Dear friends,
About 40 of us gathered on Tuesday evening to talk with Bernie Horn. It was an interesting talk, one which covered some of the same ground that he went over in private with Ed and me but one which also highlighted a couple new points.
Highlights:

• The genesis of the fund was in his days as a student at the Sloan School of Management at MIT at the end of the 1970s. It was a terrible decade for stocks in the US but he was struck by the number of foreign markets that had done just fine. One of his professors, Fischer Black, an economist whose work with Myron Scholes on options led to a Nobel Prize, generally preached the virtues of the efficient market theory but carries "a handy list of exceptions to EMT." The most prominent exception was value investing. The emerging research on the investment effects of international diversification and on value as a loophole to EMT led him to launch his first global portfolios.
  
• His goal is, over the long-term, to generate 2% greater returns than the market with lower volatility.
  
• He began running separately-managed accounts but those became an administrative headache and so he talked his investors into joining a limited partnership which later morphed into Polaris Global Value.
  
• The central disciplined are calculating the "Polaris global cost of capital" (which he thinks separates him from most of his peers) and the desire to add stocks which have low correlations to his existing portfolio.
  
• The Polaris global cost of capital starts with the market's likely rate of return, about 6% real. He believes that the top tier of managers can add about 2% or 200 bps of alpha. So far that implies an 8% cost of capital. He argues that fixed income markets are really pretty good at arbitraging currency risks, so he looks at the difference between the interest rates on a country's bonds and its inflation rate to find the last component of his cost of capital. The example was Argentina: 24% interest rate minus a 10% inflation rate means that bond investors are demanding a 14% real return on their investments. The 14% reflects the bond market's judgment of the cost of currency; that is, the bond market is pricing-in a really high risk of a peso devaluation. In order for an Argentine company to be attractive to him, he has to believe that it can overcome a 22% cost of capital (6 + 2 + 14). The hurdle rate for the same company domiciled elsewhere might be substantially lower.
  
• He does not hedge his currency exposure because the value calculation above implicitly accounts for currency risk. Currency fluctuations accounted for most of the fund's negative returns last year, about 2/3s as of the third quarter. To be clear: the fund made money in 2014 and finished in the top third of its peer group. 2/3s of the drag on the portfolio came from currency and 1/3 from stock selections.
  
• He tries to target new investments which are not correlated with his existing ones; that is, ones that do not all expose his investors to a single, potentially catastrophic risk factor. It might well be that the 100 more attractively priced stocks in the world are all financials but he would not overload the portfolio with them because that overexposes his investors to interest rate risks. Heightened vigilance here is one of the lessons of the 2007-08 crash.
  
• An interesting analogy on the correlation and portfolio construction piece: he tries to imagine what would happen if all of the companies in his portfolio merged to form a single conglomerate. In the conglomerate, he'd want different divisions whose cash generation was complementary: if interest rates rose, some divisions would generate less cash but some divisions would generate more and the net result would be that rising interest rates would not impair the conglomerates overall free cash flow. By way of example, he owns energy exploration and production companies whose earnings are down because of low oil prices but also refineries whose earnings on up.
  
• He instituted more vigorous stress tests for portfolio companies in the wake of 07/08. 25 of 70 companies were "cyclically exposed". Some of those firms had high fixed costs of operations which would not allow them to reduce costs as revenues fell. Five companies got "bumped off" as a result of that stress-testing.
  

Interesting Q&A:
Timothy Garr: why not just a concentrated, "best ideas" portfolio. BH: we've tried modeling concentrated portfolios of our holdings, but we haven't been able to find a way of constructing a focused portfolio that has a consistently better risk-return profile than global value's.
Timothy Garr: why charge a transaction fee? BH: our Pear Tree and PNC funds don't. For Polaris itself and for most of its investors, it makes little economic sense to impose the extra fees required to create the NTF illusion. You can buy PGV direct from Polaris to dodge those fees.
Neil Burns: how do you handle "consolidated risk" factors, such as how much emerging markets exposure to have? BH: it's a combination of our cost of capital discipline (if your economy and government are shaky, you end up with a high cost of capital and very few of your firms will be able to earn their cost of capital) and qualitative screens (he and all of his staff are heavily invested in the fund and he hates to lose money, so he ends up doing a "gut check" that sometimes lead him to say "no mas").
Ken Norman: how would you allocate between your foreign value and foreign value small cap funds? BH: a conservative foreign investor might look at 75% Value/25% SCV. They try to "manage down" the small cap fund's beta but it's more of a challenge now than it used to be. Small cap investors used to be reasonably patient and long-term because they knew that's what it took to unlock the small cap premium, which tended to dampen volatility. Now with so much money invested through sliced-and-diced ETFs, the markets seem jumpier.
Ken Norman: are you the lead manager on both the foreign funds? BH: Yes, but ... Here Bernie made a particularly interesting point, that he gives his associates a lot of leeway on the foreign funds both in stock selection and portfolio construction. That has two effects. (1) It represents a form of transition planning. His younger associates are learning how to operate the Polaris system using real money and making decisions that carry real consequences. He thinks that will make them much better stewards of Polaris Global Value when it becomes their turn to lead the fund. (2) It represents a recruitment and retention strategy. It lets bright young analysts know that they are a real role to play and a real future with the firm.
Shostakovich: you've used options to manage volatility. Is that still part of the plan? BH: Yes, but rarely now. Three reasons. (1) There are no options on many of the portfolio firms. (2) Post-08, options positions are becoming much more expensive, hence less rewarding. (3) Options trade away "excess" upside in exchange for limiting downside; he's reluctant to surrender much alpha since some of the firms in the portfolio have really substantial potential.
Shostakovich: how did you manage to reduce your e.r. at a time when assets were not rising sharply? BH: we decided to absorb some of the expenses ourselves in order to reduce our e.r. below 1.0%, which is a threshold for consideration by many institutional investors. We're hoping that going below 1.0% makes them willing to take us seriously.
For what that's worth,
David

http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1577406/000089418915000147/loeb_497e.htm
LOEB KING ALTERNATIVE STRATEGIES FUND
LOEB KING ASIA FUND
each a series of Loeb King Trust
(together, the “Funds”)
January 13, 2015
Supplement to the
Summary Prospectus, Prospectus and Statement of Additional Information (“SAI”)
each dated December 19, 2014
Effective immediately, the Funds will not accept any new investments and will no longer pursue their respective investment objectives. The Funds have begun liquidating their portfolios and will invest in cash and cash equivalents, such as money market funds, until all shares have been redeemed. Prior to closing, any capital gains will be distributed as soon as practicable to shareholders in the form of reinvestment in additional shares, unless you have previously requested payment in cash. Shares of the Funds are otherwise not available for purchase. Each Fund is expected to be closed and liquidated within approximately thirty (30) days (the “Liquidation Date”).
Prior to the respective Fund’s Liquidation Date, you may redeem your shares, including reinvested distributions, in accordance with the Funds’ Prospectus. As is the case with any redemption of Fund shares, redemption proceeds will generally be subject to federal and, as applicable, state and local income taxes if the redeemed shares are held in a taxable account and the liquidation proceeds exceed your adjusted basis in the shares redeemed. If the redeemed shares are held in a qualified retirement account, such as an IRA or 401(k), the liquidation proceeds may not be subject to current income taxation under certain conditions. You should consult with your tax advisor for further information regarding the federal, state and/or local income tax consequences of this liquidation that are relevant to your specific situation. Please refer to the “Distributions and Taxes” section in the Prospectus for general information.
ANY SHAREHOLDERS WHO HAVE NOT REDEEMED THEIR SHARES OF A FUND PRIOR TO THE FUND’S LIQUIDATION DATE WILL HAVE THEIR SHARES AUTOMATICALLY REDEEMED AS OF THAT DATE, AND PROCEEDS, SUBJECT TO ANY REQUIRED WITHHOLDINGS, WILL BE SENT TO THE ADDRESS OF RECORD. IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS OR NEED ASSISTANCE, PLEASE CONTACT YOUR FINANCIAL ADVISOR DIRECTLY OR THE FUNDS AT 1-855-722-4550.
IMPORTANT INFORMATION FOR RETIREMENT PLAN INVESTORS
If you are a retirement plan investor, you should consult your tax advisor regarding the consequences of a redemption of Fund shares. If you receive a distribution from an Individual Retirement Account or a Simplified Employee Pension (SEP) IRA, you must roll the proceeds into another Individual Retirement Account within sixty (60) days of the date of the distribution to avoid having to include the distribution in your taxable income for the year. If you receive a distribution from a 403(b)(7) Custodial Account (Tax-Sheltered account) or a Keogh Account, you must roll the distribution into a similar type of retirement plan within sixty (60) days to avoid disqualification of your plan and the severe tax consequences that it can bring. If you are the trustee of a Qualified Retirement Plan, you may reinvest the money in any way permitted by the plan and trust agreement.
Please retain this Supplement with your Summary Prospectus, Prospectus and SAI.

Yep.
Sold off quite a bit on this disappointing day, yet again...
OXY...I picked up recently, but could not hold gains...had hoped that this would be more sturdy given its dividend yield. No luck. APA, HES, XOM all down heavy as well.
SAFM...I picked up fairly recently, but could not hold gains. Massive shorts seem to be winning tug-of-war here.
SCHN...I took a beating on this one...a stubborn holding for me. Probably one of the most hated stocks out there today...the earnings call last week was so antagonistic. An aggressive BAC ML analyst basically called into question the entire business model for this 100 year old company. With raw metals at record lows, why would anyone want to by scrap? Jeffries stepped up with a hold and targets $20, citing cost reduction initiatives, continued FCF, and nice dividend, but the stock almost broke below $17 today. No admittance that tha company is buying its stock. Believe it can go lower still. Sad to say.
Did use downgrade by CS to pick up AIG, which has been off its recent high of $55. Added again to BAC...it too off recent high of $19...today, under $17.
HCP, OAK, AA continue to run higher. AA crushed expectations.
So, now just five equities: BAC, AA, HCP, OAK, and AIG.
c

Chip's updated Search Tools with ratings data through December 2014.
The update shows 470 Great Owl funds, or about 6 percent of all evaluated. Of these, about 100 are also Honor Roll funds, meaning they are top quintile performers for both risk adjusted and absolute returns.
Some notables:
Akre Focus Instl (AKRIX)
AMG Managers Intermediate Duration Govt (MGIDX)
Artisan International Value Investor (ARTKX)
Guinness Atkinson Global Innovators (IWIRX)
Hennessy Focus Investor (HFCSX)
Janus Triton D (JANIX)
Pear Tree Polaris Fgn Val Sm Cap Instl (QUSIX)
PIMCO Foreign Bond (USD-Hedged) I (PFORX)
PIMCO Intl StksPLUS AR Strat (UsD-Hg) A (PIPAX)
PIMCO StocksPLUS Absolute Return Instl (PSPTX)
PIMCO StocksPLUS Long Duration Instl (PSLDX)
PRIMECAP Odyssey Aggressive Growth (POAGX)
RiverPark Structural Alpha Institutional (RSAIX)
Smead Value Investor (SMVLX)
T. Rowe Price Capital Appreciation (PRWCX)
T. Rowe Price Diversified Sm Cap Growth (PRDSX)
T. Rowe Price Global Technology (PRGTX)
T. Rowe Price Instl Mid-Cap Equity Gr (PMEGX)
T. Rowe Price Instl Small-Cap Stock (TRSSX)
T. Rowe Price New Horizons (PRNHX)
T. Rowe Price Small-Cap Stock (OTCFX)
Tweedy Browne Global Value (TBGVX)
Vanguard Strategic Small-Cap Equity Inv (VSTCX)
Vanguard Struct Large-Cap Eq InstlPlus (VSLPX)
Vanguard Wellesley Income Inv (VWINX)
Vanguard Wellington Inv (VWELX)
Vulcan Value Partners (VVPLX)
Of the 1800 or so surviving funds that have been around 20 years, only about 30 are top quintile across all five evaluation periods (20, 10, 5, 3, and 1 year), yes even in 2014.
Some of them are:
American Century Equity Income Inv (TWEIX)
AMG Managers Intermediate Duration Govt (MGIDX)
Elfun Trusts (ELFNX)
Franklin Mutual Global Discovery Z (MDISX)
Meridian Growth Legacy (MERDX)
PIMCO Foreign Bond (UsD-Hedged) I (PFORX)
T. Rowe Price Capital Appreciation (PRWCX)
T. Rowe Price Small-Cap Stock (OTCFX)
TCW Total Return Bond I (TGLMX)
Tweedy Browne Global Value (TBGVX)
Vanguard Wellesley Income Inv (VWINX)
Vanguard Wellington Inv (VWELX)
A few notable funds on our latest Three Alarm list...Calamos and Royce spending some time in the barrel:
Aegis Value (AVALX)
AMG Managers Brandywine Advs Mid Cap Gr (BWAFX)
Artisan Small Cap Value Investor (ARTVX)
Calamos Focus Growth A (CBCAX)
Calamos Growth A (CVGRX)
Calamos Opportunistic Value A (CVAAX)
Calamos Total Return Bond A (CTRAX)
Davis NY Venture A (NYVTX)
Delafield Fund (DEFIX)
Evermore Global Value A (EVGBX)
FpA Capital (FPPTX)
Greenspring (GRSPX)
Hussman Strategic Growth (HSGFX)
Janus Aspen Overseas Instl (JAIGX)
LKCM Fixed-Income (LKFIX)
Loomis Sayles International Bond A (LSIAX)
MainStay Cornerstone Growth A (KLGAX)
MainStay Growth Allocation A (MGXAX)
Muhlenkamp (MUHLX)
Old Westbury Fixed Income (OWFIX)
Royce Global Value Svc (RIVFX)
Royce Low Priced Stock Svc (RYLPX)
Royce Micro-Cap Invmt (RYOTX)
Royce Premier Invmt (RYPRX)
Royce SMid-Cap Value Svc (RMVSX)
Third Avenue International Value Instl (TAVIX)
Thornburg International Value A (TGVAX)
Valley Forge (VAFGX)
Couple other interesting observations...
Bretton Fund (BRTNX), which David last profiled in June 2013, is a Great Owl.
As are three RiverPark funds, as seen below, all also profiled by David:

David Sherman's RiverPark Short Term High Yield Fund (RPHIX) actually holds distinction of having highest 3-year risk adjusted return of more than 8000 funds evaluated...twice the Sharpe and seven times higher Sortino and Martin than closest competitor. In a league all its own. A GO since eligible, but M* still only gives it one star for reasons discussed in last February's commentary, "Impact of Category On Fund Ratings".
Good progress continues on our MFO Premium Search Tools site, currently in so-called beta or check-out phase. If you are interested in being a beta tester, please drop David a note. Still trying to figure out how we want to roll-out.
If you see anything amiss in latest ratings update, will work to correct soonest. And, feedback always welcome.
Enjoy.
c

The concept "Real Assets" is open to widely differing interpretations by different managers. If a manager rode the real estate bull for the past several years, he's looking pretty good today. If he's been heavily into oil, not so good. It's a broad area which might include timber, infrastructure (railways, ports, power generation), farmland, miners or gold bullion. So, you really need to look under the hood and see what you'd be diversifying into.
...
I'm not familiar with the funds you list. But, I known there are a great many out there and that there are profound differences among them.

@willmatt72 I think @hank 's advice here is exactly right. Because "real asset" can mean such a broad swath of things, you need to look under the hood. There are lots of differing funds, each sort of specializing in different areas. NRIAX, for instance, looks a lot different than PRAFX, which is different than FSRRX. They can all certainly act as diversifiers, but you have to know specifically what you want out of them.
NRIAX / JRI 's focus is creating income in areas which could also show capital appreciation and might fight inflation. As such it looks for passthrough income from real assets, specifically from Real Estate and Infrastructure, and in both equities, preferreds, and fixed income. In other words, it has very limited commodity or natural resource exposure. That's also a big part of the reason why it has looked so good recently. Here's a link to NRIAX's info page at Nuveen. They have some good literature on the fund there. In particular, this is what the prospectus says about NRIAX's holdings:

Principal Investment Strategies
Under normal market conditions, the Fund invests at least 80% of the sum of its net assets and the amount of any borrowings for investment purposes in securities issued by real asset related companies that are generating income at the time of purchase. Real asset related companies are defined as: (i) companies that are in the energy, telecommunications, utilities or materials sectors; (ii) companies in the real estate or transportation industry groups; (iii) companies, if not in one of these sectors or industries, that (a) derive at least 50% of their revenues or profits from the ownership, management, operation, development, construction, renovation, financing, or sale of real assets, or (b) have at least 50% of the fair market value of their assets invested in real assets; or (iv) pooled investment vehicles that primarily invest in the foregoing companies or that are otherwise designed primarily to provide investment exposure to real assets.
The categories of real assets on which the Fund will focus its investments are infrastructure and real estate. Infrastructure consists of the physical structures and networks upon which the operation, growth and development of a community depends, which include water, sewer, and energy utilities; transportation and communication networks; health care facilities, government accommodations, and other public service facilities; and shipping, timber, steel, alternative energy, and other resources and services necessary for the construction and maintenance of these physical structures and networks.

Depending on the size of your portfolio, your risk tolerance, individual goals, and your comfort level with managing such things, you could just take a global infrastructure fund (GII, GLFOX, TOLSX) and combine it with a REIT index/fund or REIT income fund (FRIOX, LRIOX), and maybe some sort of TIPS or commodity exposure to come up with your own allocation. If the portfolio is smaller, or you want professional management, than something like NRIAX or PRAFX make sense to my mind. In anycase, it makes more sense as an "alternative" to me than liquid alternatives/managed futures/non-traded assets or what have you.

FYI: (Click On Article Title At Top Of Google Search)
The chairman of Janus Capital Group Inc. said he didn’t know that a single California brokerage office that handles money for Bill Gross accounted for a vast majority of the cash in Mr. Gross’s new mutual fund at the company.
“I had no idea” how much of the fund was made up of money from the brokerage office “because I had no idea who Bill uses as a financial adviser,” said the chairman, Glenn S. Schafer
Regards,
Ted
https://www.google.com/search?newwindow=1&site=&source=hp&q=janus+chariman+wsj&oq=janus+chariman+wsj&gs_l=hp.3...1480.8125.0.8666.18.18.0.0.0.0.155.1119.17j1.18.0.msedr...0...1c.1.60.hp..6.12.814.EOuS7Ke02k8

There are some people who just shouldn't be left anywhere near a calculator.
He writes about a $100K investment in a fund whose underlying portfolio gains 10%/year, and carries a total ER of 1%. He uses the SEC calculator to determine that over 30 years, $147K goes to fees, and earnings are diminished by $307K due to those fees, for a total drain of $454K. From this, he concludes that the value of your investment at the end of those years would be ...
$454K.
Of course that's just a tad more than 1/4 of the $1.7M you'd get with a fund having an ER of 0.10%. But the SEC calculator shows that the former investment would be worth about $1.2M. His sensationalist headline (that you lose most of your money to fees) is dead wrong.
That's just numbers, independent of any concept of mutual funds, which he clearly doesn't grasp. He rails about transfer agency fees. Even bogleheads acknowledge "All funds incur regular operating costs, which include ... transfer agency ... fees."
http://www.bogleheads.org/wiki/Mutual_funds_and_fees

Dear friends,
You are cordially invited to join me on a conference call with Bernie Horn, founder of Polaris Capital Management and manager of Polaris Global Value (PGVFX). You’re receiving this note because you asked to be included on the Observer’s conference call notification list. The call will take place between 7:00 - 8:00 p.m., EST, this coming Tuesday, January 13th. To register, just follow this link.
Mr. Horn and the Polaris team advise Polaris Global Value and sub-advise funds for PNC and Pear Tree. Mr. Horn has been managing global portfolios since 1980, launched Global Value L.P. in 1989, founded Polaris in 1995 and launched PGVFX in 1998. The fund remains small but distinguished. It has a great long-term record and superb tax efficiency, but suffered a terrible ’07 and bad ’08. That cost the fund nearly two-thirds of its assets, though the fund’s assets are a small fraction of the firm’s total AUM. Mr. Horn and his team made substantial and thoughtful revisions since then, and the fund has been in the top 10% of world stock funds over the past 3 and 5 years.
We're likely to talk most about PGV but maybe a bit too about QUSOX, his really good international SCV fund.
If you can make it, you're more than welcome. If you can but you have questions you'd like me to raise with him, just post them below. I've logged the queries from AJ, Vert and Mike and it's likely he'll review this thread before the call. As always, it's just a telephone conference call and I'll try to post highlights and an mp3 afterward.
For what interest it holds,
David

T. Rowe Price Capital Appreciation Down 0.28 Down 1.07% PRWCX 
Franklin Mutual Quest Z Down 0.19 Down 1.17%  MQIFX
Queens Road Small Cap Value Down 0.28 Down 1.18%  QRSVX
BlackRock Global Allocation Inv A Down 0.24 Down 1.21%  MDLOX
Greenspring Down 0.30 Down 1.21%  GRSPX
AMG Yacktman Service Down 0.31 Down 1.24%  YACKX
RiverNorth Core Opportunity R Down 0.15 Down 1.24%  RNCOX
Grandeur Peak Global Opportunities Inv Down 0.04 Down 1.26%  GPGOX
Jensen Quality Growth J Down 0.52 Down 1.30%  JENSX Sparkline Chart
And of course the best
Vanguard Health Care Inv Down 1.31 Down 0.62%  VGHCX
I think Greenspring has faltered. PRWCX is just rock solid. JENSX is underrated.

FYI: Today, value stock mutual fund luminary Bob Rodriguez ruminates. He ruminates on politics, the economy, the stock market and the energy business from his spacious home above Lake Tahoe on the California-Nevada border.
Regards,
Ted
http://license.icopyright.net/user/viewFreeUse.act?fuid=MTg4MDkzNjc%3
FPA Website: http://www.fpafunds.com/

That's an interesting comparison. I like it. Tweedy, Browne does come to mind as offering hedged funds, value oriented. One difference is that TB is overpriced, while Vanguard might even be called "underpriced". And the VG fund is more of a midcap.
What came to my mind was MQIFX. Also from a value-oriented shop that tends to hedge currency. A bit lower market cap (closer to VMVFX), a lot cheaper, and closer to VMVFX in turnover (i.e. higher than TWEBX, not a good thing, but perhaps a closer match).
I can't speak to the volatility of its individual holdings, but as a whole, MQIFX' portfolio has pretty low volatility. Aside from the numbers, M* writes that it "employ[s] Mutual Series' house style, which is designed to preserve capital and minimize volatility."
I ran an intersection between MQIFX and VMVFX - the only overlap was tobacco, both Altria and BAT. Wonder what to make of that. In contrast, the only overlap between TWEBX and VMVFX are BAT and J&J. Perhaps a tad more "healthy".
All three funds tracked together for the first half of 2014, and the two comps tracked lower together in the 2nd half, while Vanguard continued to rise.

Hi alaska.
Couple more questions...
What's your risk tolerance? On a scale 1 to 5. 1 being Very Conservative, hate seeing even slight temporary pull backs. To, 5 being Very Aggressive, which means you're ok with 50-60% drawdowns as long is there is no permanent loss of capital ... and any decline will recover over say 4-6 years.
What's your investment time horizon? 1, 3, 5, 10, or 20 years?
Of the two, the former is probably most important. So, be as sure as humanly possible in your self assessment.
c

I've been in FRESX since June and will continue to accumulate. VNQ is a REIT etf that I considered before buying FRESX, but ultimately chose FRESX. I like the diversification that REIT's bring to my portfolio. FWIW I don't own TIPs but your logic for doing so seems sound to me.
Thanks for the many links Bee, they confirm to me why I decided that it's time to devote some savings to REIT's.

Wonder if you have considered combining FRESX with FRIFX (much less volatility). I'm thinking that by capturing the upside of FRESX and reallocating periodic gains into FRIFX an investor could offset the occasional REIT down draft as well as maintain a REIT income source?

PRHSX, VHCOX, and POAGX
Honorable mention: BRUFX at 13.68% (actually had to distribute capital gains this year)

Selling winners also generate taxes. I suggest you stop reinvesting the dividends and capital gains and to the extent you don't need the money reinvest in index funds,. With your FIDO funds putting money into Spartan Total market should work fairly well.

That's certainly a constructive idea. Thanks, Jerry.

>> obviously an intelligent, forward thinking, realistic investor ...that wants earnings and PLANS for taxes as every American Should
You are much too kind. I may have a little bit of the first qualities listed, but I have never planned for taxes in my life (okay, maybe I once read an article about December selling against losses, or against gains, or something), and I have seldom or never taken conscious and methodical steps toward reducing them significantly. Usually I have had enough losses not to worry about gain impacts, except for the years of Roth conversions.
In that lesson from my father about actively aiming/desiring to pay a ton of cg tax, I think he also added, for the first time I had heard, the phrase about never letting the tax tail wag the investment dog.

The top capital gains (and qualified dividends) rate of 20% only applies to those in the top ordinary income tax bracket - 39.6%. Between 25% and there, there are 28%, 33%, and 35% brackets.
You might be thinking about the Medicare surtax of 3.8% on investment income, to the extent that it raises one's MAGI over a certain threshold. For MFJ, that's $250K, for singles, that's $200K.
So, if you are single, and your MAGI, excluding cap gains, is $190K, and you have $30K in cap gains, then the last $20K (the portion over $200K) gets taxed an extra 3.8%.

I don't have the numbers off hand but @willmatt72 might have enough assets in which he would have to pay the higher rate on cap gains. Am I correct? In either case, tax planning is always prudent. The less going to Uncle Sam means more to invest.
I think it has been mentioned once or twice already but Index ETF's might fit the bill here.

Selling winners also generate taxes. I suggest you stop reinvesting the dividends and capital gains and to the extent you don't need the money reinvest in index funds,. With your FIDO funds putting money into Spartan Total market should work fairly well.

"John, you're not putting new money into the fund with a reinvestment of a cg distribution. You have exactly the same investment you had before, except that you've picked up early tax liability for some of the fund's gains. "
Agree, but I am talking about after the fact. Money wise, it's a wash but you end up with more shares. As time goes on those added shares help to grow the investment. Granted, you need to hold the fund or investment for a period of time.
A mythical example; Say If you bought 100 shares of a fund and never bought another share, and that fund declares distributions regularly. After 10-15 or so years you end up with 120 shares. While you did not make money on those distributions, those extra 20 shares are working for you, hopefully in your favor.