FYI: (Click On Article Title At Top Of Google Search)
Stock investors have had a terrific 10 years: The Standard & Poor's 500 stock index has rocked along at a 9.73% pace through the end of February. Unfortunately, the taxman takes his toll — more on some than others. How did the 10 largest stock funds shape up after taxes? Here they are, ranked by post-tax returns. Dividends, gains reinvested through Feb. 28.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.google.com/search?source=hp&ei=1VG7Woz3CKSB5wKBxrm4Bw&q=investment+news++How+The+Taxman+Hit+10+Big+Funds&oq=investment+news++How+The+Taxman+Hit+10+Big+Funds&gs_l=psy-ab.3...2114.9882.0.11336.18.17.0.0.0.0.188.1580.14j3.17.0....0...1c.1j2.64.psy-ab..1.16.1422.0..0j35i39k1j0i131k1.0.zI6KcFOrdf4
1. T. Rowe Price Blue Chip Growth
2. T. Rowe Price Growth Stock
3. Vanguard PrimeCap
4. Fidelity Contrafund
5. American Funds AMCAP A
6. American Funds Growth Fund of America A
7. Dodge & Cox Stock
8. American Funds Fundamental Investors A
9. American Funds Washington Mutual A
10. American Funds Investment Company of America A

If she wants to eliminate volatility or risk of principle loss with some of her money you may want to talk with her about CDs. I believe they may do better than bond funds "for many years" going forward as you stated. Below I attached a link to Bankrate.com, but I'm sure you can build a ladder within Fidelity also. I know you can at Schwab.
https://www.bankrate.com/landing/cd-rates/?pid=semgdtexactbankrate&ttcid=bankrate|c|kwd-12967706|g|9005663&gclid=Cj0KCQjw-uzVBRDkARIsALkZAdn4hufz7A77qdsYgiOvc9oacUFBCfBqIzzxk2D533ZPnOTKMsgzNYIaAtIXEALw_wcB

Given the terms of the conversion notice and with Pimco A shares at the time not being LW, though, Fidelity customers were right to at least consider adding D shares to accounts in which they wanted A-LW privileges after conversion. In the end, however, with the change to LW across the board, it didn't matter.

Let me offer the thesis that strangely enough it may have mattered, though not for any reason I've seen mentioned.
NTF and lw arrangements come and go. Grandfathering tends to be more enduring.
For example, there was a period of time (around 2000?) when American Century dropped out of NTF programs completely for a few years as I recall. Perhaps even worse, it started adding load classes and (again from vague memory), allowed only existing (grandfathered) investors who had owned shares directly through AC to continue buying the NL class. Somewhat like what Janus has done with its lower cost D shares, which can now be purchased only directly, and only if you have held D shares there forever.
Because if this, I hung onto a minimal position in an AC fund I had purchased directly. I finally sold off my last shares just a couple of years ago. The nuisance cost to me was greater than the value in protecting against the small chance that AC would go the same route again and there would be an AC fund that I really wanted at that future time.
It is theoretically possible that at some time in the future, PIMCO likewise would drop its NTF/LW agreements but still protect those grandfathered accounts. Do I expect this? No, not given PIMCO's history. So I didn't open a PIMCO account to protect against this possibility as I had with AC.
Still, I hold onto a $1K Z-share position in a Mutual Series fund at Franklin Templeton. Even though FT has opened up its A shares to LW purchases, so one doesn't need a back door (grandfathered access) for them any longer.

Many load families, like many noload families, enter into bilateral agreements with individual brokerages to sell a class of funds NTF. For example, LCEAX is available NTF at Fidelity but is sold with a load at TD Ameritrade.. Likewise, the same noload fund may be sold without a fee at one brokerage, but you'll have to pay a fee at another brokerage. For example, HOVLX, NTF at TD Ameritrade, but Fidelity charges a fee.
The best thing you can hope to see in a prospectus or SAI concerning NTF load waivers is just that the fund is allowed to enter into these agreements with brokerages.
For example, Blackrock permits front end load waivers for shares sold through "Financial Intermediaries who have entered into an agreement with the Distributor and have been approved by the Distributor to offer Fund shares to self-directed investment brokerage accounts that may or may not charge a transaction fee".
http://quote.morningstar.com/fund-filing/Prospectus/2017/11/28/t.aspx?t=MDDVX&ft=485BPOS&d=b0560dd20f97785f3e555c63cbc03440 (MDDVX prospectus)
Similarly, PIMCO allows load waivers in its SAIs: "Each Fund may sell its Class A shares at net asset value without a sales charge to ... client accounts of broker-dealers ... with which the Distributor or PIMCO has an agreement for the use of Class A shares ... in particular situations in which the broker-dealer will make Class A shares available for purchase at NAV."
http://quote.morningstar.com/fund-filing/SAI/2018/3/23/t.aspx?t=PONAX&ft=497&d=081d50585090e2443fe13f6a9c05c8c4 (PIMCO SAI)
broker-dealer = financial intermediary
has an agreement = entered into an agreement
particular situations = self-directed brokerage accounts
Sure, nothing required PIMCO to offer A shares load waived at Fidelity or elsewhere. If it hadn't though, it would have been bucking an industry trend by moving from no load to load. That's what the industry was doing 20 years ago (e.g. American Century, Invesco adding loads), not now.
PIMCO was already selling A shares NTF, so this was simply a question of where, not if, A shares would be available NTF. Terminating NTF arrangements with brokerages would have been the bigger change; keeping the funds available NTF maintained the status quo.
Was there no plan at PIMCO, or simply no plan that the rep was at liberty to tell you about?

My own investing history goes back only as far as 2003. 15 years. The bull is long in the tooth. I had figured that uncle Donald's cukoo-nuts pronouncements were the MAIN factor in this topsy-turvy market, currently. Politics, not fundamentals. But the market has been disconnected from fundamentals for quite a while, it must be said. Don't mind me, I'm just typing out loud.

FYI: Real estate funds can play an important role in diversifying a portfolio, because real estate returns tend not to be too highly correlated with either the broader stock market or the bond market. Also, because real estate investment trusts tend to pay healthy dividends, these stocks are often seen as income plays. That has broadened their appeal in recent years, as low interest rates have left many investors seeking income wherever they can find it.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.morningstar.com/articles/857081/our-favorite-domestic-reit-funds.html

FYI: Buy and hold isn’t a perfect strategy. If you convinced somebody in the fall of 2007 that this was the right way to invest, they’d have a bone to pick with you, as they’d watch U.S. stocks crash by nearly 60% over the following sixteen months.
But if this person were able to hold on, even if they bought on the day that the market topped, they would have received 7.48% per year over the next 10.5 years. Not so terrible. The most recent decade actually worked out okay for investors, even if it wasn’t easy.
Regards,
Ted

My mom is freaked out by the market volatility this year and wants to take some money out of some of her Fido equity funds and put it into one or two Fido bond funds. She's looking for Fido bond funds with large dividends and seems to want to park her funds into these bond funds for many years.
I have some ideas of high dividend Fido bond funds that she could put her money into but I would also like suggestions from this board. Thanks in advance for any and all suggestions!

Now both GABCX and GADVX are available with a tf at E-Trade with a 25 basis point difference in expense ratios. Still hoping GADVX will go back to a ntf fund as it was several years ago.

Back in 2003, I bought a "zero" at a great rate, almost doubling my money over 10 years. I'm not finding quite so high a rate at that same source, these days. Anyone able to point me to a government-issued "zero" I can buy DIRECT, and denominated in dollars---like the last time--- bypassing brokers and mutual funds? Thanks. (I can't even BELIEVE how the Irish gov't lately sold a huge slug of "zeros" at a negative rate. I mean, it boggles me!)

" ... In fact, not a single mutual fund has beaten the market since 2009. "
There's your first clue that the writer is statistically challenged. Is the question about outperformance since 2009 (i.e. 2010 to the present), or since March 2009? The start of the bull market is often pegged as March 9, 2009.
Then there's the question of what "the stock market" means: S&P 500, S&P 1500, Wilshire 5000, MSCI All Country World Index (ACWI), .... For kicks, let's use the S&P 500. Growth of $10K (using M* charts) :
March 9, 2009 through March 23, 2018
VPMCX: $52,028 vs. S&P 500: $45,832
Jan 1, 2010 through March 23, 2018
VPMCX: $31,087 vs. S&P 500: $27,587
Though the lead question (regardless of starting date or market index implied) is not what the article is about. The article asks whether any fund landed in the top quartile every year since the bull market began. Again there's the question of whether this means calendar year or years ending each March 8th.
Then there's the question: top quartile of what? Peer funds (same category) or all broad-based domestic stock funds? But wait, it gets worse. While the article says that the universe studied was broad based domestic stock funds, it writes about two small cap energy funds that remained in the top quartile for five successive one year periods. Bzzt, wrong universe (of funds).
The bottom line is that, lousy writing and lousy analysis aside, it's starting with a lousy premise: that a good fund is one that lands in the top quartile year in, year out. That would rule out index funds.
VFINX (among large cap blend peers) ranked in the 54th percentile in 2009, 31st percentile in 2010, 38th percentile in 2012, 44th percentile in 2013, 29th percentile in 2016, 33rd percentile in 2017, and 29th percentile YTD. Since 2008, VFINX landed in the top quartile only 3 times (1/3).
Don't get ripped off by bogus metrics.
Edit: I was working on this as Catch posted other comments. Interesting that we both cited VPMCX. I was originally going to use FCNTX (another of Catch's funds), but while it outperformed the S&P 500 from 1/1/2010 on, it slightly underperformed since March 9, 2009. Still, a very good fund.

http://www.rfsadvisors.com/etfs-vs-mutual-funds/
How many mutual funds would you guess outperformed the stock market since the last bull run started nine years ago?

I've been holding on to POSKX due to a large appreciation over the past few years, but it is a volatile fund, in my opinion. It really tanks when the market goes south.

@davidrmoran I've been a DSEEX owner for several years. Although it may not be a fair benchmark for comparison, I use VTI. I've noticed that, over the past year, DSEEX's performance is 3% or so below VTI.
Any thoughts as to why this underperformance has taken place and whether it might continue? Thanks!

@bee, I also find it very confusing on TRP's side. The funds named "Retirement" are essentially asset allocation funds. I don't believe they change much if at all in equity/bond allocation. They should be called more appropriately '60:40 fund', or '50:50 fund' or '70:30 fund', whatever the allotment.
My 401k was with TRP for many years. I can remember them sending information a couple years ago when they decided to go the 'target date' and the 'retirement' funds as different style offerings. I don't remember the rationale .

I will add this... for those invested in TDF and within 15 years of retirement:
Do some homework. Figure out your retirement income sources and your likely retirement budget.
Any shortfall will need to be made up by withdrawing from other investments. This should be considered "safe asset money".
Find some alternatives to even the most conservative TDF (TRRBX for example). Here are a few funds that I quickly compared to TRBBX (VWINX, PRSIX, and AONIX).
Looking at the 2007-2009 time frame is important in this comparison. Find other funds to compare and possibly decide on a few that would appropriate for your "safe asset money" Funds.
Remember volatility can be both negative and positive:

For melt up: great economic fundamentals, Fed that appears moderate to dovish, an administration eager to cut whatever taxes / regulations business wants it to
For "this is it": high valuations in nearly every market, several common signs of a peak (e.g. a clearly insane mania, now bitcoin, 20 years ago pets.com etc; or bigtime fraud, now Theranon, then Enron), possible trade war, an executive branch that appears (to me) utterly incapable of handling any kind of crisis, and the chance that Mueller will find a smoking gun and political instability will result.
Hard to say what it'll be, but I've been slowly selling equities, bringing my allocation down to 65% from 80%.

This is the most useless thing I have read in some time:
... ask yourself if your TDF's risk level is right for you. Here are three questions to ask your 401(k) ... fund company:
-- How much market risk are you taking within five years of your target or retirement age? If the stock mix is more than 70% in that timeframe, you could get nailed by a bear market.
-- How much bond-market risk are you taking? Shifting most of your money into bonds near retirement is risky as well. ....
Whatever you do, don't plug into these funds and forget about them.
Gawd.
@Bee's take above is thorough and thoughtful while Surz's is insanely conservative and seems to ignore recovery times of recent decades.

@JohnN, From your linked article was this quote:

Ron Surz, president of Target Date Solutions, a company that designs "smart" TDFs, has been sharply critical of conventional TDFs for years. “These funds with high concentrations in stocks are a time bomb,” Surz told Reuters

I found a paper that RS wrote that further explains his strategy.
targetdatesolutions.com/pdf-source/DeRisking-Target-Date-Funds.pdf
If I understand his strategy correctly he is recommending that investor's in TDF reallocate all accumulated contributions into safe assets 15 years prior to retirement date. So if your retirement date is age 70, then at age 55 one would separate out all accumulated contributions and place them into "safe assets". He doesn't explain what these "safe assets" are other than saying that they will not lose money. I assume the accumulated gains remain invested in the TDF.
My take:
With this strategy, does one assume contributions made during the 15 year window (age 55 - age 70) also no longer get directed to the TDF? I am assuming they are being directed into "safe assets". I would worry about inflation risk over this 15 year time frame. Shifting the contribution component of your TDF 15 years prior to retirement seems excessively conservative to me as well during this 15 year period. Depending on the size of that accumulated contribution and its importance in supplementing retirement income I would shoot for funding a 5 year supplemental income bucket (safe assets...maybe laddered CDs or Treasuries).
Setting aside five years of safe assets seems appropriate. Creating this 5 year bucket during these 15 years before retirement would allow the portfolio to re-allocate during years when the portfolio had positive returns or excessive returns or growth in a dollar amount equal to 1/5 of the safe asset bucket or whatever criteria would sustain growth without compromising market opportunities.
These 5 years of safe assets could be accessed (withdrawn from the retirement account) to supplement other retirement income (SSI, pension, work or rental income, income from LT capital gains, etc.). In addition, It should be adequately funded to help the retiree meet inflation increases that are not built into their retirement income sources.
Keeping in mind that the first five years of retirement will have different supplemental needs than year six or year 16 or year 26, this 5 years supplemental income bucket will likely have a rolling balance that reflects the future 5 year rolling withdrawal needs throughout retirement.
Preparing to add to the 5 year bucket could start 10 years prior to the need. Again, market opportunities (positive volatility) could be maximized to help determine the timing of the funding. This would allow this reallocation to be laddered to mature when needed or be place in some other safe investment strategy.
Your thoughts?

Cetusnews seems to have vanished, so my comments are limited to what bee described.
1. Roth income limits. Here are some concerns about Kitces backdoor solution, a couple pragmatic and one a matter of principle.
I don't know how many 401(k) plans allow transfers from IRAs. If you can't segregate pre-tax and post-tax IRA money via an IRA to 401(k) transfer, backdoor conversions are often impractical. Too much pre-tax money in the IRA.
Also, even if you can move your pre-tax IRA money to your 401(k), that money will be stuck there, whether the 401(k) is a good plan or not.
The matter of principle is that, as Kitces stated, what makes backdoor conversions illegal is intent. The fact that you won't get caught if you follow his prescription doesn't make it legal. Just in case that matters. Me, I jaywalk daily and twice on Sunday.
3. Time value of Roths. Locking in rates can be good or bad. Would you lock in a 5 year CD at 3% now when you can get 2.5% on an 18 month CD? There is potential value in flexibility - one can contribute to a traditional IRA and convert to a Roth some time in the future when taxes are lower (locking in that lower rate when it materializes).
Whether you want to wait depends on what your crystal ball shows for future tax rates from now until retirement, and perhaps beyond. Personally, I'm betting on higher taxes (and locking in via Roth conversions of past years' contributions), but that's just one individual's opinion.
Someone who has difficulty maxing out IRA contributions is more likely in retirement to draw steadily from an IRA for income. That will limit the growth of the IRA, so that RMDs (and taxes) don't grow out of control. On the other hand, if one can easily max out IRA contributions, the time value of the Roth becomes even more important.
Here's a numeric example showing that even if tax rates are somewhat lower in retirement, contributing to a Roth (if you max out) can be better than contributing to a traditional IRA. It comes out better because when you max out a Roth you're sheltering more dollars (in after tax value) than you would in a traditional IRA.
Say the person is in the 24% bracket, but will be in the 22% bracket at retirement.
Assume there's $5500 in earnings, and $1320 (24% of $5500) in a taxable account. Finally, also assume that the taxable account is 100% tax-efficient (no taxes along the way), and gets taxed 15% (cap gains) at the end.
The investor can either put the $5500 into the Roth, using the $1320 from the taxable account to pay the taxes up front, or can put $5500 into a traditional account, and invest the $1320 in the taxable account.
Even with the higher (24%) taxes up front, the Roth breaks even once the investments have grown 125% (i.e. 2.25 times the original value). From that point on, the Roth pulls ahead. I've shown below what happens at the 125% growth mark, and at the 250% (3.5 times original value) point. That's still a lot less than Bee's growth (600%, to 7 times the original value).

Roth     |    Traditional  +  Taxable
Start:   $5500     |     $5500       +   $1320
125%:   $12,375    |    $12,375      +   $2970
-taxes     $0      |   ($ 2,722.50)  +  ($ 247.50)    22% tax, 15% cap gains
Net     $12,375    |    $ 9652.50    +   $2722.50   = $12,375
250%:   $19,250    |    $19,250      +   $4620
-taxes     $0      |   ($ 4,235)     +  ($ 495)       22% tax, 15% cap gains
Net     $19,250    |    $15,015      +   $4125      = $19,140