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

Hi Guys,
Note the huge differences in estimated percentage saving requirements from even the experts quoted in the Forbes reference that Davidrmoran provided. Those estimates reflect the uncertainties embedded in any and all such projections. Making any projection is extremely hazardous duty.
That's precisely why Monte Carlo codes are so useful. Thousands and thousands of individual scenarios can be quickly examined for any number of alternate assumptions. Since these assumptions are somewhat arbitrary, no definitive answer is ever really possible. What is generated is a feeling for the retirement survival sensitivity to the various postulates. Some will greatly impact survival rates; others will only weakly influence outcomes. That's good to know.
A flexible Monte Carlo code allows a user to explore uncertainties easily and quickly. The Monte Carlo code that I referenced earlier offers much flexibility with its numerous input options in terms of drawdown schedules and potential income returns based on a portfolio's asset allocations. All these are easily changed.
No simple rule of thumb reliably exists for drawdowns. The problem has far too many variables and return uncertainties that are timeframe and user specific.
I again encourage those interested in exploring retirement withdrawal rates and survival odds to consider using a Monte Carlo tool. You'll know much more after that experience.
In my case, I decided that a 95 % portfolio survival probability would be acceptable for a slightly conservative returns likelihood based on historical market records. I achieved my target goal after a few simulation what-ifs. Further Monte Carlo simulations provided me even more comfort when I discovered that rather modest reductions in my drawdowns after two negative return years would greatly improve my portfolio survival odds. It's always good to be flexible.
Best Wishes

"we started at 25, and have obviously benefited from perhaps the greatest bull market we will see in our lifetimes."
Might well be. It's already the second longest (in case you measure greatness by age), and as of March is closing in on the second highest gain. Likely even greater in real terms since we've had low inflation for many years (though I haven't computed real gains).
Graphic: Post WWII bull markets, duration and gain
http://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/7HDT2/2/
You'll find other sources that state the bull markets ran longer (see graphic below), but they tend to ignore "minor" intervening blips like the 19.90% S&P 500 drop from July to October 1990, or the Aug 1956 to Nov 1957 22% drop.

Using Monte Carlo, at least the tools that you've been referred to, would seem to ignore this not insignificant fact that we're in nearly uncharted territory. In addition to disregarding the run up in equities, they would also seem to discount the the 35 year bull market in bonds. A multi-decade bond run is not a singular event, but unique when one considers how fast/far bond prices have risen, or alternatively how much rates have fallen:
The tools don't address your question because they don't seem to allow for the setting of preconditions; verily they are built on the premise that performance in one time period is independent of what came before.
Even if they did incorporate preconditions, there doesn't seem to be sufficient historical data to provide meaningful input for current conditions. The preceding eight years have been part of the same bull market. That's only happened twice before: 1998 when the 1990-2000 bull also hit the eight year mark, and 1999 when it hit its 9th birthday.
Monte Carlo tools strike me as better suited to playing with hypothetical long range outcomes than ascertaining real world (context sensitive) possibilities.
As to the question at hand, your guess is as good as mine. If you're looking long term, the rule of thumb is that there's no better time than now to invest, though in bonds I'd be more conservative. Best case for principal protection is that rates don't rise (currently 2.16% 10 year), and the risk isn't worth the 80 basis points over cash. Worst case, rates rise and you lose principal.
Personally, I've never been fond of real estate as an investment. Historic returns have been lower than for US equities, though real estate could help meet your objective of diversification.

For many years, I've owned PONDX as well as TGINX. The latter is the fund/firm where Luz Padilla established her track record before migrating to Double Line. TGINX throws off a nice divi, and provides a nice return albeit a bit lumpy which appears to be somewhat common. There is indeed a place for an EM bond...for its own performance or as an EM stock proxy as many would suggest. I am a firm believer in spreading my bets, particularly in the bond space.

After 3 consecutive losing years emerging markets bonds came back to life last year and in 2017 lead the pack in Bondville. With a deteriorating dollar and improving emerging markets economies I see no reason why that should change. Historically they have been a great investment beating the S&P over the past 15 years. They also performed well in the 90s. I have tried at times with this sector but always found it was too volatile for my style of concentration. Also many here hold PONDX/PIMIX and that fund has a large position in emerging markets bonds and is less volatile than a pure emerging markets bond fund.

FYI: One of BlackRock Inc's longest-serving mutual fund managers, who is responsible for tens of billions of dollars in investors' money, is stepping down.
Dennis Stattman, who has run what is now BlackRock's largest mutual fund for more than 28 years, will retire from his role at the BlackRock Global Allocation Fund in August, according to an internal memo on Tuesday.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.fa-mag.com/news/one-of-blackrock-s-longest-serving-mutual-fund-managers-to-retire-33226.html?print
M* Snapshot MDLOX:
http://www.morningstar.com/funds/XNAS/MDLOX/quote.html
Lipper Snapshot MDLOX:
http://www.marketwatch.com/investing/fund/mdlox
MDLOX Is Ranked #13 In The (WA) Fund Category By U.S. News & World Report:
http://money.usnews.com/funds/mutual-funds/world-allocation/blackrock-global-allocation-fund/mdlox

Permit me just an initial reaction, without really looking further. DoubleLine has been around only since, when? ... 2009? They already have a fair-to-middling EM Bond fund, run by Luz Padilla. (DLENX, 5 years +5.09%, 39th percentile.) Compare PREMX +6.01/12th percentile. FNMIX +6.3 and 7th percentile. I think a short-term EM bond fund is not a thing that would interest me. In DLENX, you already have 108% turnover. PREMX = 60%. FNMIX =82%. And with a low-duration EM bond fund (DELNX), what ARE you investing in, then, when the "standard" DoubleLine EM bond fund already carries 108% turnover. How long is anything being held in DELNX? A week? Morningstar shows 60% turnover, but this is within a professed short-duration universe. So, my reaction is negative just based on common sense. Others will surely disagree. ... Yes, PRSNX is NOT a purely dedicated EM bond fund. Latest numbers at Morningstar show 41.64% of holdings are USA. The rest is REALLY spread-out, starting with Serbia, and ending with Japan, among the top 10 countries. India, Mexico, Malaysia and Brazil are surely EM, besides Serbia.
EM bonds are especially appealing with higher-grade domestic stuff just not paying much. PRSNX pays me only about .03 cents/month, but it's something of a counterweight to my all-in bet with PREMX. They're not designed to be quite the same thing, so they don't DO quite the same thing. ... Compare the disgustingly low rates of return on Savings Bonds. I looked at Canada sav. bonds, too. It's pathetic. Canada now offers TAX-FREE savings accounts. The returns are less than 1%. So a global or foreign or EM bond fund makes sense. Otherwise, you're treading water. No way to invest... Just don't go whole-hog. By the way, David Snowball featured PRSNX as a "Morningstar orphan" recently:
http://www.mutualfundobserver.com/2017/02/t-rowe-price-global-multi-sector-bond-prsnx/

My local library in NC provides a free variation of Morningstar premium with a" Performance" tab. Yearly AUM going back 10 years is listed in the chart that comes up. Works for me. You may have it free via your library also. You might want to check this out.

I have M* Premium (free via T. Rowe Price) and the AUM data is definitely not available in the Performance tab, or anywhere else for that matter that I can find. I see there is a "customize" option in the chart you mention, but don't see AUM as an option.

@fundly, I'm not sure how you see it because I don't see it on the internet pages BUT I did find net assets for the last 10 years on the .pdf report for a fund. The pdf report is also a Premium feature but thanks for your persistence that drove me to keep looking.

My local library in NC provides a free variation of Morningstar premium with a" Performance" tab. Yearly AUM going back 10 years is listed in the chart that comes up. Works for me. You may have it free via your library also. You might want to check this out.

Hi Guys,
Charlatan is six-.dollar word. A cheaper and more common equivalent word is liar.
There are many signals that a liar unconsciously delivers. These have been studied for many years. Several excellent videos have been produced that summarize that research. These videos just might help you to uncover the many liars that we are exposed to just about every day. Here is a Link to a few liar characteristic signal presentations:
Edit: You can access the presentations by typing "how to spot a lie videos".
Enjoy and learn to recognize these charlatans.
Best Wishes

Not so fast. While it could be a one time "blip" in 2015, that the US life expectancy for men and women did in fact decline for the first time. If it holds up and the decline continues, the probable reasons are...
. obesity epidemic
. opioid epidemic
. economic decline of the middle class, especially since 2008
. suicide
. increases in Alzheimer's disease, respiratory disease, kidney disease and diabetes. Some of which may be attributed to the obesity epidemic.
Did you know that obesity with respect to women in the US, has shot up over 40%? And in case you think I'm "fat shaming", I too am struggling with my BMI now over 25. Of course, losing an inch and half in height over the last twenty years, doesn't help the number. (Taking calcium supplement with vitamin D3.)
Anyway, I was only grasping at a financial laugh. Enjoy your RMD!
Life expectancy in the US declines in 2015
Obesity rate for women

Could not agree more. I am biased but I can't think of anything more important than being thin as we get older. Excess weight causes a host of problems too numerous to detail here. And by being thin I also mean no pot belly. I have read that regardless of weight, a pot belly can be a real killer.
Edit. As pertains to the topic of RMD my biggest financial mistake was no Roth. My annual living expenses increases some 60% this year because of the taxes on my RMD.

That just about covers the waterfront. Wife's 403b is in an Index-Vanguard small-cap fund, VSCIX. My other two small-cap funds have done better. Go figure, eh?
5 years:
MSCFX 16.99
PRDSX 16.38
VSCIX 15.00
But I suppose that VSCIX got there with lots less volatility?
MSCFX holds 52 positions.
PRDSX = 299 (Quant fund.)
VSCIX =1,432

Hi Guys,
Jonathan Clements is very conservative, especially with regard to his investment advice. In a totally lucky happenstance many years ago, I fortunately and randomly sat with him on a train ride from New Jersey to New York. Using his columns as a guide, his thinking has not changed much over the years. Hooray for consistency that allows for some learning.
Today, he published a list of investment products and strategies that were sorted relative to their risk ( as perceived by Clements) into three general categories. Here is a Link to that list:
http://www.humbledollar.com/2017/06/goodbadugly/
Plenty of fodder for argument here, but it might just be helpful to novice MFOers. Have fun!
Best Regards

Very generously...OT, and only because we don't have BS category on MFO.
People do not live their investment lives over 100 years.
People also don't notice "pain" unless portfolio goes down 20% because they are "told" not to.
Then people start wondering - deers caught in headlights - while their 20% loss turns into 50% loss. Then they sell. And of course, not a single "expert" at that point will stick his neck out and say "don't sell". THEN, after the market returns back to the point where the correction started we get "investors are so stupid".
First, investors need to define their own "success". Don't let someone do it for you.
Second, a "successful" investor is one that does not lose money, as in permanent loss of capital.
All 20 year olds can read this post or they can read the other. Just remember, you do what YOU think is right, else either I or some expert is going to laugh at you in 30 years either way. And I hope one does not need a "Buddha" to explain this.

I own RPHIX in a non-taxable account and wanted to purchase it in an IRA account. I got this response a couple of years ago from RiverPark when I asked:
"Unfortunately we can’t make an exception here. Since we implemented the second “soft” close in November we have been flooded with requests from shareholders that own the fund in one account and would like to open up IRAs or joint accounts or 401(k)s and we have been forced to say no just so we didn’t defeat the purpose of the tightening and continue to get flows that were so large that it would make the fund hard to manage…I hope you understand."
Matt Kelly
Chief Marketing Officer
RiverPark Funds