Not that it matters, but the tickers for the last two funds (Int'l Gov Bond and US Core Bond) are reversed.
This filing is in a sense a followup to a filing last February liquidating the four Wells Fargo Factor Enhanced funds.
https://mutualfundobserver.com/discuss/discussion/55305/wells-fargo-liquidates-several-enhanced-mutual-funds.
All 8 funds (those four and the four here) were supposedly introduced in August, 2017. Supposedly, because the initial prospectus names all eight funds, but only has info on seven. The eighth fund, Int'l Gov Bond Fund, was then (re)introduced in a separate prospectus and launched Nov. 2017.
Seeing a whole batch of fund launched (sort of) simultaneously, then shut down within three years, makes one wonder what the management company was thinking.
The four shut down earlier would seem to be an ill fated attempt at latching onto a fad (or trend if you prefer), factor investing. The four shut down here are different.
Admittedly international bonds (whether sovereign or EM) are not exactly mainstream. But they're not exactly the flavor du jour either. The management team is part of the larger team for WF International Bond Fund ESIYX, which has a fairly poor record and under $100M AUM. It's no surprise that the two funds here failed to take in much above $1M. What was WF thinking in launching a fund more narrowly focused (restricted to government debt) and a niche fund (EM bonds)?
The US Core Bond Fund likewise holds only around $1M AUM. Why did this one fail? Okay, a lackluster record, but it's got mostly the same team as WF's Core Plus Bond Fund STYAX that has done a bit better, and has over $1B in assets. A mainstream category and a competent team. Another me too fund in a crowded field?
The High Yield Corporate differs from the others - it has almost $1B in AUM. It fared a bit worse than its peers in the March swoon, likely because it holds mostly lower grade junk. But its overall record (3 years) is okay, and it's got enough assets to be profitable.
One can say that it makes sense to close down seven of these funds; but then it made little sense to launch them. The reverse may be true of the last fund. Either way, it leads one to wonder what WF is doing launching funds.
FWIW, the remaining "new" WF funds (shorter than five years) are:
Dynamic Target Date Funds - a series distinct from its traditional Dow Jones Target Date Funds
Global Investment Grade Credit Fund WGCIX - $76M AUM, primarily for institutional/qualified plans
Low Volatility US Equity (WLVLX) - $57M AUM, launched 2016
Municipal Sustainability (WMSAX) - $26M AUM, launched this February
Special Int'l Small Cap (WICIX) - $5M AUM, primarily for institutional/qualified plans

re DODFX . . . Three of the managers that left were older members of the firm: Gunn, Cameron, and Serrurier. Yamada struck out on his own. And so did Gofman. So, that latter is odd for D&C. But that firm has always had average tenure around 20 years. And the eager youth that want to move up must know that.
I'll probably get out of DODWX if this rally holds up long enough. It now makes more sense to me to have clear separation between domestic and foreign for the strategies I'm interested in. VMVFX might remain the exception that proves the rule.

“Is this in reference to Dodge & Cox?“
It would seem so. Franklin Templeton is headquartered in San Mateo, 20 miles from SF, but I believe it to be publicly owned. D&C of course is privately held.
To play Devil’s advocate here ... One reason to diversify among managers is the expectation that some will outperform others over short and intermediate terms. A long leash out to perhaps a dozen years is long enough to take into consideration likely changes in management at the firm as well as changes in investor sentiment which in turn affect the fund’s return.
Yes - I’m a bit chagrined comparing DODBX to PRWCX over past 12 years (roughly the tenure of David Giroux). But there was no way to predict that type of disparity 12 years ago that I know of. Without digging below the surface, let’s just say that the management styles and focus of those two funds are quite disparate (even though M* may place them in the same category). My inclination at this point would be to tilt slightly in favor of DODBX, out of belief in reversion to the mean and also the recognition that it’s hard to outwit low fees. (But it hurts a bit looking at the 10 year charts.)
Note: I have owned both of the above mentioned funds for more than 15 years.
A Tribute to Obsolescence
“Tellson’s Bank by Temple Bar was an old-fashioned place, even in the year one thousand seven hundred and eighty. It was very small, very dark, very ugly, very incommodious. It was an old-fashioned place, moreover, in the moral attribute that the partners in the House were proud of its smallness, proud of its darkness, proud of its ugliness, proud of its incommodiousness. They were even boastful of its eminence in those particulars, and were fired by an express conviction that, if it were less objectionable, it would be less respectable. This was no passive belief, but an active weapon which they flashed at more convenient places of business. Tellson’s (they said) wanted no elbow-room, Tellson’s wanted no light, Tellson’s wanted no embellishment. Noakes and Co.’s might, or Snooks Brothers’ might; but Tellson’s, thank Heaven!”
Charles Dickens, A Tale of Two Cities

The cash-sub thing come 2-3 times weekly. Cash-sub is a fund with very low volatility for years except a short hiccup this year in March. If you raised the volatility then you have many regular bond funds.
So, I would look at funds like ICSH, JPST,MINT, RPHYX(nice davfor)
BTW, I hardly ever use cash-sub funds or even short term bond funds. Either I'm in all the way with mostly bond funds or in a rare occasion I'm out in a real MM fund. When a black swan shows up I don't want to play at all.

@hank: Thanks for info on BRCAX methodology . Many years back I put up some cash so a friend could take a contract on hog bellies. I was informed that (we) had enough gain & should he purchase another contract. Well being a little green , I okayed it. Then for the best part of the deal.... I was on a fishing trip when my late wife took a call from him looking for more $$$ to keep the contacts. I guess I learned a good lesson on that deal.
Lost the whole shebang !! , Derf
P.S. Can't win them all !

@John. Could you explain the difference between wet gas and dry gas? Which is better?
Natural gas has been DOA for a number of years. Trading just over $2 today. I’ve gleaned lately that one reason gas and oil often run in opposite directions is that gas is a byproduct of fracking. So rising oil prices imply more fracking and thus result in oversupply of gas. Nice rally in crude lately after going negative a few months back. Brent‘s over $45 / NYMEX above $42.
A Covid vaccine should be good for oil as they are a long way from making large passenger transports fly on battery or solar (although planes have become a lot more fuel efficient). I’ve always committed 10-12% to the natural resources & commodity-type funds (currently 11%). This is the first time in a long while that I’ve had something to smile about with that corner of the portfolio.
BTW - gold’s bouncing $25 today. Still has farther to fall IMHO.

Any fund that dropped more than 2-3% YTD is not cash sub and why I like ICSH, JPST. These too had much lower volatility in other years.

Agree. RPHYX also makes sense to me....

Any fund that dropped more than 2-3% YTD is not cash sub and why I like ICSH, JPST. These too had much lower volatility in other years.

@Derf, Interesting pick in SPEDX. Thinking I'll cut some from SPECX into SPEDX through a nav transfer. This should put me somewhere around 50% in SPECX, 25% in SPEDX and 25% in AOFAX within the Alger family of funds. I've got to be careful moving out of SPECX as I've built up sizeable unrealized capital gains in SPECX. In doing a nav transfer I avoid commissions but tax wise this counts as a sale and the tax man will want his cut.
Again, a good pick in SPEDX as I am really thinking hard about moving some money into it especially since, from my perspective, equities are overbought and it can short. I'd most likely hold SPEDX in my niche fund sleeve found in the growth area of my portfolio.
As for my cash I have it split among four money market funds. They are AMAXX, TTOXX, TBIXX & PCOXX. Currently, their year to date returns are 0.27%, 0.34%, 0.47% & 0.52% respectively. When I reduced my cash allocation from 20% to 15% in my portfolio, a while back, I rolled this money into a couple bond funds (MIAQX, LBNDX & FLAAX) since cash yields are paying next to nothing and these bond funds have current yields of about 4.2%, 4.0% and tax free 3.2% respectively. This move became my chosen option to counter low cash yields and raised my income area allocation from 40% to 45%.
Over time, I'll let my portfolio's income generation restore my cash position back to the neutral position of 20%. I'm thinking by year end I'll be back close to the 20% cash allocation as I take all income distributions including year end mutual fund capital gain ditributions in cash. At year end I'll decide how to proceed with respect to the rebalancing my portfolio.
I'm sure there is more than one way to deal with low cash yields. As investors, we have to decide which way is best for each of us to proceed knowing there is no one right (or wrong) way to move as there are no doubt many options that will find success.
Thanks again Derf for bringing SPEDX to the board's attention as I am no longer a student of new fund study although I do follow the markets and for the most part run with what I have establised through my many years of investing.

@Old_Skeet: bought my place five years ago and thought long and hard about a generator, in particular one that tamped into the natural gas line. And then I kept thinking, "I lived around the Quad Cities for 32 years and have had one outage that lasted more than an hour or two. What are the odds that this will be a good investment for me?"
"Rising," apparently.
(sigh)
I do rather worry about the RobinHood crowd and the prospect that they're pushing things higher, in part by triggering the algos. The observation that the S&P 495 is underwater by 5% year-to-date while the S&P 5 is up dramatically, does feel worrisome.
David

Hi @David_Snowball,
I live in a 100+ year old neighborhood with above ground powerlines that snake through the alleyways. Yep, it has a good number of 100+ year old oak trees ... and, frequently tree limbs take the powerlines down. My solution ... for the past twenty years ... has been a Generac standby power generator that runs off of natural gas. With this, I do not have to seek fuel to run it. Something to think about going forward if you don't already have one. Mine will run pretty much to whole house plus some reserve for a life line for a neighbor or two.
On asset valuations ... Yep, I'm with the call that a good number of asset classes are extremely overbought and selling at premium prices including most stocks, bonds and real estate. Many homes in my neighborhood are selling well above their appraised and listed prices due to location to the central business district in Charlotte. I remember ... years back ... people paid dearly to get out of the neighborhood. Well, and now, they are paying dearly to get back in to avoid long commute times. Most homes in my area are selling at 110+ percent of appraised value. So, yes ... from my perspective ... if you buy now you will indeed have to pay up not only for real estate but for stocks and bonds as well.
Seems, to me, inflation is back. Take care ...
Hope you get your power back soon. I'm sure it is no fun being without it.
Old_Skeet

@Shostakovich: yep. Around the time, I suppose, that Sequoia was *the* domestic fund to hold...
Morningstar's enthusiasm for the fund remains undimmed but their case is dependent on two arguments. First, Dodge and Cox is Dodge and Cox. Second, if you look at the record since the fund's inception in 2001, it's been great. That's true, but true only if you're looking at periods longer than 10 years. Their analysis of the rough patch of the past decade is pretty much "they're contrarian."
Only one of the original six managers remains on the team. While management change has not been rapid, it has been pretty consistent. Perhaps they've lost more talent than they knew? Perhaps some of the folks being added to the team have a perspective at odds with the founders' approach? Maybe the world has changed.
David

I've talked to a few of my ex-Kodak friends and we are all heart sick about this. If anyone knows Kodak's history, management has sucked for at least the last 30 years. This greedy bastard-CEO fits that bill completely.

Hi, guys.
Sitting here on day two of a power outage that might stretch for several days more. The straight line wins that came across Iowa took out about a third of the trees and rather more than a third of the power lines in the area. Our entire end of town is being affected by a major transmission line that went down. They're guessing two to three more days before the lights are on. Augustana, across the river, is also without power and under a boil order. I'm afraid that a major purge of the refrigerator needs to commence.
All of which is slightly relevant because I don't have internet access or a computer. And pretty much limited to a trickle of mobile data which explains why the formatting of this node might be a bit shoddy. Regrets for that.
I've probably interviewed six managers in the last six weeks or so. Today Leuthold posted a note on market sentiment and valuations, both of which they find to be irrational. The last paragraph of their note is a virtual word for word restatement of what every single manager, equity and fixed income, but I've interviewed has said.
For what that's worth, David
"Market valuations and investor sentiment are right back to the dangerously high levels that informed our market caution in January and February. That's remarkable because those levels reflected a high conviction that the economic expansion could continue indefinitely. Today, with the economic and earnings outlook as uncertain as it’s been in perhaps 80 years, valuations and sentiment have snapped back to those frothy levels. And arguably, the situation for a multi-asset investor is considerably worse than six months ago because the fixed income alternatives are even more outrageously priced.
The Fed is overtly trying to crush every investor with a cautious stance, but that doesn’t mean a degree of caution is not appropriate."

What happens if you have no poa/beneficiaries and something bad happen to you -Probate processing maybe costly and time consuming.
I did manage to put wifey name on beneficiary and brother as secondaries, it was easy process two years ago couple of clicks - Not sure about now.
Thankyou MSF for the reminders, we will process paperworks in schwab and merrilledge also

Hank, excellent response. Over the years I have seen many investors that make changes in their portfolio based on prediction and opinions of "experts" just to find later they were wrong.
I don't blame these journalists their intention is to grab attention with their headlines, after all, every time you click and read they get paid. Probably over 95% of article are useless, reparative, recyclable and not actionable.
Just to name one, Gundlach, the bond "king", predicted that the 10 year treasury will be at 6% in 2021 (link).
This is why I don't pay attention to any of these. As a trader I just follow charts, uptrends and prices but I'm in the market invested at 99+% about 97-98% of the time.

Your hindsight is impeccable 1K. I’ll give you that. I’ll try here to answer your somewhat condescending questions:
- I’m by nature a conservative investor. Within a diversified portfolio, I‘ve always maintained some significant exposure to equities. So nothing’s changed just because my analysis tonight concluded we’re running on “borrowed time“. Considering 22 years retired, I’m likely a lot more more aggressively invested than many in that situation - and less so than others.
- Generally, I feel it’s foolish to try and invest according to a reading the macro tea leaves. I’ve said as much here on more than one occasion. I rarely do it - perhaps on occasion for small speculative gambits.
- Yes, there have always been doomsayers: Granville, Dent, Rogers, Faber, Hussman to cite a few. I’ve listened to all of them . Never fell in love with any. Although I’ll say Rogers is certainly a glib and engaging talker.
- Short the market? Not me! Takes nerves of steel. And greater insights into specific companies than I possess. Do any of my funds short? Probably. In particular alternative fund TMSRX (about 10% of my holdings) has the ability to short.
- You didn’t ask, but my post was not intended or offered as actionable investment advise. Indeed, it suggested there might be many more years of rising asset prices.
I hope I’ve answered your questions.
So what are you overlooking here in your rather derisive and dismissive antipathy towards my thoughts? Probably the 35+ year downtrend in global interest rates. Do you really think the past 35+ years of generally rising asset prices would have played out that way had the 10-year risen from below 1% to over 10% during those years instead of the other way around? And do you choose to ignore the massive and unprecedented Federal Reserve interventions, both during the ‘07-‘09 market wreck and again after the March pummeling? Why would you find their propping up wine growers and auto sales companies that far-fetched? BOJ has purchased stocks in the past. And our own Federal Reserve is currently buying / owns corporate bonds rated just one notch above junk.
BTW- You’ll be glad to learn the Pres. is now talking up further tax cuts - apparently to be enacted by by decree.
MORE TAX CUTS COMING?

Thanks. There’s some serious implications underlying this (somewhat silly) valuation picture. Those relate, IMHO, to all asset classes (stocks, commodities, gold, real estate, etc.).
The only way I can see the current out-of-whack valuation picture continuing is if the Fed continues cutting rates all the way to 0; than goes negative; than than starts buying junk (bonds that is); and than eventually starts buying equities + whatever else they haven’t yet bought (... maybe used cars and California red wine). It would also help if the politicians continue to curtail taxing while increasing spending. This would all play out over many years of course.
But what happens when the music stops?

For years after 2008-9 investors, journalists and "experts" said the above. Valuation is still high, inflation will be up, rates can only go up.
and we had the longest bull market.
Investors who stayed out keep complaining.
Are you in?
Are you shorting since valuation are silly?

Thanks. There’s some serious implications underlying this (somewhat silly) valuation picture. Those relate, IMHO, to all asset classes (stocks, commodities, gold, real estate, etc.).
The only way I can see the current out-of-whack valuation picture continuing is if the Fed continues cutting rates all the way to 0; than goes negative; than than starts buying junk (bonds that is); and than eventually starts buying equities + whatever else they haven’t yet bought (... maybe used cars and California red wine). It would also help if the politicians continue to curtail taxing while increasing spending. This would all play out over many years of course.
But what happens when the music stops?

Thank you @msf for the chart.
Just eye-balling it, the % rate on a 2-year top-grade muni appears to be 0.1% - That can’t be right? But if it were, than a $1,000 muni held to maturity (for 2 years) would yield $2 (plus a few pennies compounding). That’s less than what a Big Mac costs. (And, after 2 years the Big Mac would have gone up in price.) Sounds like a vicious downward spiral.