They have to be available NTF somewhere before I would consider. Launch timing might be perfect though, given so much news about people overweighting emerging markets. Ted's warning not withstanding, some funds have the luck of blasting right out of the gate. Nothing wrong in buying and selling in 3 years.

After a couple of years I finally gave up on WAFMX.

To explain, I owned APPLX for a year or two in its early days when it was mainly an all-cap U.S. value fund, liked it a lot, and thought it might be a keeper then (thus the "still" in the earlier post), but imho, it really fell apart when they added Au as a permanent fixture and went international, which looked to me at the time to be beyond their sphere of competence. Hadn't checked it for a while, but now I see it's returned less than 1% annual for 3y, and the port looks pretty similar to what it was when the performance tanked a few years ago, so looks to me they haven't done much right lately, either.
So, I'm just not seeing much there to bank on going forward, but wondered if you might have some insight that's different from the view from this house.

VF, I'm curious what you still see in APPLX.

Not sure I understand your question entirely - what do you still see...? My decisions to own funds are not always performance based. If so, I would have sold it. I'm curious why you asked me about APPLX and not (say) FAIRX or CGMFX. I am open to hearing your opinion on any of the funds I mentioned above as to why I should sell. Pretty much all of them have stunk from a relative performance perspective.
Getting back to APPLX gold bets have it underperforming till a couple of years back, but it seems to have come around. I can buy gold or I can buy funds who use gold as a hedge - HSTRX, FEVAX, APPLX.

1. Don't know if it's an SEC requirement, but Have yet to read a recent mutual fund prospectus that does't show returns year-by-year dating back a full decade. When considering a new fund, that's one of the first things I look at. The '07-'08 global market debacle did us one service. It painted vividly how funds than in existence held up during the downturn. As Lewis rightly explains, each bear market is different. We need to be careful in making projections based on past performance. But I ike to look at the '07-'09 history.
2. For a newer fund like DSENX that record doesn't exist. I'm not sure it could be "mirrored" by looking at various asset classes at the time, since its performance appears highly dependent on manager execution.
3. I have purchased new funds for which '07-09 records weren't in existence. IMHO this requires a higher degree of confidence in management (based on track record) and an even better understanding of the fund's investment approach than might otherwise be needed. One such fund is RPGAX which I've owned almost since inception in 2013.
On the other hand, concerned about equity valuations and a narrowing spread between high quality and junk bonds, I recently sold OPPEX (Oppenheimer Capital Income). This is a normally low volatility fund which attempts to hedge market risk (equity and bond) in various ways. It's provided a smooth ride over the year I've owned it. However, in looking back at '07-'08, this otherwise low volatility income fund managed to shed 40% over 2 years (nearly 38% in '08). I'd started with a small commitment to the fund. As the amount grew (and markets evolved) I decided that the risk-reward profile wasn't suitable for my needs.
FWIW

Hi Guys,
Perma-Bears and Perma-Bulls have always existed especially if minor exceptions are allowed in the definition of these groups.
Even historic Perma-Bears such as Joe Granville and Howard Ruff occasionally admitted a short positive market perspective. Today, Nourial Roubini, Doctor Doom, practices that discipline. Over any timeframe that extends beyond 10 years, their negative perspectives haven't survived the real world test. That's why we invest in the stock market.
VintageFreak asked if we could identify any Perma-Bulls. Again, using a loosened definition of Perma-Bulls that permits infrequent exceptions, I suggest the buy-and.-hold advocates might be included in that grouping. Guys like John Bogle would be good candidates for that sobriquet. The buy-and-hold it clan have a host of advocates in the academic community.
Paul Merriman summarizes much of their buy and forget it investment strategy. Here is a Link to one of his many papers that address this simple strategy:
http://paulmerriman.com/ultimate-buy-hold-strategy-2016/
Some very illuminating comments have been contributed to this topic. Thank you all.
Best Wishes

What's your advice when it comes to selecting mutual funds that are managed using sub-advisor?
A recent article from FA (Financial Advisor) mentions,

...many institutions and financial advisors favor sub-advised funds because they can hire the best managers and not rely on in-house staff. Currently 13% of mutual funds are managed by outside advisors. And assets in sub-advised funds have increase 25% to $755 billion since 2004. By contrast, assets of all mutual funds are up about 15%, or $453 billion, over the same period.
-(The) largest players in the sub-advisory marketplace include Wellington Asset Management, Alliance Bernstein, PIMCO and Prime Cap. But there are a number of smaller shops with strong track records.
-There often is turnover with investment company sub-advisors.
- The Masters' Mutual Funds group of four funds has outperformed the category average every year from 2002 through July 2006. Each fund has several highly regarded sub-advisors from other mutual fund shops. The Masters' Select Equity Fund, a large-cap blend fund, invests in the best picks of stellar managers, such as Bill Miller of Legg Mason, Chris Davis of Davis Select Advisors and Mason Hawkins of Southeastern Asset Management. The fund has outperformed the S&P 500 over the five years ending in July 2006.

Article:
fa-mag.com/news/sub-advisors-are-in-the-house-1503.html

Columbia Strategic Income is one of these funds that has a share class for every possible selling opportunity, 10 classes that I count. I put NO store in where it ranks in the Non-Traditional Bond category, since that is a garbage bin created to stick funds that don't fit some company's box. It has actually raised its expense ratio over the years (COSIX was 0.95% in 2008, now at 1.02%, which is very odd). And turnover went from 41% to 168% now. It is really a multi-sector fund, similar to TSIIX, PONDX, and even LSBDX). And it looks pretty weak compared to PONDX.
We would advocate a broad mix of bonds, with an emphasis on short durations and maturities, and concentrate on downside risk. As most of you know, I really like OSTIX and would consider it a core holding for almost every client. Also like PONDX, THIIX, and TGBAX. Perhaps a bit of FFRHX and maybe a pinch of KIFYX, and you have a very diversified mix of fixed-income offerings.

Several differences between OAKIX and FMIJX.
1. OAKIX has suffered outflows and may have reopened in order not to sell stocks to cover.
2. FMI management seems to close funds much sooner that Oakmark. FMI large cap closed years ago with only a few billion. They've since reopened but they appear to close down funds with a lot less AUM.
Just my opinion

You are of course correct. But that's difference between the fund management and stewardship and not the portfolio :-)

Several differences between OAKIX and FMIJX.
1. OAKIX has suffered outflows and may have reopened in order not to sell stocks to cover.
2. FMI management seems to close funds much sooner that Oakmark. FMI large cap closed years ago with only a few billion. They've since reopened but they appear to close down funds with a lot less AUM.
Just my opinion

What I like about DSENX is that its stock selection is based on mathematical model instead of human selection subject to emotions and other drawbacks. The model for CAPE index was back tested for at least 15 years and it shows very good results comparing to SP500.
If I could find another mutual fund or ETF based on math. model with similar consistency and outperformance of benchmark for at least 10 years I would be happy to jump in.

Recent Article (3/21/2017)
Big Oil muscling in on Shale:
From Article:

If the big boys are successful, they’ll scramble the U.S. energy business, boost American oil production, keep prices low, and steal influence from big producers, such as Saudi Arabia. And even with their enviable balance sheets, the majors have been as relentless in transforming shale drilling into a more economical operation as the pioneering wildcatters before them.
and,
At Bongo 76-43, Shell is drilling five wells in a single pad for the first time, each about 20 feet apart. That saves money otherwise spent moving rigs from site to site. Shell said it’s now able to drill 16 wells with a single rig every year, up from six in 2013.
With multiple wells on the same pad, a single fracking crew can work several weeks consecutively without having to travel from one pad to other. At Bongo 76-43, Shell is using three times more sand and fluids to break up the shale, a process called fracking, than it did four years ago. The company said it spends about $5.5 million per well today in the Permian, down nearly 60 percent from 2013.

Article Link:
https://bloomberg.com/news/features/2017-03-21/big-oil-s-plan-to-buy-into-the-shale-boom

I'm not agreeing that these funds are creating a conflict of interest. M* has been selling advice for years. If that didn't bother you, neither should this.
M* is foremost a data collection service. You want to know how a fund performed today, or how much it costs, or what's in its filings, M* has that data. It aggregates that data within fund and across fund.
Within fund - what's its YTD, 1 year, 3 year performance. How does that look graphically. Across funds - show me the same data side by side for two funds, for three funds.
Then it takes this data and applies a small amount of judgment, by creating categories and classifying the funds. This is a thankless task; it's virtually impossible to build a classification system for anything without avoiding corner cases. Here, some funds that don't fit neatly into on category or another.
But they do a decent job, and they are not without a competitor. If you don't like the way M* has classified a fund, you can cross check with Lipper. Now S&P (the last time I looked) takes an entirely different approach. It doesn't try to describe what a fund holds, it tries to describe how a fund behaves. So you could have a large cap value fund being classified as small cap blend, simply because it's been moving that way. Different approach, one I'm not fond of, but certainly a form of competition as well.
The star ratings are purely mechanical based on these classifications. As far as subjective ratings are concerned, M* has competition. Go read Zacks. Then you can take another look at M* and consider who is really looking into funds diligently.
These are not funds of funds. Reread what I wrote - M* is hiring the managers, not buying the funds.

couldn't but notice M* rating comment "single person running fund" and "key person risk". Wonder if they apply the same yardstick to other funds. NOT!

I know. I'm sure they don't say the same thing about Giroux with PRWCX, or with PTRAX when Bill Gross was the sole manager all those years.

In last month's Elevator Talk, Paul allows that he'll pursue for SFVLX some investments that are riskier than what would be appropriate in SFGIX.
If you want to limit downside, consider a fund that hedges its equity exposure. There are three possible hedges: a hybrid fund that holds bonds (often flagged "Total" or "Multi-asset"), a fund that's willing to hold a lot of cash, or a fund with a formal hedging policy. I screened for open, retail funds with the lowest downside deviation over the past five years. Here are 14 of the 15 "best" (the other was an institutional fund). Ten of the 14 have peer-beating returns over that period. Remember: these aren't recommendations, these are just a set of funds that meets one of your criteria that you might want to learn a bit more about.
David
GuideMark Emerging Markets GMLVX - 98% equity exposure
Capital Group Emerging Markets Total Opportunities ETOPX - 45% equity
Deutsche X-trackers MSCI Emerging Markets Hedged Equity ETF DBEM - hedged equity
Harding Loevner Frontier Emerging Markets HLFMX -95%
ICON Emerging Markets Fund ICARX - 88%
New World Fund NEWFX - 84%
Amana Developing World AMDWX - 87%
AB Emerging Markets Multi-Asset ABYEX - 47%
Fidelity Total Emerging Markets FTEMX - 63%, a Great Owl
Lazard Emerging Markets Multi Asset EMMIX -47%
Baron Emerging Markets BEXIX - 92%
Calamos Evolving World Growth CNWIX -80%
Seafarer Overseas Growth and Income Fund SIGIX - 90%, a Great Owl
iShares Edge MSCI Min Vol Emerging Markets ETF EEMV - hedged equity

FYI: Measures of stock valuation have been flashing caution for months. Humans are finally starting to take notice.
Fund managers now say stocks are the most overvalued they have been in nearly 20 years, according to a survey done last week by Bank of America Merrill Lynch.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-03-21/record-number-of-fund-managers-say-u-s-equities-are-overvalued

@MFO Members: It's been about 20 years since I first linked Max Gunther's Zurich Axioms to the FundAlarm Discussion Board. One of the major problems I see on the MFO Discuaaion Board is that many members don't take enough risk. Here's what Max Gunther had to say about risk. " Put your money at risk. Don’t be afraid of getting hurt a little. The degree of risk you will usually be dealing with is not hair-raisingly high. By being willing to face it, you give yourself the only realistic chance you have of rising above the great unrich."

The biggest risk is not taking risk. I agree. The problem is easy to convince someone who started investing in 1990, not 1999. Blaming the investor is the easiest thing to do.
Trading is not always speculation. And it is not "market timing". Ask those who got out of the market the last 2 times it went down 50%. Don't just say they never got back in soon again. They slept well and someone has to produce proof they are worse off today. And until the next 50% correction.
"If you had invested $X in year Y...." is all available in hindsight. In the real world things work differently. When I'm 80 (nah, I don't think I'll live that long, I couldn't afford it, but dream with me a bit...) and I don't have responsibilities, sure I'll go to Vegas.
PS - by the way I've never been to Vegas. I know, I suck.

I like your approach @Ted and I believe you are correct in your assessment of risk-averse MFOers. Your three top fund holdings revealed in a recent thread show that you walk the walk. For my part, I put a slice of my active portfolio into PTIAX for diversity's sake, but you won't see me agonizing over or discussing bond durations or other arcane metrics fixed income investors revel in. According to my age, I should have 25% equity exposure, but it's closer to 75% because I believe I'll be around for 20 more years, a long-term target. I realize what the risk is.
A few years ago my TIAA advisor showed me a graph depicting a line going straight up from 2000 to 2014. It represented the performance of TIAA's fixed income portfolio returning 5% per annum. Stocks came nowhere near that level of performance. I felt kind of dumb until I realized that no one could have told me in 2000 to put everything into bonds and I now doubt many TIAA investors achieved that extraordinary performance. I've done fine in equities despite periods of lagging performance and I've enjoyed the ride. 2008 was a sickening time, but it didn't last forever and it provided a great time to put more money into stocks.

@MFO Members: It's been about 20 years since I first linked Max Gunther's Zurich Axioms to the FundAlarm Discussion Board. One of the major problems I see on the MFO Discuaaion Board is that many members don't take enough risk. Here's what Max Gunther had to say about risk. " Put your money at risk. Don’t be afraid of getting hurt a little. The degree of risk you will usually be dealing with is not hair-raisingly high. By being willing to face it, you give yourself the only realistic chance you have of rising above the great unrich."

I'm getting exposure to this sector with PRMTX. Rolling averages for all time increments over the last fifteen years are all rolling positive.