FYI: If you want to convince your clients that doing nothing is sometimes the best thing to do, point them to Voya Corporate Leaders Trust (LEXCX).
Now in its 81st year, the fund has beaten the Standard and Poor's 500 stock index the past 15 years, according to Morningstar, the Chicago investment analyst. Voya Corporate Leaders is up an average 7.75% a year, vs. 5.58% for the S&P 500 index. Voya proudly proclaims on its website that the fund has beaten the S&P 500 and the Dow Jones Industrial Average "for over 40 years."
Regards,
Ted
http://www.investmentnews.com/article/20160610/FREE/160619995?template=printart
M* Snapshot LEXCX:
http://www.morningstar.com/funds/XNAS/LEXCX/quote.html
Lippper Snapshot LEXCX:
http://www.marketwatch.com/investing/Fund/LEXCX
LEXCX Is Ranked #60 In The (LCV) Fund Category By U.S. News & World Report:
http://money.usnews.com/funds/mutual-funds/large-value/voya-corporate-leaders-trust-fund/lexcx
Oldest Mutual Funds:
http://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/08/oldestmutualfunds.asp
A Brief History Of The Mutual Fund:
http://www.investopedia.com/articles/mutualfund/05/mfhistory.asp

Bought this in early Dec.Reinvesting monthly divs.Cut div by 5% in Feb.No history of Roc distributions.Watch for weakness if oil prices drop.Non marginable @Schwab
Babson Capital Global Short Duration High Yield Fund
(Ticker:BGH)
Strategy
Fund will invest at least 80 percent of its managed assets in corporate bonds, loans and other income-producing instruments that are rated below investment grade
Fund may invest up to 50 percent of its managed assets in bonds and loans issued by foreign companies
Seek to maintain a weighted average portfolio duration of three years or less
Weighted Averages
Market Price ($) $88.57
Duration (Yrs) 2.33 yrs
Leverage 23.60%
Global
36.57% non-US
Number of Holdings
130 issuers
as of 4/30/2016
Industry % of Assets
Oil And Gas 14.09%
Chemicals, Plastics And Rubber 9.32%
Healthcare, Education And Childcare 8.16%
Automobile 6.74%
Finance 6.56%
Cargo Transport 4.85%
Containers, Packaging And Glass 4.67%
Electronics 4.27%
Telecommunications 4.26%
Leisure, Amusement, Entertainment 4.23%
http://www.babsoncapital.com/assets/user/media/Babson_Capital_Global_Short_Duration_High_Yield_Fund_Factsheet.pdf
http://www.cefconnect.com/fund/BGH

One who is smarter than me years ago, here at MFO, alerted me that the SEC number is the more reliable and accurate. So I have trusted that. Even though my government and its agencies have been lying to me for my whole life. I've come to expect it. ;)

re. JPM Core Bond and @Ace concern:

Swanson’s announcement in September that he was taking a leave was the first public sign of tension in the Columbus operations. It followed the departure of three members of his team for outside opportunities or other areas within the bank. [...] Then, two months ago, senior money managers, Henry Song and Mark Jackson, quit. Chris Nauseda, who was part of the Core Bond fund and was with the firm for 35 years, plans to retire by July 1

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-06-03/jpmorgan-exits-mount-from-a-star-bond-team-said-to-feel-slighted
@BobC With due respect to our newest BD member, can you really say what you have with WOBDX/PGBOX anymore? Frankly, if Doug Swanson and top team managers were to walk on me, my money would leave the fund on the following day. I certainly wouldn't be putting money into it. Just as if Dan Fuss announced his retirement (effective immediately), and Elaine Stokes went on leave the month following ("to spend more time with her family"), and Matt Egan resigned (for a professional opportunity at another firm), leaving money in LSBDX would seem to be uninformed by history.

@ron: I recently added GIBIX (GIBLX is the retail version) as 1/2 of my muni bonds got called and wanted to find a suitable fund with similar income stream. I also like MWTRX, it is generally all higher quality, and I found GIBIX a bit more diversified as 60% are BBB and above, and there are some high yielders. I did also add a bit of DBLTX, but its almost all mortgage bonds, so I put more into the Guggenheim fund for diversity sake. I still have 2 muni bonds that will mature in 4 and 8 years, glad they did not get called, they yield 4% + since they were issued in mid 2000s :)

Comparing TGBAX to Barclays Agg makes no sense to me. We use the Citi World Govt Bond Index as a benchmark, and it stacks up well. Under-performs for 1 and 3 year (mostly because of last 12 months), beats 5 years and wallops 10 years.

Yup, that's the benchmark used by the fund in the prospectus.
The current (Jan 1, 2016) prospectus shows the benchmark comparisons through the end of 2014 (not 2015), confirming that all of the underperformance came since then:
(as of 12/31/2014) 1 year/5 year/10 year annualized:
TGBAX: 1.84% / 6.01% / 7.64%
Index: -0.48% / 1.67% / 3.08%

BobC, slight hijack -- any more thoughts on OSTFX? Seems to have struggled of late as well. Function of John's changing role, or holding cash and being out of sync with markets for a couple of years? Most of the Osterweis funds seem to have lagged of late, which one might expect happens from time-time with a true active manager.

I agree the Barclays Agg makes no sense as a 'benchmark.'
I've held TGBAX for ... something like 8, 9 years. Love the insanely-tiny duration of its holdings.
TGBAX has gone nowhere for 1 and 3 years, and 5 years returned 1.57% according to M*. It's 10-15 year returns are nice, but am *very* close to culling it down to a foothold in my portfolio based on that performance, its recent 30%-ish distribution cut, my expectations on its future performance, and because it's still sitting on nearly 50% cash ... which is nice for when opportunity arises, but still. (I think MH and SD are okay managers though.)
As someone said on the M* article, at times TGBAX looks more like a currency hedge fund than a global bond fund.

Not mentioned is Korea. Having heard for years that the only thing keeping it from being moved to "developed" from "emerging" is its border with North Korea, it will be interesting to see how it fares going forward. Think there is no politics in MSCI's decision making? Think again. Imagine the pressure they have been getting from different sides, and imagine the potential fallout should they move Korea to the EAFE index. Rickety countries remain in EAFE while several strong economies are kept in EM. Not a fall-off-the-log decision.

Comparing TGBAX to Barclays Agg makes no sense to me. We use the Citi World Govt Bond Index as a benchmark, and it stacks up well. Under-performs for 1 and 3 year (mostly because of last 12 months), beats 5 years and wallops 10 years. We have captured gains that have accumulated for the last 10 years in client accounts, but continue to hold the fund. We are not blind to its very recent stumbles, however, and are watching and staying in touch with our Templeton connection. Honestly we like smaller funds better, and there was a tone of hot money that came in since 2010. Some of that has left (moving on to the now-hot sector), which is fine by us.

If not a Frontier fund, she can still join their EM fund, right?
It is a bit underwhelming fund so far based on its performance, and probably needs a good hand, though I am not sure how much she can help.

Sure that would work and if her path is to GP it would make more sense because they haven't registered any new funds that you might think would happen if she was going to run a Frontier fund.
I'm not sure I'd agree with "underwhelming" for GPEOX so far. The history is short so I don't think it means much in the bigger picture, but it's beating its primary and secondary benchmarks since inception and with the exception of YTD 2016 it has also beaten both of the benchmarks each year by a pretty wide margin.
I think the confusion comes because M* lumps all diversified emerging markets funds together but the reality of the last few years has been that larger cap funds have done far better than smaller cap funds. If you look just at the emerging markets funds M* says are true small cap funds, of which there are very few, GPEOX is winning each year pretty easily. Even if you include mid-cap funds, of which there are more to compare, GPEOX is winning each year against most of those too. There's no question they've been in a tough place to play for a while now but in my mind they're doing really well against those they're competing with directly.
They have 2.5 years under their belt so far and it'll be more interesting to talk about their performance after at least 5 years but if the goal is to be exposed to true small cap emerging markets, which mine certainly was, then I think this has been a good choice so far even with the high expense ratio.

Has anyone heard anything about where she's going? Any chance the guys at GP were able to pluck her from their former employer?

That's funny! A few years ago I wrote to them and asked if they would consider a frontier markets fund and the response was that they didn't have any plans along those lines but they certainly didn't rule it out either. In some respects I think she'd be a reasonably good fit for GP's culture but I'd also prefer if they stuck to the originally stated plan, kept their AUM small and focused on being great at what they're doing. Nonetheless I'd buy a frontier markets fund from them in a heartbeat if that's what's going on.

Posted yesterday 7 June, please find all MFO ratings and fund metrics updated on MFO Premium site through month ending May.
I continue to marvel at results of Fund Family Scorecard. How do poor performing fund management companies persist? Could be that absolute return is not a concern, that it's all about risk adjusted return. Could be that some of the funds did well initially, then went south but investors are too stuck to change. Could be that these firms just have strong marketing and, my friend Ed offers, "write good newsletters." Could be that they are just having a run of bad luck and stuck in an uncooperative and "irrational" market ... but given enough time and a return to sanity, the Great Pumpkin will appear.
There are 30 fund families that have failed to beat their peers with every fund they manage ... 135 funds (oldest share class only) that underperform against their category averages on an absolute return basis since inception, measured from first full month of offering through May 2016.
Three of these families each manage assets of $1B or more ... Dunham, Hussman, and Domini.

Dunham & Associates Investment Counsel, Inc. is a San Diego based firm with a line-up of of 16 funds that "...operate on performance-based advisory fees, also commonly known as Fulcrum Fees, and feature objectives ranging from capital preservation to aggressive growth." Average age 9 years. Average annual expense ratio 1.90% (all share classes). These 16 funds have nearly $1B in assets under management (AUM). None of the 16 have beaten their category averages. How can that be ... ? One clue: 1.9% across 9 years represents a drag of 18%.

Another is Hussman Strategic Advisors Inc. Four funds. $1.1B AUM. I suspect in this case, Dr. Hussman would argue it's about risk adjusted return: "Investing for long-term returns while managing risk". Certainly that appears to be the case with its Strategic Total Return Fund (HSTRX), but what about the other three funds? Like, its flagship Strategic Growth Fund (HSGFX) ... it has been underwater for 92 months now and counting.
Here are some risk profile metrics for HSGFX since inception and across various time frames, including the last two business cycles ... something appears to have gone terribly wrong this cycle.


Finally, at $1.7B AUM ... "Invest in a greener, more peaceful future with Domini Social Investments." Three funds. Average age nearly 17 years.

Its front-loaded, 9-year-old International Social Equity A (DOMAX) has done pretty well the past three and five years, so Amy Domini is quick to post its five star status on her web site ...

Here's a closer look ...


As always, if you see anything amiss with this month's update or have recommendations for improvements, please do not hesitate to email us.

I am making some LC (domestic) changes in one of my kids' retirement accounts. I have finally given up on the Yackts after many years of significant underperformance, and am also going to sell a large percentage of her FLVCX. She has held both for some time. Account is with Fido, so am considering adding to her PRBLX and also buying DVY and maybe some HDV. Thoughts, general or specific? She has good amounts in good small and mid funds, plus some (disappointing) foreign.

Fun with numbers. NCHRX, another misclassified California muni junk bond fund, shows numbers just like VWAHX, and for the same reason - it's been tossed in with investment grade funds for comparison.
           VWAHX           NCHRX
1Mo.: 1 percentile   1 percentile
3Mo.: 1 percentile   1 percentile
YTD:  2 percentile   1 percentile
1 Yr.:  3 percentile   1 percentile
3Yr.:   5 percentile   1 percentile
5Yr.:   4 percentile   1 percentile
10Yr.: 1 percentile   5 percentile
15Yr.: 1 percentile
Also like VWAHX, it has had some lousy years (relative to its "peer" funds, not junk funds), bottoming out at 95th percentile in both 2007 and 2008, with a third bottom quintile performance in 2013, same as VWAHX.

MMHAX and PYMDX look less risky than NHMAX because they are of shorter duration (8.6 and 7.0 years vs. 10.1 years).

PYMDX is also somewhat higher up the credit quality chain, according to the literature and from the percentages by rating I got from Pimco a few months ago. Pimco doesn't publish credit quality figures for oef's, but the CSRs will give them out over the phone if you call.
NHMAX uses inverse floaters, sometimes pretty significantly, apparently selectively. See for example p. 4 of the Q1 commentary (PDF available here).

MMHAX and PYMDX look less risky than NHMAX because they are of shorter duration (8.6 and 7.0 years vs. 10.1 years). Neither existed in 2008 (though the institutional share class PHMIX did), which also tends to make them look better.
In the case of PHMIX, even though it existed in 2008, M* does not incorporate that data into its calcuations, because M* generally bases its combined figures on 3, 5, and 10 year figures. PHMIX has not existed for 10 years, so only its 3 and 5 year data are included (conveniently skipping 2008 for now).
The best one can do with these funds is look at 2013, the next worst year, to get some sense of risk. Again, I suggest looking at BCHYX. You'll see that these other funds fell over 5% (just a shade less than the category average), while BCHYX fell 3.17% and VWAHX was nearly a perfect match falling 3.22% for that year.
For completeness, NHMAX fell 4.69%, an impressive one year performance for a fund that on paper has more risk.

MAPOX & PRWCX = 51.7% of portf. (Both are balanced funds)
DLFNX = 2.5%
PRSNX = 11%
PREMX = 14.3%
(Not the entire portfolio.)
***************************************
M* X-RAY shows
10% Cash
43% US stocks
8% foreign stocks
37% bonds of all sorts.
.....EM bonds are flying high.
"World bonds" pretty alright, too.
I won't be adding. What I will be adding to is a utility stock, to build quarterly divs. for current income in a taxable account. I have 8.5 years before RMDs kick-in on the IRA.

@ Mark: Actually, I went to a memorial service for a friend I've known for over seventy years, and the best man at my wedding. But, thanks for asking !
Regards,
Ted

@MJG & Roy - Gentlemen, I couldn't agree more. For years and years I chased around reading all the pundits/guru's/hot hands writings and recommendations trying to diversify and be in the right place at the right time when all I really had to do was select a handful of decent options at the start and then keep my hands off. Infinitely more financially rewarding with the bonus of plenty of time for other stuff like a life.