016, the US made up 36.53% of world market cap, while China made up 10.21%. Since Election Day, the US has gained 3.48 percentage points, while China has lost 2.7 percentage points.
China’s drop has actually moved it into the third place ranking behind Japan, which currently makes up 7.59% of world stock market cap.
Behind the US, Japan, and China ranks Hong Kong (6.51%), the UK (4.49%), France (3.23%), Germany (2.91%), and India (2.83%).
Regards,
Ted
https://www.bespokepremium.com/think-big-blog/us-as-of-world-stock-market-cap-tops-40-again/

Vanguard is owned by its funds - not publically owned.
Fidelity is private - Johnson family, plus.
Capital Research - private
Nuveen - owned by TIAA, a not-for-profit company
Dimensional Fund Advisors, LP - private

FYI: In general, investing taxable money in active stock funds is a bad idea.
This was vividly underscored last week by Harbor International Fund’s (HAINX) announcement that it expects to make a huge capital gains distribution equivalent to roughly 38% of the fund’s net asset value.
There are lessons to be learned from the Harbor fund’s example, such as giving a wide berth to active stock funds that are sitting on large unrealized gains while experiencing heavy investor outflows.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.morningstar.com/articles/880662/taking-a-bath-lessons-from-a-big-funds-9-billion-c.html

@MFO Members: What's the fascination with David Sherman? Although CBLDX is only seven months old, Sherman so far hasn't pulled any rabbits out of a hat. The fund in its short life ranks in the 90 percentile.

Isn't that what it's supposed to do - greater stability in exchange for lower absolute returns? It will likely rank in the top tenth when everything else swoons.
That said, I would echo the question about why people are so fascinated with Sherman. What's his reason for starting his own company? More freedom? ISTM that between Riverpark and Brinker Capital Destinations Funds (DCFFX, DGFFX), he's got the flexibility to manage what and how he wants already.
The only other thing I can guess is more money. No intermediary to split the fees with. That may be why CrossingBridge acquired its other fund CCLIX - its manager had been at a company subadvising it; now CrossingBridge is both marketing and managing the fund.
I am always concerned when a manager forms his own company - the skill set needed is not quite the same as for managing a fund, and it adds tasks that distract from money management. Some managers make the transition well, others don't.
https://www.crossingbridgefunds.com/

@MFO Members:(If its worth doing, its worth doing right !)
The mutual fund industry currently has $18.9 trillion in total assets, $10.8 trillion of which is held by 10 companies. Here’s a look at the giants of a gigantic industry. Asset figures are through June 30 and were provided by the Investment Company Institute.
The fund companies are ranked by total mutual fund assets, excluding exchange-traded-fund assets.
The totals include long-term assets in stock and bond mutual funds, as well as short-term assets in cash management funds.
Ted
1. Vanguard Group
2. Fidelity Investments
3. Capital Research & Management
4. T. Rowe Price
5. J.P. Morgan Chase & Co.
6. BlackRock
7. Nuveen
8. Dimensional Funds
9. Franklin Templeton Investments
10. Pimco Funds

Moving forward which one do you see more potential for gains?

@Old_Skeet, Thanks for sharing your most recent portfolio. I am always struck by your organization of sleeves. Again, an allocation question for you.
Within your individual sleeves do you adjust allocation within the sleeve...say AOFAX has out performed your other two holdings in the sleeve...is there ever a reason to reallocate gains from one fund within the sleeve to the other funds?
Also, I am personally trying to achieve a portfolio that holds funds that have at least a five percent (5%) overall weighting in my portfolio, but no more than a 20% weighting. So, this could mean as many as 20 funds (at 5% each) or no less than 5 funds (at 20% each). Your individual fund weightings must be part of you design as well. With so many funds how do you weight their importance in the overall portfolio?
I mention this because some investors have a well diversified equity portfolio with one fund (VTI) and others have a very concentrated equity portfolio with 50 funds.
Finally, have you explored correlation of your sleeves? Is one sleeve more correlated say to the equity market, the bond market, or alternatives? Do you have a recipe for the percentage of these non-correlated assets in your portfolio?