Buffett's rules .1Don't lose MOney 2 Don't forget rule 1 have been followed by all managers of this fund when they started managing and wrote that more or less in their first quarterly reportga

Don't lose money? Yes, agree. But than continue to generate these kinds of average annualized returns?
PRWCX: Average annualized returns: 1-year 11.73%, 5-years 11.59%, Since Inception (21-years) 11.34% https://www3.troweprice.com/usis/personal-investing/mutual-funds/historical-performance.html
Talk about consistency!
BTW: The fund wasn't always so universally loved here. Here's a former poster named "Max" in November 2013 testing the waters. He was new to PRWCX and appeared in need of assurances from some of those familiar with the fund. I'm glad we were able to help at the time. http://www.mutualfundobserver.com/discuss/discussion/9085/changes/p1

Interval funds are nothing new - they've been around for decades, but they seem to have reached more widespread awareness (including the relatively new term "interval funds") in the past few years.
Here's a page from CEFadvisors.com, with no date, but google says that the page comes from Sept. 25, 2004: "Some closed-end funds are excessively concerned with the discount. Many CEFs have successfully reduced their discount and enhanced performance by a combination of share repurchases and/or periodic tender offers at or near NAV."
My impression is that this accurately states where the idea of periodic redemptions came from - CEF trading at too high a discount. Periodic redemptions, as contasted with no redemptions (just market trading) would tend to keep them closer to NAV, somewhat like ETFs.
A couple of decades ago, fund sponsors took a stab at offering stable value funds outside of the 401k arena. These funds came to the interval fund structure from the other end of the spectrum - trying to mimic open end funds (daily redemptions) while clamping down on trading, since stable value funds need long term money to work. Sponsors gradually converted these to open end funds (my guess is because people didn't "get" interval funds); that and tighter SEC scrutiny killed off the stable value funds.
The point is that there can be different reasons why a fund chooses to offer periodic redemptions. The boomlet in these funds now strikes me as marketing. Instead of simply starting these funds as CEFs and watching how their market discounts moved, they're being sold from the start as pseudo-open-end funds to garner a wider audience.

If you didn't want to worry about your choice for the next 2 years, there's this...a 2 year note at 1.364%:
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/treasury-yields-climb-as-stocks-oil-lure-bidders-2017-06-19

@BobC - what do you think of the new bond guy they brought on at Osterweis (Valatu?)?
Also, any insight as to what's behind their adding funds in the past couple of years when the performance of their stock / AA funds has been a bit lackluster?
Thanks.

Keep in mind that much of this is RETAIL money, investors trying to follow whatever trend is hot. I would suggest that more than a few of the funds on this list could have banner years. MALOX is ahead of the S&P 500 ytd. TGBAX is up more than double the gain of VTABX. JPMorgan Core Bond is ahead of VBTLX. At some point, investors will abandon the current "hot" funds and sectors, and move on to something else that has caught the next trend.
On the other hand, this is not to suggest that more than a few of the funds on this list are in serious trouble, if not on the brink of liquidation. How many times can a fund sustain outflows of more than 50% and survive? WASYX is a case in point. M* numbers are incorrect on it. Current assets are only about $230 million, down from about $1.5 billion just 3.5 years ago. It would appear this one is a goner, for a number of reasons. M* numbers must include privately-managed dollars as well as mutual fund assets for each fund. This being the case, the situation is even more dire for the mutual-fund only assets.

Hi Bob,
*M recently put MALOX "under review" due to the upcoming departure of one of the managers on Aug. 1. Does this departure concern you at all? Thanks.

With a 2-year time horizon I would go with Pimco Income and if you have $25,000 to invest, I would open a Brokerage Account at Vanguard to purchase institutional shares (PIMIX). There is a 34 basis point difference in the expense ratio between PONDX and PIMIX.

I would use Vanguard, but I invest for the long term. Over two years, after taxes, this would save someone about eighty bucks. Not chickenfeed, but not a king's ransom either. Depends on how much you value your time and effort. (I'll walk an extra 1/2 mile to save 25 cents on a bottle of soda - but I also benefit from the exercise - the 25c is just an added bonus.)
Increased yield: $25K x 0.34% x 2 years x 75% = $127.50 (25% tax bracket)
Increased cost: $35 to buy, $20 to sell = $55 x 85% = $46.75 (15% tax savings on reduced cap gains)
Net after tax gain by using Vanguard: $80.75

@Carefree
The below total return graphic is a busy chart with the funds you noted, but may help provide a perspective. I started the reference at about Halloween, 2007; as this was the beginning of the end of the high point for many equity sectors before the market melt of 2008. I also included VTI (a blended cap U.S. equity etf). I will also note that the growth and value side of U.S. equity has seen rotations in the past few years. Being that growth is hot one year and then it has been value's turn. I place these rotations into the big money moving around to discover overbought and oversold indicators to obtain maximum profits, regardless of other criteria, except technical indicators.
http://stockcharts.com/freecharts/perf.php?PARWX,FOCPX,NASDX,FBGRX,MSEQX,VTI&n=2424&O=011000
This graphic for the same funds is for the past 2 years:
http://stockcharts.com/freecharts/perf.php?PARWX,FOCPX,NASDX,FBGRX,MSEQX,VTI&n=505&O=011000
Regards,
Catch

My money would be (and is) with PONDX. I followed the herd into PONDX years ago when I believe bee first started talking about it here at MFO (thank you bee :) ). I was in PTIAX for a while, but because of it's heavy reliance on Munis which is reflected in it's good past performance, I decided to pull out and use only PONDX as my core bond fund. I'm just not sure Munis is the place to be going forward. I also believe there is no better bond manager than Ivascyn fwiw.
And at this point I like what I see with the PONDX management moving more into International and EM bonds. I don't think the other 2 funds you mentioned are following that money trail. The huge AUM has not been a draw on returns - so far.
PONDX - OSTIX - PTIAX would be the order of choice IMHO. But all seem to be good core holdings.

POGRX is what I'd consider to be the current standard in large growth and the primecap team is arguably the best in the business.
It's been consistent over the last 13 years and has the best fees I've ever seen outside of Vanguard. Easy to add to if you're going through Fidelity. MSEQX is solid, though. There are a few good funds in Morgan Stanley's lineup.
Otherwise, there's something to be said about just going with an index of the Nasdaq and letting that run.

I follow only one fund on your list, PARWX, and while it's been a great fund over the years, to me it's not a fund for a down market, if you have any caution on that score. I agree with what LLJB said above about that.
You might look at JENSX, which is a more all-weather fund, with a clear process and tough screens for holdings.

Hi @expatsp
Well, they are different bond types, eh?
I recall that OSTIX evolved away from a more common multi-sector bond fund into a high yield bond fund about 3 or 4 years ago. The most current report indicates 67% high yield corporate and about 22% cash or equivalents.
PONDX , since its inception was more targeted towards mortgage related holdings, but continues to evolve into areas found more desirable by management. This fund continues to use the "magic sauce" of whatever derivative tools deemed appropriate to hedge their bets. I'm personally comfortable with the apparent skills of management, at this time.
I'm not familiar with PTIAX and its past holdings or history, but find current reported majority holdings to be mortgage related, as well as taxable and non-taxable muni bonds.
http://stockcharts.com/freecharts/perf.php?PONDX,OSTIX,PTIAX&n=1708&O=011000
A 3 year view of the above 3 funds:

http://stockcharts.com/freecharts/perf.php?PONDX,OSTIX,PTIAX&n=755&O=011000
High yield compare: OSTIX and ARTFX
http://stockcharts.com/freecharts/perf.php?OSTIX,ARTFX&n=816&O=011000
If I stepped into this bond world of these 3 choices without prior knowledge, I would have to rely, in part; to the above graphic of total returns for the time period.
My money would go to PONDX .
'Course, one could also do an even split among the three.
My 2 cents worth.....
Regards,
Catch

First of all, I'd think long and hard about how much you want to put in large growth at this point. The run has been magnificent and maybe it will continue for a while, but at some point it's going to end. It probably won't end nicely. For that reason, if I was making this decision for myself I would either dollar cost average making smaller investments now and larger ones once the market has corrected a decent amount or I would simply wait for a good correction so I don't risk spending years of retirement trying to catch up with where I started.
I don't know a whole lot about the funds you listed although NASDX is pretty straight forward. I'd at least do a little research on POGRX and AKREX. Primecap has an incredible record with it's various funds and this one is still open. Akre is also well-liked here although he hasn't been talked about much recently. Both have historically done better on a risk-adjusted basis than the average large growth fund, and M* says Akre incurs below average risk. Depending on how comfortable you are with volatility that might matter.

This is really a follow up on puddnhead's thread, for money I'll probably need not in 6 months but in 2 years. I'd like to be in bonds since I'm overweight equities already.
These bond funds, OSTIX, PONDX, PTIAX all seem great, but I'm leaning toward OSTIX because...
a) lower AUM than PONDX
b) longer track record (including Great Recession) than PTIAX.
Flaws in my logic? Other suggestions? My account is with Schwab, where these funds are all NTF. I don't have the 100K minimum here for institutional share classes.

The short, medium, long designations are applied to the remaining term on the bond. So if it was a 30 year bond and is now in year 28, there are two years to go. It will have the same interest rate (to within some tiny margin of error) as a new two year bond would have and will be considered a short term bond. The past doesn't matter; the price you pay today is the present value of the future revenue stream.

Article looks like a terrific waste of words. That's because is no "right" answer. Over the past 20 years, 5 just like PRWCX would have suited me just fine. Whereas only 1 like HSGFX would have sickened me. If you can foresee the future, than stick with the one that you know will appreciate the most over time-frame you're looking at. Most of us can't see the future. It's likely some of our holdings will do well and others lag. Nature of the beast.
I try to employ GWB's quotable "strategery" in assembling various funds. :) At more than about 15, my mind starts to go blank and the various elements begin to lose meaning. Also, above that number individual holdings cease to have a serious impact on performance. So I'm comfortable with around 15 - plus maybe a couple cash-like holdings. To each his own.
One thing to think about - if you tend to trade often, having a good GNMA (or Blue Chip or EM) fund at a couple different houses may help keep you from running afoul of one or the other's frequent trading regs.

Oddly, this same article and admonition was linked over 2 years ago:
http://www.mutualfundobserver.com/discuss/discussion/19197/how-many-mutual-funds-should-you-have-in-your-investment-portfolio/p1

Interesting comments in the thread...it looks like Old_Skeet was feeling the wrath ;-) Sure sounds familiar !

Oddly, this same article and admonition was linked over 2 years ago:
http://www.mutualfundobserver.com/discuss/discussion/19197/how-many-mutual-funds-should-you-have-in-your-investment-portfolio/p1

Hi Guys,
Note the huge differences in estimated percentage saving requirements from even the experts quoted in the Forbes reference that Davidrmoran provided. Those estimates reflect the uncertainties embedded in any and all such projections. Making any projection is extremely hazardous duty.
That's precisely why Monte Carlo codes are so useful. Thousands and thousands of individual scenarios can be quickly examined for any number of alternate assumptions. Since these assumptions are somewhat arbitrary, no definitive answer is ever really possible. What is generated is a feeling for the retirement survival sensitivity to the various postulates. Some will greatly impact survival rates; others will only weakly influence outcomes. That's good to know.
A flexible Monte Carlo code allows a user to explore uncertainties easily and quickly. The Monte Carlo code that I referenced earlier offers much flexibility with its numerous input options in terms of drawdown schedules and potential income returns based on a portfolio's asset allocations. All these are easily changed.
No simple rule of thumb reliably exists for drawdowns. The problem has far too many variables and return uncertainties that are timeframe and user specific.
I again encourage those interested in exploring retirement withdrawal rates and survival odds to consider using a Monte Carlo tool. You'll know much more after that experience.
In my case, I decided that a 95 % portfolio survival probability would be acceptable for a slightly conservative returns likelihood based on historical market records. I achieved my target goal after a few simulation what-ifs. Further Monte Carlo simulations provided me even more comfort when I discovered that rather modest reductions in my drawdowns after two negative return years would greatly improve my portfolio survival odds. It's always good to be flexible.
Best Wishes

"we started at 25, and have obviously benefited from perhaps the greatest bull market we will see in our lifetimes."
Might well be. It's already the second longest (in case you measure greatness by age), and as of March is closing in on the second highest gain. Likely even greater in real terms since we've had low inflation for many years (though I haven't computed real gains).
Graphic: Post WWII bull markets, duration and gain
http://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/7HDT2/2/
You'll find other sources that state the bull markets ran longer (see graphic below), but they tend to ignore "minor" intervening blips like the 19.90% S&P 500 drop from July to October 1990, or the Aug 1956 to Nov 1957 22% drop.

Using Monte Carlo, at least the tools that you've been referred to, would seem to ignore this not insignificant fact that we're in nearly uncharted territory. In addition to disregarding the run up in equities, they would also seem to discount the the 35 year bull market in bonds. A multi-decade bond run is not a singular event, but unique when one considers how fast/far bond prices have risen, or alternatively how much rates have fallen:
The tools don't address your question because they don't seem to allow for the setting of preconditions; verily they are built on the premise that performance in one time period is independent of what came before.
Even if they did incorporate preconditions, there doesn't seem to be sufficient historical data to provide meaningful input for current conditions. The preceding eight years have been part of the same bull market. That's only happened twice before: 1998 when the 1990-2000 bull also hit the eight year mark, and 1999 when it hit its 9th birthday.
Monte Carlo tools strike me as better suited to playing with hypothetical long range outcomes than ascertaining real world (context sensitive) possibilities.
As to the question at hand, your guess is as good as mine. If you're looking long term, the rule of thumb is that there's no better time than now to invest, though in bonds I'd be more conservative. Best case for principal protection is that rates don't rise (currently 2.16% 10 year), and the risk isn't worth the 80 basis points over cash. Worst case, rates rise and you lose principal.
Personally, I've never been fond of real estate as an investment. Historic returns have been lower than for US equities, though real estate could help meet your objective of diversification.

For many years, I've owned PONDX as well as TGINX. The latter is the fund/firm where Luz Padilla established her track record before migrating to Double Line. TGINX throws off a nice divi, and provides a nice return albeit a bit lumpy which appears to be somewhat common. There is indeed a place for an EM bond...for its own performance or as an EM stock proxy as many would suggest. I am a firm believer in spreading my bets, particularly in the bond space.