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

FYI:
Regards,
Ted
Copy & Paste Barron's 2/22/14: Beverly Goodman
Noted investment manager KKR caused a bit of a stir earlier this month when it announced it will close two of its entrants into the mutual fund arena.
It's not that the funds themselves were so notable. In fact, they're about to be shuttered because they failed to get any traction in the year they were open. But it speaks to the difficulty of the ongoing quest to incorporate alternative investment strategies into a mutual fund format—and who can offer the most elegant solution.
In the case of KKR's two funds, it seems clear that mutual fund companies had an advantage. KKR is a pre-eminent investment manager, with much more name recognition than the typical hedge fund firm, and yet its mutual funds couldn't compete. It wasn't a matter of performance: The KKR Alternative High Yield fund (ticker: KHYKX) returned more than 7% last year, beating the category average, but the firm acknowledged in a statement that the fund simply had too many established competitors (a "very crowded marketplace") with long track records. The KKR Alternative Corporate Opportunities fund (XKCPX) returned 14% in 2013, but was an overly complicated hybrid product that came with an onerous initial-investment process and "lacks the daily liquidity most mutual fund investors expect." Both funds in about a year took in just $33 million, on top of KKR's $125 million in seed money.
And yet investors appear to be clamoring for alternative-investment strategies in a mutual fund structure. Hedge funds saw $6.9 billion in outflows last year, while liquid alternative mutual funds took in $40 billion, according to Morningstar data. And that category doesn't include fixed income: Another $55 billion went into unconstrained or nontraditional bond funds, the mutual fund answer to fixed-income and credit hedge funds. With some $360 billion in assets, hedge funds still dwarf the $139 billion in alternative mutual funds—but may not for long.
Many alternative managers, however, are now realizing that their investment expertise isn't enough to make them successful among retail investors. "Mutual fund firms are just better at navigating the landscape and understanding the business," says Josh Charney, an alternative-investment analyst with Morningstar, adding, "They've been marketing products since the dawn of time. Hedge funds have only been allowed to market since the JOBS Act went into effect."
Indeed, the big winners have been offerings from mutual fund firms. Long/short equity funds took in $20.5 billion last year, though the lion's share, $13.4 billion, went into just one fund—the $21 billion MainStay Marketfield fund (MFLDX), which saw its assets triple. It returned 16.9% last year, versus 14.6% for the long/short category. Performance helped, certainly, but MainStay is a part of New York Life, which has a 150-person sales force. "We don't even think of Marketfield as an alternative fund," says Steve Fisher, president of MainStay Funds. "It's just a mutual fund with a very flexible approach. Our distribution model helps advisors understand how our funds fit into a portfolio."
Hedge funds face challenges in reaching mutual fund investors, and developing relationships with their advisors. Mutual fund firms, meanwhile, face challenges in terms of hiring the talent necessary to manage alternative portfolios. Alternative mutual funds often carry a management fee near the 2% charged by most hedge funds, but they're not allowed to pay managers a portion of the gains—making it a much less lucrative opportunity for the manager.
RATHER THAN A PITCHED BATTLE between alternative managers and fund companies, though, the approach we're likely to see more of going forward is one of collaboration. Mutual fund firms can use their name recognition and marketing and sales prowess, and rely on the investing expertise of hedge fund managers. Many alternative mutual funds use subadvisors to manage assets. One of the most successful examples is Blackstone's partnership with Fidelity—in terms of both the development and execution of the final product.
Last August, the two firms launched the Blackstone Alternative Multi-Manager fund (BXMMX); its $1.2 billion in assets is allocated across 12 hedge fund managers including Cerberus, Wellington Management, and Caspian Capital. It's only available to the high-net-worth clients of Fidelity's Portfolio Advisory Services group. It's an exclusive arrangement for one year, but John McCormick, director of Blackstone's alternative asset management group, says the fund's appeal for "mom and pop investors," could also lend itself to inclusion in a 401(k) plan, variable annuity, or other insurance product.
Blackstone initially approached Fidelity several years ago with an idea for "a very different sort of product," McCormick says. After extensive talks and reworking, the two firms arrived at a fund that could exploit Blackstone's heft in the hedge fund world and Fidelity's reach in the retail world. "We're the largest allocator to hedge funds in the world," McCormick says. "If we ask them to build something special, they do it."
.

I use both the weekly newsletter and the Leadership Strategy as an aid in positioning my portfolio. Needless to say, it is not the gospel. Take for instance in the newsletter under Global Edge it is showing that the Emerging Markets, China and Latin America are trailing the rest. Since, I'd like to increase my exposure to this asset class I figure now is a good time to be buying more of it while it is out of favor under the theory buy low, sell high. I call this "buying around the edges" and thus far it seems to have worked well for me. In addition, the newletter seems to be set to faster changing triggers than those of the strategy which seem to be set to slower triggers which results for a longer holding period.
And, as golub1 states, buying out of favor assets is indeed a contrarian/value type approach. To be buying the more in favor assets and those that are moving upward in the ranking process would be more of a momentum style approach. I think the better gains can be had by "buying around the edges" approach and is one of my favored methods I use in the deployment of my cash.
To each his own as there are many ways to find success in investing as there is no one right way to go about it as the path to the top, no doubt, consist of many.

http://www.onwallstreet.com/news/many-unds-well-positioned-for-rising-rate-environment-morningstar-2688323-1.html?utm_campaign=daily-feb 20 2014&utm_medium=email&utm_source=newsletter
why you should be wary of small cap stocks
http://www.kiplinger.com/article/investing/T052-C007-S001-why-you-should-be-wary-of-small-cap-stocks.html

Reply to @Ted:As a Chicagoan I'm sure you're
familiar.In the old days,if you called BRUFX ,you talked directly with the manager. Excellent long term performance even with the '07-'08 down draft. No brokerage or fund super market availability.
http://performance.morningstar.com/fund/performance-return.action?t=BRUFX&region=usa&culture=en-US
Reply to @Ted: And sometimes,at least where taxes are concerned,these are not certain or sure! From Seeking Alpha Jan. 2, 2014 12:23 PM ET
"Mr. Buffett, a master of tax avoidance, is using some 19mm shares of PSX Berkshire currently holds to complete the acquisition. These shares have run up some 45% since Berkshire acquired them and this transaction avoids having to pay taxes on those gains."
My view,
When I see stories of perceived unfair tax rates,society's inequalities,tax unfairness etc.,often out of the mouths of Buffett,George Soros,Michael Moore,Nancy Pelosi, etc. I just wish they'd each write out a very large check to the U S Treasury to help with society's ills.
Warren Buffett Continues To Bet On The Bakken
http://seekingalpha.com/article/1925611-warren-buffett-continues-to-bet-on-the-bakken?source=email_alternative_energy_investing_oil_gas_ref_mar_0_5&ifp=0

Reply to @hank: I think you make a good point. Time intervals play an important dynamic in portfolio gains and losses. The "time rate of return" or how quickly a gain/loss occurs over an interval of time seems worthy of monitoring and should be a component of decision making.
Reallocating quarterly seems reasonable, but I agree that outsized overperformance and underperformance may cause one to act (buy, sell or rebalance). I pull from an investment if I have a gain of ~10% regardless of timeframe...doing this right now with USAGX. I add to a long term holding if I experience a ~10 % loss...doing this right now with MAPIX.

Portfolio gains and losses happen over timeframes of varying lengths. Losses usually happen quickly over short time intervals. Here's an interesting article on recovering from a portfolio loss. This illustration shows how different portfolios recovered after a 33% loss. Many investors move away from equities after losses which causes their portfolio to recover often more slowly.

russell.com/us/education_planning/investing_basics/articles/recovering_market_downturn.asp

Thanks Swede, seems reasonable enough. I'd love to get it down to that simple of a mix. Have to think about the whole tax-consequence issue taking gains into account and all that - which i could probably just work with my local brokerage branch manager to help me sort all that out and get on the path to simplification. Appreciate your time and others who've chimed in. If i can kinda roadmap which particular smaller-position funds/ETFs i should strategically liquidate or consolidate - based on some kind of ...well.. plan - i'd try my hand at it myself but i'm not as game savvy at this stuff as many others around here.

FYI: Copy & Paste Barron's 2/15/17
Regards,
Ted
In 2010, Arvind Navaratnam joined Fidelity as an analyst covering life sciences, but quickly carved out a niche finding mispriced securities related to spinoffs, index changes, and other special situations. When Navaratnam pitched the idea of a fund based on this research, Fidelity agreed to test the thesis behind the scenes with $1 million in seed capital from the firm. The pilot proved successful, and in late December the Fidelity Event Driven Opportunities fund (ticker: FARNX) made its debut; it now has $28.4 million in assets.
Fund companies are constantly evaluating new-product launches—that's part of the business. But no matter how intriguing these new funds may seem, investors should be wary of committing too much (if any) money to them.
"If you believe in the concept, strategy, and the family, you might want some exposure, but this is active management that has to prove itself," says Todd Rosenbluth, director of exchange-traded and mutual fund research at S&P Capital IQ. His firm, Rosenbluth adds, reserves its highest ratings for funds and managers that have three-year track records at minimum. "If you don't have a relevant record to compare performance," he says, "you're just flying blind."
For that reason, most advisors and other professional investors steer clear of funds until they pass the three-year mark and amass a few hundred million in assets. (Barron's typically takes the same stance when recommending or profiling funds.) Given the market's recent run, even a three-year record can't demonstrate how a strategy will perform in different market and economic conditions.
That's not to say there's anything inherently wrong with new funds. Some can seemingly prove themselves in a very short amount of time, particularly if the managers are seasoned. The $259 million Oberweis International Opportunities fund (OBIOX), launched in 2007, is the brainchild of former hedge-fund analyst Ralf Scherschmidt. The premise of the fund is that investors are slow to react to improving company fundamentals. At first glance, the fund's performance is impressive, generally landing at the top of its category, and averaging a 30% annual return over the past five years. But calendar-year performance has swung from as high as 61% in 2009 to as low as a 15% loss in 2011. That's a lot of volatility for investors to stomach in a short time.
Still, with the added risk comes some potential for added return. "The flip side is you're getting a person who is very focused on doing well. This is their big opportunity," says Thomas Hanly, who, prior to starting his own firm, Two Eagle Investments, oversaw manager selection as CIO for Russell Investments. These small and nimble funds, he says, put the manager's best ideas to work. Even so, he advises allocating no more than 1% or 2% of a portfolio to a rookie manager.
THE DEVELOPMENT OF NEW funds plays a critical role in the overall health of a fund company, notes Randy Garcia, CEO of The Investment Counsel Co., a Las Vegas-based investment advisory firm. "The big firms need to empower their best people if they're going to keep them," he says. It's also to the benefit of investors, he adds, when a company has a healthy pipeline of investment ideas and skilled managers at the ready to execute them.
Most fund companies take a gradual approach to grooming new talent. Aspiring managers often start by overseeing a slice of an existing fund, go on to run a sector fund, and eventually take the reins of a diversified fund. At Janus, all 37 analysts contribute to the $4 billion Janus Research fund (JRAAX) and $2.6 billion Janus Global Research fund (JDWAX). Sector teams contribute their best ideas to both funds; portfolio weightings are tied to the index. In some cases, Janus gives promising analysts the opportunity to manage a small in-house portfolio, seeded by the firm. "We want to know what their natural style is," says Jim Goff, director of research with Janus. "This is more of a training tool."
When it comes to rolling out a new fund, the first priority is that the investment idea is sound, says Brian Hogan, president of Fidelity's equities division, noting that some ideas are incubated for years before they get a ticker. Even after the debut, managers typically work within relatively tight parameters, with chief investment officers keeping a close eye on everything from turnover to tracking error.
EVEN SO, IT'S GENERALLY best to give rookie managers time to prove themselves with someone else's money. Rookie funds, however, are another story: Barron's has made exceptions for managers with impressive track records elsewhere—such as Larry Pitkowsky and Keith Trauner, who left the Fairholme fund (FAIRX) to found GoodHaven (GOODX), and C.T. Fitzpatrick, who launched two funds, including the Vulcan Value Partners fund (VVPLX) at the end of 2009 after leaving Southeastern Asset Management, which oversees Longleaf Partners. In these cases, the managers were seasoned, the new funds adhered to their investing philosophy, and, importantly, the funds were not launched at a point in the market when that particular style was doing well.
"I'm not opposed to investing with new managers," says Garcia. "I would just want to make sure it's my high-risk capital." Then again, with so many veteran managers to choose from, you might just watch and wait.

Reply to @hank: I think it's reasonable. I believe Ted calls these two approaches his capital preservation pool and capital appreciation pool. If one were to hold 80% in a moderate allocation fund such as VWELX (low cost, well managed) long term and than opportunisticly invest the remaining 20% in special situations (your best ideas) I believe it coud be meaningful to your retirement bottom line.

Reply to @JimJ: Is that a bit of sarcasm I sense? Good luck in your research and choices.
From last paragraph of Marketfield's year end commentary.My emphasis.
As many of you are aware, the fund has experienced remarkable asset growth during the past year. We are acutely aware that this is not
a good portent for ensuing performance. Our style and methods of execution remain deliberate and long-term, as they have been from day
one. They are now matters of necessity as well as inclination, but the day-to-day processes within the firm have not changed. Results will
continue to depend upon our ability to gain some differentiable insight into the complex macroeconomic processes that drive changes in
capital assets’ pricing and output.
Posted earlier on this site.The year end letter.
http://www.nylinvestments.com/polos/MSMK02h-011447070.pdf

Reply to @DavidV:
I also added an LCG fund , TFOIX Transamerica Capital Growth,reducing by an equal amount my small cpa blend fund. Also initiated a position in ARII American Rail Car, which I believe two other members had spoken of a while back.

Reestablished a position in QQQ and took an opening position in IYJ. I now have four funds in my capital appreciation account....SPY, IJH, PRHSX, QQQ, IYJ.
Regards,
Ted

I'm considering swapping my MFLDX (Marketfield) for ICMBX (Intrepid Capital Fund). ICMBX risk-reward profile is very similar to Marketfield's. Intrepid's assets are much smaller, and hence can be more nimble. I'm concerned about asset bloat with Marketfield. Lastly, Intrepid's ER = 1.41% vs. Marketfiled's 2.94%.
I haven't pulled the trigger, I am still investigating ...

Reply to @tp2006: IEFA and IXUS are iShares new "core" funds. They brought them out when Fidelity and Blackrock agreed to offer the ETFs commission free last year, and only date to 11/2012.
The differences are in the index provider (MSCI for iShares and FTSE for Vanguard), Vanguard's unique "ownership" structure, and the small difference in fees. The returns will mirror one another pretty closely.
Returns of international etfs
Note that the EAFE indices are higher right now than the total world indices because of the inclusion of emerging markets, which have lagged lately.
Though I can't speak for him, I believe @cman's general advice for accumulators is to use index funds for capital appreciation until such time you need funds to provide downside protection. I've chosen a slightly different route, but I can't disagree with him at all. Funds like ARTGX (now closed), FMIJX, DODFX, TBGVX and ARTIX are all excellent in their own right, but you might want to get started with an index and then decide whether to allocate to active funds at a later point when you're more comfortable. My only specific advice would be to include small cap and emerging markets stocks. If you use VEA/VEU, have a look at VSS as well. IEFA/IXUS/VXUS take care of that for you. Simpler is generally better.

Good article with a caveat and a bad title as always from Chuck. The caveat is that stocks have a higher return is not some natural law but an assumption based on historical empirical evidence. A long stretch of heads in a coin tossing experiment has not reduced the risk of betting on heads.
The probabilistic implication of that evidence suggests overweighting equities to exploit the current situation but it has not decreased the risk. In fact, the only rationale for higher returns from equities over the long term IS the risk premium, for assuming higher risk over other assets.
The new fad of not tapering beta exposure and worse increasing it with age can end very badly for many. In a market that works until it doesn't, my recommendation that I have expressed many times here is to have a glideslope from maximum beta exposure in the beginning with low cost indexed funds assuming the whole market risks (because one has the luxury of time) to proven active funds with downside or capital protection as one ages. That way you get the benefit of maintaining maximum beta exposure in rising markets while having some protection as the runway decreases trading off some performance for a safety net. I think this is a better glideslope than just reducing beta exposure with age which just looks silly in a roaring bull market.

I'm not certain, but would FPNIX fall into this category as well? Doesn't seem to return quite as much, but has similar volatility and an absolute mandate of capital protection.

FYI:
Regards,
Ted
USA: http://www.marketwatch.com/story/stock-futures-zigzag-ahead-of-confidence-factory-data-2014-02-14/print?guid=4031C4B8-955A-11E3-AD35-00212803FAD6
Europe: http://www.marketwatch.com/story/european-stocks-waver-ahead-of-euro-zone-growth-data-2014-02-14/print?guid=58E3F598-9551-11E3-AD35-00212803FAD6
Asia: http://www.marketwatch.com/story/asian-shares-mostly-higher-after-us-gains-2014-02-14/print?guid=3A3F1474-953D-11E3-90B3-00212803FAD6

Very good suggestions from all.
Expanding on davidmoran's comment - the attorney should also be local. All of this stuff, from wills to state taxes to POA forms vary from state to state, so you need that local expertise from all the professionals you enage.
Regarding the company stock - since it is in a taxable account, it may have come from an ESOP (employee stock option plan), ESPP (employee stock purchase plan), or a 401K distribution. Each of these can be tricky in various ways regarding tax treatment - vesting schedules, discounts, Section 83b elections, holding periods (as I recall, can require as much as two years for long term gains, but I'm rusty), NUA (net unrealized appreciation).
The company may already have provided paperwork (and instructions) documenting the stock, but should be able to reproduce it for you in any case.
Best wishes.