Best and Worst sometimes has a lot to do with timing...when you buy a fund. For example, WASYX had a fantastic run until it ran into problems with asset bloat and big management changes. Those folks who owned it from 2007- 2013 and sold it for whatever reason probably loved it. Even with some stinker years, especially the last 3+ years, its 15-yr average return is about 8%. But this is why WHO runs an actively-managed fund is so critical, as is asset bloat and the problems it might cause.
Investors often are late to the party with funds, getting if after the big gains. Once the fund gains large numbers of assets, it may be unable to continue using its unique strategy. Certainly MFLDX is a good example of this. Spectacular numbers from inception 2008 through much of 2013 (assets ballooned from $35 million to almost $16 billion), then running of the tracks and crashing, not recovering even as assets dropped to $370 million. Here there was no management change. In hindsight, the small fund's purchase by a large fund company was likely a big mistake.
I would urge caution about labeling relatively new funds "Best". "Best" can mean different things to different investors. While I personally own SIGIX because of its manager's track record, the fund is barely 5 years old. I own it because I believe it is a good compliment to a higher-volatility index like SCHE. It may not have the best long-term total return numbers, but I am ok with that.

@msf I agree it is virtually impossible to do business or invest without entering some of these ethical/political grey areas. It is part of life and it would be hard to function on a practical level otherwise, so yes we can try and must sometimes separate these political and financial goals to function. But there is inevitably a point for many people where the political/ethical intersects with investment goals to such a degree that action for a person of conscience is necessary. It is the reason socially responsible investing exists.
What the particular ethical line is beyond which is unacceptable is of course up to each individual's taste and conscience. But for an investor to say such ethical lines don't exist for them and that they are thus "apolitical" is actually I think misguided. That person is actually endorsing a harsh libertarian ideology, an extreme political stance that believes that profit takes precedence over everything else.
Among the embedded political views in the profit above everything else investment philosophy you can deduce the following:
1. Low to no taxes--corporate and capital gains especially--as getting rid of these increases investor profits.
2. No government regulations of business except for those that protect property rights as this increases corporate profits.
3. Anti-labor. No minimum wage, no labor safety requirements, no unions as all of these reduce profits.
4. No consumer protection--as class action lawsuits and federal regs to protect consumers reduce profits.
While an investor may disagree with these ideas in their separate political silo as you say, they are implicitly endorsing them by investing in companies and with money managers that are actively seeking these goals. There is a kind of hypocrisy to this, and many people have pointed this out with regard to Warren Buffett. But we live in a world where to function one must be hypocritical sometimes. It is a matter of degrees. But the extremist politically is the libertarian investor who claims those degrees don't matter or don't exist.

"The bundle of hedge funds had compound annual returns of 2.2 percent in the nine years through 2016, compared with 7.1 percent for the index fund. The billionaire estimated that about 60 percent of the gains that the hedge funds produced during that period were eaten up by management fees."
Here's the arithmetic:
5.25% gross for the hedge funds.
2+20 in fees = 2% + 1.05% = 3.05% fees
5.25% - 3.05% = 2.2% net.
3.05% fees/5.25% gross is approximately 60%
If hedge fund managers underperformed the market (before fees), and index funds merely matched the market (before fees), then everyone else outperformed the market on average. That means individual investors and active mutual funds on (dollar-weighted) average beat the index funds.
This is just Sharpe's argument that you can't beat the market. In order for someone to outperform, there has to be someone who was underperforming. Fortunately, active investors had a bunch of losers they could take advantage of over the past nine years. Hedge funds.

@LewisBraham To a large degree, I agree with you. I do not want to be investing in companies that do bad things. Someone wrote, in another thread, that what Wells Fargo did was not out of the ordinary. (Everyone does it, so it's okay.) If this is indeed business as usual, then all businesses need to be prosecuted. I do not support ill-gotten gains.
(Withholding information can be addressed under products liability laws, e.g. defective products under the theory of failure to warn.)
But IMHO there's a difference between investing in what is legal and working toward changing those laws. I may advocate a $15 min wage, but I do not decline to do business with or invest in companies that don't meet that standard. Like Buffett, I may support politicians who would increase my taxes but I don't pay more in taxes than the current code requires me to pay.
I still feel that one can separate one's actions from one's advocacy.
Regarding hiring: Say I was opposed to virtually all government regulation (too oppressive), and I needed to contract a writer for a primer on "what is a stock". Should I refuse to consider hiring you, not because you would incorporate your views into that writing (I assume you would do an objective, professional job), but because you might spend some of your earnings supporting positions I disagreed with? That approach would make it hard to hire anyone.
If my assumption is wrong, and you're going to let your views affect your work, then clearly I should reconsider.

@MikeM - Did you mean PWRCX (Power Income Class C) or PRWCX (T. Rowe Price Capital Appreciation)?
Oops @rforno beat me to this observation. I think we can safely assume Mike meant PRWCX Capital Appreciation. Own and agree it's a great fund from a fine family. Probably "overbought" at this time - if the term may be applied to a fund.

And while I do respect your desire to keep politics out of financial affairs, it is a real fact (not one of the new "alternative" variety) that Mr. Obama was the president during that time frame. I'm not postulating that the presidency is directly responsible for financial losses or gains, simply remarking on the facts.
So your response is to hijack this thread just to get the last word? Desperately pitiful.
I apologize @johnN. This was a good discussion you started. Do not let the political interruption overrun your thread.

@JohnChisum- Well, yes, but still take into account that the particular time frame involved was right in the middle of the recovery from the "almost depression" of 2007/08.
And while I do respect your desire to keep politics out of financial affairs, it is a real fact (not one of the new "alternative" variety) that Mr. Obama was the president during that time frame. I'm not postulating that the presidency is directly responsible for financial losses or gains, simply remarking on the facts.

I confess to being a "half-glass-empty" investor. --- So like the late, great Dr. Martin Zweig, I find myself "worried" (and am always "worried")...
The link below is to a chart I watch from time-to-time..
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/BAMLH0A0HYM2
Tight spreads imply business optimism is (largely) discounted. Can the spread tighen (i.e. support to junk prices) yet further? Sure. But how much optimism is left to be discovered by the capital markets?
The thing is, junk-debt as an asset class is a 'risk-on' asset. If (when) it loses a bid, its very likely that equities will come under pressure too. The old saw goes : "the only thing that goes up in a bear market is correllation." So if one is skiddish about junk's prospects, one should also have a wary eye on equities...

If she is or soon will be a college graduate I suggest "The only investment guide you will ever need " by Andrew Tobias

Don't know if Tobias' work is the best - but do recall it being the last investment book I ever gleaned anything worthwhile out of. Excellent choice for any age. Don't believe you'd have to be a college grad to comprehend. A reasonably capable high school junior/senior should do just fine. (Really depends on where her inclinations lie).
---
Additional: Very impressed with the Bloomberg interviews I've seen with Howard Marks of Oaktree Capital. An exceptionally bright, clear, easy to understand thinker. Haven't read any of his books yet, but am tempted to do so.
More: Haven't read anything by Peter Lynch either. But if he writes as well as he speaks, I'd expect a newbie would find his investing ideas both entertaining and instructive.

Back to multiple paragraphs ago: I don't think DCA into market that is (probably) overvalued is a wise strategy. I read the latest Cinnamond Absolute Investing blog, and I wish I had his millions (so I could feel good about a Starbucks latte, and walking my dog, and not buying any over-valued thing. [He's also a lot younger, so he can get back in the game when values exist.]). And he actually plans to do so. This raises the question: do I save cash; plunge heavily in to any new fund he establishes? I'm pretty sure he will
Perhaps the post suggesting that 2 initial up months guarantees a positive year is correct, but I may be up 8% now (in some accounts) and 2% at Xmas, which makes me positive, but not too happy.
People who take 1% of my money (or more) are isolated from my needs. If their funds decline 5% in a 20% decline (an extremely rare event), I have still lost money, but they trumpet a successful year.
Cinnamond says there's nothing he sees worth buying, and I'm still trying to find stuff to sell.
I'm sure there are multiple individual stocks that will do well as (relatively) desperate managers and individuals buy them, but I hope they are paying dividends.
While happy with my gains, I have to wonder if this another peak at which I should sell. I've missed or ignored all the other, so why should this be different?

FYI: Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac shares took a nosedive Tuesday following a federal appeals court decision to stay a previous ruling that disallows investors from suing the U.S. government. The cases alleged that the government (taxpayers) illegally seized billions of dollars from the mortgage giants. Teresa Rivas reported on it Tuesday.
Over-the-counter shares of Fannie (FNMA) and Freddie (FMCC) slid 34.7% and 38.1%, respectively. Preferred shares were down similarly.
Call it a hitch – hedge funds and other distressed asset investors, who snapped up shares for pennies on the dollar expecting to get paid back won’t go quietly. Bill Ackman’s Pershing Square Capital Management is a major holder of common shares; Perry Capital and Bruce Berkowitz’ Fairholme Funds are major owners of the preferred shares.
Regards,
Ted
http://blogs.barrons.com/focusonfunds/2017/02/22/fannie-and-freddie-took-a-big-fall-will-bruce-berkowitz-fairholme-come-tumbling-after/tab/print/

FYI: CFRA’s Sam Stovall says he’s looking for a long-overdue “digestion of gains,” though he adds the pause will not likely result in the end of this bull market.
The run will continue, the chief investment strategist writes, thanks in part to improving earnings and inflation staying subdued. In support, he notes one indicator that’s close to getting triggered.
“If you need additional encouragement that a bear market is not just around the corner, history again may offer some more virtual Valium,” says Stovall, who delivers our call of the day.
Since 1945, there have been 27 years when the S&P has achieved gains in January and February. The stock index then finished up for the year (on a total-return basis) in every one those years, according to Stovall. That’s going 27 for 27, or batting a thousand.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/this-bullish-signal-has-never-been-wrong-and-its-about-to-flash-for-2017-2017-02-22/print

Damage to FAIRX today is 12.98%.

Basically back to square one YTD.

Yikes! Haven't found any capital distribution news.

Why would this trigger distribution? You think Jerky Berky will sell? No way. Everyone needs their WAMU. He will keep fighting.

With stock prices at all-time highs and growing unease filtering out of the nation’s capital, investors will want to have cash on hand to take advantage of any opportunities that may emerge.
https://www.fool.com/investing/2017/02/16/cash-will-be-king-in-2017.aspx
====
Would you recommend raising cash now in anticipation of picking up some bargains in the future?
I think the period around the State of the Union will be a telling time. I also think that Trump's State of the Union speech will be one of the most watched in a long time ... no one can guess what he will say.

FYI: ( I will link interview as soon as it becomes available for free early Saturday morning.)
Regards,
Ted
February 16, 2017
Dear WEALTHTRACK Subscriber,
Founding father Benjamin Franklin told us that, “In this world nothing is certain but death and taxes.” What he didn’t add was that one of them is somewhat within our control. And I am not talking about finding the fountain of youth; I am talking about our tax bill.
We spend most of our time on WEALTHTRACK focusing on building pre-tax wealth. We talk to top performing fund managers and highly regarded financial advisors, but we have rarely concentrated on after-tax returns. Neither does the financial services industry. This week we are going to rectify that. As one of this week’s guests told me you can’t eat pre-tax returns.
Taxes take a huge bite out of investment returns, an estimated 1-3% annually, higher than most management fees and more than the alpha, or performance, that active managers hope to deliver above the market year after year. The main tax culprit is trading, especially that generates highly taxed short-term capital gains, which is why low turnover portfolios, particularly passive index funds have such a performance advantage.
Taxes are a cost we have some control over, which is why we invited this week’s guests: two experts in tax-advantaged investing to join us.
Brian Langstraat is the CEO of Parametric, a global asset management firm with about $180 billion dollars of assets under management. More than $50 billion of that is in tax-advantaged investing strategies. Founded in 1987, it describes itself as providing: “Engineered portfolio solutions” to institutional and private clients. It constructs customized strategies to meet specific risk management, tax management and return objectives. Parametric is a subsidiary of Eaton Vance and runs several mutual funds for them including its Tax-Managed International Equity Fund and Tax-Managed Emerging Markets Fund.
Scott Welch is the Chief Investment Officer of Dynasty Financial Partners, which provides investment research, portfolio management, technology and practice management solutions to financial advisors and advisory teams. In that capacity, advice on optimizing tax consequences is near the top of his list. Welch is on the board of several industry groups including the IMCA and the Editorial Advisory Board of the Journal of Wealth Management.
Investors need every edge they can use to maximize their returns. It turns out tax-advantaged investment strategies can consistently add some hard to come by alpha.
If you miss the show on public television this week, you can definitely catch it on our website or on our YouTube channel. As always, we welcome your feedback on Facebook, Twitter or via the Contact Us link on our website.
Have a great weekend, a happy President’s Day and make the week ahead a profitable and a productive one!
Best Regards,
Consuelo
Video Clip:

@hank said
"My own working definition of cash is pretty conservative. Not because it's the "right" definition. But simply because that's the way I structure my investments. Cash to me extends only to the reaches of a conservative ultra-short fund like TRBUX."
" ...that's money I move in and out of other (equity) funds when opportunities arise. (And one never knows when that might occur.) "
Right on @hank.Some of the funds mentioned have had drawdowns(not extreme,but) at the same time as those possible opportunities may present themselves.When I raise cash/take profits/seek shelter from a storm, my main goal is preservation of capital.Most of my IRA is @Schwab where funds such as TRBUX and ZEOIX carry the $76.00 transaction fee per purchase.A little research after this discussion brought me to CULAX as a good fit in the ultra short space @ Schwab, although the 90 day short term redemption fee has to enter the equation.Good discussion.

He is expecting S&P gains being wiped out all the way down to 2000. Okay Hussman, thanks for my being my perpetual tax loss candidate year after year.

Hmmm...I never heard of PTIAX and it has a maturity out 7-8 years. Need to research. I do own both RPHYX and RSIVX in both taxable and tax deferred accounts.
I am really trying to avoid directly holding fund with the fund company. It is just a pain at tax time. Very few funds I own direct. PTIAX is available at brokerages so its a plus. Funny thing is its municipal bond fund has capital preservation in the goal, PTIAX doesn't, and very wierd part is that for fact sheet of PTIAX it mentioned municipal bonds are undervalued while for THAT funds fact sheet it mentions no such thing.
If anyone aware of any manager interviews or something for PTIAX, kindly link. Google didn't help me out, but then you have to know what to search for.

Well SEARS also got creamed earlier some time. You never know what's happening with SEARS. And FAIRX. And CGMFX. And for some SEQUX.
good for me I have taken my gains out and am playing with the houses money.

@davidmoran,Mr Sherman encouraged investors to contact DblL for any ???s concerning the funds.The slides were informative and the presentation gave me a better understanding of the Cape Enhanced Strategy.Mr Sherman did not address the under performance of the new fund but it was shown on a couple of the slides.The slides are probably available today, but without Mr Sherman's comments. I just became an investor in the domestic strategy within the past 6 month's ,thanks to you and other posters here.
From DL this PM
Shiller Enhanced CAPE® and Shiller Enhanced International CAPE® Webcast replay
The replay will be available in 5-7 business days. I have added your email to our notification list and you will receive word when it posts to the site.
Thank you,
Leena Park
Investor Services
DoubleLine Capital LP || 333 S. Grand Avenue, 18th Floor || Los Angeles, CA 90071
direct 213.633.8498 || main 213.633.8200 || [email protected]
This might be an automated email link *
[email protected]
Hello,
*Once the presentation begins, please send me a copy of the slides.