Not following your reasoning (etfs easier to day-trade? kids dealing with fifo gains?), but yeah, I would stay w Danoff, and have. It is not as though there is no such thing as market-superior managers, contrary to what you read everywhere.

@MikeM- because I like your style, I'm giving you permission to use my all-purpose disclaimer. Have a good new year, Mike!
MJG & Dex Disclaimer: the percentages cited above are for rhetorical purposes only, and while suggestive, may or may not be specifically accurate. Past performance, etc. Caveat Emptor. No representation is hereby made of any particular degree of accuracy. Offer may not be valid in some locations, and actual mileage may vary. Not approved by any governmental agency. Definitely NOT covered by FDIC. Warranty specifically excludes any reimbursement for damages incurred by or from use of this product. The opinions expressed are those of the poster only, and may or may not (but probably do) reflect the opinion(s) of Professor David Snowball (@David_Snowball). Loss of value or capital is possible. Other than the exceptions herein specifically stated, we stand well behind and have every confidence in the quality of our products. ©

"Return on capital requires wages to be lower and lower while the consumption based economics to justify that return requires higher and higher wages."
I was thinking that very thing as I read the papers this morning, although certainly not in your highfalutin prose. :) It was more like "how can these bastards complain about lousy consumer consumption when they are doing everything possible to eliminate jobs and hold down pay?"
You are absolutely right about the paradox. If dummies like me can see this how come our vaunted high-level economics wizards apparently can't? (You don't suppose that they've been bought off, by any chance?)

If only the median and weighted wages (not including return on capital) were published and followed as a guage of economy whose growth was the goal, we would all be in a better shape. Not going to happen in this paradoxical capitalistic system. Return on capital requires wages to be lower and lower while the consumption based economics to justify that return requires higher and higher wages.
And if we really wanted to have corporations not trying to manipulate markets but growing their companies that requires investments in skilled workforce that wouldl help the economy, we would have the executive salaries tied not to stock prices but to increases in shareholder equity in the balance sheets. Most CEOs would be out of a job.
For that to happen ideological blindfolds have to come off and the economists have to grow some %^$&s and brains. :)

Goldman cuts S&P 500 earnings outlook
Jan 8 2016, 08:00 ET | By: Stephen Alpher
Goldman's equity team cuts $3 per share from its expectation of S&P 500 E P S for 2015-2017. The new numbers are $106, $117, and $126, respectively.The revision means annual E P S growth of -7% in 2015 (the worst performance since 2008), 11% in 2015, and 8% in 2017.At issue, naturally, is energy, and that sector last year likely posted a decline in operating E P S for the first time in 48 years. Also important topics are margins that appear to have peaked, and the risk of a broader economic slowdown.On margins, it's all about tech, and in tech it's all about Apple. Goldman expects tech margins to peak this year and then begin to decline. If you can find an S&P 500 company that can raise margins, buy it.
http://seekingalpha.com/news/3020796-goldman-cuts-s-and-p-500-earnings-outlook
Market Commentary (posted Jan 7th 2016) from OTTER CREEK LONG/SHORT OPPORTUNITY FUND OTCRX
As we have discussed in prior letters, we believe the overall valuation in both the equity and bond markets are not overly attractive on an absolute basis
considering the fundamental growth outlook. S&P 500 earnings are expected to be around $125 per share in 2016 implying a price to earnings ratio of
approximately 16x – near historical averages – however, we see potential downside risk to earnings estimates this year. The US economy continues to grow
modestly despite a sluggish industrial and commodity environment. However, we believe that there are lingering risks surrounding China which combined with
the potential for ongoing stress in credit markets should be a pause for concern going forward.
As we enter January, we have approximately 18% of the Fund in cash and are looking opportunistically to deploy that capital. We expect markets to be volatile
as the Federal Reserve attempts to gradually increase interest rates in the midst of moderate domestic growth and soft global growth trends. We look forward to
an in-depth discussion on broader macro outlook, portfolio positioning, and new ideas during our quarterly conference call on January 20th
http://www.ottercreekfunds.com/media/pdfs/OCL_Factsheet.pdf

Strange, since his Flexible Income fund is, essentially, an unconstrained fund. Prospectus says "Adviser has broad flexibility to use various investment strategies and to invest in a wide variety of instruments that the Adviser believes offer the potential for current income, capital appreciation, or both. The fund is not constrained by management." If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...

FYI: Jeffrey Gundlach doesn't see a bright future for unconstrained bond funds, with the notable exception of his own DoubleLine Flexible Income Fund (DFLEX), which he doesn't really identify as unconstrained.
“The category is something of a gimmick, because the strategy sounds nimble, but the allure is really the hope that they will be able to avoid interest-rate risk,” the founder of DoubleLine Capital told InvestmentNews in a phone interview
Regards,
Ted
http://www.investmentnews.com/article/20160106/BLOG12/160109970?template=printart

I swapped FAIRX into FAAFX to avoid the capital gains distribution last year while staying with Berkowitz. I'll give him a couple more years, but if he doesn't recover, I think I'm abandoning active management altogether. If you take a fund which does amazingly for 15 years and has all the ingredients for continued success, then it underperforms and keeps underperforming, then there's just no way to pick a good active fund. SEQUX seems to be proving another example of that. But hey, I haven't lost hope yet!

Here is how I faired in 2015 according to Morningstar's Portfolio Manager. My three best funds were SPECX (+7.1%) ... AGTHX (+5.4%) ... & ANWPX (+5.3%). My three worst funds were THDAX (-15.3%) ... TOLLX (-14.4%) ... & PGUAX (-10.3%) My three worst hybrid funds were FKINX (-7.8%) ... HWIAX (-7.6%) ... and CAPAX (-6.2%) My three best hybrid funds were ABALX (+1.7%) ... FRINX (+1.5%) ...and BAICX (-0.9%). Overall I was down by -2.2%. I have not received my yearending brokerage statement which will reflect how I truly faired as I had a spiff that produced a good return and this would factor in 2015 performance. Plus, I had a loss in two funds I sold ... but, I had gains in some other funds that I trimmed my position in.

FYI: Many investors use mutual funds throughout their lives to invest. When it comes time to sell mutual funds, dealing with taxes can be complicated, especially if you've reinvested dividends and capital gains distributions into additional shares. For those inheriting mutual funds, the tax aspects are actually much simpler. Let's take a look at some of the tax implications of inherited mutual funds.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.sfgate.com/business/fool/article/Taxes-on-Inherited-Mutual-Funds-6736730.php

@vkt
Thank you.

Down 9%? That is serious damage!

Hmmm.
Yep, certainly if you need to sell.
But, glancing over some notable funds (thru Nov anyway), I'm in good company ...
PIMCO ALL ASSET ALL AUTHORITY INST (PAUIX) -13.5
T ROWE PRICE NEW ERA (PRNEX) -12.9
BERWYN CORNERSTONE (BERCX) -12.8
THIRD AVENUE INTERNATIONAL VALUE INST (TAVIX) -12.8
YACKTMAN SPECIAL OPPORTUNITIES INST (YASLX) -12.7
FPA CAPITAL (FPPTX) -12.3
AQR FUNDS: AQR RISK PARITY II HV I (QRHIX) -12.2
GABELLI VALUE 25 A (GABVX) -11.4
GREENLEAF INCOME GROWTH (GIGFX) -11.3
DODGE & COX INTERNATIONAL STOCK (DODFX) -11.2
FRANKLIN INCOME A (FKINX) -10.7
JANUS CONTRARIAN D (JACNX) -10.5
WADDELL & REED ADVISORS HIGH INCOME A (UNHIX) -10.5
PIMCO ALL ASSET INST (PAAIX) -10
FORUM FUNDS: BECK MACK & OLIVER PARTNERS (BMPEX) -9.8
ARIEL FOCUS INV (ARFFX) -9.7
IVY ASSET STRATEGY C (WASCX) -9.4
BRIDGEWAY ULTRA-SMALL COMPANY (BRUSX) -9
It was a lame year.
Break, break.
Yes, backward-looking performance-based metrics have their limitations, indeed.
c

Edit: Still think the junk corporates may surprise in 2016. Albeit I don't trade on what I think, just what I see.

Also, keep an eye on Emerging Markets High Yield Bonds -Premx - the strength in the $ could provide a good dividend yield and cap gains.

Just jumped into GIM. I'm looking for a rebound after a tough year.

Edit: Still think the junk corporates may surprise in 2016. Albeit I don't trade on what I think, just what I see.

Also, keep an eye on Emerging Markets High Yield Bonds -Premx - the strength in the $ could provide a good dividend yield and cap gains.

To willmatt's original question, which seems like a good discussion topic, here's ~ 2.03 inflation-adjusted cents' worth from this house.
For now, sticking with moderately significant changes made in mid-2015, which consisted of (1) reducing equity by quite a bit, concentrating it mainly in lower volatility funds with a strong tilt toward hedging foreign currency; (2) building up to about a quarter of the port in FI cef's, in munis, preferreds, and non-agency mortgages; (3) weeding out as much in hy corporates and commodity energy equity as possible; and (4) building up BBB/BB-ish muni oef's.
What are others doing?
Cheers, AJ

One area that seems duplicative is my accumulation of balanced funds. Currently, I own VWENX, JABAX and VTMFX. Two out of the three seems adequate to me. I really like VTMFX and its muni bond holdings, which I hold in a taxable account. So, its come down to a decision between VWENX and JABAX. I bought VWENX in a taxable account many years ago and its ballooned to my largest holding. I have a rather large capital gain with it, so its tough to sell without incurring the big cap gain. JABAX is held in a Roth IRA, so no tax issues with it.

The Capital Spectator By James Picerno | Jan 4, 2016 at 06:34 am EST
It’s official—2015 was a rotten year for the major asset classes. Other than a measly 2.5% total return in US real estate investment trusts (REITs) and fractional gains in US stocks and investment-grade bonds, the year just passed delivered black eyes to most of the broadly defined slices of the global asset pie. If you don’t mind a round of statistical abuse, let’s review the numbers.
Will the year ahead deliver something better? For the moment, Mr. Market’s ex ante clues don’t look especially encouraging. But expected returns–and risk–vary through time, which is a reminder that a robust system for risk-management and analysis will probably be especially valuable in the year to come.
http://www.capitalspectator.com/major-asset-classes-december-2015-performance-review/
@Junkster
S&P Municipal Bond High Yield Index 1 YR
LAUNCH DATE: DEC 31, 2000
246.90 2.84 %▲
S&P Municipal Bond High Yield Index 5 YR
LAUNCH DATE: DEC 31, 2000
246.90 8.06 %▲
http://us.spindices.com/indices/fixed-income/sp-municipal-bond-high-yield-index
https://www.spdrs.com/product/fund.seam?ticker=HYMB
C E F Invesco Municipal Income Opp Trust (NYSE:OIA
https://www.google.com/finance?q=NYSE:OIA&ei=tYSKVuLHMZbVjAHQvouoAw

The elevator discussion in David's Jan. commentary caught my attention. If I understand it correctly, the strategy of SDRIX is to stay fully invested at all times in a generally large cap value manner while hedging against a bear market using puts that only come into the money when the market is down 10%. Unlike most long-short strategies, it's not hedging against individual securities nor is it trying to time moves in and out of the market (as does Hussman, I believe?). So the fund can have good success either in a big up year or in a big down year. Its worst case scenario seems to be a year with the market down 9% (so the hedge isn't quite triggered) while the market is led by growth stocks (so the value tilt causes under-performance). This year, a flat market led overwhelmingly by a couple of big growth stocks, SDRIX was down less than 5%, so I'm guessing that down 15% really would be a rock-bottom scenario for it. It's a nice thought that your fund would do okay in a roaring bull market while thriving in a devastating bear.
FWIW, this is the first vehicle I've seen that pretty much implements the investing ideas that Mark Spitznagel puts forth in his very interesting book, The Dao of Capital. The main difference so far as I can recall is that Spitznagel suggests a breakpoint of 20% or 30% for your hedge instead of 10%, I presume because of cost.
Any comments?

Hi, David.
Almost all of the winners in my retirement portfolio were Fidelity large growth funds (and Fido Japan Smaller Companies, bought some while ago at Ed's recommendation).
In Mr. Danoff's case, his major winners were Facebook (up 34%), Amazon (up 120%), various flavors of Google (up about 45% depending a bit on share class), and Netflix (up 135%). Decent gains on smaller positions in Visa and MasterCard, services important to your use of all of the above.
Berkshire Hathaway and Apple were negative and Chipotle was negative in oh so many ways.
For what that's worth,
David

Towards the end of this article is:
Nuveen Quality Preferred Income 2 (JPS) has most its exposure to preferred stock issued by large banks and insurance companies, such as Bank of America and MetLife. Most preferred is perpetual, giving it a lot of rate risk, but credit quality is improving as banks and insurers build capital cushions.[my emphasis]
Why is so much MSM finance reportage persisting with this mantra? I don't get it; last time I looked, the rating agencies were giving yet another credit downgrade to many of the 10 largest banking institutions. Excluding Wells Fargo, aren't many now about one step from BBB? That's terrible! And most MFs that focus on preferreds have a boat-load of Big Bank preferreds. Perpetual pfds. No thank you. Put leverage into the mix? No thank you very much.
@Ted I know it increases concentration risk, and there may be some call risk in certain issues, but I just think it's be better to follow your route--- be patient, identify pfd targets, and when they hit a sensible buy price then go for it and build your own "Benz bucket," one by one, in a measured way. In this asset class, how else can one stay away from the banksters, and the illusion of their stability?

Nice metaphor extension from a fellow named Mark Yusko of Morgan Creek Capital Management: "Trying to catch falling knives always results in lost fingers… Better to let the knife hit the floor, bounce around a little, and when it stops moving, go pick it up."
I wonder if David's planning to flesh out his comment about this being a senseless market.

My mind is reeling with respect to how Scottrade handled the year end distribution from GPROX and I'm wondering if any of you readers have a similar experience with either your brokerage firm of choice or even with Grandeur Peak proper. Forgetting for now that none of their math computes, or my two calculators are wrong, I am curious as to how they decide to calculate the various classes of distribution income (dividends, long-term and short-term capital gains) on differing numbers of shares.
To wit: Scottrade starts with the number of shares that I held in my account on the day the distributions were paid. They multiply the dividend and the 'short' term capital gain distribution by that number of shares. They then add the number of shares that I receive from the STCG calculation to my original number of shares to compute the number of shares by which to multiply the 'long' term capital gain distribution amount. Huh? And why wouldn't you also add in the shares one receives from the dividend calculation? Or just use the original number of shares? I'm confused or just stupid, take your pick.
Anyway I'm seeking enlightenment. Happy New Year. I can wait.