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?

@DavidV and @Old_Skeet actually impressive 3 year returns. Do you have a strategy to reallocate your out sized gains? This fund (I charted AOFIX) has out performed both mid-cap and small-cap growth indexes since it's most recent bottom starting around 2/12/2016. Do you see this continuing in the Small/Mid cap growth space?

See earlier post about liquidation:
https://www.mutualfundobserver.com/discuss/discussion/41551/loomis-sayles-value-fund-to-liquidate
Also from Loomis Sayles website:
https://www.loomissayles.com/website/mutual-funds/Value-Fund
7/25/18 In accordance with the provisions of the Plan of Liquidation approved by the Board of Trustees, the Fund paid pre-liquidation capital gain and ordinary income distributions on July 25, 2018. For more information, please refer to the “Daily NAVs/Distributions” section of the website. The remainder of Fund assets will be liquidated on August 30, 2018, as scheduled.
6/8/2018 Effective June 8, 2018, the Fund will no longer accept investments from new investors. Effective August 15, 2018, the Fund will no longer accept investments from current shareholders. Effective August 30, 2018, the Fund will be liquidated.

I haven't (yet) tried Chase, though I have tried the other three majors, and have been rather underwhelmed. I've used them primarily to meet mins for other services (e.g. getting bonus cash back on BofA credit cards with my Merrill Edge account), so my demands on them are minimal, and yet they still manage to disappoint.
Better luck with Chase. Try them out before moving much of anything there. At least that way if/when you don't like them you'll be able to liquidate and not incur an ACAT (transfer) fee. (FWIW Schwab charges $25 for a partial transfer; the $50 is only for a full transfer.)
Chase already sells all the funds it offers without a transaction fee. While that does include Vanguard (Investor shares only) and Fidelity, for the most part it's a limited offering. Just 30 families, and no institutional shares - just retail NL shares or load-waved A shares. A link to the list of funds and families is below, as is a copy of the families they sell.
I think that consolidating institutions is more important in making it easier for your wife than finding a place she can walk into. It's really not hard doing must stuff over the phone. Though you do get to the point where a death certificate needs to be mailed in.
It'ss not a big deal to send the paperwork via certified mail. Even if beneficiaries walk in with the paperwork, they won't get the money immediately.
Gary Pilgrim and Harold Baxter were both crooks. (Remember Christine?)
https://www.sec.gov/news/press/2004-157.htm
As was William J . Nasgovitz
https://www.twincities.com/2008/01/29/heartland-advisors-agrees-to-3-5-million-settlement-of-sec-suit/
Alliance Bernstein
Allianz
American Century
American Funds (Capital Group)
BlackRock
Delaware
Dreyfus
Eaton Vance
Federated
Fidelity
First Eagle
Franklin Templeton
Hartford
Invesco
Ivy
John Hancock
J.P. Morgan
Legg Mason
Lord Abbett
MFS
Natixis
Nuveen
Oppenheimer
Pacific Life
PIMCO
Principal
Putnam
T.Rowe Price
Transamerica
Vanguard
https://www.chase.com/content/dam/chase-ux/documents/personal/investments/jpm-mutual-fund-list-for-sdi.pdf

I understand a new TRP Capital Appreciation Income fund being discussed. Income (from higher allocation of bond and other instruments) is the primary focus similar to that of Vanguard's Wellesleye Income fund, VWIAX.

TCAPX. Still pending. STILL!!!
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1689311/000168931117000021/canpta-may35.htm

Yes- though they postponed the release of the fund several months ago, citing 'market conditions' if I remember correctly.

I understand a new TRP Capital Appreciation Income fund being discussed. Income (from higher allocation of bond and other instruments) is the primary focus similar to that of Vanguard's Wellesleye Income fund, VWIAX.

I understand a new TRP Capital Appreciation Income fund being discussed. Income (from higher allocation of bond and other instruments) is the primary focus similar to that of Vanguard's Wellesleye Income fund, VWIAX.

There's a new (to me, anyway) fund "presentation," as the IOFIX guys call it, up on the site, dated July. Just about everything you ever wanted to know about it, all there in living color ...
Here's a tidbit I'd forgotten: the holdings are almost entirely floating rate (95% in this report).
The one thing I can't find is the current price to par of the holdings (M*'s 68.31 is at least five months stale, and my default position these days is not to trust any M* data without some sort of corroboration). There's a nice graph of purchase price to par on p. 16 of the IOFIX presentation, the average being 67.50, which imho is still pretty decent considering the AUM runup.
P.S. Good info on the manager call, Junkster.

https://seekingalpha.com/article/4146697-perfect-mutual-fund-volatile-times
Thanks Andy. The crew at Garrison Point Capital have always been very detailed in their presentations. As you allude to, a wealth of information. Above is a link that I don’t believe has been previously posted here on their strategy. I thought Charles had a more thorough analysis. But what I like about this one is the analogy with the old geezer and his bankrupt railroad bonds and the discounted legacy non agencies IOFIX specializes in. Yes, I know, comparing apples to oranges but you get the drift.
By the way, here is the analysis by Charles
https://www.mutualfundobserver.com/2018/02/lightning-in-a-bottle-alphacentric-income-opportunities-fund-iofix-february-2018/

My question is: if investors do not weigh losses more heavily than gains (i.e. are averse to losses), then why do so many people here keep looking at Sortino ratios and maximum draw downs? Why don't we have maximum gain data as well?
@msf - great question
It might be (in studying potential downside) that people are seeking to rationalize the risks they take - in effect, to convince themselves that the risks are small compared to the gains they expect.
We don’t have maximum gain data. How could you? :) But after a 10-year bull market most risk-asset numbers look rosey. By contrast, after a bear market where 40-50% losses were experienced, the reverse might be the case. People might need convincing that “The sun will come out tomorrow.”
There’s a reason the play Annie is set in the Great Depression years. Here’s some well done clips from live stage. Gotta love it.

This thread is a followup to a bullpen post:
https://mutualfundobserver.com/discuss/discussion/40777/is-loss-aversion-a-myth
That post links to a column that in turn cites the paper that the Scientific American piece linked here is summarizing. How's that for circular references :-)
That column argues that loss aversion is still real, though it suggests a refinement to the concept.
My question is: if investors do not weigh losses more heavily than gains (i.e. are averse to losses), then why do so many people here keep looking at Sortino ratios and maximum draw downs? Why don't we have maximum gain data as well?
That's not a joke. I'm as concerned when a fund I have performs way out of line with my expectations on the upside as when it underperforms.
I owned a legacy fund that had originally been an income oriented sector fund that evolved into a respectable broad based large cap value fund. I had been considering selling it for a variety of reasons. What finally made me pull the trigger was one year when it wound up as the top performing LCV fund (can't verify, but M* says it was in the top 1%).
The fund was so volatile that even with top quartile returns for the past 3, 5, and 10 years, it had a 1* rating. Yet the last straw for me was the upside risk.
So, why all these biased metrics? Junk statistics, or do investors really care more about their risk of loss then their risk of gain?