@Scott and @PRESSmUP:
I agree with you both. FAIRX has become a very different fund. I'm sticking with him because I think he just might be smarter than everyone else, and focusing patiently on a few extraordinary situations is probably the only way to achieve extraordinary returns, but yes, I find myself thinking, "Once this Fannie bet plays out, one way or the other, I'm selling half my position with him." This was supposed to be my conservative core fund, and for a while it really did work that way, and I'm sitting on big enough gains that I can't complain, but it's not what I expected.

The nice thing is that if you had purchased pretty much any of these funds 15 years ago you'd be very happy today even if you hadn't chosen the absolute best one. Likewise, if you think you can tell me which one will have done the best 15 years from now, please tell me so I can, well, think about it. :) I own both HQL and PRHSX, have been very happy for a while now and expect to continue investing when there are dips. The one thing I prefer about PRHSX over PJP or IBB, and actually I prefer it over HQL as well but I like the venture capital, is that for a very small increase in expenses you get someone to work for you. Of course that doesn't mean they'll do better, but at least there's some thought to the process, and its cheap management compared to what you have to pay most fund managers compared to a passive alternative.

FYI: Stocks can keep climbing next year, tacking even more gains onto their phenomenal run of the last five-plus years. Just don't expect them to be as big -- or to come with as little heartburn -- as before.
Regards,
Ted
http://bigstory.ap.org/article/daf4168d2e074966bfd5bb898da2cb3e/2015-stock-outlook-good-not-great-and-bumpy

That said, I don't know who's right, and with so many people calling for LT bonds to fall, it certainly would be a contrarian trade to bet on their continued appreciation.

Thanks for the article.
Here's my take...help me if I'm missing something:
QE in other countries creates an incentive to borrow this newly printed money at near zero percent. Investors borrow at these low interest rates and some of this QE arrives on our shores looking for a better rate. Foreign QE buys US bonds paying 1- 4% depending on the duration. All this buying helps to continue lowering the bond yields on US bonds and creates the opportunity for capital appreciation in older higher yielding bonds.

Interesting that a load fund company, American Funds (Capital Group) still plays such a prominent role, with 9.9% of market share. Can't stand when a fund I'm interested in is a load fund.

When plotting PRHSX, FSPHX, HQH, HQL, THQ using Morningstar (which properly accounts for the distributions), then at all time intervals except the narrow interval near the 2000 top, the closed end funds HQH, HQL underperformed. I would guess closed end funds are less tax efficient (just a guess). I understand that they may have some venture capital investments, but so far it did not help them to outperform. If so, do they have any advantages as compared to other ways of investing in healthcare? Any specific advantages in investing in THQ?

Another perspective - ranking by percentage of market, and percentage increase/decease of position (e.g. a fund that had 10% or market share and now has 8% would have a decline of 20% of its position):

Family		Market Share	Pct Inc (Dec)	Cumulative Market Share
Vanguard	18.5%		 13.5%		18.5%
Fidelity	10.4%		  1.0%		28.9%
Capital Group	9.9%		 (1.0%)		38.8%
T. Rowe Price	3.9%		  5.4%		42.7%
Franklin Tmpl	3.8%		 (5.0%)		46.5%
PIMCo		3.6%		(29.4%)		50.1%
DFA		2.1%		  5.0%		52.2%
JPMorgan	2.1%		  5.0%		54.3%
Blackrock	1.9%		  5.6%		56.2%
Oppenheimer	1.7%		 (5.6%)		57.9%

Viewed this way, it seems that just three companies dominate - Vanguard, Fidelity, and Capital Group (American Funds) hold over 3/8 of all fund assets.
Vanguard is obviously the big winner, no matter what perspective you take. And viewed from the perspective of what fraction of their market share was lost last year, PIMCo is the big standout (no surprise there).
Aside from Fidelity and Capital Group (both of which held their market share pretty constant relative the share they already had), all the others had gains (or losses) of about 5% of their market share position.
For example, DFA had a 2% share; its 0.1% gain in share represents a 5% increase in their share of the market.) Could just be noise (rounding error - with market share this low, a 0.1% change in absolute market share amounts to a 5% change). Just another way of seeing that after the first three (or six) families, the rest of the figures aren't particularly significant.

'Course, the higher the underlying price/value of "whatever" moves upward that is throwing off the dividend; will also "push" the dividend/yield downward.
Not unlike the yields that were present in late 2008 in the HY bond area. Heck yes, the yields were really high because the underlying value of the bond(s) had been beaten into dirt. Those very high yields are, of course; gone now; but the captial appreciation in this area was very pleasing.
Always a "this or that" somewhere in these types of mixes. Get the yield/dividend and/or the capital appreciation.
The ultimate sweetness is the "total return", eh??? Get it where you may.......

The first recommendation, the Fidelity Investor: "His five portfolios hold funds an average of 1½ years"
The second recommendation holds funds for 4 yrs, and the third one holds them for only two years.
Those newsletter are Losing a lot of return to capital gains taxes by selling the funds so soon, versus buying and holding a market index fund. And that's not even including the typical annual capital gains distributions from the actively managed funds in the first, second and fourth newsletter.
The Vanguard Total Stock Market Index fund has not had a capital gains distribution in the 10 yrs for which data is available on the website. And since the index investors probably are not regularly switching their fund choices as in newsletters 1, 2 and 4, they have an investment with no capital gains taxes until they themselves decide to sell, which could be many years and in some cases decades. So in a taxable account it's like an IRA, except you have to pay taxes on the dividends.....

FYI: U.S. stock benchmarks climbed to records, giving the Standard & Poor’s 500 Index a fifth weekly gain, as optimism in the global economy grew after central banks in China and Europe signaled additional stimulus measures.
The S&P 500 rose 0.5 percent to 2,063.34 at 4 p.m. in New York, paring an earlier rally of 0.9 percent. The index advanced 1.1 percent this week, pushing its gains in 2014 to 12 percent. The S&P 500 is now only 62 points away from being up 15% closing 2014 at 2,125 just what MFO's Ted predicted back in February.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/print/2014-11-21/u-s-index-futures-rise-as-s-p-500-heads-for-fifth-weekly-gain.html
Markets At A Glance: http://markets.wsj.com/us

My not very profound comment is that at least in the case of a taxable large cap account the case for index funds is pretty compelling. Who wants to pay taxes on capital gain distributions especially involving short term trades

FPA Funds
http://www.fpafunds.com/docs/fund-announcements/2014-12-year-end-estimates.pdf?sfvrsn=4
Buffalo Funds
http://www.buffalofunds.com/media/pdfs/2014_Distribution_Estimates.pdf
Perritt Funds
http://www.perrittcap.com/news-events/events/
Sequoia Fund
http://www.sequoiafund.com/si-dividends-capital-gain.htm

The new economy revisited?(Broad spectrum not broad vacuum?) Info highway/clean efficient transportation vs capital intensive mining and oil e&p.
Assorted news stories from early week. PVSAX Putnam Capital Spectrum Fund Class A +0.58(+1.48%) and PYSAX Putnam Equity Spectrum Fund Class A +0.58(+1.32%) both have a large stake in DISH that gave them a nice gain today.They both trail SPY Y T D but both have strong 5 year returns.
Another wild-card bidder is Dish Network. There has been speculation that Dish Chairman Charlie Ergen wants to drive bidding prices up to help increase the value of the nearby airwaves licenses that Dish owns
Nov 19, 6:40PM EST
DISH 74.66 +6.81 (+10.04%)
Statoil (NYSE:STO) says it will suspend operations of two offshore drilling rigs for at least the rest of the year, with no plans for redeployment, citing overcapacity.
Transocean slides as fleet update shows more rigs idled
http://seekingalpha.com/symbol/RIG
Closing the mine is not CLF's first choice, but an attempt to find partners to share the cost of expansion appears to have failed, and selling a mine that needs $1.2B in capital is a doubtful prospect; even Teck Resources (NYSE:TCK), long interested in breaking into the iron ore business, isn't biting.If a sale process fails, a closure of Bloom Lake would close the books one of the worst acquisitions in the history of Canadian mining.
http://seekingalpha.com/news/2138385-cliffs-massive-closure-costs-for-bloom-lake-stuns-investors
Bidding in the FCC's AWS-3 spectrum auction have reached $24.1B barely 24 hours after topping $14B. Through 15 rounds, $1.19B alone was bid on a 10x10 MHz. license for the NYC area.
http://seekingalpha.com/news/2138395-spectrum-bids-top-24b-at-and-t-verizon-seen-spending-heavily
Linked from S A article
http://recode.net/2014/11/19/wireless-auction-attracts-whopping-24-billion-in-bids-so-far/
"We know there is a good potential in India for Tesla," Mr Vijayan said, adding "based on demand there could be a manufacturing plant in Asia and India could be one of the possible locations".
He said Tesla has been working to produce affordable electric car to cater to the mass segment.
"With our 3rd generation car Tesla Model 3, we are looking to make it more affordable at a price of around USD 30,000-35,000, which is about half of our current Model S," Vijayan said.
The company has a manufacturing plant at Freemont in US that can roll out half a million units annually (If Tesla can achieve that $30-35 thou price point they'll probably be able to put a plant anywhere they want!)
http://profit.ndtv.com/news/industries/article-tesla-keen-to-enter-india-but-says-high-import-duty-a-roadblock-700069
Norwegian Air CEO rejects criticism of plan for U.S. budget airline
BY ALWYN SCOTT AND JEFFREY DASTIN
NEW YORK/SEATTLE Wed Nov 19, 2014 8:09pm EST
Norwegian is one of the first airlines trying to bring low-cost flying to long-haul flights. It has a fleet of 17 Boeing 787 Dreamliners and plans to order at least five to 10 more.
Kjos said the Irish subsidiary is necessary to obtain access for all of Norwegian's aircraft to fly between the United States, Europe and Asia. If the company is only incorporated in Norway, it does not have access to many countries in Asia, since Norway is not part of the European Union. That would leave Norwegian running two airlines that separately serve the United States and Asia, and not able to shift aircraft from one region to the other.
They (opponents)say Norwegian will dodge U.S. labor laws by using its Irish subsidiary to take advantage of labor laws that are weaker than in Norway, threatening U.S. jobs.
"It would be a logistical nightmare," Kjos said. "We can't have one airline flying east, one airline flying west." http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/11/20/us-usa-airlines-norwegian-air-idUSKCN0J402I20141120
By COSTAS PARIS Copyright W S J
Updated Nov. 17, 2014 8:49 a.m. ET
(paste and copy)
LONDON—Shipping freight rates from Asia to Europe, the world’s busiest trade route, on Monday logged their biggest-ever weekly drop, as European growth is stagnating and Japan just fell back into recession.
Container-shipping volumes are considered an important barometer of the global economy. Container ships move items as diverse as household goods, apparel, toys, electronics and food. Analysts said they expected further shipping-rate weakness because the peak demand season for Asian exports ahead of the end-of-year holidays is already over.
Prices between Asian and European ports fell 21% per 20-foot container to $934, compared with $1,175 at the beginning of last week, according to the Shanghai Containerized Freight Index.The benchmark Asia-to-Europe rate stood at $1,765 per container at the start of the year.
“Shipping lines have at this point lost control over freight rates,” said Jonathan Roach, container-shipping analyst at London-based Braemar ACM Shipbroking. “They are desperately trying to fill their ships while being hit by a double whammy: a renewed global economic slowdown and a persistent overcapacity of ships.”
(subscription) http://online.wsj.com/articles/asia-europe-shipping-freight-rates-suffer-record-weekly-fall-1416226192
TV Studios Court Licensing Deals in Bustling Foreign Markets
By AMOL SHARMA
Nov. 19, 2014 10:33 p.m. ET Copyright W S J (paste and copy)
For Warner Bros. and other U.S. studios, the international TV-licensing bazaar has never been more lucrative
Licensing content to foreign TV channels is one of several ways U.S. media companies are tapping into growing overseas markets as they contend with a maturing pay-TV market at home. The U.S. growth in pay-TV subscriptions over the past 30 years has fueled the profits of TV channels and, in turn, created higher demand for the content studios like Warner produce.
Now, U.S. cable and satellite connections have peaked at around 100 million households, representing 86.5% penetration. That compares with an average penetration of just 48% across non-U.S. markets in 2013, according to securities firm Jefferies, leaving plenty of room for growth in European, Asian and Latin American markets.
As new international channels launch, they have voracious demand for content. The price paid by international networks for TV programming is growing at a double-digit pace, says Morgan Stanley analyst Benjamin Swinburne. “American studios have a huge advantage,” he said. “They can afford the kind of production budgets that most national players in their own market can’t.” (Content sales also go the other direction, of course, and U.S. TV networks have long licensed reality shows from foreign producers and are ramping up on scripted content, too.)
(subscription)http://online.wsj.com/articles/tv-studios-court-licensing-deals-in-bustling-foreign-markets-1416454383?mod=WSJ_hp_RightTopStories

Jerry is addressing the question of whether to liquidate completely (and implicitly, this year or across multiple years). That's because of extra taxes/higher rates that could kick in.
Edit: Upon rereading, I see Jerry largely addressed the item I also discussed below:
Let me address a slightly different question - assuming you are going to liquidate this year, do you do that before or after dividends? Simple rule of thumb: liquidate all your long term shares before distributions. Short term shares are (usually) better liquidated after distribution.
For example, suppose you have a LT share purchased at $100. It's now priced at $110. Suppose also that the distribution is going to be $3 LTG, $2 ord income. The price will drop to $105.
Sell before distribution and you have $10 LTG. Sell after, and you realize a $5 LTG. But you've also got a $3 LTG distribution, and $2 in ord income. That $10 realized LTG is better than the $8 LTG ($5 + $3) and $2 ordinary income.
The reasoning on the short term shares is the same, just backward. You're usually worse off realizing STG than getting the some of those gains as LTG distributions and some as ord income.

Eagle Funds
http://eagleasset.com/tax_information.htm
JOHCM Funds
https://www.johcm.com/our-funds/index/36/capital-gain-distributions

It really depends in part on your tax bracket and how close you are to critical levels such as $250k for married $200k for single. Check this link for more info on that issue http://www.irs.gov/uac/Newsroom/Net-Investment-Income-Tax-FAQs
Another factor to check out is the probability you will owe money to the Alternative Minimum Tax because of large capital gains. (small gains probably won't affect this)
\Obviously if you sell your entire position in one or more of these funds you will have a higher income and amount of "investment income " than you would if you just took distributions (presumably since you don't like the performance you will not be reinvesting the dividends.. If you are close to critical levels such as the ACA surcharge levels or the much lower levels where tax brackets for capital gains change you should do the careful calculation to determine your best action..All things being equal and given that we are near the end of the year it is likely that a good option (not necessarily the best)would be to sell one fund before distribution but only the shares on which you have a long term gain(because the distribution will include dividends taxed at a higher rate). Once you get into the new year you can reconsider the situation. One minor value in putting things off is that the market is likely (because it usually does) go up in the months at the end of a year.

I own FSIVX, PRDGX, and VDIGX, which I want to sell because of their poor performance compared to their peers. They will all result in LT capital gains however, and I used up my LT capital loss carryover last year. Are there any advantages to selling before the ex-dividend date, or should I just collect the distribution and sell in the future?

Interesting that M* admits that the Manager of the Year award actually is not based on the current year. Why not call it fund of the decade that happens to have the same management for 7 years and has at least $10 billion is assets? If the award is for management, and if the name is Manager of the Year, what's with all the extraneous screens? And the required analyst rating insures only 20-30% of funds get admitted to the exclusive group. No funds under $3 billion need apply.
Many of these are not what I would call allocation funds, where management has the ability to determine the mix of stocks and bonds. Wellington and Wellesley for sure have mandates they cannot change. Both American funds have held the same allocation for years and years. They, too, are restricted by prospectus. Price Capital Appreciation has great management, but it, too, has had an almost unchanged allocation for a long time. Puritan has had the same mix, within a percentage point or two, for ages. Franklin Income has actually changed allocation a bit over the last five years, up to almost 10% less in bonds. Thornburg is by far the most adventurous, but still not much.
Given M*s rather glib interpretation of "allocation" (it seems to encompass balanced, all three allocation categories (conservative, moderate, aggressive), tactical, and world allocation) there are sure to be some great managers who are overlooked. FPACX, OAKBX, GLRBX, CAPSX to name a very few. I am surprised to see Thornburg on this list, but not disappointed.

Guggenheim
http://guggenheiminvestments.com/GuggenheimInvestments/media/pdf/2014_MF_Estimated-Distributions_FAQ_Final.pdf
Credit Suisse
https://www.credit-suisse.com/media/am/docs/us/asset-management/2014-credit-suisse-notification-preliminary-distributions.pdf
Sterling Capital
http://www.sterlingcapitalfunds.com/docs/Estimated Capital Gains 2014.pdf

@Junkster: You don't understand, he's a legend in his own mind. FPPTX Is Ranked #60 In The (MCV) Fund Category By U.S. News & World Report.
Regards,
Ted
http://money.usnews.com/funds/mutual-funds/mid-cap-value/fpa-capital-fund/fpptx

And what a difference a month and a half makes. His three year annualized return is now 10.64% vs. the 15%+ shown by U.S. News through 9/30. That compares to 21.42% in the S&P and 20.48% in FPPTX's benchmark.