@catch, it's a great observation that I have a few additional thoughts about having been a Patriots fan since the '70s and more recently a fan of Doubleline's Enhanced CAPE fund thanks to all the discussions here.
Both sports, especially football with so many guys playing during a game, and investments, with tens or hundreds of investments, are very complicated systems. The goal, I think, is to put pieces together that work extremely well TOGETHER rather than assembling a collection of 'star' performers that don't work as well together. Belichick has a system and he seems to be extremely good at taking lots of different players over the years and getting them to work together. Quite a few of these players aren't individual stars but he gets so much out of how he gets them to work together that they've been perennial contenders for many years. And, which I think is very important, he's very quick to part with anybody who causes or might cause disruption to the system because the value he gets out of cohesion is far greater than what he could ever get out of an individual star.
I think the same is probably true for fund managers but they have even more pieces to manage and they don't have the ability to 'teach' anything to their investments to get them to perform 'better' in their system. They do get it right sometimes, occasionally for long periods of time and I would suggest it's not easy to guess when they're going to lose it as Bill Miller did. In the case of the Doubleline funds, most of the performance is rules based and there's no reason to think a set of rules can't work extremely well for some period of time too. The bonds play an important role too and it seems both the math and the bonds have been working very well together since inception. Figuring out if and/or when the math won't work as well isn't easy but it's probably the key to knowing when it's time to move on.
In another more active example, the Primecap guys have had a team approach to their funds forever and the performance speaks for itself. Since the members of the team manage their pieces with a high degree of autonomy, at least according to what I've been able to read, it has to mean they've put team members together and taught them a system that has worked extremely well together for a very long time. As the team turns over, as it has some through the years, finding new team members who can employ the system and who mesh well with the other team members is probably the biggest source of their success. Since POAGX is my biggest single investment I'm hoping that continues for a long time.

The Beatles have already established the phrase of "Magical Mystery Tour", but the words appropriately describe some personal investing styles and active managed funds, IMHO.
Be it musical groups, sports teams, corporations, small private companies or your other choices; the stars do align from cosmic forces, a function of cyclical mathematics or some other energy that one may choose to attempt to define; or perhaps, just by chance; circumstances find certain people and events to discover one another and bind into a positive and overwhelming presence of intellect that is difficult for 99.99% of the world population to comprehend.
I suspect most folks here have and can define, to a point; a recollection of a sports team or musical group that "just had that superior edge", at least for a given time frame. Although I'm not a big time sports fan and don't fly U of Michigan or Michigan State flags at the house, I do pay attention. Superior head coaches and the selected staffs help build a successful program which results in attracting superior athletes to the sports team. These periods may run for many years and then get "clunked" for any number of reasons. The duration of success for many collegiate teams today is highly impacted by the money draw into professional sports, that finds superior college team players exiting after two years. These magic combinations of managers, staff and players may also be found in professional team sports. One must also consider the other side of the coin into the world of "can't get it right" for long time frames. The Detroit Lions football team comes to my mind for such a circumstance, and especially relative to the New England Patriots, eh?.
Well, anyway; you get the gist of my thinking, yes?; as related to active managed mutual funds.
Are these the circumstances behind the superior performance of DSEEX DSENX PIMIX PONDX (both classes noted for the purpose of one's purchase limits)?
Will this superior performance continue for 1, 2, 3, 5 or 10 more years? Your guess is as good as mine, I imagine.
Is the risk involved with the magic sauce formula of these funds over and above some threshold of personal investment risk tolerance? Only the individual investor can answer this question, yes? But, one can not argue against the skill of the use of the "magic sauce" by management, at this time, correct?, based upon performance.
We're investors and have exposure to many forms of investment risk beyond our control and vision. Tis the old adage of "get out of the kitchen, if you can't stand the heat".
Six month, after inception, slide report DSEEX / DSENX . You may find this document of interest, although the subject matter has been discussed here previously.
http://www.valuewalk.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/5-20-2014-CAPE-webcast-slides-Valuation-Its-All-Relative-mailing.pdf
Alright, the end of the early morning jabber from this house; and moving on to another cup of coffee before starting chores for this day.
Take care,
Catch

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

Aw, shucks..... ;)

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