JCP:
Dodge & Cox Stock Fund 11,100,000 5.06 269,619,000 Sep 30, 2012
Fidelity Growth Company Fund 10,415,000 4.75 186,845,100 Nov 30, 2012
Fidelity Blue Chip Growth Fund 2,934,500 1.34 52,644,930 Nov 30, 2012
Fidelity Series Large Cap Value Fund 2,808,263 1.28 50,380,238 Nov 30, 2012
Dodge & Cox Balanced Fund 2,750,000 1.25 66,797,500 Sep 30, 2012
GRPN:
Morgan Stanley Inst Fund Tr-Mid Cap Growth Port 15,020,860 2.30 71,649,502 Sep 30, 2012
Davis New York Venture Fund 7,960,000 1.22 32,795,200 Oct 31, 2012
Price (T.Rowe) Science & Technology Fund 6,858,536 1.05 32,715,216 Sep 30, 2012
Legg Mason Capital Management Opportunity Trust Fd 5,500,000 0.84 26,235,000 Sep 30, 2012
Price (T.Rowe) Mid Cap Growth Fund 5,500,000 0.84 26,235,000 Sep 30, 2012

Hi, guys.
I also mention this in my March commentary, but since this thread is what led to my questions, I thought I'd share it here first. I talked with the folks at FPA yesterday, a bit about Source Capital (their CEF, which I'll highlight in our April issue, whose special focus with be on CEFs), a bit about updating FPIVX (which I'll do in May, when one story will focus on Oakmark alumni) and a bit of the talk focused on your concerns about Crescent's size. Some of the FPA folks read the monthly commentary and some scan the board, so they were familiar with this thread.
They wanted to make two points. One: you were exactly right to notice that one paragraph in the Annual Report. It was, they report, written with exceeding care and intention. They believe that it warrants re-reading, perhaps several times. For those who have not read the passage in question:

Opportunity: When thinking about closing, we also think about the investing environment —both the current opportunity set and our expectations for future opportunities. Currently, we find limited prospects. However, we believe the future opportunity set will be substantial. As we have oft discussed, we are managing capital in the face of Central Bankers’ “grand experiment” that we do not believe will end well, fomenting volatility and creating opportunity. We continue to maintain a more defensive posture until the fallout. Though underperformance might be the price we pay in the interim should the market continue to rise, we believe in focusing on the preservation of capital before considering the return on it. The imbalances that we see, coupled with the current positioning of our Fund, give us confidence that over the long term, we will be able to invest our increased asset base in compelling absolute value opportunities.
Fund flows: We are sensitive to the negative impact that substantial asset flows (in or out) can have on the management and performance of a portfolio. At present, asset flows are not material relative to the size of the Fund, so we believe that the portfolio is not harmed. However, while members of the Investment Committee will continue to be available to existing clients, we have restricted discussions with new relationships so that our attention can be on investment management rather than asset gathering.

What might be the soundbites in that paragraph? "We think about future opportunities. They will be substantial. For now we'll focus on the preservation of capital. Soon enough, there will be billions of dollars' worth of compelling absolute value opportunities." In the interim, they know that they're both growing and underperforming. They've cut off talk with potential new clients to limit the first and are talking with the rest of us so that we understand the second.
Point two: they've closed Crescent before. They'll do it again if they don't anticipate the opportunity to find good uses for new cash.
Thought you'd like to know,
David

Howdy,
1. In or out of retirement only matters to the degree the taxes do on any gains (see #2).
2. As Scott said, you'll need to handle the K1 and all that.
feh. I don't really see any of these funds suitable for trading the pm market, however, the ETFs are no better if it's in a taxable account.
Mark brought it up but it would help frame my response if we knew what your goal was. Is this to be an relatively permanent investment, a speculative play, a momentum play, what?
peace,
rono

Hi ducrow. I've been at this for almost 30 years now. One thing I have learned is to not make any buy/sell decisions based on a fund's M* rating. Keep in mind that M* must force every fund into a category they have created. More than occasionally, it simply does not work. For example, FPACX is in a category M* calls "moderate allocation" that typically has a mix of stocks, bonds, and cash (typically more stocks than bonds). Unfortunately, this kind of thinking creates some very strange bedfellows. FPACX is compared and rated along with VWELX, RPBAX, PRWCX, DODBX, and OAKBX, just to name a few. These funds are not even remotely similar. They all have different mandates. FPACX is the only one that gives its management the ability to go anywhere and employ almost any allocation. Obviously a fund like PRWCX that has had a low cash allocation will perform differently than one like FPACX that often has 25-30% in cash. Manager Steve Romick has often been a contrarian in terms of the fund's management. While FPACX might lag in bull markets (like the one we have been in for the last 2-3 years), it has excelled during market selloffs. It has captured 96% of the upside gains in the market, while netting only 83% on the downside. This is considerably less volatility than PRWCX, VWELX, DODBX, and other funds that are in the same M*-created category. Other risk measures show similar results for FPACX, including Alpha, Beta, STD. Hope this helps. My advice is to stick with Steve Romick.

According to MutualFUndWire.com onTuesday, September 04, 2012,
"Harbor Could Sell By October
Watch for Harbor Capital Advisors [profile] to change hands this fall. In an update to the ongoing efforts by Rabobank's [profile] to sell its asset management arm, bids for Robeco Group NV, which also owns Chicago-based mutual fund shop Harbor, are due by mid-September, and a deal could be reached as early as October.
P&I reports that the Netherlands' largest retail bank has focused on buyers willing to bid for the entirety of Robeco. Robeco's investment management teams include two boutique asset managers in the U.S., value equities manager Robeco Boston Partners and core quantitative equity manager Robeco Weiss, Peck & Greer. Robeco Group also holds a 100 percent interest in Harbor. Robeco overall boasts $234 billion in AUM as of July 31 and could sell for more than $2 billion, according to some estimates....."
According to Robeco's press release of Feb 19,2013,
"ORIX acquires Robeco
19 February 2013 - ORIX Corporation (ORIX), Coöperatieve Centrale Raiffeisen-Boerenleenbank B.A., (Rabobank) and Robeco Groep N.V., (Robeco) announce that ORIX is acquiring approximately 90.01% of the equity in Robeco from Rabobank, for EUR 1,935 million (JPY 240.2 billion)."
NO indication as to whether or not ORIX will leave the Robeco and Harbor funds as no load.

I am sure it will be similar to an existing Wasatch fund.
From the above link for:
GRANDEUR PEAK GLOBAL REACH FUND
The Fund invests primarily in foreign and domestic small, and micro cap companies. Under normal market conditions, the Adviser will invest the Fund’s assets primarily in equity securities (including common stock, preferred stock and securities convertible into common stock) of foreign and domestic companies with market capitalizations of less than $5 billion at the time of purchase. The Fund may invest a significant portion of its total assets in micro cap companies with market capitalizations below $1 billion (up to 90% under normal market conditions). The Fund may also invest a meaningful portion of its total assets (up to 35% under normal market conditions) in securities of companies with market capitalizations of greater than $5 billion at the time of purchase when the companies meet our investment criteria.
The Fund will typically invest in securities issued by companies domiciled in each of at least ten countries, including the United States. The Fund will invest a significant portion of its total assets (at least 40% under normal market conditions) at the time of purchase in securities issued by companies that are domiciled outside the United States. Domicile is determined by where the company is organized, located, has the majority of its assets, or receives the majority of its revenue.
The Fund may invest a significant amount of its total assets (up to 50% under normal market conditions) at the time of purchase in securities issued by companies domiciled in emerging and frontier markets. Emerging and frontier markets are those countries currently excluded from the MSCI World Index of developed markets. These companies are typically domiciled in the Asia-Pacific region, Eastern Europe, the Middle East, Central and South America, and Africa...
GRANDEUR PEAK EMERGING MARKETS OPPORTUNITIES FUND
The Fund invests primarily in small and micro-cap companies domiciled in emerging or frontier markets. Under normal market conditions, the Adviser will invest at least 80% of the Fund’s assets in equity securities (including common stock, preferred stock and securities convertible into common stock) of companies that are domiciled in emerging or frontier markets. Emerging and frontier markets include all countries currently excluded from the Morgan Stanley World Index of developed countries. Domicile is determined by where the company is organized, located, has the majority of its assets, or receives the majority of its revenue.
The Fund will typically invest in securities issued by companies domiciled in each of at least three emerging or frontier markets. The Fund will invest the Fund’s assets primarily in companies with market capitalizations of less than $5 billion at the time of purchase. The Fund may invest a significant portion of its total assets in micro-cap companies with market capitalizations below $1 billion (up to 90% at the time of purchase under normal market conditions). The Fund may also invest a portion of its total assets (up to 35% under normal market conditions) in securities of companies with market capitalizations of greater than $5 billion at the time of purchase when the companies meet our investment criteria...
From Grandeur Peak Global Opportunities prospectus, http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/915802/000119312512371742/d401601d485bpos.htm :
The Fund invests primarily in foreign and domestic small and micro cap companies.
Under normal market conditions, the Adviser will invest the Fund’s assets primarily in equity securities (including common stock, preferred stock and securities convertible into common stock) of foreign and domestic companies with market capitalizations of less than $5 billion at the time of purchase. The Fund may invest a significant portion of its total assets (up to 35% under normal market conditions) in securities of companies with market capitalizations of greater than $5 billion at the time of purchase when the companies meet our investment criteria. The Fund may also invest a significant portion of its total assets in micro cap companies with market capitalizations below $1 billion (up to 90% under normal market conditions).
The Fund will typically invest in securities issued by companies domiciled in at least three countries, including the United States. The Fund will invest a significant portion of its total assets (at least 40% under normal market conditions) at the time of purchase in securities issued by companies that are organized or located outside the United States or doing a substantial amount of business outside the United States. The Fund considers a company that derives at least 50% of its revenue from business outside the United States or has at least 50% of its assets outside the United States as doing a substantial amount of business outside the United States.
The Fund may invest a significant amount of its total assets (5% to 50% under normal market conditions) at the time of purchase in securities issued by companies domiciled in emerging market countries. Emerging market are those currently included in the Morgan Stanley Capital International (MSCI) EFM (Emerging + Frontier Markets) IMI Index. These companies typically are located in the Asia-Pacific region, Eastern Europe, the Middle East, Central and South America, and Africa.

Reply to @BenWP: Hi, Ben. I'm very sympathetic to your curiosity. Occasionally you can get pretty close to the truth (as when the guy with the enormous ego knows that he can go from a mere millionaire to fantastically rich, snags four analysts and walks or following a merger, 30% of the managers become surplus), but mostly neither party will say - even off the record.
I'll write a bit about what we know concerning Jenner's departure in our March issue. The highlights: he hired a p.r. firm, reached out to all of his contacts in the industry, took his top two (of eight) analysts, mentioned that for "regulatory" reasons he can't say anything more and he declined to tell folks at Price what we was doing.
My guess would be a venture capital fund or something similar, motivated both by the prospect of wealth and supporting exciting developments in biotech.
David

I think Investor & mns have the right idea.
VGSTX ( Vanguard Star )
VWINX ( Vanguard Wellesley Income )
PONDX ( PIMCO Income )
FPACX ( FPA Cresent )
PRWCX ( T. Rowe Price Capital Appreciation )
AUXFX ( Auxier Focus )
MAPIX ( Matthews Asia Dividend )
ARTGX ( Artisan Global value )
FLPSX ( Fidelity low priced stock )
etc

Matthews also manages part of the multi-manager Witan Pacific Investment Trust, which is an investment trust on the London market. (it's co-managed by Aberdeen and MW Gavekal)
http://www.witanpacific.com/
The Trust’s portfolio is outsourced to three managers, Aberdeen Asset Management Limited, Matthews International Capital Management, LLC and MW GaveKal Asia Limited, each managing Asia cum Japan mandates aiming to outperform the MSCI AC Asia Pacific Free Index (£). In Aberdeen, Matthews and MW GaveKal the Trust has a blend of strong managers with distinctive and sucessful records who will seek to deliver a well-defined, balanced portfolio with an attractive mix of quality, growth and dividend yield. Each manager has a distinct investment approach:
Aberdeen - stock specific, unconstrained, growth at an attractive price
Matthews - stock specific, unconstrained, long-term strategy blending yield with growth potential
GaveKal - unconstrained, actively managing exposure to equities, bond and cash
Strategy
Use an active multi-manager approach to add value and diversify risk.
Manage the fund for growth predominantly through capital return.
Employ share buy-backs when the Company's shares are standing at an anomalous discount to their net asset value.
Deploy moderate levels of gearing to augment long-term returns while giving discretion to the Investment Managers to hold cash.
Aim to grow the dividend per share in real terms, subject to market circumstances and an overriding test of prudence.
Control costs and expenses to maintain a total expense ratio (excluding performance fees) of less than 1%.

Currently I have SGOVX in a tax deferred account at Schwab and ARTKX in a taxable account at Schwab. I need to make room in my tax deferred account to increase allocation in an existing tax inefficient fund, consequently, I need to sell SGOVX. I also have MACSX and MAPIX in a tax deferred account, but in smaller (supporting if you will) positions than SGOVX and ARTKX.
In turn, I want to pick up that the international allocation either by adding to ARTKX at Schwab, purchasing another tax efficient international fund at Schwab, or at Vanguard, either with a Vanguard international equity fund or one through Vanguard Brokerage.
I have been pleased with ARTKX, but my initial thought is to pair it with an international index fund, which could be Vanguard Total International Stock Index VTIAX. Domestically, I have approximately 50% of my equity allocation in managed funds and 50% in index funds. While I am pleased to have a 50% allocation to index domestically, I'm not certain about the same formula internationally. I have looked at Vanguard International Growth VWILX and while I like the low ER at 0.36% and the fund has historically been fairly tax efficient, it seems if I am going the managed route, there are better funds in this space. Regarding VTIAX, the notion that it will probably remain tax efficient long term, is comforting.
It appears on M* both ARTKX and VTSMX have similar 1,3, and 5 year tax cost ratios. Ironically, Lipper gives ARTKX a 4 for tax efficiency, while Vanguard Total International Stock Market Index a 3. I also see in M* that both have about 21% potential capital gains exposure.
Some thoughts and recommendations would be appreciated.
Mona

Reply to @Investor: Aside from drawing cash from Roths, there are sources of cash where the taxable amount is less than the gross amount - nondeductible IRAs, capital gains assuming nonzero cost basis), annuity payments (but not withdrawals, where income comes out before principal).

Reply to @ron: Perpetual Bull made an important point. You have to be careful about what you mean by "in the 15% bracket".
"Normally" (I use that term very cautiously) :-), when one speaks of being in a tax bracket, one is talking about the tax rate that one would pay on the next dollar of ordinary income (e.g. wages, taxable interest). One usually doesn't include cap gains/qualified dividends.
If one has $72,400 of "ordinary income", and $10,000 of cap gains/qualified dividends, then one is still in the 15% tax bracket by this common parlance. Yet nearly all of the cap gains are taxed at 15%, not 0%, because they push the total taxable income over $72,500.
These calculations have the bizarre effect of creating a 30% tax bracket. Say you have $70K in ordinary income, and $2500 in cap gains. The cap gains are taxed at 0%. Now add $1 to your ordinary income. That $1 is taxed at 15%, but you've also pushed $1 of cap gains over the $72,500 line, so that $1 in cap gains is now taxed at 15% also. So for that extra $1 in income, you're paying 30c extra in taxes. That's a 30% marginal rate!
On the other hand, if your total taxable income comes in under $72,500, you should think about doing a Roth conversion that brings your total income just up to the $72,500 limit. You cap gains/qualified divs will still get taxed at 0%, your conversion will get taxed at 15%, and you'll have reduced future RMDs (giving you the ability to generate more qualified divs at 0% tax rate).
Specifically, you wrote that you have about $50K buffer. If you only generate $35K in qualified divs and cap gains, then you might want to convert $15K of IRAs. Alternatively, you could sell (and immediately repurchase) securities to generate a $15K cap gain. That would get taxed at 0%, and reset your basis so that in the future, you'd see $15K less gain when you "really" sold your securities.

Hi, MJG
Thanks for posting Mark Hulbert’s article.
It’s been a long time since I read any of his work because I found it a waste of time.
Something like thirty years ago, I started using the 200-day simple moving average
to move in and out of my long-term equity positions.
It worked well then and it works well now.
Mark Hulbert’s study demonstrates to me that he lacks some basic technical
analysis understanding as he uses the DOW instead of a broader index,
and then uses a single daily data point to generate buy/sell signals.
A small tweak of the parameters produces quite different results.
As you know, I’ve posted my version of a 200-day strategy in the past.
Hulbert observes that: “The picture that emerges is of an indicator whose
best years came in the early part of the last century. Its market timing
value has gotten progressively worse in recent decades.”
Well, as for the most recent 13 years -
From January 3, 2000 through February 19, 2013, my LT equity portfolio
return is slightly greater than 180%, while the S&P 500 return (using SPY)
is up about 41%.
My return does not include gains from bond positions while I was completely out
of equities (which in this sample period was > 3 years).
My LT goal has not been to beat the market, but instead to optimize my returns
within a low-risk investing strategy and I’m satisfied with these returns.
I’m interested to see what other technical analysis strategies he
trashes (either intentionally or unintentionally) in future articles.
Hope you’re doing well,
Flack

Be very careful walking the tax tightrope. I manage a fairly large taxable account myself & you must pay attention to your cushion within your tax brackets.
Lets pretend that the 15% tax rate stops at 40,000
Your income from work is 30,000
Your investment income (long-term gains and dividend income) is 15,000
In this situation your "qualified" investment income has pushed you above the 15% rate. It is my understanding that any "qualified" money above that rate will be taxed at the higher level. Also, any bond/money market ( not municipal tax friendly types ) are taxed as ordinary income.
Please keep in mind that all tax friendly investments are on the chopping block.....and i'm no enrolled agent.
Edit: Before i invest in any dividend producing fund ( inside my taxable account ) I always call the fund company. I ask questions like: Last year what percentage of the funds income was qualified/ what percantage was income from other sources. You might be very surprised.

Many retirees are in 15% tax bracket because they do not have taxable earned income and this rule applies:
"0% applies to long-term gains and dividend income if a person is in the 10% and 15% tax brackets"
To me this means, as long as I can remain in 15%, I can invest for total return, including qualified dividends.Any suggestions of funds(conservative to moderate) might be a good holding in a taxable account. No need to necessarily be tax efficient. After deductions, I expect to be able to have about $50,000 I can earn and remain in 15% bracket.

Hi Guys,
First and foremost, I want to thank each and every MFO member who visited my posting. The response was overwhelming and very satisfying to me since the goal of every single of my submittals is to educate, to inform our band of brothers.
Secondly, and no less importantly, I particularly want to extend a thank you to those members who contributed excellent commentary. You prepared outstanding viewpoints that balanced the discussion. We all benefit from these divergent standpoints. No single person understands all the fascinating machinations and mechanisms of the marketplace. Your special perspectives are always welcomed and truly appreciated.
It appears that my chosen title is somewhat controversial. Good. It was selected to capture the prospective audience’s attention, and by the readership count it performed exactly as designed. In addition, it closely and purposely mirrors the title of Peter Lynch’s famous book whose objective was to inspire individual investor participation, education, and potential profits.
I partially concur with some contributors that specifically “Beating the Street” for that singular purpose is a shallow objective for most investors. It might satisfy some egos, but it will not necessarily enhance one’s retirement comfort. Please take note of my qualifier “necessarily”. I attach a deeper, embedded purpose to that common phrase. Let’s dive into the weeds now.
I naturally anticipate that under normal circumstances a retiree with a several million dollar portfolio need not Beat the Street; he might not even need to beat inflation; his goal might just be wealth preservation. However, for most retirees a fair return in excess of inflation must be the target.
Before constructing a portfolio, a target return is estimated based largely on projected annual withdrawal rate demands and expected timeframe. There are other factors too. During the construction of that portfolio, an asset allocation determination is made to satisfy that target goal with minimum risk. In many instances, risk is defined in terms of portfolio volatility.
The commonsense logic is that only risk sufficient to meet the required portfolio drawdown rate is acceptable. I’m a total investment amateur, but a highly seasoned one; I have never earned a dime giving financial advice. But that’s how I developed my portfolio over two decades ago; I propose that some professional advisors that participate on this fine site do the same.
A guiding principle that controls much thought in cobbling together a portfolio is broad product diversification, including international components. None of this is novel stuff. I do not invent these concepts: I do deploy them. Essential elements that go into that portfolio assembly are mutual fund statistical data sets like average annual return, return standard deviations, and correlation coefficients.
The forecasted portfolio returns must be high enough to satisfy the clients projected drawdown schedule. If a client needs a 4 % drawdown rate above inflation, short term government bonds will simply not do the job. Historically these short term government bonds only generate about a 0.7 % annual reward above inflation rates. Therefore, to satisfy this hypothetical customers needs, more additional product risk (likely equities) must be introduced into his portfolio.
How much of each asset class is required to resolve the allocation issue? That depends on the expected reward profiles of each investment class candidate. What are those levels? An excellent zeroth order point of departure is the historical returns (pick your own timeframe) registered in the past. These data are precisely the Index returns that represent the marketplace overall and for various subcomponents of it.
So equaling or beating the Indices (Beating the Street) is a crucial part of both constructing and assessing (measuring) the current status of a portfolio. That portfolio was assembled with certain forward looking expectations; expectations that were basically grounded in Index returns. That portfolio is in trouble if those expectations are not realized. So Beating the Street is a measure, a benchmark of the health of a retirement portfolio.
If a portfolio continuously fails to achieve street-like rewards, most advisors will eliminate the faltering elements and select replacements. If the advisor uses Morningstar as a data source, it is highly likely that the advisor will never select a one-star fund. Denials aside, most advisors base their initial selections on recent performance in general, and specifically contrasted against an Index reference standard.
How do financial advisors gauge their success? One reasonable answer is to compare performance against a carefully constructed benchmark. Typically, the benchmarks are composed of Indices which are themselves a proxy for the marketplace. So “Beating the Street” is really just an alternate way of saying that the portfolio is doing its intended job.
Since portfolios are built using Index returns as a likely returns pattern, a failure to achieve those forecasted returns implies dire consequences for the portfolio’s survival likelihood unless changes are implemented.
Language has developed to facilitate communications. It is mostly successful, but since it has been around for so long, alternate meanings and interpretations sometimes interrupt or interfere with its goal. Such might be the case here. Language can be a tricky business.
For me, “Beating the Street” is about equivalent to “Beating the Indices”. As a retiree, “Beating the Indices” means that my portfolio is keeping its head above water insofar as my planned withdrawal schedule is being preserved. It is an embedded performance measurement tool, not an ego adventure; it functions like a calibration device.
It’s interesting to note that even Wall Street bankers did not use this simple measurement concept as late as the early 1960s. In Peter Bernstein’s superb book “Capital Ideas”, he relates a story from Bill Sharpe. When Sharpe lunched with these bankers, he questioned them about their performance relative to some relevant benchmarks. No banker could answer his question. In that period, these professional financers did not measure their performance against any reasonable standard. We have come a long way since those times.
One final clarifying point is needed.
For the record, when I use the term “guy”, I mean it as a gender neutral term. That’s the way it is used in our household; that’s the way it is in many households. Sorry if it offends some of you guys, but it makes writing much easier for me. In all ways, I respect women for their financial acumen. They run their households efficiently, and they invest wisely. I often reference studies that conclude that female investors outperform their male counterparts. That’s accomplished by trading less frequently. Good for them.
Once again, thanks for your readership, and thanks for your informed contributions. I enjoy discussing these matters with you all.
Best Wishes.

Reply to @johnN: Fidelity Select Biotechnology fund and T. Rowe Price Health Sciences fund are each up 75% since 2007, thanks to big gains in health care and biotech stocks.

FPA Crescent Fund paid a capital gain and dividend distribution on 2 Jan 2013 (ex-dividend date), yet they have included these distributions on the 2012 1099-Div Form (to be reported on 2012 tax return). Is this legal?? I thought anything reported as a 2012 distribution had to be paid on or before 31 Dec 2012.

Reply to @Charles: Very beautiful pic!
Here's an example of a lesson learned. I invested - probably about a year and a half more or less, in a London closed end fund (it's on the US pink sheets) called Dolphin Capital Investors. It is invested heavily in Greek (and surrounding area) resort property. It had been ob-lit-er-ated, going from about $3 and change to about 30 cents. The property owned is gorgeous - just beautiful. The book value, if one were to believe book value, was a couple of bucks. The investment was rather tiny - a lottery ticket bet.
A while later, the situation in Europe got worse and it hadn't done anything (was likely already at the point where anyone who'd wanted to sell had GTFO). Again, the position was small enough that it didn't matter, but it wasn't doing anything and I just gave up on it. Had I waited not that much longer, Third Point took a stake in it in the Fall and it just about doubled. The situation in Europe was getting worse, but the story hadn't changed - the land was still impossibly beautiful, still traded at a fraction of book - and I didn't need to sell. It wasn't doing anything and I got bored and wanted to move on to something else. Had I waited a little longer, the idea would have started to play out as I'd hoped it would. Who knows - it still trades at a fraction of book value (at about 26% of book value, according to Yahoo Finance), but the idea being that I learned a lesson from being too short-term on an idea.
The Andersons is an unfortunate instance in terms of volatility. There are not too many plays (in terms of publicly traded companies) on what I call "agricultural infrastructure" at all in the world, and fewer as they get bought up (Viterra, which was bought by Glencore, which I own) or are in the process of maybe getting bought up (Graincorp, which I owned and then sold when Archer Daniels Midland made an offer).
The Andersons is a very Americana company - Ohio company with grain elevators around the Midwest, a railcar operation, Fertilizer operation, ethanol operation and a small retail operation - there's even a division that makes things out of corn cobs, such as pet bedding. Family operation that started as a single grain elevator and still remains family-run. A couple of the smaller aspects I could do without, but a lot of great, productive assets. Still, it's a very small float and it's almost absurdly volatile. The seasonality of it, if it plays out again, makes for a great trade, but it's too bad as I'd love to own the assets over a longer-term. If the Archer Daniels Midland/Graincorp tie-up does not happen, I'd own Graincorp again in a second, as while that isn't low-key either, it has a terrific dividend policy.
Instead, I own Glencore, which is highly volatile, but offers a global collection of productive assets (including hundreds of thousands of acres of owned or leased farmland), is well-managed and rather infamous. ("The Biggest Company You Never Heard Of": http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/02/25/us-glencore-idUSTRE71O1DC20110225 - "Bigger than Nestle, Novartis and UBS in terms of revenues, Glencore's network of 2,000 traders, lawyers, accountants and other staff in 40 countries gives it real-time market and political intelligence on everything from oil markets in Central Asia to what sugar's doing in southeast Asia." "Their knowledge of the flow of commodities around the world is truly frightening." )
It also is another instance of a story playing out as it absorbs Viterra and Xstrata (and possibly more over the next couple of years), becoming both a large-scale commodity company and the largest commodity trading company on the planet.
Glencore has not done as well as I'd hoped and it's been a long, strange trip with the Xstrata merger that involved sovereign wealth funds and mediation by former Prime Minister Tony Blair in the middle of the night. (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2200655/The-million-dollar-man-How-Tony-Blair-wafted-Claridges-secure-massive-pay-day-just-hours-work.html) "Tony Blair made $1 million in less than three hours by brokering late night talks between billionaire businessmen trying to save a £50billion mining deal."
However, despite issues, I remain a long-term holder, as I think Glencore remains a value and unique in terms of what it offers. Additionally, I think it's evolving as it becomes a much larger entity.
Mark said: " Consider the market investment road you traveled to reach that point and how long it took you to reach that end. I'm assuming that it's a radical departure from the vista you perceived when you began your investing travels. It certainly is for me."
I think the market has an incredibly short-term mentality in modern day and I think people are effected by the rapid money flows one way or another - as I've noted before, the average holding period for a stock has gone from several years to several days. However, I think there's real downsides to attempting to keep up with what's working now aside from the fact that I think it quickly becomes exhausting and not enjoyable. Personally, for me, it becomes a matter of having a selection of duller, consistent, low beta names and a selection of bets on various themes and/or assets that are - to varying degrees - more aggressive. If the story changes, I'l definitely reconsider, but I don't see selling anything I own for quite a while, and will continue to reinvest dividends when possible.
________________________________________________
As for fundamental problems that keep people out of the markets, I think:
1. If you are an investor in this country, it's likely that you taught yourself to some degree, because there is nothing at the high school level regarding personal finance. I think that's terribly unfortunate. I think to some degree it's the desire of financial companies not to have the populace (as a whole) highly educated in terms of investing. Still, if everyone was educated in personal finance at the high school level, you wouldn't have situations like the Facebook IPO, but I think you would have less volatile markets and a population that would likely see greater benefits from financial markets. People are still going to chase hot stocks, there's still going to be issues, but if people go out of high school with basic knowledge about personal finance and investing, I really don't see a downside.
2. I think people remain insecure and concerned about the big picture (as noted above) and do not want to commit to anything not believed to be safe. However, I'm a little concerned that a lot of average people do not understand the workings of the fixed income market and will be disappointed if bonds really turn after believing that they are safe.
3. Trust is broken and that will take time to repair. People don't trust the markets and I think to some degree I don't blame them. The media doesn't explore the reasons why people are staying out of markets, nor does it try to assist people - you instead get stories in Smart Money and the like that essentially scream, "YOU'RE MISSING IT! WHAT'S WRONG WITH YOU?" It doesn't help anything or anyone.

Good article Ted. I liked the part about frequency of checking portfolio (which I do daily =)) most interesting:

In a financial context, myopic loss aversion is represented by the frequent evaluation of a portfolio’s performance, which can lead to shifts in an investor’s long-term asset allocation mix. Checking a portfolio’s performance more frequently increases the likelihood of seeing a loss, which produces more mental agony than comparable gains satisfy. This, in turn, can cause investors to tolerate less exposure to more volatile assets.