Those who followed Marsico Flexible Capital (MFCFX) remember its beautiful performance, but then its manager Douglas Rao left Marsico and joined Chautauqua Capital Management, http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/chautauqua-capital-management-names-a-douglas-rao-partner-and-co-portfolio-manager-166119886.html
It seems that he decided to return to fund management, at Janus. This is from M*:
The firm also has hired Douglas Rao to manage Janus Forty, which should differentiate it in the future from the previously identical Janus Twenty. Rao worked at Marsico Capital Management (founded by former Janus manager Tom Marsico) as an analyst and manager from 2005-12, steered Negative-rated Marsico Flexible Capital (MFCFX) to a fine record in a five-year tenure, and comanaged Neutral-rated flagships Marsico Growth (MGRIX) and Marsico Focus (MFOCX) for 2.5 years. Janus Forty is now expected to have a larger stake in non-U.S. stocks than Janus Twenty.
I wonder what do you think about it, in view of many recent manager departures from Janus, see http://news.morningstar.com/articlenet/article.aspx?id=597235

from John Park, half of Jackson Park Capital LLC, the advisors:
Hi David,
Thanks for the email. Our first holdings report, as of March 31, 2013, should be filed toward the end of this month. We plan on having a fact sheet up shortly thereafter that will be downloadable on the website. The semi-annual report is likely to be July or August, but I'm not yet sure of the exact time frame since this is our first year and the fund board will determine the precise timing.
Hopefully this is helpful. Thanks so much for your interest and please feel free to contact us any time.
Best regards,
JP

Thanks Flack for your response and Charles for asking the question.
If I undertand Margin usage, let's say I have $1,000 to invest at a brokerage (and in the market). I can "borrow" 50% more money or $500 dollars and add to my market positions so I now have $1500 invested. If all market participates were using (50%) margin the market would be leveraged (50%). That's pretty powerful stuff.
Now if the market responds positively, these leveraged particpates have help to goose the market up to 50% more due to leverage. Hard to believe that the enitre market could be 50% leveraged but theoritically it could. Maybe more depending on what markets we speak of...currency markets can leveraged 100:1 verses the equity market's 2:1.
So now, I am a bank and I am able access zero percent interest rate loans. Let's say this bank is the one that has borrowed and margined the $1500 (add more zeros if you wish). The borrowed money is invested in the market. 2/3 is borrowed from Uncle Sam at zero percent and 1/3 is borrowed from the brokerage house which I own so I get pretty good rates here too). This investment moves positively upwards as the market responds to all this new money.
I wonder what percentage of the market is "margined"? I wonder what percentge of the market is invested with borrowed money at zero percent interest rate that is then further margined?
I ask these questions because, theroetically, in a highly margined market, half the market gains could be assiosiated with "margined debt". In a zero interest rate environment, borrowed money that is further margined (borrowed margin debt) could really be significant.
Will Mom and Pop join the party so these positions can be unwound and risk tranferred at higher market levels?
Am I making any sense here?
Professional traders look at leverage in very positive ways...I came across these points on the importance of leverage.
Leverage is Good, and More Leverage is Very Good:
Leverage is Good
and,
Trading Using Leverage

Reply to @hank: We'll have to agree to disagree. To me, moving towards fixed income as you get closer to retirement is certainly a 'sound' principle. But I guess my first point was 1) these funds are no more risky than a self guided portfolio of the same equity/FI distribution, and 2) they are perfect for the 'financially challenged', which the general population is (maybe not our MFO crowd as Joe pointed out). The caveat for these funds is that they probably should be chosen by there % equity distribution, not necessarily by their retirement date. If you are retiring in 2020 and are not comfortable holding 70% equities as the TRP 2020 fund does, pick something closer to your risk tolerance, say 2010 at a 60/40 mix. But then again, that would take some financial knowledge that most don't have.
By the way, I also hold TRRIX. Take care.

Reply to @MoneyGrubber: Certainly brave. Congrats on your gains in these categories.

VDIGX
VWELX
VWINX
VEIPX
Capital Opportunity, which is opened recently (Any Prime Cap fund is fine)

Did sell my position in AEP (American Electric Power) after seeing a 21% rise since December 13 and traded NLY for more of IYR, which is more diversified. The only thing I bought was an opening position in Costco. I will dollar cost average the rest of the purchases. Haved some stop losses in on two of my biotechs which have seen huge gains recently, but only for 1/3 of the positions. Will keep the rest. Added to cyclicals a bit last week. Not adding to funds right now, Im about 2:1 stocks and etfs to equity funds.

rbc investment wkly commentary
Market Week: May 6, 2013
The Markets
Records were made to be broken: Despite some volatility, generally positive earnings reports and a better-than-expected employment picture helped equities continue to power upward. The jobs report sent the S&P 500 to a new record close above 1,600 on Friday. The Dow industrials briefly topped 15,000 but couldn't quite hang on to that gain, though it also ended the week at a record level. And for a change, the tech sector helped the Nasdaq take the lead for the week.
Market/Index 2012 Close Prior Week As of 5/3 Week Change YTD Change
DJIA 13104.14 14712.55 14973.96 1.78% 14.27%
Nasdaq 3019.51 3279.26 3378.63 3.03% 11.89%
S&P 500 1426.19 1582.24 1614.42 2.03% 13.20%
Russell 2000 849.35 935.25 954.42 2.05% 12.37%
Global Dow 1995.96 2151.66 2189.49 1.76% 9.70%
Fed. Funds .25% .25% .25% 0 bps 0 bps
10-year Treasuries 1.78% 1.70% 1.78% 8 bps 0 bps
Equities data reflect price changes, not total return.
Last Week's Headlines
The unemployment rate continued to inch downward in April. The 165,000 new jobs created during the month cut the unemployment rate to 7.5%--the lowest level since December 2008--and the February and March new jobs figures were revised upward. The loss of 11,000 government jobs partly offset the private sector's 176,000 new jobs, where the biggest gains were in professional/business services, leisure and hospitality, and education.
Americans' incomes rose in March, but the extra money didn't stay in bank accounts for long. Both personal incomes and consumer spending were up 0.2% for the month, according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis. The rise in spending was the smallest in three months, and higher utility bills caused by unseasonably cold weather were responsible for part of the increase. The savings rate remained at 2.7% of income for a second month.
As expected, the Fed will continue its bond purchases, though it may increase or decrease the amount depending on economic performance. The Fed's statement also blamed current tax and spending policies for restrained economic growth. Meanwhile, as eurozone unemployment hit a record 12.1%, the European Central Bank will attempt to stimulate the contracting economy there by cutting its key interest rate to 0.5%, and ECB President Mario Draghi hinted that it might go still further.
A 0.3% increase in home prices during February helped put prices in 20 cities measured by the S&P/Case-Shiller index 9.3% higher than a year earlier. It was the second straight month of year-over-year increases in all 20 cities.
U.S. manufacturing slowed for the fifth straight month, according to the Institute for Supply Management. The ISM's gauge of manufacturing activity hit 50.7%; though that still indicates growth, slipping below 50% would represent contraction. Meanwhile, the ISM's services index also showed slowing growth as it hit 53.1%.
A 48% drop in the volatile nondefense aircraft sector helped cut new factory orders for manufactured goods by 4% in March, according to the Commerce Department.
The U.S. trade deficit fell by 11% in March, its second major decline in four months. While exports were down, they fell less than imports, especially imports of consumer goods. However, part of the decline in imports may be tied to the Chinese lunar new year holiday and could be temporary.
The Treasury Department said reduced federal spending and higher tax receipts, in part from seasonal income tax filings, will enable it to pay off $35 billion in bonds this quarter. It's the first such payment on the national debt in six years, and could help delay another battle over the debt ceiling, though the reduction is seen as temporary.
Construction spending fell 1.7% in March, according to the Commerce Department, though it was still almost 5% higher than a year earlier. Private construction was down slightly, by 0.6%, but public construction fell 4.1% during the month.
Eye on the Week Ahead
In a week that's practically bereft of economic data, investors may focus on the few earnings reports that are left, since there will be little else to guide them in trying to assess the chances of equities continuing their spectacular run. The G8 nations are scheduled to meet Friday, and demand at two U.S. Treasury auctions will be watched.
Key dates and data releases: consumer credit use (5/7); 10-year Treasury note auction (5/8); 30-year Treasury bond auction (5/9).

Active managment--The closed Primecap Core ( VPCCX) if available in your plan. Otherwise consider 1.) Capital Opportunity (VHCOX), 2.) Selected Value (VASVX), and one of either Dividend Growth (VDIGX), or Equity Income (VEIPX) . All have been on tremendous runs lately as has the market so decide whether to " average in" over a long period of time or wait until we have a significant correction. Personally I'm not a fan of Vanguard's bond index funds and am trying to decide between the cap weighted equity index funds of Vanguard and the equal weighted alternatives available elsewhere. Some of the Vanguard funds have etf counterparts if etf's are available in your plan.

Unemployment continues to decline.
Monetary policy encourages lending, which means lower mortgage payments and more investment capital.
Company balance sheets are strong and earnings generally up.
Market does not seem over-valued (see below).
Congress slowly starting to work together, finally.
World seems in relative state of peace.
Housing market recovering, finally...people selling homes quickly that have been unable to sell for years.
Auto industry having best performance in years.
Banks cleaning-up their toxic loans.
AIG, GM, others paying back government bail-outs.
Gasoline prices stable.
Education levels remain high...US holds largest number of institutions of higher education. While formal degree costs are increasing, access to subject matter material is more abundant than ever via free links, like Academic Earth.
Yankees are in 2nd place, despite injuries to Jeter, Teixeira, Granderson, and A-Rod.
Granddaughter on the way.
We're in a bull market...reluctant and gets no respect, but bull nonetheless...Dow just crossed 15,000!
What's not to be optimistic about? (I know...the "3D" hurricane. It's true that some believe we are not in a bull market at all but instead in the 12th year of a secular bear.)
AAPL is paying a dividend. And, dividends in generally seem to be on the rise and many companies buying back stock (eg., BRK, GE).
People living longer than ever before, thanks to amazing technology and procedures, like carotid artery stenting.
US recently paid down some of its national debt, can you believe?
Honestly, I would rather see continued steady growth, lower volatility than another 2008 "opportunity."

"As the new year unfolds, Giroux considers equities to be more attractive than other asset classes and sees limited value and real risk of losses in traditional fixed income securities. He has positioned the fund to benefit from businesses that allocate capital wisely, to reduce the impact of rising interest rates on shareholders, and to own companies that may unlock value for shareholders through a corporate event."
T.-Rowe-Price-Insights/Fund-Manager-Views/Capital-Appreciation-Fund

Sorry, the above comment is for Hiyield007. Do hope you're not licensed to kill my investment gains.

Reply to @scott:
If NIRP does happen VUSTX will enjoy another (maybe last) round of capital appreciation. LT treasuries still serves as a flight to safety and responds positively if rates fall further.

At the end of a slightly-punchy day, I looked at Morningstar's report on YTD returns. The top 12 funds have earned between 28 - 66% YTD. Eleven of the 12 are some flavor of Japan (3) or biotech/health (8). The remaining one is leveraged short on gold. Six of the 12 appear to be leveraged.
The top unleveraged, diversified performer? You might think it's GMO Flexible Equities III (GFEFX), but apparently that's a covert Japan fund. No, with a slight shudder I note that it's Legg Mason Capital Opportunity (LMOPX), a one-star fund that represents Bill Miller's last stand. 98th percentile over the past decade and it's still got $1.2 billion in AUM.
David

A month ago I reallocated some PONDX profits and took a position in PETDX. I bought this fund due to its consistent long term performance and momentum since 2009. Here the two are charted over the last 4.5 years:

Over the last month PETDX has gained almost 10 %. Regardless of timeframe I try to discipline myself to take 10% gains from funds I own. For me, selling actualizes those gains. It forces me to have performance goals rather than timeframe goals. It forces me to have a game plan in place for where these profits go. It force me to have an overall long term investing strategy.
In the past, I have actualized gains and added to :
- cash,
- non-correlated funds (sell equities...buy bonds),
- uderperforming funds I hold long term (sell over performers...buy underperformers),
- my shifting need for income generating investments,
- a new position in a new asset class that hopefully further diversifies my overall portfolio.
You may have your own method of reallocating profits...sharing of any strategies would be appreciated.

I love the idea of performance adjusted fees.
I started thinking perhaps such an approach was the answer to otherwise seemingly investor-friendly, but high-fee funds, like ARIVX in particular. (See recent threads: MFO April 2013 Commentary is posted, ASTON/River Road Independent Value Fund Update, and I thought the April 2013 MFO was the best Commentary yet - anywhere.)
Other than hedge funds, I did not know a fee structure based on performance was employed or even legal for mutual funds. So, really appreciate you digging into this topic.
Bravo to John Montgomery and Bridgeway Capital Management, Inc. I haven't researched the performance of such funds, but just based on stewardship and investor-first practice, can't help but applaud.
So, more thoughts on ARIVX. Eric Cinnamond believes equities are over-bought. Wanting to protect capital, he opts to move more than half his portfolio to cash, which is yielding 0.1-0.2%. I own ARIVX and pay him to actively manage my capital. But ASTON charges a heavy 1.42 ER for ARIVX, even with large AUM of $718.5M. The fund currently has 58% in cash, which means investors incur a guaranteed loss of $5.3M each year for this portion of their capital. As long as Mr. Cinnamond maintains his bearish position, this allocation is an on-going source of negative alpha, whether he is right or wrong on the equity side.
In fact, I started wondering if it might be better for him use that $5.3M to short small-cap equities, which is effectively what he is doing by holding the capital in cash. Perhaps purchase put options.
But, I suspect the prospectus prevents such moves, not to mention ASTON's ownership. Similarly, the prospectus likely restricts ARIVX from investing in longer-term bonds. So, the fund is boxed-in to a small cap value world, which the manager believes is over-bought. Result: investors end-up paying 1.3% net ER for ARIVX to hold cash. The fund is also closed, exacerbating this investor relations issue. (BTW. Ever wonder what 12b-1 translates to for closed funds?)
A better solution? Performance based fees. ASTON should reduce its ER to basically zero for the cash portion of the portfolio. Reinforce its support of the sub-advisor's decision to hold cash during such times. Seems to me that would be huge show of stewardship. Still not as bold I understand as Bridgeway, but a big step in right direction.
Thanks BannedfromBogleheads for calling attention to performance based fees and Bridgeway. Perhaps there's hope =).

I only bought into this fund a couple weeks ago (sold some of my PRNEX to buy it), but RYOIX was my best performer in this down week. It's been sailing along in good weeks and bad. And I'm always pleasantly amazed how well MACSX navigates a steady return.
In a rocky week, these are the funds having positive returns in my portfolio this week:
RYOIX +2.6%
MACSX +.6%
GASFX +.3%
MAINX +.2%
PONDX +.2%
PGDPX +.1%
MWTRX +.1%
Not in my portfolio, but I have it on my watch list because of all the press it was getting on this board, WBMIX. I thought this fund was suppose to protect capital in rough times. That fund was down -4.4% for the week. I guess I would never buy into a fund where I don't understand where it fits.

FWIW, I split my TBGVX 50-50 with TBCUX, which is unhedged against the dollar with the same managers, when it became available; and it seems to have done better, according to my TDA percentage gains. Guess it's a dollar plus EM bet.

When it comes to tax efficiency I think it's important to remember that any fund you couldn't live with holding forever (and never selling) will not necessarily be tax efficient. And I think this should always be your goal because I'm of the old school of thought that trying to realize capital gains is speculation (just look it up in the dictionary) and that, in the long term, the only legitimate purpose of capital gains is to elevate the dollar amount of the dividend in a sound and prudent fashion (as opposed to chasing yield). So an index fund, even if not the ideal choice for a tax efficient fund today, is probably best in the long run because it's never going to be at the bottom of the pile (and thus tempt you to sell before this happens) after accruing significant capital gains; and also, since it is more difficult to be confident about the future dividends of actively managed funds, this confidence that capital gains/losses are only of secondary importance (except when it comes to taxes) will also allow you to actually achieve the goal of living off the dividend by eliminating from your portfolio inferior asset classes like "high quality" bonds (which underperform because they are simply poor investments, not because they are "less risky" as claimed by some fools...how could there be a lower risk of underperforming when everyone knows that the underperformance is consistent and predictable?).
That being said, there doesn't appear to be much diversification in holding international vs domestic indexes because everything is highly correlated. Some, like Jack Bogle, conclude from this that one should AVOID heavy allocations to international index funds (<50%), but I say it's all the justification needed to EMBRACE heavy allocations to international index funds (>=50%). Think of it this way: if you thought that they were both going to perform the same then there'd be no reason to select one or the other and so you'd need to split it 50/50, but the most notable difference between the two is that, for a tiny increase in the already insignificant ER of domestic index funds, international index funds give you a much higher dividend (without chasing yield) AND you're investing in an asset class that an awful lot of investors (passive and active alike) have an irrational and/or involuntary aversion to because of their home bias and/or the relative inaccessibility of international investment tools (not to mention all the negative sentiment due to the political problems in the eurozone if you're inclined to invest on that basis in addition to the known behaviors already listed).
And for me personally?...since March 2011, share classes of VGTSX (which is the Vanguard Total International Index Fund) is the only investment I have purchased in taxable accounts and I have been "dollar cost averaging" all my new savings into it every month (and also advancing my purchases with margin every time the eurozone crises flares up). With this "core", I then use my tax advantaged account to "explore" various active funds regardless of their tax efficiency, but my tax advantaged account is only about 5% of my overall portfolio due to the success of my taxable investments and arbitrages (which I don't consider investments because they are 1-temporary opportunities, 2-have guaranteed outcomes, and 3-I only do them with borrowed money so my assets are not actually "vested" even though I reap the profits).

I am back to a question that I still have not been able to answer comfortably.
I am a Flagship member with Vanguard and also invest with Schwab. In a retirement account with Schwab I currently hold SGOVX. In a different retirement account at Schwab I hold MAPIX and MACSX. In my taxable account with Schwab I hold ARTKX. I currently do not hold an international fund at Vanguard.
My plan within the six months to a year is to increase my international exposure. I am not looking to make any changes with MAPIX or MACSX.
I hold SGOVX in a retirement account because it is fairly tax inefficient. The problem is, I am out of room in that account and also want more mid cap value exposure, which I can satisfy by selling SGOVX and adding to my ARTQX position in that same account. Of course, when I do this, not only am I not increasing my international exposure, I am decreasing it.
One potential solution is to add to ARTKX, which historically seems to have been fairly tax efficient. The two issues with doing this is besides MAPIX and MACSX, I would be putting over 60% of my international exposure in one fund. Also, per M* ARTKX has about a 25% potential capital gains exposure.
A second way I could go is to purchase UMBWX at either Schwab or Vanguard. It's long term performance has been good, its expense ratio seems reasonable (18 basis points below ARTKX), it's been fairly tax efficient, and it seems like it would be a complement to ARTKX because it has an average market cap about three times the size of ARTKX. However, UMBWX has a potential capital gains exposure of about 19%.
A third way to go is to purchase VGSTX at Vanguard and call it quits ;-). It's tax efficient, it has a low expense ratio at 16 basis points, a low capital gains exposure at about 5%, and a an average market cap about twice ARTKX. However, while about 50% of my domestic exposure is in index funds, I have not been a big fan of indexing international.
With the above in mind, I certainly would appreciate some thoughts.
Mona