Hello,
For what it is worth ...
It is the many perspectives, strategies and thoughts put into action that make the markets. And, yes I invest to put coins in my pocket to improve my standard of living. From my own experience you have to get beyond the fear of loosing some money along the way to become a winner and enjoy the benefits of success. I have found that, for me, it is best to harvest profits from my portfolio along the way to keep the unrealized gains from becoming vaporized in stock market downdrafts. And, also to have a sell down (not sell out) strategy in place as the markets decline to raise some cash if one is short of it within their asset allocation.
I feel it better to maintain a well diverisfied portfolio over just being invested in the S&P 500 Index. But, in just investing in the 500 Index through the years can make you a winner even though it is not my preferred way. In investing the concept is to grow your principal over time while in trading it is to make profit over short time spans.
Skeet

@BobC. Not so sure. I lost half my portfolio in dot com bust. I lost 22-23% in Financial Crisis. Only because I sold.
It is true I also didn't enjoy the gains after 2008 that one would have done simply buying and holding. However, I'm not sure I am worse for it. I'm more objective now because I was more "active". Sometimes that's better than deer caught in headlights.
I need to read the whole GMO paper. I'm not going to say anything about people's ability to predict. However I do manage my allocations systematically. I was a 100% invested until last week in my retirement accounts, now I'm not. One doesn't have to make 100% on/off moves, but for me taking some money off the table and trying to deploy it somewhere else or gradually putting it back in does make sense.
Also, sometimes I keep a list of things I "want" (not "need") and if I take gains, I will go buy something. After all, that's why we invest.
Best.

FYI: Pension Trustee Smith: I recommend to the committee that we liquidate our International
equity assets and index our equity exposure to the S&P 500. US stocks have outperformed
for the last 20 years, and I see no reason why that should not continue. Everyone knows
that the US is the strongest economy and market in the world.
This is a somewhat fictionalized version of a comment or conversation that has gone on in many
committee discussions over the last several years in one form or another. And why wouldn’t it?
Being a US equity investor over the past several years has felt glorious. The S&P 500 has trounced
the competition provided by other major developed and emerging equity markets. Over the last 7
years, the S&P is up 173% (15% annualized in nominal terms) versus MSCI EAFE (in USD terms),
which is up 71% (8% annualized), and poor MSCI Emerging, which is up only 30% (4% annualized).
Every dollar invested in the S&P has compounded into $2.72 versus MSCI EAFE’s $1.70 and MSCI
Emerging’s $1.30. Diversification theoretically sounds good, but as Yogi Berra said, “In theory there
is no difference between theory and practice, in practice there is.” Diversification in this particular
instance seems good in theory but not so much in practice.
So, shouldn’t we agree with Trustee Smith and throw in the towel, index all of our equity exposure
to the S&P 500, and call it a day? If our goal is compounding capital for the long term, which it is,
we would not just say “No,” but something akin to “Hell no!”
Regards,
Ted
https://www.gmo.com/docs/default-source/research-and-commentary/strategies/asset-allocation/the-s-p-500-just-say-no.pdf
MarketWatch Article:
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/just-say-no-to-the-sp-500-and-buy-these-stocks-instead-say-gmos-strategists-2017-08-16/print

I have an Amazon card that came originally through GE/Capital then later Synchrony. It's subsidiary, Synchrony Bank, is well known to people who chase CD rates as they are usually a contender in the last three or four highest.

Thought that "Synchrony Financial" rang a bell. Wickipedia: "prior to its 2014 initial public offering, which raised $2.88 billion, Synchrony operated as a subsidiary of GE Capital".

TimesSquare Capital is a welcome addition. However, it will start with only a small sliver of the fund. Vanguard might send new cash its way while not reducing the amount managed by the other firms. Just a possibility - one that would minimize turnover.

Following the transition, TimesSquare Capital will initially manage a modest portion of the fund (less than 5%), with its allocation expected to grow over time. Schroders, which has managed the fund since its inception in 1996, will oversee approximately 66 per cent of the fund. Wellington, which was added as an advisor in 2010, will manage approximately 29 per cent of the fund with the remainder in equitized cash investments.

http://www.wealthadviser.co/2017/08/02/254593/timessquare-capital-join-advisory-team-vanguard-international-explorer-fund
Schroder is also a fine fit for this fund. It ran the fund well from its inception as Schroder International Smaller Companies (SSCIX) through 2002 when Vanguard acquired and rebranded it, until mid 2010 when Wellington was added as a manager.
I remain less than thrilled with Wellington's international management skills (as I've commented about before). VINEX did not fare particularly well in the first couple of years after the mid 2010 addition of Wellington. 2011 (90th percentile) and 2012 (68th percentile) were not good years, though it has generally done much better since (except last year).
If you want to get a purer view of how Wellington management has done with international small caps, you can look at HNSYX. It's been co-managed by Simon Thomas (who is the Wellington manager for VINEX) and Daniel Maguire (also of Wellington) since 2006. An okay fund, but not one that stands out.
Note that HSNYX was closed in 2016. It currently has $422M AUM. VINEX currently has $3.6B AUM, 29% of which (about $1B, i.e. over double the size of HSNYX) will continue to be managed by Wellington, at least for now.
Finally, I wonder whether the addition of TimesSquare Capital will accelerate VINEX's drift toward growth stocks. My vague recollection is that VINEX started out as a value fund. M* still classifies it as blend, though its portfolio drifted into growth three years ago, where it has remained.
Perhaps Vanguard will reduce Wellington's AUM and shift them to TimesSquare. The numbers suggest that would help improve the fund.

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1004655/000093247117004797/whitehallmergedsupps.htm
497 1 whitehallmergedsupps.htm WHITEHALL 497E
Vanguard International ExplorerTM Fund
Supplement to the Prospectus and Summary Prospectus Dated February 23, 2017
Restructuring of the Investment Advisory Team
The board of trustees of Vanguard International Explorer Fund approved adding TimesSquare Capital Management, LLC (TimesSquare Capital) to the Fund’s investment advisory team.
Effective immediately, TimesSquare Capital will manage a portion of the Fund’s assets.
TimesSquare Capital and the Fund’s other investment advisors—Schroder Investment Management North America Inc. and Wellington Management Company LLP—each independently select and maintain a portfolio of common stocks for the Fund. The Fund’s board of trustees determines the proportion of the Fund’s assets to be managed by each advisor and may change these proportions at any time.
The Fund’s expense ratio, investment objective, principal investment strategies, and principal risks are not expected to change.
Prospectus and Summary Prospectus Text Changes
The following is added under the heading “Investment Advisors”:
TimesSquare Capital Management, LLC (TimesSquare Capital)
In the same section, the following is added to the list of Portfolio Managers:
Magnus S. Larsson, Senior Vice President and Portfolio Manager of TimesSquare Capital. He has managed a portion of the Fund since August 2017.
(over, please)
Prospectus Text Changes
The following is added to “Security Selection” section under More on the Fund:
TimesSquare Capital Management, LLC (TimesSquare Capital) employs a bottom-up investment process driven by fundamental equity growth research conducted by its investment analysts, with a particular emphasis on the assessment of management quality, an in-depth understanding of superior business models, and valuation discrepancies.
TimesSquare Capital invests the Fund’s assets in a diversified portfolio of stocks that it believes, based on its research, will generate superior risk-adjusted returns. TimesSquare Capital’s research process begins with a collaborative team of skilled and experienced analysts, which identify superior growth businesses with market capitalizations less than $5 billion at the time of purchase. Once a company is identified, rigorous fundamental analysis is performed, projected growth rate and return potential is calculated, and the company’s valuation is assessed on a relative and absolute basis. A company’s relative value is compared to industry peers, as well as firms with similar business models and at a similar point on the value chain. TimesSquare Capital’s sell decisions are based on the same research process, and securities would generally be sold when, among other things, there is no longer high conviction in the return potential of the investment, or when the advisor identifies a significantly more attractive investment candidate.
The following is added to the “Investment Advisors” section:
TimesSquare Capital Management, LLC, 7 Times Square, 42nd Floor, New York, New York 10036, is a registered investment advisor that specializes in small- and mid-cap growth equities. TimesSquare Capital’s institutional partner, Affiliated Managers Group, Inc. (AMG), a publicly traded global asset management company, indirectly holds a majority equity interest in TimesSquare Capital, with the remaining portion owned by TimesSquare Capital principals. As of June 30, 2017, TimesSquare Capital managed approximately $17.2 billion in assets for AMG funds, corporations, public funds, unions, endowments and foundations, retirement plans, and other institutional accounts.
In the same section, the following is added to the list of portfolio managers:
Magnus S. Larsson, Senior Vice President and Portfolio Manager at TimesSquare Capital. He has worked in investment management since 1995, has managed investment portfolios since 2000, has been with TimesSquare Capital since 2012, and has managed a portion of the Fund since August 2017. Education: B.S., B.A., University of Orebro, Sweden.
© 2017 The Vanguard Group, Inc. All rights reserved.
Vanguard Marketing Corporation, Distributor.
PS 126A 082017....

FYI: In a recent article that highlighted the perils of owning individual stocks, I offered the historical evidence demonstrating how only a small percentage of stocks have accounted for all the gains provided by the market—with the vast majority earning a big, fat zero in aggregate cumulative returns, even before considering the impact of inflation or taxes.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.etf.com/sections/index-investor-corner/swedroe-hazards-individual-stocks?nopaging=1

FYI: It’s generally suggested that most portfolios have at least a small allocation to cash. Not only does it help manage overall portfolio risk, it provides a cash cushion that allows investors to take advantage of dips in the market.
With equity valuations stretched, investors should look for ways to protect their capital while still earning a competitive rate of return. In this article, we’ll examine how government money market mutual funds (GMMMFs) may be able to fill that need.
Regards,
Ted
http://mutualfunds.com/money-market-funds/government-money-market-mutual-funds-an-alternative-to-cash/

From the people who brought you the Merger Fund:
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1572617/000089418917003980/wcmalt-credit_485a.htm
(WCM = Westchester Capital Management)

Most investors want know if their asset allocation is correctly set to their risk tolerance until we get into a severe market downdraft. If one waits too long in the downdraft to start to trim their positions, raising cash, then they might indeed be better off to just ride out the storm. However, I have certain positions I plan to trim and others I plan to raise (including cash) in a stock market decline. The consept is to move money that is invested in the area of greater risk on the right side of the portfolio left towards areas of investment with less risk.
That is why my asset allocation has investment ranges for my portfolio's areas of investment. For the cash area my ranges are from 15% to 25%, for my income area the ranges are from 25% to 35%, for my growth & income area the ranges are form 30% to 40% and for the growth area the ranges are from 10% to 20%. In extreme market declines cash can be temporarily held above the 25% mark while most of the trimming would come from the growth area of the portfolio since it consist mostly of all equity capital appreciation type funds where the greatest risk is found. I use my market barometer as a tool to help me throttle my asset allocation and rebalance it from time-to-time based upon my market read. Currently, if I were to completely sell out the growth area that would raise my cash allocation to about 35% if all were moved to cash. In the rebound, I'd load the growth area while reducing cash. Most likely, I'd stand pat in the income and growth & income areas of the portfolio.
In my book ... Buy & Hold does not mean hold forever. Even Mr. Buffett makes holdings adjustments within his massive portfolio form time-to-time based upon his firm's market read.
I have already developed my market downdraft management plan just in case the market storm arrives. Usually, these market storms come quickly and are unexpected.
Are you prepared?
Old_Skeet

Hennessy has been raising the fee since they acquired the fund.
They then introduced an 'institutional' share class with a $250,000 minimum - with a lower fee than the (original, now called) 'investor' class, and in a very! shareholder-unfriendly manner - did not place the original investors in the 'institutional' class.
Aside - the current institutional GASFX ER is not that different from what the original ER had been, prior to Hennessy acquisition.
Other funds - can't recall any specifically at the moment - have given the original shareholders - this "grandfather" benefit and lower expense ratio.
I currently have gains on the fund, that prevent me from liquidating the fund without paying the cap gains tax. If I could sell without paying the C/G tax, I would sell it immediately.
FWIW (and too late for my "old money") you can duplicate the exposure of the fund, through a mix of MLP and Utility ETFs. The expense ratio would be, in aggregate, MUCH lower than GASFX, and it would be more tax efficient.
Below - using the wonderful PortfolioVisualizer.com, are a couple of examples
Match GASFX with MLPX + VPU: http://tinyurl.com/GASFX-match
Backtest Match of 35% MLPX + 65% VPU, with Annual[*] Rebalancing: http://tinyurl.com/GASFX-backtest
[*] Other rebalancing options are available. See menu at PortfolioVisualizer, linked above.
Since
http://www.etf.com/VPU has ER of 10 bps
http://www.etf.com/MLPX has ER of 45 bps
the blend has ER of about 22 bps, which is 79 bps less than the larded up GASFX Investor class.

Hi @Catch22 and others,
Cash has the element of stable value ... generally, bonds do not have this stable value feature. So, in stock market swoons fixed income investors could be impacted as well as equity investors who are scrambling to raise capital (sell bonds) to meet equity margin calls. Simply stated, bonds have their own asset class.
Something to think on.
Skeet

M* has the minimum for their high yield fund at 25K. Not exactly chump change, and might even be lower at various brokers, but it's probably doable for many folks here. But the 1.20 ER and 12(b)-1 fee on the investor class turns me off.

His Oaktree Capital seems to specialize in distressed debt. I sense that they cater to very large and institutional investors. They have a high yield mutual fund - however I believe the minimum is quite high.

From David's Commentary - "(Howard Marks') premise here is that investors make the greatest and safest returns on their investment when they are prepared to do what others do not want to do. He posits a situation, analogous to what we see today, where too much money with too little fear is chasing risky investments since the alternative is unappealing ...".
-
Marks is an interesting bird. More impressive live (on Bloomberg) than in his writings, I think. I've been plodding through his The Most Important Thing on Audible. It's few hundred pages long, but with a tediously repetitious basic theme. That being: Adjust your risk appetite to market conditions. He's currently quite bearish. I enjoy the book, but listen mostly at bedtime and generally doze off after about 10 minutes.
His Oaktree Capital seems to specialize in distressed debt. I sense that they cater to very large and institutional investors. They have a high yield mutual fund - however I believe the minimum is quite high.

FYI: Investors in Daniel Ivascyn’s Pimco Income Fund have enjoyed stellar returns. Those who put money in his much smaller closed-end fund have gotten those gains on steroids.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.bloomberg.com//news/articles/2017-08-01/pimco-has-a-manager-who-tops-dan-ivascyn-his-name-dan-ivascyn
PDI: 17.09% YTD
PONAX: 5.62% YTD

Not so fast. Gundlach's pretty bright and probably bought the wine as an investment.
http://www.wineinvestment.com/wine-investment/alternative-investments/
"The term ‘alternative investments’ is relatively loose, and includes tangible assets such as precious metals, art, wine, antiques, coins and stamps, plus some financial assets such as property, venture capital, funds and trusts.
"Investing in wine, whether that be a rare bottle, a case of highly-regarded First Growths or an entire cellar, has consistently yielded decent low-risk returns. In fact, for the last 50 years the fine wine market has remained stable, despite the world’s economic crises ..."
Agree with @Mark. Wine around here's often on sale at 20-30% below list. Some stores offer an additional 10% off if you buy 4. You can almost always find decent tasting Californias for around $10.

The plot thickens:
m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_597b6e06e4b02a8434b63e5a
From the article:

While preparing for his move into government, Scaramucci struck a deal — which is still under regulatory scrutiny — to sell his stake in his hedge fund, SkyBridge Capital, to Chinese conglomerate HNA Group and another company. He assumed that he’d be put in charge of the public liaison office, a job that Valerie Jarrett held in the Obama administration. He had it all mapped out, according to the White House adviser. He identified 2,500 influential business leaders across the United States and had come up with a clever name for them: Trump Team 2,500. He believed these people would help pressure Congress into supporting the president’s agenda.
Priebus blocked Scaramucci from getting a top administration job in January, telling the president that Scaramucci “played” Trump, according to a source. Scaramucci now calls Priebus “Rancid Penis.”
But Scaramucci’s plans were foiled in early January. That’s when Priebus, according to a confidant of both Scaramucci and the president, told Trump, “He played you.”
“How’s that?” Trump asked Priebus, according to the same source, who has spoken to several people within the White House about the conversation.
Priebus then told Trump that he felt Scaramucci had been offered too much for SkyBridge by HNA Group. The deal, he implied, smelled bad — as if the Chinese might expect favors from within the administration for that inflated price. The source also said that Priebus mentioned there was email traffic between Scaramucci and the Chinese proving this.
The White House rejected this version of events and declined to make Priebus available for comment.
Ultimately, Scaramucci was not offered the job.

FYI:(Thank God, the Linkster's bond money is with Pimco, and not with Jeff, the headline seeker !)
Jeffrey Gundlach, one of the world's best-known bond investors, has sued a California wine merchant he said sold him several dozen bottles of fake wine, including Bordeaux that experts consider among the greatest wines ever made.
In lawsuits filed on Friday, the founder of DoubleLine Capital claimed that at least 67 bottles he bought from Soutirage were fake, and that it would cost more than $1 million to replace them.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-funds-doubleline-wine-idUSKBN1AE01G

Fund manager changes, especially lead managers and solo managers, should absolutely raise a red flag. There have been many instances where I can look back and say that I should have reacted to manager changes sooner. The fact that a fund is team managed should not change the importance of going back and seeing what that person's contributions were to the success of the fund during her/his tenure. Great example is IVAEX, where one of the team left in mid-2014. The fund had been struggling already that year, and it just got worse. Something was clearly not working with the fund's macro strategy, and the next year was even greater under-performance. In fact, the fund never recovered, and assets dropped from almost $13 billion to $1 billion at year-end 2016. Was the manager leaving the reason? No, but it simply was another sign that should have triggered a sale. We held until mid-2015, and fortunately were able to extract ourselves with some decent long-term gains for the most part. Should you sell every time a team manager leaves? No, but the event should mean a re-evaluation of the thesis for owning the fund and very close monitoring for a period of time thereafter.
For solo managers, and fortunately there are fewer now than in the past, this event should absolute put any additional purchases on hold until an evaluation of the new manager is completed. This is difficult for individual investors, but fortunately we have access to fund managers and can interview them.
Lesson learned over the years: funds that employ active macro and thematic strategies are very difficult to evaluate sometimes and can turn on a dime performance-wise. It's not that the managers have taken dumb pills, but rather their unusual approach can suddenly go out of favor in a big way. You really need to understand how the investment philosophy translates to day-to-day management and the many risks involved in the strategies. These funds should be kept on a short leash.