... what are people's thoughts about a global bond fund to get a bit of income; or a structured alpha fund ?
My gut is that this market is crazy right now and will be crazy and/or flat for the next 2-5 years; but I'd rather not sit on cash if I don't have to.
Much obliged, all.
~ D.S.

FYI: Class B Shares:: (Source Investopedia)
These shares are classified by their back-end or contingent deferred sales charge. These shares are typically good for investors with little investment cash and a long investment horizon.
Pros
No Front-End Fees - Your entire initial investment contribution earns interest income.
Deferred Sales Charges - The longer you hold the shares, the lower your deferred sales charge.
Conversion to Class A - Class B shares automatically convert to Class A shares after a certain period of time. This is beneficial because Class A shares have a lower yearly expense ratio than Class B shares (see below).
Cons
Long Time Horizon Required - If you withdraw funds within a certain period of time (typically five to eight years) you are a charged a back-end or deferred sales charge.
No Breakpoints - Class B shares do not provide breakpoints on the deferred sales charge, so regardless of how much you invest, there is no discount on these charges.
Higher Expense Ratios - Class B shares charge higher expense ratios than both Class A and C shares, until shares are eligible to be converted to Class A.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.mfwire.com/common/artprint2007.asp?storyID=53556&wireid=2

FYI: S&P Dow Jones Indices actually maintains two indices of Dividend Aristocrats:
1. The S&P 500 Dividend Aristocrats Index SPDAUDP, -0.91% includes the 50 S&P 500 companies that have raised their regular dividend payouts for at least 25 consecutive years. That’s the only criterion. It makes no difference how high a company’s dividend yield is. An example of an ETF tracking this index is the ProShares S&P 500 Dividend Aristocrats ETF NOBL, -0.93%
2. The S&P High-Yield Dividend Aristocrats Index SPHYDA, -0.62% includes components of the S&P Composite 1500 that have raised their dividends for at least 20 consecutive years. This is made up of 107 stocks, including all of the S&P 500 Dividend Aristocrats. The SPDR S&P Dividend ETF SDY, -0.72% tracks the performance of this index.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/these-dividend-aristocrat-stocks-have-risen-up-to-24-a-year-for-a-decade-2016-03-01/print

Hi @DavidV,
Thank you for your question.
I do care about portfolio allocation in each account that makes up the master portfolio that I have detailed above. Naturally, the asset allocation does varry from account-to-account along with the holdings. For example, in my health savings account about one third is currently invested in only one fund (American Balanced Fund) and the other two thirds is currently held in cash which is much more than I need from an annual health care perspective. It is one of the accounts that I throttle form time-to-time by adjusting it's allocation as how I am reading the markets. Currently, with high equity valuations and anticipated interest rate increases I have rolled back my exposure to both stocks & bonds not only in this account but in all of my accounts. All the accounts get throttled from time-to-time but not all get throttled at the same time as I make changes (rebalance) over time. For example, I have been raising my cash allocation and lowering my allocation to both stocks and bonds for the past couple of years due to higher than normal price to earnings ratios for stocks and anticipated rising interest rates which will effect most bond valuations.
Generally, when I make a buy, I buy with the intent to hold the asset for at least a year. When selling something, in my taxable account, I generally take profits form long term positions while letting the shorter term positions ride until their profits (or losses) will be taxed as long term capital gains (or losses). For me, investing centers more around time in the markets over timing the markets. Trading centers around timing the markets. Generally, I hold more equities (towards the high range of my allowable allocation) when they have become oversold and their valuations are reasonable ... and, I'll hold less when their valuations have increase with higher than normal price to earnings ratios thus becoming overbought.
Most of these accounts have been in place for a good number of years as I am now retired and began investing when I was a teenager in FKINX (which was my first mutual fund purchased and still remains my largest single position at about six percent of my portfolio). Interestingly, form my late fifties, up to my full retirement at age 67, I made more from my investing endeavors than I made from working.
Thanks again for the question. I hope the above provides you with some insight as how I govern my portfolio and answers your question.

I have OAKBX along with AMRMX and others in my 401. OAKBX compared to AMRMX has worse numbers than the LV fund over the last year. In a downturn I would think the allocation fund would do better than a stock fund. I am considering culling OAKBX and splitting between stocks and bond fund choices myself. It seems as if the bond portion has added to the loses, not acted as a buffer of late. MAPOX and JABAX have both had recent manager changes while GLRBX has better performance numbers in the short term it is not considered a moderate allocation fund. Maybe the managers of FPACX and OAKBX have seen their best years.

@Old_Skeet: made the mistake of buying, but not selling. I got 3 good years out of CGMFX. Lifetime yield on that investment has been -7%. Was actually up about 4% before the bear reared its head, convincing myself that Heebner's massive short on T's would act as an inflation hedge.
CGM is miserable in a sideways market. And Ken's ego got the better of him after that one massive year.

I owned CGMFX at one time and sold it many years ago. It seems, form review of Morningstar's Performance Report the few making good money, over an extended period of time, were Natixis and Heebner. I bought this fund as a spiff and made money.

I usually rebalance the major areas (cash, bonds, stocks & other assets) of my portfolio when one of them gets to be plus or minus five percent form it's target with the exception being cash.
Example. My current target allocation to equities is 50%. With this, should equities rise to above 52.5% (105% of it's target) during a normal market cycle then I'll trim equities. However, if we are in a seasonal trend then I'll, at times, delay the rebalance towards the end of the seasonal cycle usually following some technicals looking for a breakdown in the trend. With this, I can either rebalance by the calendar or anytime by a break down in the trend. Should equities reach their upper limit within their asset allocation (currently set at 55%) then this requires a rebalance back to at least the 52.5% level and when the seasonal strategy concludes I'll generally rebalance back to the traget allocation of 50% unless equities are selling at a low price to earnings multiple and I'll position towards their mid to high allocation range for me.
Generally, if stocks are selling at a high price to earnings ratio valuation then I'll position towards the low end of my allocation range (45%) and if they are selling at a low price to earnings ratio valuation then I'll position towards my high allocation range (55%).
I am thinking there are many triggers that can warrant a rebalance incuding a need for cash. The above are just a couple of the things that can trigger a rebalance for me with most of them being driven by both stock and bond market valuations. In addition, I'll generally buy major downdrafts in the stock market and sell some equities off as the market recovers keeping within my allowable asset allocation range.
I call this working within one's asset allocation and somewhat follows Biblical beliefs in there is a time to plant and a time to harvest. Through the years this strategy has worked well for me.
Below is a description of my sleeve management system along with my portfolio's configuration. Note, there has been some recent fund movement within the sleeves.
Old_Skeet's Sleeve Management System (02/26/2016)
Here is a brief description of my sleeve system which I organized to help better manage the investments that were held in five accounts along with my current positioning. The accounts consist of a taxable account, a self directed ira account, a 401k account, a profit sharing account and a health savings account plus two bank accounts. With this I came up with four investment areas. They are a cash area which consist of two sleeves … an investment cash sleeve and a demand cash sleeve. The next area is the income area which consists of two sleeves. … a fixed income sleeve and a hybrid income sleeve. Then there is the growth & income area which has more risk associated with it than the income area and it consist of four sleeves … a global equity sleeve, a global hybrid sleeve, a domestic equity sleeve and a domestic hybrid sleeve. An finally there is the growth area, where the most risk in the portfolio is found and it consist of five sleeves … a global sleeve, a large/mid cap sleeve, a small/mid cap sleeve, a specialty & theme sleeve along with a ballast & spiff investment sleeve. Each sleeve consists of three to six funds (in most cases) with the size and the weight of each sleeve can easily be adjusted, from time-to-time, by adjusting the number of funds and amounts held. By using the sleeve system one can get a better picture of their overall investment picture and weightings by sleeve and area. In addition, I have found it beneficial to xray each fund, each sleeve, each investment area, and the portfolio as a whole quarterly. Again, weightings can be adjusted form time-to-time as to how I might be reading the markets and wish to weight accordingly. All funds pay their distributions to the cash area of the portfolio with the exception being those in my 401k, profit sharing, and health savings accounts where reinvestment occurs. With the other accounts paying to the cash area builds the cash area of the portfolio to meet the portfolio’s monthly cash disbursement amount with the residual being left for new investment opportunity. In addition, most all buy/sell trades settle from or to the cash area with some nav exchanges between funds taking place.
Here is how I have my asset allocation broken out in percent ranges, by area. My current target allocations are cash 20%, income 30%, growth & income 35%, and growth 15%. I do an Instant Xray analysis on the portfolio quarterly (sometimes monthly) and make asset weighting adjustments as I feel warranted based upon my assessment of the market, my risk tolerance, cash needs, etc. Currently, I am about 20% in the cash area, 30% in the income area, 35% in the growth & income area and 15% in the growth area. When a rebalance is warranted I'll trim first from the ballast & spiff sleeve.
Cash Area (Weighting Range 15% to 25% with target being 20%)
Demand Cash Sleeve… (Cash Distribution Accrual & Future Investment Accrual)
Investment Cash Sleeve … (Savings & Time Deposits)
Income Area (Weighting Range 25% to 35% with target being 30%)
Fixed Income Sleeve: GIFAX, LALDX, THIFX, LBNDX, NEFZX & TSIAX
Hybrid Income Sleeve: CAPAX, CTFAX, FKINX, ISFAX, JNBAX & PGBAX
Growth & Income Area (Weighting Range 30% to 40% with target being 35%)
Global Equity Sleeve: CWGIX, DEQAX & EADIX
Global Hybrid Sleeve: BAICX, CAIBX & TIBAX
Domestic Equity Sleeve: ANCFX, FDSAX, INUTX, NBHAX, SPQAX & SVAAX
Domestic Hybrid Sleeve: ABALX, AMECX, DDIAX, FRINX, HWIAX & LABFX
Growth Area (Weighting Range 10% to 20% with target being 15%)
Global Sleeve: ANWPX, PGROX & THOAX
Large/Mid Cap Sleeve: AGTHX, IACLX & SPECX
Small/Mid Cap Sleeve: AJVAX, PCVAX & PMDAX
Specialty & Theme Sleeve: LPEFX, PGUAX, TOLLX, NEWFX & THDAX
Ballast & Spiff Sleeve: FISCX, VADAX & VNVAX
Total Number of Mutual Fund Positions = 47

Hi Professor David,
I was ready to whip out my checkbook to purchase a few shares of a GMO fund when I realized I was a tad short of the membership entry fee this month. Too, too bad. I suppose a few other MFOers also find themselves in that situation.
I was not unfamiliar with the stiff entry requirements that GMO directly imposes on potential customers.
Given the likely paucity of a large general clientele base, I’m somewhat puzzled by Jeremy Grantham’s frequent talks at public events like the MoneyShow. I benefited from his global insights on several occasions at such presentations. He is an impressive, controlled speaker who inspires trust and confidence. Wallets open when Grantham speaks.
After one such presentation, I did seek an alternate source of his funds working through Wells Fargo. That was a few years ago. The initial purchasing requirements were very modest, but I rejected the opportunity because of a heavy initial purchase fee. I still blanch from such ruthless and completely unnecessary charges. I consistently stay away because of that fee structure.
Best Wishes.

@expatsp: agree. The 2008 downturn was so severe, that many of the conservative, deep value stalwarts took a major hit. Since GMO recognized that a 3-sigma was on the horizon, they should have been *especially* prone to go ultra-defensive. But in a severe crash everyone wants out of everything, which leaves little place to hide.
I think we are on the edge of another bubble at some point in the next 1-3 years. I wonder if, for younger investors who have lived through the GR, and now another bubble, if they won't avoid the market altogether. Problem is, many are also very wary of owning property as well (and/or have student debt). Where will they invest for the future? Will they simply spend (buy dividend-stalwart consumer stocks !!!)?
We are "blessed" to be living in interesting times.
My parents caught some of the dot-com boom; but otherwise enjoyed what in retrospect seems to have been a very good market throughout their investing careers. I don't think many retail investors investing today will enjoy such good fortunes.

@shostakovich. A fair point, sir. It indeed seems that actively-managed funds can successfully offer lower volatility in return for lower returns, and for retirees, that is probably a good option.
But since over a ten year period -- one that included the biggest housing bubble and market crash since the Great Depression -- a simple balanced index fund outperformed GMO's flagship fund on an aftertax basis by an average of 226 basis points a year, and on a pretax basis by 117 basis points a year (and that's assuming you were lucky enough to have $10 million to buy the cheaper, institutional share class), I think that for most people with at least 10 years till retirement, the index fund is the better bet.
But that investor will have to close his eyes and even add more if possible during the inevitable downturns. Not every investor can do that.

@Amir
I did notice the "No front-end, deferred sales load...," but I was hoping that existing Berwyn shareholders receive "I" shares like the Lake Michigan Bond fund post I linked up last night.

Likewise.
Everything in and about Berwyn Income, for example, will stay the same for at least two years. If the new owners try hiking expenses, or inserting loads, etc, after that - I would vote with my feet (out the door).
My chief concern about the transaction for BERIX remains AUM (if current manager(s), performance, SD, remain solid.)

Hi David,
I just glanced at M*, and for the last ten years, GBMFX has returned 4.82% annually, beating its category by a highly respectable 1.03%. http://www.morningstar.com/funds/XNAS/GBMFX/quote.html
But that's the institutional share class, with a $10 million minimum. I presume that the higher fees for non-institutional investors will eat up some of that alpha, and then it's very inefficient taxwise (1.78% tax cost) so unless you're in a tax-sheltered account, there goes the rest of that alpha and then some.
Vanguard's balanced index fund, VBINX, turned in a 5.99% annual return over that ten year period, with a 0.80% tax cost. In a taxable account, the annual return would be nearly double GBMFX, and even in a tax-sheltered account it would be superior. And of course there's no manager-transition risk, concern about luck, etc.
I don't know about the since-inception results, maybe in the 90s GBMFX had glory years, but MJG's thoughts -- that even funds run by brilliant, ethical, humble, and careful managers like Mr. Grantham have a hard time outperforming -- are becoming ever more convincing.

FYI: It seems like at the beginning of each year, market pundits predict that equity markets will generate positive returns in the year ahead, with the majority of the predictions landing between 0% and 10%. Ironically, the broad U.S. equity market has finished outside of that range in 77 of the past 90 years, with annual returns ranging from +54% to -43%.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamescahn/2016/02/25/rebalance-regularly-even-during-periods-of-volatility/print/

Hi Ted,
It's great to have a dedicated historian committed to the site. Thank you.
I had forgotten that I recommended the PortfolioVisualizer site about 2 years ago. Your memory saved me time responding to the question once again in a positive way.
I still consider the referenced site a flexible and trustworthy information treasure to aid the investment decision process. I especially like their Monte Carlo simulator.
Best Wishes and continue the march.

Hi Mark!
I have owned GLFOX for about 2 years. I use it as a global fund. It is core, and I only add on weakness. I think it is a very well run fund and would recommend it to anyone. Also, in that space, I use FMIJX and MAPIX.
God bless
the Pudd

Here is link to an article on February 8 where Gundlach predicted a collapse in the junk bond market.

So far he has been completely wrong. Junk bonds had another strong day today.
I'll believe junkster's opinion over Gundlach any day of the week.

Thanks G, albeit wouldn't go that far. Junk bonds bottomed on 2/11 a pivotal day for a lot of markets YTD (see MFO link below) Since the generational bottom in December 2008 I have never found Mr Gundlach very prescient on junk bonds. There have been few times when he was outright bullish on junk. He seems to have had a bias against them for most of the past 7 years. And among the experts out there, I actually think he is among the few that has a clue when it comes to the markets in general. I like him!
It has been a nice rally in junk since the recent bottom and after today many of the open end will be positive YTD. I have no idea if Gundlach will be proven correct in junk this time around. While the experts practice their vodoo forecasting and predicting, the market will tell its own story best by its price action. Junk and oil have been joined at the hip the past two years or so. If oil is to go back down to its lows would *think* so will junk. But then I never have been much of a *thinker*
http://www.mutualfundobserver.com/discuss/discussion/25925/was-yesterday-it#latest

In the 21st century Artisan Funds has assumed the unenviable mantle of Royce Funds:
1. Too many funds, most of which are unnecessary.
2. Too expensive - expense ratios consistently above their category averages.
3. Too unfocused - performance of funds has become decidedly mediocre.
The time to move on and wean one's portfolio of Artisan Funds was several years ago.

@shipwreckedandalone: Considering you still own VBINX another Moderate Allocation Fund, I think you've made a wise decision. Over the years FPCAX percentile ranking has slipped from 1-93.
15 Years: 1
10 Years: 10
5 Years: 33
3 Years: 48
1 Year: 75
YTD: 93
Regards,
Ted

Sold my beloved FPACX today after many many good years of prosperity. Everything comes to an end I guess. It was like putting down an old dog of mine.