RPMGX clipped the threshold for a haircut in the taxable account, so a third of the proceeds went to a T, VZ add on and the rest to dry powder. This completes my telecom allocation.
It was almost exactly 2 years ago for a similar haircut for TR Price Mid Cap Growth ...what a great fund, IMHO.

DODLX clobbered my own PRSNX over the past 1-year period. On May 01, 2014, DODLX significantly changed its posture and strategy--- so notes Morningstar. Maybe that's why M* does not display returns beyond 3 years. Longer-term results could be found without much difficulty, of course. I think I have domestic bonds pretty well covered via MAPOX and PRWCX. In my portfolio, those 2 funds represent 52% of my entire total. And of course, PRSNX is a "global" bond fund, though I haven't looked lately to see just how much of it is in the USA. .... DODLX yield is 1.69% and PRSNX is at 3.44%. (30-day SEC yield is 3.92%, and I don't see a 30-day SEC yield number reported for DODLX.) My other rather large bond position is in PREMX. Doing very nicely. Others here prefer FNMIX, and I can see why. :)

Actually I just met with someone from Osterweis yesterday. I have really not looked at the two new funds. As all of their others, these were created because of client requests and team talent. OSTGX manager Jim Callinan was at Robertson Stephens (RS) - now owned by Victory Funds - for about 10 years, managing small cap, science & technology. The new fund will be very concentrated. The new Total Return fund will more of a core bond fund, a contrast to the great OSTIX, which is totally flexible. It just opened on 12/30/16.
At this point, we are not looking to add either one to portfolios, but never say never.

I agreed w/his comments about not forcing equity buys at insane prices or "valuations" just to deploy money. Frankly he said what I've said for years, and seeing him with 35% cash doesn't make me feel too bad when I look at my cash positioning across my portfolios and ongoing reluctance to deploy it in large chunks.

I'd go with a closed end fund. Look at those offered by Tortoise .. I held TPZ for years, but they have several. You might not get *all* your criteria checked but still should do okay.

I did this same thing a few years back with a pension. I got the check in the mail and had a certain time period to get it into the rollover account. I had contacted my fund company earlier so they made notes on my account. It all went smoothly.

Hi MikeM!
Sounds a lot like us. We are a division of a worldwide company that's been downsizing for years also. The HR Dept. is all new.....less than 90 days....so this whole thing was poorly presented. Have gone to HR.....told them what you said. They called corporate to confirm. Yes, it can go to an IRA tax free because it came out of the retirement pension fund. Thank you very much, Mike!
God bless
the Pudd

What I've done when investing in vehicles with limited menus is pick the best they had to offer and then round out my portfolio elsewhere.
Since you say there are a number of good funds in the 401k even if it doesn't offer you a complete array of first rate choices, you can start with those funds. Then adjust your IRAs to give you your desired portfolio allocation.
That is unless there's a particular reason why you want to treat these as separate portfolios. For example, you might be planning to retire at age 55 and draw on the 401k for the first few years. You can do that without penalty with a 401k, but you generally have to wait until age 59.5 to get money out, penalty-free, from an IRA.

Inflated Optimism?
Economic Overview:
Week Ending January 20, 2017 © 2017 Payden & Rygel All rights reserved.
From 2011 to 2015, the world inflation rate fell year after year. By 2016, the world was abuzz with deflation mania, fearing a further decline in the rate of inflation. Instead, as commodity prices recovered and global growth found its footing, consumer prices perked up in 2016. For 2017, there is a reason to believe the deflation fear may be behind us, as updated forecasts released by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) this week show an expected annual pick-up in prices for the second time in the last five years.

Highlights of the Week:
Treasuries: Treasury markets absorbed stronger inflation and housing data this week. Yields ground higher every day in this holiday-shortened week. The icing on the cake was Yellen’s speech on Wednesday where no one anticipated any remarks with regards to monetary policy and received hawkish ones at that.
Securitized Products:
The ABS market is following along with Ford auto receivables bringing a fully compliant ABS deal both regarding the 5% risk retention requirement and full loan level disclosure. The queue for next week is also full of issuers ready to hit the marketplace.
High Yield:
In this environment, the market has room to compress further, particularly given low expected default rates. Prudent, valuation-conscious investors should be rewarded.
Emerging Markets: The latest activity data from China was a reminder of the country’s adjustment from investment-led to consumption-driven growth. December industrial production and xed asset investment growth eased modestly to 6.0% year-over-year (y/y) and 8.1% y/y, respectively, while retail sales came better than expected at 10.9% y/y.
Municipals Municipal bond funds experienced a second consecutive week of in ows, taking in an additional $511.74 million. Investor demand has been strong, with $10 billion in new issuance well received and broad follow-through in secondary trading.
https://www.payden.com/weekly/wir012017.pdf
Honey. I think the kids are (finally ) leaving ! + We Look Back At Obama Years From Hoya Capital
...demographics over the next ten years are highly favorable to apartment demand. Rent growth data will certainly be interesting over the next several years: it will be a battle between high levels of supply and high levels of demand.
Real Estate Weekly: Trump Takes Office, We Look Back At Obama Years
Hoya Capital Real Estate Jan. 20, 2017
With Donald Trump taking office this week, we think it's interesting to look back at the performance of REITs under the Obama Administration.
REITs returned an average of 13% per year (price) and roughly 17% including dividends. Interesting, this 175% holding period return is almost exactly inline with the broader S&P 500 index.

It's important to note the context, though. Obama took office at almost the exact bottom of an 80% decline in REIT values over the preceding 18 months as the REIT ETF bottomed just a month after inauguration.
Bottom Line So how will real estate perform under Trump? Well, we can pretty confidently say that commercial real estate won't perform as well under Trump as they did under Obama, but that should be rather obvious. Trump enters office at a time that commercial real estate values are near record highs and valuations appear healthy. Based on prevailing cap rate and economic growth expectations, REIT investors should continue to expect a 5-8% average annual total return with plenty of annual volatility.
http://seekingalpha.com/article/4038310-real-estate-weekly-trump-takes-office-look-back-obama-years
Treasury yields are up since Election Day. The benchmark 10-year Treasury is currently trading at 2.47% (as of Jan. 19, based on daily data via Treasury.gov). That’s up from 1.90% on Election Day and close to the highest level in two years.

http://www.capitalspectator.com/moderate-us-growth-prevails-at-dawn-of-trump-era/

"President Trump is committed to eliminating harmful and unnecessary policies such as the Climate Action Plan and the Waters of the U.S. rule. Lifting these restrictions will greatly help American workers, increasing wages by more than $30 billion over the next 7 years."
https://www.whitehouse.gov/america-first-energy
(Embedded links to Climate Action Plan and WOTUS are mine, not in original.)
Assume for the sake of argument that the dollar figures are correct, and disregard any additional health care costs due to increased pollution. At 150M+ workers in the US, that comes out to $200/worker over seven years, $28/year, 50c/week. $30B to workers sounds like a lot until you do the arithmetic.
Start following the real money (read: oil, coal, agribusiness).

When looking at MEURX returns, keep in mind that it regularly hedges currency. This has made it look especially good over the past few years. I think it's a good low cost fund, but because of the hedging it behaves differently from most other funds.
As Vanguard points out, hedging involves additional costs. Although the increased operational costs are reflected in a fund's ER, the additional transaction costs (1-18 basis points) are not.
See text and Figure 2 on p. 4.
https://personal.vanguard.com/pdf/ISGCMC.pdf
FWIW, I'm not a fan of hedging, but have invested in at least three different hedged funds I can recall, so it's not something I'm dogmatic about.

Most people don't pay any attention to what they invest in through their 401k or even a broker. I tried for years to get my Austinite ex hippy sister to pay attention to the multiple large cap funds in her 401k... couldn't be bothered. My son believes in Tesla but won't ask his employer to add TIAA's socially conscious fund to their 401k.
We can add to Vanguard's insensitivity or ignorance ( depending on your fervor of belief in climate change) their opaqueness about their management process.... there may not be a familial dynasty behind the scenes but have you ever tried to figure out how you (supposedly a shareholder) can influence policy at Vanguard, or how mush their mangers are paid or even how they are paid? They don't get stock but there is a special "investment account" that they own shares of. I have tried but have been unsuccessful in finding an annual report or even balance sheet of the Vanguard Management group, even though as a shareholder they "work for me".
The same supposedly "independent" Board of Trustees at Vanguard oversees 198 separate funds, in addition to their day jobs. Obviously they spend little time on proposals that Vanguard management does not support or wants them to see
Perhaps increased pressure on those who are public figures (Amy Gutman head of U Penn) might have an effect... But given the amount of time she spends on Vanguard ( her Wikopedia page lists about 10 other commissions etc she is involved in) and the paltry ($230,000 ) compensation she gets, I doubt it

Perhaps this is part of rebalancing as equity has out paced bond sector last year. Also there are more people retiring in combing years and they depend on bond for their income.

Less than one month into 2017. Nobody should hang a hat on this yet. For those that wonder, this is the old GiftTrust Fund that had its issues some years well back. Now as All Cap Growth, one can purchase without the trust feature if they wish.

There was a fellow on the board who published a bond newsletter. He hasn't posted here (to my knowledge) in at least 3-4 years. If you have better wifi than I do, you could probably dig his posts up from the archives. I'll say it appeared to be a pretty decent publication with a variety of writers.

Ran into this .Good chart of nearly every domestic index's performance in time frames dating to the past five years.
So, is there magic in the post-election sprinkling of Trump Fairy Dust? I am encouraged by many of the ideas put forth, especially on tax reform as a way to unleash America's potential (less excited about other ideas). Consumer sentiment and small business confidence rose sharply following the election, suggesting the positive feelings or animal spirits are on the rise. That said, experience tells us that the political sausage grinder has a way of neutering the most well-intentioned plans, and that the economy continues to struggle to achieve "escape velocity,” constrained by low productivity and labor force growth. Still, pull up a chair and grab some popcorn: I expect an exciting show!
https://www.ridgeworth.com/articles/market-perspective-december-31-2016
Here's a longer perspective on the Trump Effect
SEIX BOUTIQUE PERSPECTIVE (CAN TRUMP MAKE BONDS GREAT AGAIN?)
December 5, 2016 However, the structural issues will continue to serve as headwinds to growth as they have for the duration of this recovery and lower for longer remains our base case as these deflationary forces remain firmly entrenched and secular in nature. More time and very difficult decisions are required to remedy these issues and politicians have been unwilling to tackle them thus far. As history has instructed, the political class typically fails to act absent a real crisis. Perhaps this is another political tendency the President-elect can approach from the non-traditional perspective of an outsider elected by Main Street. Hope springs eternal…
https://www.ridgeworth.com/articles/can-trump-make-bonds-great-again

Thanks Ted. A good sign that you're doing better. Good post.
I think what is often overlooked in discussions about international markets (like a recent thread) is the dollar. Its strength is one reason those markets have lagged for several years. Of course, currency trends can persist for years or decades. No one really knows. Eventually, they do reverse. Today the trend reversed (probably temporarily) and the dollar fell hard. Will be interesting to see what impact, if any, that has on international funds today. Many international stock and bond funds hedge against dollar flux and many international stock funds also use something called "Fair Value Pricing" (FVP) - some more than others. Both practices would tend to mitigate any big gains in international funds on any given day. (FVP): https://advisors.vanguard.com/iwe/pdf/FAFVP.pdf
As regulars know, I'm pretty conservative at 70+. I'm also 80+% buy and hold (sometimes called "buy and die"). But it's fun to play around a little around the edges. In December I sold my remaining shares in PRNEX (heavy on refiners). It jumped 25% in 2016 as oil began the year around $30 and reached over $55 in late December - a near doubling in less than 12 months. I suspect it has further to go, but didn't want to risk the year's gains. Used the $$ (about 2.5% of holdings) to boost cash a bit and also to buy my first ever index fund, PIEQX, which invests in developed overseas markets (Europe, Japan, Australia, South Korea, etc.). A month is way too short a period to draw conclusions, but the new fund has been my best performer this year. One reason I chose an index international fund (over a managed) is my assumption (could be wrong here) that T Rowe isn't using dollar hedging or FVP on this one. So the currency play should be near 100% - for better or worse.
Good luck folks. Always enjoy hearing how others invest and see things.

@rforno- Yes, it's a shame that MJG frequently incites our worst... try to ignore us. Sometimes his patronizing and condescending remarks are just too hard to ignore. The interesting thing is that after all of these years of this crap he still professes to be "somewhat surprised by the vindictiveness" of our reactions. A real slow learner, that fellow is.

I have always contended that the reason so many active managers underperform is not because markets are efficient, but because of structural problems within the money management industry and behavioral problems within managers themselves. To put it bluntly, greed, conflicted interests and the herding instinct to closet index are all built into the system for most managers. Managers serve two masters--fund shareholders and fund company owners--and the latter too often cares too little about the former.
There are ways to appropriately incentivize managers to put fund shareholders first, compensating them solely on long-term risk adjusted returns as opposed to asset gathering, but few fund shops follow this practice and thus deserve to go extinct from the index onslaught. Another way is to insist that managers invest a significant portion of their net worth in their own funds. Again, few managers do this.
But imagine a fund where the manager was an employee of the fund, not of a fund management company with an external set of shareholders seeking to profit off of asset gathering. Imagine a fund where the management fee was a fixed or flat number, not based on assets, and a bonus was allotted based solely on the manager outperforming a benchmark on a risk-adjusted basis over five years--a full market cycle. Meanwhile, the manager was required to invest a significant percentage of his/her liquid net worth in the fund. Such a structure I would argue would have a better chance of beating the market than the way funds are designed today.
Closet indexing is another problem as managers face career risk from underperforming a surging benchmark to a significant degree, so most herd together and try not to deviate too much from the benchmark. After fees obviously they will underperform but not so much they will get fired.
I would contend that there are only a handful of money managers who behave as true fiduciaries and always put shareholders needs first. That is why so many underperform in my view, not because markets are efficient.

"You may be thinking that, if passive is the way to go, you might as well make things even simpler. Why not just put your retirement money in the bank and forget it? While you can certainly do that, the results may be disastrous. If you want more than just Social Security for your retirement, you need your money to grow.
Consider this. In 1913, nine cents bought a quart of milk. In 1963, the same nine cents bought a small glass of milk. In 2015, nine cents bought seven tablespoons of milk. Clearly, putting money under the mattress doesn't work for the long term. The culprit of the declining purchasing power of that nine cents is inflation. The moral of this story is to make sure your money grows at least as fast as inflation.
That requires investing it. For example, it would require $13 today to equal the purchasing power that $1 provided in 1926. Had you put one dollar in the bank in 1926, you would have $21 today. Having invested the dollar in long-term bonds would give you $132. However, invested in the S&P 500 index (stocks), you would have $5,386."

I love this assertion that the past stock market's performance is prelude to the future market's performance. Let's assume that indexers are right and that stock performance truly is a "random walk," which active managers can't predict and therefore can't beat. Why accept the other notion indexers believe in then that in the "long run stocks always go up" if it is truly random? The 104 years of market history this author cites is less than a heartbeat in the history of the planet. Just because markets have gone up in the past is no guarantee they will go up in the future. Rising markets are not a law of nature like gravity in physics. There is no guarantee even that stock markets will continue to exist. There is a historical precedence for markets disappearing altogether as happened to Russia in the 1910s during the Russian revolution: https://the-international-investor.com/2011/st-petersburg-stock-exchange-1865-1917-diversification-pays-emerging-markets
Can an active manager predict when the next bubble will burst or some major geopolitical event is about to occur with any certainty? No, but they can at least react defensively to it when a blind mechanical index can't. What indexing's triumph proves is not that markets are efficient, always rising and therefore unbeatable. It proves that costs matter. Costs are the one thing in funds you can predict will have an impact with a fairly accurate degree of mathematical certainty. Not just expense ratios, but trading costs and market impact costs. But a low cost, low turnover actively managed fund with a manageable level of assets can be a better investment than a mechanical index fund.