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.

I hold MFMIX. I assume that the fund will have to adjust holdings to reflect the MSCI Frontier markets index. If it must sell winning positions, shareholders may see increased capital gains distributions.

Reply to @Kenster1_GlobalValue: Nope. I'm struggling to keep my portfolio manageable. I have 11 funds now and, in general, I try to maintain a one-in-one-out discipline. Ideally, in the year ahead I'll actually reduce the number of funds and increase the size of my stake in the remainder. Adding ARTWX would likely have to come at the expense of ARTVX or ARTKX. I've got substantial capital gains embedded in each and am quite satisfied with them, so I'll fight (thanks, Crash!) the temptation to collect funds.
David

Reply to @lord_nelson: This is probably not what you wanted to hear but with what appears to be your portfolio philosophy, forget about owning any of these for 15+ years. You will likely get a 7 year itch to replace even the ones that has served you well like PRBLX and/or some of these shiny new funds at the moment may no longer seem so, after a couple of years if they haven't actually crashed and burnt before then. :-)
The new ones being considered here are from good fund families with good managers but they just don't have the history to say how they will do as they gather assets and market conditions change. Even so, it may be fine if you have an active portfolio management strategy that has a plan to buy and sell based on some meaningful criterion, not what is shining recently. I am not sure you want shiny new funds as the core part of your portfolio.
I do not think it is smart to allocate more than 20% of your portfolio to funds as core holdings without a history unless you have a really small portfolio where it wouldn't make much difference. You may land up being disappointed on their performance over time or worse find that they have damaged your portfolio with underperformance in certain market conditions.
My recommendations are based on my rough guidelines here as a portfolio strategy that uses both index funds and active or specialty funds as appropriate for the stage you are in.
You have a 80% equity strategy with 20% in cash. This is fine if you are in accumulation phase with a small portfolio with a 25-30+ year timeframe or in the growth phase with a 15-25 year time frame. If the former, then I would forget active funds and get a diversified allocation with index funds. You dont need any hedging against market risk over that time frame, and it is difficult to find active funds that will overperform over a long period. At best they will underperform without any significant benefits. If you are in the latter growth stage, it might be useful to move 20% of your indexed core to specialty and allocation funds and over time increase the latter by adding more and more risk managed active funds as you get closer to your distribution years.
If you are in such a growth stage, keep the PRBLX as part of your core 60% or switch to a large cap blend index, supplement with a small blend index, an international index covering both DM and EM or separate DM and EM indices. Possibly in equal proportions in this 60%. Allocate 20% of the rest to sectors that have good beta performance and small amounts in it to shiny new funds just to satisfy your itch without harming your portfolio. You can even use the cash portion to include balanced/allocation funds for the full 40% and let them decide on cash. Initially start with high beta funds that are likely to over perform relative to the broad indices in the core (not their category indices) and slowly move them into more conservative funds with capital protection strategy as a glideslope to your retirement.
So, the questions you are asking about the funds other than PRBLX should really be in the 20% pot outside the core 60% and not trying to replace any fund in the core.
Be careful about use of volatility in evaluating new funds such as FMIJX. They can change very quickly as the fund enters some turbulence for its investment strategy. I don't think there is any justification to think FMIJX will necrssarily be a low volatility fund. It may turn out to be a great fund but hasn't proved itself as yet so shouldn't be part of core portfolio.

On February 12th we spoke for an hour with Alan Salzbank and Josh Parker, both of the Gargoyle Group, and Morty Schaja, CEO of RiverPark Funds. Here's a brief recap of the highlights:
Alan handles the long portfolio. Josh, a securities lawyer by training, handles the options portfolio. He's also an internationally competitive bridge player (Gates, Buffett, Parker...) and there's some reason to believe that the habits of mind that make for successful bridge play also makes for successful options trading. They have 35 and 25 years of experience, respectively, and all of the investment folks who support them at Gargoyle have at least 20 years of experience in the industry. Morty has been investigating buy-write strategies since the mid1980s and he described the Gargoyle guys as "the team I've been looking for for 25 years."
The fund combines an unleveraged long portfolio and a 50% short portfolio, for a steady market exposure of 50%. The portfolio rebalances between those strategies monthly, but monitors and trades its options portfolio "in real time" throughout the month.
The long portfolio is 80-120 stocks, and stock selection is algorithmic. They screen the 1000 largest US stocks on four valuation criteria (P/B, P/E, P/CF, P/S) and then assign a "J score" to each stock based on how its current valuation compares with (1) its historic valuation and (2) its industry peers' valuation. They then buy the 100 more undervalued stocks, but maintain sector weightings that are close to the S&P 500's.
The options portfolio are index call options. At base, they're selling insurance policies to nervous investors. Those policies pay an average premium of 2% per month and rise in value as the market falls. That 2% is a long-term average, during the market panic in the fall of 2008, their options were generating 8% per month in premiums.
Why index calls? Two reasons: (1) they are systematically mispriced, and so they always generate more profit than they theoretically should. In particular, they are overpriced by about 35 basis points/month 88% of the time. For sellers, that means something like a 35 bps free lunch. And (2) selling calls on their individual stocks - that is, betting that the stocks in their long portfolio will fall - would reduce returns. They believe that their long portfolio is a collection of stocks superior to any index and so they don't want to hedge away any of their upside.
And it works. Their long portfolio has outperformed the S&P 500 by an average of 5% per year for 15 years. The entire strategy has outperformed the S&P in the long-term and has matched its returns, with less volatility, in the shorter term. Throughout, it has sort of clubbed its actively-managed long-short peers. It also anticipates clubbing the emerging bevy of buy-write ETFs. The guys identify two structural advantages they have over an ETF: (1) they buy stocks superior to those in broad indexes and (2) they manage their options portfolio moment by moment, while the ETF just sits and takes hits for 29 out of 30 days each month.

There's evidence that they're right. The ETFs are largely based on the CBOE S&P Buy-Write Index (BXM). Between 2000-12, the S&P 500 returned 24% and the BXM returned 52%; the options portion of the Gargoyle portfolio returned 110% while the long portfolio crushed the S&P.

Except not so much in 2008. The fund's maximum drawdown was 48%, between 10/07 and 03/08. The guys attributed that loss to the nature of the fund's long portfolio: it buys stocks in badly dented companies when the price of the stock is even lower than the company's dents would warrant. Unfortunately in the meltdown, those were the stocks people least wanted to own so they got killed. The fund's discipline kept them from wavering: they stayed 100% invested and rebalanced monthly to buy more of the stocks that were cratering. The payback come in 2009 when they posted a 42% return against the S&P's 26% and again in 2010 when they made 18% to the index's 15%.
The managers believe that '08 was exceptional, and note that the strategy actually made money from 2000-02 when the market suffered from the bursting of the dot-com bubble.
In general, the strategy fares poorest when the market has wild swings. It fares best in gently rising markets, since both the long and options portfolios can make money if the market rises but less than the strike price of the options - they can earn 2% a month on an option that's triggered if the market rises by more than 1%. If the market rises but by less than 1%, they pay out nothing, pocket the 2% and pocket the capital appreciation from their long portfolio.
What's the role of the fund in a portfolio? They view is as a substitute for a large-cap value investment; so if your asset allocation plan is 20% LCV, then you could profitably invest up to 20% of your portfolio in Gargoyle. For the guys, it's 100% of their US equity exposure.
I'll apologize in advance for what might be muddied sound when I'm speaking; I dropped the landline at home since its sole function has been to give doctor's offices and telemarketers a way to find us. I bought a high-end Bluetooth headset which I'm still learning to use. In any case, you can hear the call here.
With respect,
David

http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1283381/000111183014000115/tfs_497e-0213.htm
497 1 tfs_497e-0213.htm TFS CAPITAL INVESTMENT TRUST - 497E
TFS CAPITAL INVESTMENT TRUST
Supplement dated February 12, 2014
To the Summary Prospectus, Prospectus and Statement of Additional Information of
TFS Market Neutral Fund all dated March 1, 2013,
as supplemented
This Supplement updates certain information contained in the Summary Prospectus, Prospectus and Statement of Additional Information (“SAI”) of TFS Market Neutral Fund, a series of TFS Capital Investment Trust (the “Trust”), dated March 1, 2013, as supplemented September 19, 2013. You should retain this Supplement for future reference. Copies of the Summary Prospectus, Prospectus, and SAI, as supplemented, may be obtained free of charge by calling us at 1.888.534.2001 or by visiting www.TFSCapital.com.
--------------------------------------------------------
Termination of Subscription Policy for TFS Market Neutral Fund (the “Fund”)
Effective March 1, 2014
The Board of Trustees of the Trust has approved the termination of the Fund’s Subscription Policy, described on pages 29-30 of the Prospectus, and the reopening of the Fund to all investors, subject to the various conditions set forth in the March 1, 2013 Summary Prospectus and Prospectus, effective March 1, 2014. Upon the effective date of the reopening, all references to the Subscription Policy and language limiting the availability of the Fund’s shares pursuant to the Subscription Policy, in the Summary Prospectus, Prospectus and SAI are hereby deleted in their entirety.

Per M*, the up/down capture ratio for RGHIX says it captures 82% of the gains of the S&P500 and only takes 56% of the losses. RGHIX has returned almost exactly the same, 19.9% for RGHIX, 19.4% for the S&P500 over 5 years. I'd say the fund is performing as advertized...
Sounds like better adjusted returns :)

A $2B fund cannot go to cash that quickly nor can they purchase hedges for that kind of asset base unless they paid a lot which is not entirely impossible given its drop this year as a high beta fund.
Daily wigglies don't say anything much. Tech has been moving less correlated with rest of the sector and some fortuitous positions in tech could have balanced the drop in the other holdings. Haven't you had times when your portfolio had close to zero gains or losses. Happens sometimes.