Gold has been in a horrendous bear market from 2011 to 2015, and all that selling is behind us. So I don’t think there is a lot of selling pressure, and I think the downside risk is very minimal because we’ve been through that bear market.
Huh? Forget Secretary of Education, I want this guys job. And also the job of the Barron's interviewer. Why isn't second question WTF something going down suddenly will go up?
Oh wait...this is why...part 2 of the answer convenient before immediately going into discussing the holdings.

Secondly, I think things are changing that favor gold. We are seeing elevated levels of geopolitical risk, a lot of uncertainty around the Trump presidency, and more recently there are early worries of inflationary pressures. ... blah, blah, blah...
Inflationary pressures. So Gold will return how much over next 5 years?
In the next year or two, we are going to be faced with an economic downturn and probably a general stock market downturn that will bring out a lot of the warts in the financial system—and that could propel gold much higher.
We have a rising rate environment which should put a floor under the dollar. How's that for ANALysis. Then WTF should Gold skyrocket?
Seriously, how do I find period of sustained downturn against how Gold did well AND also when Interest Rates are rising?

Not to belabor the point, but here’s what Ted quoted in his OP:
“FYI: t’s often tempting for mutual fund investors to buy whatever has been doing well recently and to avoid funds that have lost money or lagged the market. Almost inevitably, funds that go on a hot streak attract lots of new assets, while investors tend to flee from funds going through a slump.”
I got the idea from @Ted’s blurb that he sees a contrarian fund as one that has been experiencing a slump - likely a prolonged one. It would seem to strain credulity to think a fund manager could be turning out 10% annual returns over a full decade while most investors were avoiding his fund or avoiding the same investments he holds. Also, why would investors avoid a fund with that fine a record? It’s better than PRWCX generated over the last decade (9.14%) And folks have been clamoring for ways to get into that one - despite Price’s having shut the door to new investors years ago.
@MikeM, Thanks for the response. The gold fund I cited wasn’t a good example. Best I could offer up. The last real contrarian fund I owned was HSGFX. We both know how that one worked out. Yes - I’m a certified contrarian. :)
@slick, Thanks for the thoughtful response. Good points - although I think MikeM nailed it pretty well with the term “deep value.” Sounds like a great manager and fund. Hope you continue to prosper from it.

@hank,
Thanks for the question.
I hope all is well with you and your family.
Years back before I developed my market barometer and equity weighting matrix system I cut my stock allocation by about 5% during the summer months. And, come fall I'd overweight it. Today, I let the matrix be my guide (along with a few other indicators) in setting my equity allocation weighting within my portfolio.
I'll explain.
Currently, my equity weighting is around 52% to 53% of my portfolio with the high range being 60% and the low range being 40%. Generally, I move between these percentages (45% to 55%). The movement of the barometer reading drives the equity weighting matrix's suggested portfolio's equity allocation. Should stocks go soft during the summer I look for the barometer to key on this softness thus raising the suggested equity allocation in the matrix. As of now, I'm not reducing my equity allocation because it is already inline with what the matrix is calling for. It is indeed possible I will add to my equity allocation later in the summer should softness in stocks develop.
Remember, the three main feeds of the barometer are an earnings feed, a breadth feed, and a technical score feed. Although I will not be posting weekly barometer readings during the summer months should market conditions warrant I'll make a special post plus doing summer monthly postings.
Thanks again for the question.
Old_Skeet

I'm thinking stocks may start to slide next as we move into summer. Seems, a seasonal shift might be coming where stocks go soft during the summer months.

@Old_Skeet,
Speaking of “seasonal” - Are you still following the “Sell in May” mantra as, if memory serves, you have normally done in past years?
Thanks.

My submission as a contrarian fund fund that I own would be OPGSX because it’s off 7.5% YTD and has lost an average of 5.5% over 10 years. Clearly the thing it invests in (gold) has been out of favor with investors over the past decade and continues to be.

@Hank, YOU would be contrarian to buy a PM fund, not the fund itself. A contrarian fund I believe means the manger buys out of favor stocks - buy low. Not sure that is much different to a 'deep value' fund/manager. Just terms that identify the managers style I think.

Point of Order here ...
Wouldn’t a contrarian fund be something that hasn’t done well in recent years? I observe one mentioned in the thread as being contrarian that pulled a solid 10% over the past year and also 10% annually over the past decade. I hate to sound contrarian, but that one sounds more like an agreeable fund to me than a contrarian one. Maybe I just don’t understand contrarian.
Let’s see ... Located a definition in Collins Dictionary ... “A person who typically acts or thinks in a way contrary to popular or accepted opinion; specif., an investor who seeks to make a profit by acting in opposition to majority opinion, prevailing wisdom, etc., as by buying a company's stock when it is out of favor with the majority of investors”. https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us/dictionary/english/contrarian
My submission as a contrarian fund fund that I own would be OPGSX because it’s off 7.5% YTD and has lost an average of 5.5% over 10 years. Clearly the thing it invests in (gold) has been out of favor with investors over the past decade and continues to be.
Just saying ...

Would be good to know median pay increase for worker. Yours truly's salary in most recent job over 7 years is a grandtotal of 5.5%. So you can figure how much it is per year compared to the 8.5% per year for CEOs.
Sometimes I wonder why workers don't all get fired. I mean why keep them around? Only to rub it in? What is more sadistic?

Not sure about the if/what/why of the "data feeds". As far as usable website is concerned this is the problem between "Computer Science" and "Information Technology". The former is based on facts and logic, while the latter is almost entirely based on horseshit.
Companies whose primary business is not IT are trolled by IT providers who always want to tell you to revamp your IT software and hardware infrastructure because it is not "modern" or "cloud ready" or whatever the F is the flavor of the day. I thought "Web 2.0" was dead but then M* has finally woken up to it. I guess they were just waiting for their executives to be wined and dined by software companies and shown a good time in Vegas - Standard Operating Procedure - before it was agreed they needed to make changes to their website. You see a great jazzy website means you can then value yourself as a "tech" company, regardless of what your business is.
Basically it IT industry is creating something, so now everyone has to use it. What you did 3 years back is already out of date. You see you have to be "competitive" so you have to keep spending. And oh by the way, let us tell you a secret - since we know we will convince you to move to the next version of the software soon enough, we never have to get anything right, because we will be in a perpetual cycle of upgrades to the software. And you will also be doing "Agile" development with "Devops". PERMANENTLY!
Anyone still remember Scottrade website? The simplicity of it? The fact that it hardly changed over 20 years? Because it did not really need too? If the new M* website was toilet paper, I still wouldn't use it.

@msf makes some good points. Playing the bond market isn’t my game. But a case can me made for going shorter duration for those who want to try to play the markets.
Dodge and Cox has been saying for several years that bonds didn’t look attractive (remember rates have risen since than). It takes just a bit of reading between the lines in their past several reports for DODIX and DODBX to discern that they felt at the time that equities were more attractively priced longer-term than bonds. And they have followed their own advice by overweighting equities relative to bonds in their balanced fund (DODBX).
That being said: While I’m glad they viewed the extremely low interest rates of recent years with a healthy dose of skepticism, I’m also fairly confident they’ll ride out the storm as rates turn up just fine. So, if you are a long term investor and liked the fund earlier, I see no reason to bail now.
Footnote - I did back off slightly from my holdings in DODIX over the past year anticipating the spike in rates. Moved the $$ to Price’s ultra-short. However, I use DODIX as a proxy for cash. So my use of the fund is a bit different from that of most DODIX investors.

DODIX and MWTSX. Needless to say, they are underperforming so far this year.

You may need to say, because DODIX is at the 14th percentile so far this year, MTWSX is at the 42nd percentile. They have outperformed AGG (a proxy for the domestic investment grade bond market) by
0.93% and 0.26% respectively YTD.
These funds don't just invest in short term bonds, but across the maturity/duration spectrum, and also delve a little into junk (around 6% or so currently). You're right that generally to have generated significant positive returns YTD, a bond fund must have been short term (or shorter), or taken on more credit risk.
Normally, I'd say that the extra yield offered by a longer (read intermediate term) fund has a good chance of compensating for greater losses than a short term fund would experience due to rising interest rates. But currently the yield curve is fairly flat - 2 year treasuries yield 2.58%, 10 years 3.08%, and 30 years barely any more at 3.20%.
https://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/data-chart-center/interest-rates/Pages/TextView.aspx?data=yield
An intermediate bond fund with, say a 5 year duration would lose 2.5% if there are a couple more (1/4%) rate hikes this year - that should pretty much eat up its SEC yield for the year. So for now (read: the next 2-3 rate hikes or the rest of the year), a short/ultra short term bond fund might be the better choice.
There is another alternative that meets your requirements. Buy 6 month treasuries - they currently yield over 2%, and after six months, if interest rates rise as expected, you can buy higher yielding treasuries or buy a bond fund at that time.
Regarding PONAX:
1) It's an excellent fund at what it does
2) Its performance is just about the same as DODIX YTD
3) While derivatives don't spook me, I am concerned that I can't explain its duration. On PIMCO's page for the fund, the duration for each sector of the fund is listed as under 3 years, yet it says that the effective duration for the fund as a whole is 4.13 years. Which is why I don't know how it is computing its numbers (i.e. I don't understand how its portfolio is acting as a whole, to lengthen its effective duration beyond that of all of its components).
https://www.pimco.com/en-us/investments/mutual-funds/income-fund/a
4) The fund is sold without a transaction fee and load-waived at Fidelity and elsewhere.
https://fundresearch.fidelity.com/mutual-funds/summary/72201F474

By Tom Madell
Although past performance cannot tell you everything you should know about a given fund, it is certainly a guideline looked at by most investors to help decide on the merits a fund. Of course, index funds, especially in recent years, have been some of the best performing funds around. But for those willing to hold some managed funds, it is important to consider, among other factors, not only past performance per se, but whether any strong performance was achieved by the now present manager, not one who is no longer at the helm.

Yes, the company I work for does provide the Fidelity Brokerage service and there isn't an additional fee.
I just transferred my other rollover IRA's from previous 401's over to Fidelity so I will have all funds centrally located and have access to more options.
About to turn 66 but will probably work a few more years as I enjoy the job and people.
Sure, I'd like to make more than 2% but I want to minimize risk. Of course, if you know of a way to get higher returns with low risk, I am all ears:)

Not pushing Treasuries here (I rarely use them), but they're about as easy to deal with as CDs through a brokerage. Unlike any other type of bond, Treasuries are also just as simple as CDs. Buy a 2 year CD, you get the promised yield for two years, and then you can cash out or let it roll over.
With Fidelity at least (where I've bought T-bills), you've got the same choice - set it up to renew (at then current rates) automatically, or take the cash and run.
CDs and Treasuries - both guaranteed by the federal government (though Treasuries have the more solid guarantee, since they're backed by the full faith and credit of the US).

Love the board and the discussions.
Never owned a T-bond direct. Intriguing thought. Is it as easy as it sounds? Just go to the U.S. Treasury site and pay via checking account withdrawal? Minimums appear low. Would $1,000 work? How about using your Visa card for convenience? (Suspect your card issuer might not allow it).
The board does a good job reflecting investor sentiment - often right on the mark. The transition to fixed income types over past 10 years is interesting. As rates fell following the ‘07 - ‘09 market turmoil and Fed easing folks gravitated to longer term bonds which rose in value. As that play subsided they transitioned to high yield bonds which had some great years. Now, with rates on the rise, they’re looking at 2-year Treasuries.
I’m not as tuned in to the trends or willing to move money around as others. However, I have backed off from DODIX slightly over the past year, but still own (and like) it. Smart people there. And after the money market “reforms” a few years back (which torpedoed yields) I moved to Price’s ultra-short. Slightly better return than mm funds with very little duration risk.
Where next? I wouldn’t be surprised to see money market or ultra-shorts become hot items in a year or so if rates continue higher. Who knows? Re RPHYX - never owned it. I’m sure it has a place in some portfolios. The thing with me is I look at the overall risk and volatility in my mix. So adding a little more risk in one area might mean cutting back in another risky area. As long as the overall risk level is appropriate for the individual, any number of combinations might work.

Hi Guys,
I loved the RPHYX pick a few years ago as it was a very low risk to get upper 2% yield in a zero interest world.
However, took the position down 90% about 2 yrs ago as interest rates have steadily risen. NAV has been low mids 9.7s forever (since oct 15)
We saw that Cohanzick is an average junk bond manager when junk fell a couple of yrs ago (RSIVX which was supposedly to be slightly more risk was shown to actually be really an average junk bond fund).
When 1 yr Treasury is over 2% and a 2 yr CD is 2.8......this fund should be doing 4-5% to have a raison detre...........they "promised" 250-300 over treasuries which they aint doing.
I understood their biz model when they were doing purchases of shortterm junk that was about to be refinanced........but that time is ovah.
Do you guys think there is any point to having any money in RPHYX now?

For years the drug industry has spent millions lobbying Washington to have thing their way. Wish I am more optimistic, but I am not. It will take more tha an act of God to change that.

I'm not clear on what your point is here.
Normally small funds have higher ERs, but often the management company (not the manager him/herself) takes a hit by waiving fees to attract assets. ISTM that's a sign of support by the company for the fund.
ARTZX has waived some management fees. Absent those waivers, the total ER would have been 2.20% (and 2.25% (sic) for institutional shares). With that waiver, the total ER was 1.50%. Very recently (Feb 21, 2018), Artisan waived even more fees, reducing the ER to 1.35% (and 1.20% for institutional shares).
ARTZX has underpeformed its peers over its lifetime.. ARTYX has outperformed its peers over its lifetime. While APHEX (the institutional, older class of ARTZX) tracked its peer group very closely for its first five years (through May 2011), it greatly underperformed between June 2011 and June 2015 when ARTZX was created. THDAX was flying high during that period.
Certainly it shows discriminating taste to hire more successful managers to run new funds. Other than that, what discrimination are you referring to?

I have mentioned this a few times. I own neither funds. I have/had been a big fan and long term holder of Artisan funds. Over the past few years, I've been a net seller. When a company goes public, it affects the culture. TRP might be the exception. It used to be when Artisan opened new fund, I would just buy with the expectation to hold forever. Not any more.
I have long lamented ARTZX not getting any love from investors. Forget that, not even from within Artisan. I wonder why the woman manager of ARTZX does not quit. Artisan decides to hire an high flying manager from Thornburg who mostly made his name in the good times and put him at helm of new fund ARTYX.
Net assets of ARTZX vs ARTYX : 62.4MM vs 2.4B
Expense Ratio of ARTZX vs ARTYX : 1.35 vs 1.4
WTF???
Chart of ARTZX, ARTYX, VEIEX, since date of inception of ARTYX.

I want ARTZX manager to sue Artisan for discrimination.

THOPX seems to be an interesting fund for a rising rate environment in the short-term area. It has a great chart over the past two years. Things could change drastically when credit issues rear their ugly head, however. Lots of middling credit corporate bonds.

Hi @Derf
Thank you for the update. I've been around tech. for quite a few years and appreciate what it allows us to do these days; but there are those days for a silent scream, eh?