I currently own 3 small cap domestic equity funds. I am considering cutting that down and would welcome advice. I own the following:
BRUSX (my favorite): great long term returns despite a horrible 2008-09, 1.17% expenses which strike me as a bargain for a microcap fund with only $157 million in assets that is closed to new investors.
CIPSX: Lousy 5 year returns, but holds up well in down markets. Its outperformance in 2008 means it (and me, since I bought it in 2006) are well ahead of its benchmark and the S&P for the time period that I have owned it. I am disappointed it did not do better during the dip at the start of the year, but long-term it is a fund that outperforms during weak markets (2011 tpp.) 1.38% expenses, which I think a little high considering it has $1.2 billion in assets, but I guess that's about average for small cap funds.
HUSIX: Great 5 year returns, a disaster in 2008-09, but like BRUSX it has made up for it since. I bought it about a year ago (with funds raised from closing out ARIVX). 1.85% expenses, which I find very high considering the firm has (including private accounts) over a billion in this strategy, but it is extraordinarily tax efficient which takes some of the bite out of expenses.
I also own GPIOX for foreign small cap exposure.
Looking at 5 year returns it seems that dropping CIPSX is a no brainer, but had I bought all the funds at the start of 2007, CIPSX would have been the outperformer until about October last year, when HUSIX finally overtook it. Preserving capital in a crash is a powerful thing. If I had not proved to myself that I have the guts to add to good funds when they are crashing it should probably be my only fund.
My thoughts are either to
1) Sell HUSIX and keep the cash in case there is a correction. Keeping BRUSX (a high beta quant fund) and CIPSX (a low beta fundamental fund) might provide good diversity.
2) Sell CIPSX and put part in HUSIX and part in cash (a mix of high beta funds + cash in case they crash could be effective).
3) Obey the "the fewer funds, the better) mantra," sell HUSIX and CIPSX, add half of the money raised to BRUSX, keeping it as my only small cap fund, and have a lot of cash in case of correction.
4) Do nothing, keep these 3 good funds, stop thinking about this stuff obsessively, and come back next year.
Thoughts? The tax hit of all changes is acceptable.

The Russian markets had a tough day as their central bank adjusted rates from 5.5 to 7% resulting in a ten percent correction.
http://mobile.bloomberg.com/news/2014-03-02/yen-gains-with-oil-on-ukraine-as-s-p-500-futures-retreat.html

FYI:
Regards,
Ted
Highlight Copy & Paste Barron's 3/1/14: Lewis Braham
How's this for irony: In 2013, Bill Miller's Legg Mason Opportunity fund (ticker: LGOAX) delivered a chart-topping 68% return, yet his shareholders won't owe a dime in capital-gains taxes this April. Meanwhile, investors in the Royce Premier fund (RYPRX) will have to pay taxes on $2.27 per share of long-term capital gains, even though the fund lagged behind 95% of its peers.
Tax season is upon us, and it's time to rethink your assumptions about how to build a portfolio that keeps the IRS at bay. After a year in which stocks rose more than 30%, even laggards like the Royce fund—which returned 28% last year—have accumulated significant gains on their books. According to Morningstar, the average U.S. stock fund with more than $1 billion in assets now has a 23% potential capital-gains exposure. That means there are $230 million of taxable capital gains per every $1 billion invested in funds.
Minimizing taxable investment gains and income is more important than ever. Married couples with taxable income of more than $450,000 will see their long-term capital gains taxed at 20% this year, instead of 15%.
Those rates can be even higher thanks to two new taxes. First, there's an additional 0.9% Medicare surtax on married couples with earned income of more than $250,000. Since the tax on short-term capital gains and some dividend income is equal to investors' highest income tax rate—now as high as 39.6%—those investment gains could hit 40.5%. Second: Investors with more than $250,000 in adjusted gross income (for married couples) could pay an additional 3.8% in a special Medicare tax on some of their investment income. "The sticker shock for our clients will come this March when their tax bills arrive," says Jim Holtzman, a financial planner at Legend Financial Advisors in Pittsburgh. "They're going to be hit with about $5,000 to $7,000 more in taxes on average."
THERE ARE TWO WAYS TO MINIMIZE the taxes your funds generate. For many financial advisors, the solution is buying low-turnover index funds. Advisor John Smartt Jr. of Financial Counseling & Administration in Knoxville, Tenn., bought his first index fund, the Vanguard 500 (VFINX), in 1989 and hasn't looked back. Now he favors the Vanguard Total Stock Market Index ETF (VTI), which basically buys and holds every U.S. stock forever, so no gains are distributed.
Brace yourself for the second idea: Scour a fund's semi-annual report for losses they have on their books. Granted, "read the fine print" is tough advice to swallow, but the Internet makes it easier and potentially quite rewarding. Search for the words "loss" and "depreciation" in the Opportunity fund's latest report, for instance, and you'll find it has accumulated $1.9 billion worth on its balance sheet to neutralize future gains. These were generated during two brutal downturns in 2008 and 2011 during which Miller's reputation suffered. Now that Miller seems to have his groove back, the fund could be an interesting buy for the tax-averse. By contrast, Royce Premier had $2.5 billion of unrealized capital gains listed in its June 2013 report. So more distributions may be coming, even if it continues to lag behind its peers.
Finding funds with losses on their balance sheets can be tricky, though. Funds crushed in 2008 may have used up their losses. Also, the tax law then only allowed losses to be carried for seven years—so whatever losses remain will expire soon.
The good news is that in 2010 the tax law changed so that balance-sheet losses never expire. Funds in areas—such as gold—that have suffered losses since then have an advantage tax-wise. Vanguard Precious Metals and Mining (VGPMX) and Fidelity Select Gold (FSAGX), for example, each have more than $1 billion in losses on their balance sheets after last year's rout. (Subscribers to Morningstar can screen for funds with negative "potential cap gains exposure.")
Similarly, funds with emerging markets exposure that took a dive in 2011 and 2013 are also sitting on losses. The key here is to find funds that have strong long-term records and explainable recent hiccups. Case in point: the $4.3 billion Janus Overseas fund (JAOSX), which has $1.1 billion in accumulated losses. Over the last 10 years manager Brent Lynn's fund has delivered an 8.6% annualized return, compared with just 6.5% for its peers in its Morningstar category. But recent performance has been volatile and abysmal. Lynn's more aggressive style may shine as emerging markets recover, and the fund will be able to shelter its taxable gains.
Another tack: funds that have replaced a money-losing manager with someone with a strong track record elsewhere. "That's like investing in a completely different fund," says HLM Capital's Benjamin Leshem who seeks out such funds for clients of his financial planning practice in Deerfield, Ill. After lagging badly for many years, Columbia International Value (NIVLX) replaced its former subadvisor Brandes Investment Partners with an in-house Columbia manager, Fred Copper, last June. Copper's Columbia Overseas Value fund (COSZX) has beaten more than 80% of its peers in the last five years. Columbia International Value has $570 million in losses, $171 million of which have no expiration date, and just $277 million in assets. Its shareholders won't be paying any capital-gains taxes for a long time.
.
.
.

Name some companies that meet those criteria.
Steers: Simon Property Group [SPG], the largest REIT in the U.S., has considerable leverage with retailers, as they have dominant mall and outlet portfolios. They have a tremendous balance sheet, and they use their size and cost of capital to take advantage of external growth opportunities, either through redevelopment or acquisitions. We also like Prologis [PLD], a very large industrial REIT. It has global reach that leverages tenant relationships around the world—one-stop shopping for tenants looking for global distribution. It also has a strong balance sheet, and it is growing around the world.
What about office buildings?
Cohen: The major urban centers are doing extremely well. Whether it is New York, Boston, Washington, San Francisco, or Chicago, that's where the American population is moving—that's where jobs are growing, and that's where office fundamentals are likely to improve. The office business is very tough, with high capital costs and high incentives needed to attract tenants. But vacancy rates are likely to decline as employment improves. And, frankly, employment trends are improving, although slowly.
Steers: Where the real job growth is occurring is in technology centers, energy centers, and global trading hubs. So whether it is in Houston, San Francisco, Silicon Valley, or port locations around the country, those are the kind of places you want in the U.S. and overseas.
What's the investing outlook for apartments?
Cohen: We are somewhat neutral on apartments because we see the housing recovery continuing, owing to affordability and the availability of credit. And off a very low level, single-family homes are gaining in attraction to our growing population. On the other hand, as jobs grow, the demand for rental apartments is increasing. Now, this is one area where new construction can take place, particularly in suburban areas but not so much in urban areas— though an exception is Brooklyn, an urban area where a lot of apartments have been built in recent years. But overall, we're neutral on apartments.
How would you sum up a few of your other themes outside of real estate?
Steers: In terms of our core portfolios, we want to be more cyclical and more growth oriented. We like commodities and natural-resource stocks because, frankly, they tend to perform well in the latter half of a cyclical expansion as things like capacity utilization start moving higher.
What about the likely increase in interest rates?
Steers: We don't try to predict where rates will specifically end up. But the direction, given our outlook, is higher. That's fine as long as we are right that what's driving interest rates—and potentially inflation—higher is strong cyclical growth, which drives the fundamentals of what we invest in. So if interest rates migrate higher gradually, that's fine. If you look back over time, REITs have delivered double-digit returns in periods of rising interest rates, so they are not bonds. Over time, rising rates increase the cost of capital for all companies, including REITs. And depending on how sharply those rates rise, it can certainly hamper an economic expansion. But at the end of the day, it is about the economy and jobs. And rates are more of a symptom than anything else.
Thanks, gentlemen.
Cohen & Steers Mutual Funds: http://quicktake.morningstar.com/fundfamily/cohen-steers/0C00001YQF/fund-list.aspx

I have always been a the less diversification the better kind of guy and my entire liquid net worth (taxable and non-taxable) is in NHMRX. ( A strategy I can no longer employ in equity funds, only bond funds) Who says you aren't suppose to put munis in your tax deferred accounts? Even though the fund is up a tad over 6% YTD I am only up a tad over 4% YTD. That's because coming into the year I was all in HFRZX, a dog I had to roll out of during January (check the archives) Obviously high yield munis can't keep up their torrid 2014 pace and the technical wizards will tell you they are extremely overbought now. Even though I can still think of a lot of compelling reasons to be in junk munis, the market doesn't care what I nor the technical wizards think. So will let any adverse price action take me out (like maybe something around a 1.50% trailing stop from YTD highs) May have to think about that though as in 2012's torrid 20%+ gains, NHMRX had a slightly larger drawdown than that before resuming its run. A *huge* spike in Treasury yields could be the killer here.

http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1006415/000110465914014800/a14-7005_3497.htm
497 1 a14-7005_3497.htm 497
SUPPLEMENT
DATED MARCH 1, 2014 TO THE FOLLOWING PROSPECTUSES:
THE HARTFORD TARGET RETIREMENT 2010 FUND
THE HARTFORD TARGET RETIREMENT 2015 FUND
THE HARTFORD TARGET RETIREMENT 2020 FUND
THE HARTFORD TARGET RETIREMENT 2025 FUND
THE HARTFORD TARGET RETIREMENT 2030 FUND
THE HARTFORD TARGET RETIREMENT 2035 FUND
THE HARTFORD TARGET RETIREMENT 2040 FUND
THE HARTFORD TARGET RETIREMENT 2045 FUND
THE HARTFORD TARGET RETIREMENT 2050 FUND
EACH PROSPECTUS DATED MARCH 1, 2014 AND
SUMMARY PROSPECTUS DATED MARCH 1, 2014
(EACH IS A SERIES OF THE HARTFORD MUTUAL FUNDS, INC.)
On December 13, 2013, the Board of Directors of The Hartford Mutual Funds, Inc. (the “Company”) approved a Plan of Liquidation for each of The Hartford Target Retirement 2010 Fund, The Hartford Target Retirement 2015 Fund, The Hartford Target Retirement 2020 Fund, The Hartford Target Retirement 2025 Fund, The Hartford Target Retirement 2030 Fund, The Hartford Target Retirement 2035 Fund, The Hartford Target Retirement 2040 Fund, The Hartford Target Retirement 2045 Fund and The Hartford Target Retirement 2050 Fund (each, a “Fund” and together, the “Funds”) pursuant to which the Funds will be liquidated (the “Liquidations”) on or about June 25, 2014 (the “Liquidation Date”). If you are invested in a Fund through a qualified account, such as an individual retirement account (“IRA”), important information applies to you and is provided below.
SUSPENSION OF SALES. The Funds no longer sell shares to new investors. The Funds will remain open to existing retirement plans and current shareholders until shortly before the Liquidation Date.
LIQUIDATION OF ASSETS. To prepare for the Liquidations, the Funds may depart from their stated investment objectives and policies as they prepare to distribute their assets to investors. In connection with the Liquidation, any shares of a Fund outstanding on the Liquidation Date will automatically be redeemed by the Fund on the Liquidation Date. The proceeds of any such redemption will be equal to the net asset value of such shares after all charges, taxes, expenses and liabilities of a Fund have been paid or provided for. The distribution to shareholders of the Liquidation proceeds will occur on the Liquidation Date, and will be made to all shareholders of record as of the close of business on the business day preceding the Liquidation Date, other than as disclosed below under “Important Information if you are invested in a Fund through a qualified account.”
OTHER ALTERNATIVES. At any time prior to the Liquidation Date, shareholders of a Fund may redeem their shares of the Fund and receive the net asset value thereof, pursuant to the procedures set forth in the Prospectus. Shareholders may exchange their Fund shares for shares of the same class of another Hartford Fund. Class A shareholders may exchange their Class A shares of a Fund for Class A share of another Hartford Fund prior to the Liquidation Date, at net asset value without incurring an additional front-end sales charge.
U.S. FEDERAL INCOME TAX MATTERS. The Liquidation of a Fund will be a realization event for shareholders holding shares through taxable accounts, meaning that if you receive an amount in liquidation of a Fund in excess of your tax basis, you will realize a capital gain, and if you receive an amount in liquidation of a Fund less than your tax basis, you will realize a capital loss. Prior to the Liquidation Date, a Fund may make distributions of income and capital gains, which may be taxable. If you have questions, you should consult your tax adviser for information regarding all tax consequences applicable to your investment in a Fund. Generally, the Liquidation of a Fund will not be a taxable event if you are invested in a Fund through a tax-deferred arrangement, such as such as a 401(k) plan or an individual retirement account. Such tax-deferred arrangements may be taxed later upon withdrawal of monies from those arrangements.
FINANCIAL INTERMEDIARY. If you are invested in a Fund through a financial intermediary, please contact that financial intermediary if you have any questions. If you are invested in a qualified account (example, IRA), you must work with the financial intermediary to direct your investment in order to avoid possible tax penalties.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IMPORTANT INFORMATION IF YOU ARE INVESTED IN A FUND THROUGH A QUALIFIED ACCOUNT AND YOU OPENED YOUR ACCOUNT DIRECTLY WITH HARTFORD FUNDS.
401k, Pension and Profit Sharing Plans.
If you are invested in a Fund through a 401k, Pension and Profit Sharing Plan, and we do not receive directions from you or the plan’s trustee, we will send a liquidating distribution to the trustee in the trustee’s name.
Traditional IRA, Roth IRA, SIMPLE, SEP AND 403 Plans (“Qualified Account”).
We encourage shareholders invested in the Funds through Qualified Accounts to provide instructions for the exchange or reinvestment of Fund shares prior to the Liquidation Date. If a Qualified Account shareholder does not provide these instructions, Fund shares held on the Liquidation Date in a Fund will be exchanged for shares of The Hartford Short Duration Fund to the extent permitted by that shareholder’s Qualified Account custodial agreement. If a shareholder’s Qualified Account custodial agreement does not authorize the investment of the account into The Hartford Short Duration Fund, then the liquidation proceeds will be returned by mail to the shareholder’s attention but made payable to the applicable Qualified Account custodian in order to avoid adverse tax consequences...

You might say: Gold is a good buy because it’s a store of value, it protects against inflation, and it gives comfort in times of panic. So you argue that’s a good reason to buy gold today at $1300. But the trouble is that all those things were also truth when it was at $1900, and the person who bought it there has lost a third of his money. Therefore, you can’t invest intelligently in gold. There is no way to translate those virtues into a dollar figure. By the way: If you take the word «gold» and you take away the letter «l» then you have god. And it’s the same analysis: Either you believe in it or you don’t.
"Howard Marks, chairman of the U.S. investment firm Oaktree Capital"

Regarding FPRAX's strategy change and subsequent tax implications, I only see four positions initiated prior to 9/30/13. Seems like most gains have been realized by now.

FPRAX this year will be good only for IRA-type accounts: It already made a huge capital gain distribution, and probably it will continue this way while the new managers change the nature of the fund.

BNP Paribas upgrades India to overweight
'Reuters | Updated On: February 26, 2014 17:12 (IST)
India and Indonesia, previously at risk from severe currency depreciation and liquidity tightening, have recovered in terms of their trade and current accounts, and to a lesser extent in terms of inflation, the BNP report added.'
'Weak currency and high imports had earlier put a strain on the two nations among "the fragile five" by widening their current-account deficit.'
http://profit.ndtv.com/news/market/article-bnp-paribas-upgrades-india-to-overweight-381652
A More In-depth Presentation of Emerging Market Oppotunities
EM and the Fragile Five: Separating the Wheat from the Chaff
TCW Asset Management
By Blaise Antin, David Loevinger, Anisha Ambardar
February 26, 2014
Looking ahead, we believe that 2014 will be a year where differentiation matters. Investors who ignore the naysayers and instead focus on the risk/reward characteristics of individuals countries through old-fashioned fundamental analysis will be well rewarded. Beyond the Fragile Five, there are many EM countries that have strong or improving credit outlooks. Given investors’ attention to the Fragile Five, in the following section we present a brief analysis of the vulnerabilities of each, how they compare now with previous periods when these countries experienced systemic crises, and the extent to which policy adjustments to date are leading to macroeconomic adjustments that will put these economies on a sounder path.
Our bottom line on the Fragile Five: Overall risk is relatively low in Brazil, moderately high in Turkey, with Indonesia and India closer to Brazil, and South Africa in the middle. In the next section, we discuss each country in order of our assessment of their vulnerability, from low to high.
http://advisorperspectives.com/commentaries/tcw_022614.php
And more from T C W Emerging Markets Multi-Asset Opportunities Fund TGMEX
When we look across the investment spectrum for emerging
markets, we prefer equities to debt, which we are expressing
through our breakdown of 66% equity and 31% debt.
We believe that improving growth in the U.S., bottoming out of
Europe and stable growth in EM countries, most notably China,
should create a positive environment for EM equities. We see
potential for strong performance in EM equities in 2014 with
improved revisions and earnings growth balanced against a
potential derating on the back of a higher cost of capital. The upside
risk to our forecast could come from other global factors, for
instance any further expansion in the S&P 500 P/E , which would
help alleviate the downward pressure on EM multiples. We remain
focused on combining some of our macro country views with more
idiosyncratic positions around what we see as multi-year growth
stories, including gaming and internet penetration, growing use of
generics and renewable energy. We further remain opportunistic on
frontier markets but, given the stellar year for MXFM in 2013, we
think the opportunity for significant outperformance by FMs relative
to EMs is more limited in 2014
https://www.tcw.com/~/media/Downloads/TCW Funds/Quarterly Letters/EOF_QL.ashx

I agree the cars are a niche product. Tesla's gains will come from their battery production. The so called giga factory is attracting other companies like Apple for example.

My .02 is that the large cap field is the prime category NOT to hold multiple funds. Every time an analysis is done on managers adding value over indexes, large caps offer the least amount of alpha. Totally agree with Bob. The only way a LC is going to help you is to have a good stock picking manager with a focused agenda and one that will preserve capital when there is no value to be found. SEQUX, and I also think YAFFX and BBTEX, fit this bill. But you don't need more than one. Holding more than one, well... you lost your chance at adding alpha to that category.

VTWSX or VT the ETF - ER .35 or .18 makes up for hot managers over 40 years. Ask her to read one of William Bernstein's books on investing and discuss it with you.
She can add some bond funds 10 or 15 years from retirement. She can add a mid or small cap global or global dividend fund lwhen she has the money as she gains experience, but this is the simplest, cheapest way to start, and I wish I had done so several years ago for my children (as I now am).

I think I understand where you're coming from here, but I'm not convinced it's the right place. Sure, stocks are fully valued at this moment. But there seems to be thin value in bonds. And, anyway, your daughter has a 40+ year horizon.
I'd avoid balanced funds altogether, I'd especially avoid balanced funds that only hold domestic stocks (read VGSTX > VBINX).
Depending on the size of the gift, I'd look at either some sort of global fund that can be readily paired with a core bond fund (think DODWX, OAKGX, or VTWSX. I also like the suggestion of VDIGX) or just buying shares of a dividend growth stock. Coke looks a little under the weather lately. Consider what 100 shares of KO (or MCD, PG, JNJ, KMB, LKT, BHP or TROW, etc...) bought today would look like in 2054 with dividends reinvested.
If you are going to give a balanced fund, give a go anywhere fund with capital appreciation as a mandate. PRWCX, DODBX, VILLX come to mind.

Ever since Bill Gross wrote against the folly of capital markets and the misallocation of capital to serve its own end than any social good which I thought at the time was a surprising piece of indictment from an insider, I have noticed several attempts to discredit him. This just seems like a take down piece and latest in those attempts.

Related to cash holdings in a M F
David Glancey Portfolio Manager PVSAX PYSAX
Q &A
You have often said that you hold a significant
amount of cash in the portfolios to act as
“dry powder” if you should see buying
opportunities. The cash position has come
down in recent quarters. What was the
cash position in the fourth quarter, and
how did it impact performance or provide
opportunities?
At the end of the third quarter, we had lower cash allocations
compared with the second quarter. By the end
of the fourth quarter, the cash position had risen slightly
in both portfolios. Cash positions in the portfolios,
however, tend to fluctuate day to day. A lower cash position
was not reflective of a shift in strategy. I use cash to
act quickly and opportunistically. I do not necessarily
use it to be defensive, although there are times when it
can have a stabilizing effect.
https://www.putnam.com/literature/pdf/II911.pdf
Also; Putnam's David Glancy named Boston Capital mutual fund manager of the year. (PDF) 12/31/13
http://files.parsintl.com/eprints/80013.pdf
P S edit Feb 25 2014, 16:33 ET
Listed as over 5% holding in both Putnan funds as of 01/31/2014.Beware.
JAZZ
Jazz -8% AH. CFO resigns. 2014 sales guidance above consensus.
Along with its Q4 results, Jazz Pharma (JAZZ) announces CFO Kathryn Falberg is resigning, effective March 9, to "pursue other interests." Corporate development SVP Matthew Young is replacing Falberg.
Jazz expects 2014 revenue of $1.1B-$1.16B and EPS of $8-$8.25 vs. a consensus of $1.08B and $8.07. Xyrem net sales are expected to total $755M-775M, and Erwinaze/Erwinase net sales $185M-$200M.
Xyrem net sales +45% Y/Y in Q4 to $164.2M, Erwinaze/Erwinase net sales +26% to $43.5M. Opex +25% to $75.5M.
Q4 results, PR.

2. His style, which emphasizes capital preservation, is not the stuff that generally wins the adulation of the masses.

Which style is "in" today? Which tomorrow? Who is a star manager today? Who is a star manager tomorrow? Meh.
When Cramer was on "Live with Regis and Kathy" talking about how Heebner was his "#1 pick for mutual fund manager" (which ignored the fact that most of the people in said audience probably could not stand the volatility of Heebner's fund) I knew that was probably it for Heebner's star status for the time being (and sure enough...)
Janus Overseas was huge for a while. It's basically been a complete and total cluster-f for the last few years, with some of its largest holdings being absolutely ridiculous mistakes.
There have been others, there will be others.
As for Royce starting 50 funds and gathering assets, nothing new. They're asset gathers, like so many other fund companies.
There are not that many mutual fund managers I'm impressed with.

Agreed.
She also says she doesn't trust Contra's classification, so let's test it against different benchmarks. She comes up with MSCI US large growth - a virtually preordained result, since her other benchmark candidates included a blend index and two all-cap indexes.
It is curious that she assumes no style drift based on Fidelity stating that according to its definition of growth, Contra doesn't stray. If she's so skeptical of what growth means, and whether Contra is even large cap growth, isn't is possible that Contra does drift according to other definitions - perhaps even definitions that the ETFs use?
It is likewise curious that she then trusts that the ETFs do match their stated category (large cap growth). Even though as she noted, there's no standard for what "growth" means, and each indexer uses its own definition (along with its own buffer zones).
She then uses the ETFs' self-stated classification as LCG to select the candidate pool.
The benchmark is never used for the ETFs. The only function it served was to "prove" that FCNTX really is (currently) a LCG fund.
So why use the benchmark at all? Just use a larger pool of candidate ETFs in the second step (trying to match FCNTX). It's not as though her computer would choke on, say, 20-30 ETFs instead of the half dozen she chose via the benchmark's category.
Remember, her stated objective was to match FCNTX, not a benchmark. (The only reason I know for doing a two-step analysis as she did is to winnow the candidate pool, which wasn't necessary here.
What really put me off, though, was her opening tax "analysis". She takes long term gains, and then says, well, if we taxed them as short term gains, look at how much more it would have cost. Sure, and if pigs could fly ....
It was gratuitous. She never did anything with the figure. It was meant to shock. Had she analyzed post-liquidation, after-tax results, I would have been impressed.

So just exactly what is a "star manager", and do we agree with Jack Bogle that they are to be avoided?
To paraphrase Bogle, a star manager is "lionised in the press", bragged on in advertising. His past record is held up for admiration and as evidence that he has a special ability to beat the market.
To be a true star manager, I believe the manager's name must be known outside of the circle of those who follow mutual funds closely.
A corollary is that they are often managing a vast amount of money.
So has Charlie Dreifus become a start manager? Personally, I believe he may be on the cusp of stardom, but that there is still a chance for him to sink back into the relative anonymity that we would much prefer. Two big mitigating factors:
1. his oldest fund is closed at $3.4B.
2. His style, which emphasizes capital preservation, is not the stuff that generally wins the adulation of the masses.
Your thoughts, dear fellow mutual fund observers?

We'd have to ask Charles, since he's the closest thing to Data Monster we've got.
A quick glance at the last 15 years suggests that high-yield as a group was not notably better or worse than a 60/40 hybrid. It was much better than pure large cap equity exposure (the bottom line, in yellow). At the same time, one of the best high yield funds (WHIYX, #2 line in blue) was not nearly so excellent as one of the best hybrids (FPACX, #1 line in red).

For my perspective, your point about "sleeping easy" is absolutely key. If you can't stick with your investments, you can't profit from them. Folks would be infinitely better of planning for 6-7% nominal returns - which are achievable without gut-wrenching adventure - rather than shooting for double-digit gains. There certainly are folks utterly inured to great short-term losses (I'm one of them - '87, '01, '08 were all deeply annoying but not causes for changing course) but they're a lot rarer than we recognize.
David