I'm still bitter Oppenheimer killed QRAAX. Anybody notice commodities have been on a tear ever since they pulled the rug out from under us (dozen or so) loyal investors last spring? Herd mentality. Folks dumped it after a few bad years. Now it would be way up. Patience folks!

BAM is a marketing machine. I read Swedroe's books and have tracked his portfolios in those books as for anticipated outcomes. Maybe if you have 50 years you can reach the returns he projects. Much data mining and public relations fizz promoting DFA and claiming they add 3% benefits to you with their advice. Its part of the risk equation when you sign with an advisor for a particular set of funds DFA in this case. DFA uses the age old marketing ploy of exclusivity with its advisors. Madoff also used exclusivity, its marketing and advertising 101.

I do not recall ever reading a book by any of these so-called experts. As one of them told me years ago, "I wrote my first book to generate some publicity for my business (he was an advisor back then). My second book got me on some talk shows and a lecture circuit. By the time I wrote my third book, I was able to sell my business and enjoy my celebrity status." Those are not the exact words he said, but they are surely the gist of it. Pretty soon, you have all of these "experts" running around selling their books, CDs, and other items as their "job". It does not surprise me one bit that U.S. News fell for this. Money magazine has done it frequently, as has Kiplinger and others. After all, their sole job is to sell more magazines and subscriptions.

Boy, if given the chance over 40 years ago to go with SS or use that money to fund my own retirement, I would have picked the latter in a heartbeat. Yea some don't know how to save or invest but don't include those who want to do better, which is a big chunk of society.
I have always liked the idea that out of the 12.5% tax for SS, let me invest 10%. The rest goes into a pool fund for those who are physically disabled or unable to work. We do have a compassionate streak among us.

It seems a little odd to offer an international small cap fund, but not offer a global small cap fund. I have owned ARTJX prior to its closure many years ago. Hope, the closure of ARTWX is not a sign for ARTJX.

As part of a diversified portfolio, I believe inflation-adjusted bonds have their place.
I said this a few years ago but I still believe it that when inflation does appear it may be quick and vicious. We are spending a ton of money and the Fed is keeping the lid on.

@JohnChisum: Yes. years ago it went head-to-head with Fidelity Magellan.
Regards,
Ted

There's so much uncertainty since the election. I don't think any of us have a clue where things are heading. If Trump gets the kind of infrastructure stimulus package from Congress which many seem to think he intends, along with higher borrowing and tax cuts, that's bearish for bonds and bullish for just about everything else - at least for a year or two until the rising debt shocks us back into austerity. But he has Congress to deal with. Many commodities, notably copper, have turned up in recent days anticipating some type of stimulus. Big military buildups, as Trump appears to desire, also bolster an economy short term - especially the Northrups, Lockheeds, General Dynamics and Boeings of the world.
On the other hand, the first year of a new President's term usually isn't that good for equities. Both the Pres and FOMC like to get the the tough love out of the way early. The Pres., especially, wants things improving as the next election nears.
Bonds to some extent self-correct. As rates rise there's more income in the pockets of investors helping mitigate declining values. At some point bonds again begin to look attractive to new investors. I'd think, however, that going long on bonds (durations over 10 years) would have been foolish in recent years. It may take decades for those investors to break even. And yes - there were plenty of warnings here and elsewhere about the dangers of longer term bonds when the 10 year was yielding 2% or less.
---
I haven't made any changes to portfolio in recent months - except that a few weeks ago I shifted some $$ intended for near-term household expenses from Price's money market fund to their ultra-short bond fund. The new govt. money market regs caused money market fund yields to suffer even more, but pushed up rates on ultra-short high grade corporates. Even with the sharp sell off, TRBUX held at $5.01 - which surprised me. Since the election I've lost a half-percent on my investments. Balanced and energy/commodity related funds drifted higher. But my meager exposure to bonds - especially the international variety - got hammered. So it goes.

Pretty much any of the American Century funds that are not index will get a boost. This is not the Ultra of years ago although it's still a decent fund. Any growth fund in any fund company will have tech stocks at the top of their top ten holdings list.
Disclosure: I held Ultra in the late 80's to around 1993. 1991 was an exceptional year.

@Crash said "rising rates are hurting REIT funds"
Here's some "medicine" for that ailment.
Reefer REIT: Innovative Industrial Properties' IPO
Nov. 9, 2016 9:34 AM ET
Innovative Industrial Properties, Inc (Pending:IIPR) has filed for an IPO seeking to raise $175 million. Innovative Industrial seeks to become the first REIT to monetize the growing medicinal marijuana industry utilizing sale-leaseback transactions and offer investors an indirect method to capitalize on the sector. In a time where REITs find cap rates compressing in most industries, Innovative Industrial hopes to prove the medicinal marijuana industry is a cash cow for investors.
http://seekingalpha.com/article/4021523-reefer-reit-innovative-industrial-properties-ipo
....who would have imagined that there would be a "weed REIT", Innovative Industrial Properties was to list on the NYSE this week. According to the company's website, it "targets medical-use cannabis facilities for acquisition, including sale-leaseback transactions, with tenants that are licensed growers under long-term triple-net leases."
Innovative believes this industry is poised for significant growth in coming years, and is focused on being a creative capital provider to this industry
http://seekingalpha.com/article/4024483-reit-world-back-business
Innovative Industrial Properties™
Removing Financial Barriers For Licensed Medical-Use Cannabis Growers™
Our Team
Industry Leaders
Our Market
The Licensed Medical-Use Cannabis Industry
Our Properties
Medical-Use Cannabis Cultivation and Processing Facilities
Our Tenants
Sophisticated, Best-in-Class Medical-Use Cannabis Growers
Our Leases
Long-Term, Triple-Net Arrangements
http://innovativeindustrialproperties.com/business

@MJG: "I am a long term investor so I hesitate to address issues associated with the influence of "hot money". I just don't play in that arena and have not thought much about it."
Thanks for your response. It's helpful but may not (as you suggest) answer my fundamental question of how much long-term investors like you are injured by other less disciplined investors who flood funds (including those using passive index based strategies) with money when valuations are high and than stampede out after large market declines. Whether in actively managed or passively managed funds, this herd instinct would appear to work against all of us because the fund is forced to some extent to buy high and sell low. Perhaps I have this wrong. Wonder if there's been any studies attempting to quantify this negative influence, especially regarding actively managed funds.
Here's a different but related issue with funds: Like you, I am largely buy and hold. But I've been known to speculate on beaten-up (highly focused) funds over very short time frames (measured in months rather than years) and than sell after a nice bounce (may not always work). The fund industry calls this "skimming" and works hard to prevent it. However - if I make a fast 25%-35% profit on a short term speculative venture, I assume that money had to come from somewhere. I further assume it's the "stay-put" long-term investors who picked up the tab. ??

I've read in more than one place (don't have references at the moment) that managed funds do NOT perform better than indexes/ETFs before, during, or after bear markets.
But regarding this, I take a long-term view (5-10 years) on everything. A one or two-year record doesn't mean much.

Interesting. He addresses fund trading by active fund managers and seems to conclude that their funds more often than not benefit from brief periods of heavy trading. What worries me most about all open-ended funds is the influence of hot money. I've yet to see any well documented studies that attempt to assess its impact on different types of funds at different high and low market points.
A manager may be very adapt at identifying great long-term prospects following a nasty correction. However, if large amounts of money are flooding out of his fund at this point, seems to me his hands are largely tied. He's not able to buy at the lower prices. Inversely, I fear managers are often compelled (err...inclined) to invest money when it is flooding in after a period of rising equity prices.
Personally, I stick to active management because it's what I best understand based on many years of investing. Some of these active managers incorporate passive investments into their funds resulting is cost savings. I'm skeptical of narrowly focused newer smaller funds - precisely the type most vulnerable to hot money influences. But I'm keenly aware that all my funds are subject to this danger.
As an aside, I'll toss out for reflection the idea that part of the success of PRWCX and similar funds is that they are less likely to be hampered by hot money flows in and out. Almost by definition, funds like this attract and retain longer term money. Also - Can anyone make a good argument that passive (indexed based) open-end funds would be inherently less vulnerable to the detrimental effects of hot money?
(Added) Yes - I understand these passive funds invest in indexes. But are not indexes (representing the broader market) also heavily swayed by money moving in and out? In fact, since actively managed funds often hold ballast in the form of cash or bonds, one could infer they might be less influenced by hot money chasing market returns.

Speaking of the US $$$..
Jeffery Gundlach in Tue's Webcast did not "pound the table" predicting a higher US $$$$ but stated it would not surprise him to see 120 in the next two years...Also,"don't over analyse" and "keep your seatbelts fastened" Earlier he said he was not interested in becoming US Treasurer.in effect saying " I want to remain brutally honest and politicians are seldom if ever that. ." Closed End Fund Webcast Nov 8th https://event.webcasts.com/viewer/event.jsp?ei=1085775
BUSINESS NEWS | Thu Nov 17, 2016 | 10:56pm EST By Hideyuki Sano | TOKYO Reuters
Rising U.S. yields help dollar to 13-1/2 year high
..rising U.S. bond yields carried the dollar to a more than 13-1/2 year high against a
basket of major currencies, fueled by expectations that President-elect Donald Trump's policies will lead to higher interest rates.
The dollar's index against a basket of six major currencies rose above its "double top" touched in March and December of 2015. The index now stands at its highest level since April 2003. "Double top" is a technical analysis term describing a currency (or other liquid asset) rising to a high, falling, and then rising again to the same level. Breaking the double top is often seen as a bullish sign by technical analysts.
A rising dollar is particularly a problem for some emerging economies that could see capital outflows if investors shift more funds to the United States.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-global-markets-idUSKBN13D040?feedType=RSS&feedName=businessNews&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+reuters/businessNews+(Business+News)

http://cdn.tradingeconomics.com/charts/united-states-currency.png?s=dxy&v=201611180455r&d1=20110101&d2=20161231
http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-states/currency

Keep waiting for PTIAX to post 3rd Q commentary .Maybe they're going the way of less monthly and/or quarterly comment?Here's snippets from just released Annual Report dated August 31,2016
The past year saw very big
changes for both the Fund and for fixed-income markets. Fund assets grew more than four times going from $164.37
million to $688.60 million during the year. Managing that growth and maintaining desired allocations occupied most of the
management team’s time and attention
As this is being written, we still believe the tax-exempt market is attractive, but that can change quickly, and good
opportunities can be difficult to find even when we like the market. Thus, it is difficult to say whether allocations to tax exempts
will increase or decrease.
Our current allocation to commercial mortgage-backed securities (CMBS) (8.40%) was put in place after bringing on a
Commercial Real Estate Credit specialist with fifteen years of experience.
As a total return bond fund, we seek to position ourselves in the most undervalued fixed-income securities we can find
consistent with the need for proper diversification and liquidity. To identify such opportunities, we find scenario analysis
(over roughly a three-year investment horizon) to be more valuable than rate or market forecasting
http://ptiafunds.com/documents/ptam-annual-report.pdf

mcmarasco says: "I was caught off-guard a little bit by the accelerated rise in the 10-year."
You're not the only one. Suspect T. Rowe got caught a bit flat-footed. I own several of their conservative funds which have dramatically underperformed relative to my funds at Dodge & Cox and Oakmark the past week. Suspect T. Rowe was positioned for something different than what occurred. Three of their lower-risk funds (which I own) have underperformed noticeably since Nov. 8: PRWCX, RPGAX and TRRIX.
Some of this relates to bond holdings. (RPGAX in particular is global). More generally, I suspect T. Rowe has been expecting slower growth and constrained government spending and was so positioned in these funds. By comparison, Dodge & Cox (DODBX) is heavily weighted towards financials which have benefitted from the prospect of higher rates and inflation (and likely repeal of Dodd-Frank). And - just a guess - OAKBX probably benefitted from its long-time toe in the water exposure to drillers and energy. Also - they shed most long-term government bonds 2-3 years ago and have remained largely short-duration.
Sorry: No advice here. But folks have served-up some good ideas. Concur with you that the reaction is probably overdone - but that long-term the trend in rates is higher. FWIW: I'd be very surprised if Yellen is still Fed Chair a year from now. Anything's possible. (Maybe Rudi - if he doesn't take the Secretary of State job? ... :))

One question is always how fast rates will rise. For example, GIBLX, with an SEC yield around 4% and a modified average duration of 4+ years might be expected to return a tad south of 2% if rates rose 1/2% in the next year (lose 2% on price, gain 4% on interest). Not great, but not a disaster.
Bank loan funds have their own risks. Often the loans they invest in have floor rates of 1%, and are keyed to 3 month LIBOR. That's currently at 0.88%. Until it rises above 1%, the interest rates on these loans won't rise (since they are already above LIBOR). So these don't float - yet (it's close). So they still have a bit of interest rate risk.
http://www.schwab.com/public/schwab/nn/articles/Is-it-Time-to-Consider-Bank-Loan-Funds (August report)
They also have credit risk. The debt they own has low credit ratings (around B). Consequently the debt behaves more like stocks and is sensitive to the economy. If rising rates depress stocks, these funds may start experiencing defaults. The good news is that since they hold senior loans, they would likely recover more of their principal than would typical junk bond funds. Still, there's a real risk of default and getting less than 100 cents on the dollar.
I'm inclined to think that the market has overreacted, but things are so volatile that in the short term anything could happen. It might make sense to move some money into one of these bank loan funds, but I wouldn't bet the farm on them.

Thanks Ted,
From the article:

O’Neil said that he likes Treasury Inflation-Protected Securities, leveraged loans and corporate credit, both high yield and investment grade.
Fidelity Total Bond gained 6.1 percent this year, better than 88 percent of peers, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. Over five years the fund topped 78 percent of rivals.

@Ted. Thank you for the link.
My biggest take away from some of the words related to some of the pension funds is that; let us (pension fund managers) blame the sad state of affairs of gains since the market melt 9 years ago on low yields. The pension funds are going to run out of money and/or be forced to reduce future benefits or BOTH. Hell yes, they are and will. Guess that underfunding doesn't help much either, eh?
From the article:
Government-bond yields have risen since Donald Trump was elected U.S. president, though few investors expect a prolonged climb. Regardless, the ultralow bond yields of recent years have already hindered the most straightforward way for retirement funds to recover—through investment gains.
>>> So, no investment gains from price appreciation that many bond types have had over the past nine years??? Ya, right! If these managers have not made money from bonds in past years, they need to find new work. Losses in other investment areas have likely offset bond price gains.
From the article:
Pension officials and government leaders are left with vexing choices. As investors, they have to stash away more than they did before or pile into riskier bets in hedge funds, private equity or commodities. Countries, states and cities must decide whether to reduce benefits for existing workers, cut back public services or raise taxes to pay for the bulging obligations.
>>>Prior discussions and links here at MFO have indicated performance problems with many large pension funds. Perhaps that should have invested in something like VWINX and/or a simple 50/50 equity/bond mix with 4 holdings.
Educated, smart folks; who are not the sharpest tools in the investment world shed! Perhaps hire a few more hedge fund managers.......oh, wait; these managers are being fired by numerous funds!
10 year annualized returns sampler on the simple side of investment life:
--- IEF = 5.5%
--- TLT = 6.7%
--- LQD = 5.5%
--- TIP = 4.1% (even the lowly regarded TIP is far above this percentage using simple moving averages for buys and sells)
--- VTI = 7.1%
--- SPY = 6.8%
--- IWM = 6.7%
--- QQQ = 11.4%
--- VWINX = 6.7%
Pick any 4 of the above and one still finds an average of about 6.2% annualized over 10 years. Yes, I know; not much diworsifiers in the above choices. Build your own pension fund and post here, eh?
Problems with the future of many pension funds and survival are real. Problems with this also result from the skill set of much of the management(s).
Other than these, all is well with the world.
...etf ticker highlight test IEF QQQ
Take care,
Catch

"If you have a time horizon of 5 years or longer, you should actually hope for a rising rate environment. You’ll be better off for it in the end."
I think that would depend a lot on what kinds of bonds you own right now. If you own bonds with a relatively short maturities, rising rates could provide an opportunity to reinvest for greater investment income. If your bonds have very long term maturities, rising rates could mean (a) waiting a very long time to reinvest at higher interest rates, and/or (b) having to sell the long term bonds at a loss in order to reinvest at higher interest rates.
Nick de Peyster
http://undervaluedstocks.info/