Ha. I averaged into PRNEX beginning about a year ago when it seemed no one wanted it. As the author says, the ER beats many similar funds (and many of T.Rowe's other growth funds as well). Heavy on refiners. I've been slowly averaging out since oil got back above $40.
What's really funny is that even the fund's manager sounded bearish six-months to a year ago. (I got the impression he was telling people not to buy his fund.) :) His take (as related thru fund reports) was that energy and commodities were only mid-way through a multi-year bear likely to last several more years. (Someone linked an interview here wherein he made that point.)
He may still be proven right, but as of yesterday PRNEX was up 21% YTD. It's more aggressive than I normally hold in my equity portion, preferring their tamer PRWCX. But in comparing PRNEX to their other growth funds, I suspect it still has a lot of catching-up to do in the next few years. Just a hunch. Will resume scaling out as the fund's price rises above $35.
FWIW

Lots of misinformation all around. The article says that Legg Mason Opportunity Trust is seven years old. While its class A shares (LGOAX) began Feb 3, 2009, the fund itself (Class C, formerly Primary Class) LMOPX began December 30, 1999.
M*'s profile of Bill Miller (the text on the fund's management page) says that Bill Miller currently co-manages Legg Mason Value Trust (i.e. the 15-year streak fund). He ended that in 2012. The fund (LMVTX) doesn't even carry the Legg Mason name - it was renamed years ago to Clearbridge Value (a Legg Mason brand).
This seems like a formality - Legg Mason has been inching Miller out for years. Bloomberg has a better article.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-08-11/bill-miller-buys-legg-mason-s-stake-in-his-fund-company-lmm

FYI: The Jensen Quality Growth Fund has been one of the best-performing large-cap growth funds over the past few years, even as the stock market has hit plenty of potholes and many other active fund managers have lagged behind the market.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/how-this-stock-fund-has-beaten-the-market-through-thick-and-thin-2016-08-11/print
M* Snapshot JENRX:
http://www.morningstar.com/funds/XNAS/JENRX/quote.html
Lipper Snapshot JENRX:
http://www.marketwatch.com/investing/Fund/JENRX
JENRX Is Ranked #13 In The (LCG) fund Category By U.S. News & World Report:
http://money.usnews.com/funds/mutual-funds/large-growth/jensen-quality-growth-fund/jenrx

FYI: Bill Miller and Legg Mason [profile] are parting ways after 35 years together.
Today the famed value-equity PM confirms that he plans to buy out the 50-percent stake in his shop, LMM, that had been owned by Legg Mason. Once the deal closes, Legg Mason reveals, "Miller, together with companies he controls, will own 100% of LMM." LMM, like Legg Mason, is based in Baltimore.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.mfwire.com/article.asp?storyID=54590&bhcp=1

Another day, another dire prophecy from the Gloom, Boom, and Doom guy...... *yawn*
For him and others in the perma-bear camp, "The Big One" has been coming for years. It may still take years to materialise. Ergo, just ignore market 'calls' and do what you think is best that lets you sleep well at night. :)
I do think there will be a reckoning -- but I'm sure not going to try trading it in advance.

That didn't take long.
(I hold PRHSX and have been mulling reducing my position recently due to the management turnover in recent years.)

@msf: I thought of you when I linked this article. You have provided excellent commentary on the subject when I linked previous articles that left a lot of holes with unclear and ambiguous language. The difference between this article and the others, is Daisy Maxey, who has been writing on the subject of Mutual Funds for years.
Regards,
Ted

FYI: Auto enrollment without auto escalation of default contribution rate is part of the problem.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/401k-balances-increased-very-little-in-the-last-10-years-2016-08-10/print

Wasn't there similar "investor concerns" floated in the media when Ebola resurfaced globally a few years ago? And then H1N1, SARS, and whatever else in recent years, too? Unless it's the zombie apocalypse (think: 'Resident Evil' movies) it won't impact my current portfolio positioning any, and won't factor into my investing decisions in the future either.
That said, mosquitoborne illnesses -- which I agree can be frightening -- are nothing new to much of the world....but Zika's impact on births, mothers, and pregnancies indeed is scary.
I remember stepping off the plane in Brasilia on a State Dept junket 12+ years ago and before I got out of the jetway the embassy staffer was spraying me down with DEET because of a Dengue outbreak in the country. That kind of scared me ... as did the mosquito I killed 3 days later in my hotel room, which thankfully didn't bite me. I played tourist anyway, albeit dying while wearing DEET-soaked long sleeves and jeans as i climbed Corcovado in 95F and uber-high humidity. ;/ (For years later, every time I got an ache or pain I couldn't account for I thought it might be delayed-action dengue. ;/)

$2.1M AUM two years after inception

It is very simple, I am currently not buying new equity positions or adding to any existing positions at these high P/E multiples. I have been rebalancing my portfolio as the stock markets reaches new highs thus keeping equities towards their low range within my asset allocation. Should we get a near term pullback I'll load equities during the pullback and then trim my allocation in equities as they recover.

Hard to disagree with any of this. You make some great points.
- I would not start new equity positions or add to existing ones at such lofty levels.
- Rebalancing is a good way to add to underperforming assets and cull your winners. Not everyone will agree, but I like this approach. As we are well into the distribution phase in our retirement years, "rebalancing" is most often achieved by selling off some of the better performing assets when we take a distribution.
- Sharp pullbacks are a good time to put lower yielding fixed-income assets to work in riskier areas.
I'll make a distinction, however, between rebalancing and trying to time the markets based on valuations, seasonality, Fed policy, elections, macroeconomics, etc. I'm not necessarily opposed to the second, but it is much more difficult to pull-off successfully and consistently, I think, than merely rebalancing.
Thanks for sharing @randynevin and @Skeet.

Hi @JohnChisum,
Thanks for the heads up on AMJVX (broker sold ticker AMJAX). Although, it is a relative new fund I like it's sector allocation with it's top three sectors being real estate (43%), energy (15%) and financials (12%). With this, I think it is well position and I am thinking that it can adjust it positioning form time-to-time as to how its managers are reading the markets. In addition, I like its overall asset allocation and style mix.
I have started building another portfolio which is being funded from distributions from mine and my wife's self directed IRA accounts. We are not wanting the balances in these IRA accounts to keep growing. With this, we have started taking all mutual funds distributions (interest, dividends and capital gains) in the form of IRA distributions. While these IRA distributions are taxable as income we are putting these monies to work in some hybrid mutual fund selections held in a joint account that in return will generate a good deal of income while providing for some capital appreciation. I am currently, two years into the development of this joint account and it is already putting a little jingle in our pockets.
I am in the process of expanding three of my twelve sleeves found in my portfolio sleeve management system from six funds to nine funds each with the addition of this account since it will be comprised of mostly hybrid funds found in the hybird income sleeve, domestic hybrid growth & income sleeve and global hybird growth & income sleeve. AMJVX will become an addition to one of these sleeves. I might, in time, add a couple of equity funds such as TWEIX, FDSAX and SVAAX to the joint account's fund mix but most likely I will not be expanding the number of funds within the sleeve that holds these three funds which now has a total of six funds.
Thanks again for the heads up on AMJVX.
It is indeed appreciated.
Cordially,
Old_Skeet

Interesting choice. It looks like you've highlighted the key difference between the two funds. Though I might add that as a consequence, DBLFX's broad allocations (government, corporate, securitized) hew much more closely to that of the typical fund.
It may come down to what you think of Treasuries. Bogle is not a lover of Treasuries, having stated that the index is too heavily weighted that way. On the other hand, Buffett has suggested that his heir divide investments between an S&P 500 index fund and short term Treasuries.
Personally, I prefer underweighting. Long term treasuries are IMHO only good for speculating on interest rates (1/6 of DBLTX's mature in over 25 years). Short term, and currently intermediate, Treasuries yield so little that they're effectively cash. (They yield as little or less than an individual investor could get insured in a bank account.)
Also, when I buy an actively managed fund, I look for a fund where the managers take positions that deviate significantly from the herd. Maybe Gundlach has with this fund; all I'm looking at is the current snapshot in time. He certainly does go his own way with some of his funds.
Disclaimer: I think that he is very sharp, though not as sharp as he thinks himself. So I expect this fund to be well managed and worth owning. Beyond that I can't say.

msf,
Thanks for your thoughts.
I am thinking of pairing DBLTX with BCOIX. One heavily mortgage oriented, the other corporate. One with higher rated bonds, the other with lower. Both unfortunately sport yields on the lower side, but BCOIX TR has been quite good in 2016. Can't say the same for DBLTX and hopefully the cause has been the type of mortgages, which can be adjusted, and not the large AUM (which may speak to more difficulty in adjusting).
TSP_Transfer, I own PTIAX and am pleased with the yield, TR, and stable NAV. While heavily mortgage based like DBLTX, obviously a different animal.
Mona

This issue came up about 10 years ago, when an academic study looked into this. See http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/09/business/mutfund/09stra.html?_r=0. I wonder what is different this time.
Alban

A little Oranges and Tangerines ,but...
Performance Trust Strategic Bond Fund PTIAX 1
$5,000/$500 N/L No Transaction Fee @ Fidelity
Multisector Bond
Inception Date 08/31/2010 Multiple Managers 6 years Assets $590.06
Ex Ratio 0.89%
1. No Transaction Fee funds are available without paying a transaction fee. No Transaction Fee funds will also be offered without a load or on a load waived basis. However, the fund may charge a short term trading fee or a redemption fee
$5,000/$500 N/L No Transaction Fee @ Fidelity
https://fundresearch.fidelity.com/mutual-funds/summary/89833W394
Performance Trust Strategic Bond Fund (PTIAX)
FUND INSIGHTS
What Sets Us Apart:
JUNE 30, 2016
http://ptiafunds.com/documents/ptam-difference_ptiax_final.pdf

Interesting choice. It looks like you've highlighted the key difference between the two funds. Though I might add that as a consequence, DBLFX's broad allocations (government, corporate, securitized) hew much more closely to that of the typical fund.
It may come down to what you think of Treasuries. Bogle is not a lover of Treasuries, having stated that the index is too heavily weighted that way. On the other hand, Buffett has suggested that his heir divide investments between an S&P 500 index fund and short term Treasuries.
Personally, I prefer underweighting. Long term treasuries are IMHO only good for speculating on interest rates (1/6 of DBLTX's mature in over 25 years). Short term, and currently intermediate, Treasuries yield so little that they're effectively cash. (They yield as little or less than an individual investor could get insured in a bank account.)
Also, when I buy an actively managed fund, I look for a fund where the managers take positions that deviate significantly from the herd. Maybe Gundlach has with this fund; all I'm looking at is the current snapshot in time. He certainly does go his own way with some of his funds.
Disclaimer: I think that he is very sharp, though not as sharp as he thinks himself. So I expect this fund to be well managed and worth owning. Beyond that I can't say.

Thanks, but I'll take BCOIX over this fund.
Nearly identical in most metrics (duration, credit quality, credit breakdown, number of bonds/bonds in top 10%, country breakdown). TIORX is long and short in cash, but with same net cash as BCOIX (no shorts).
Differences that pop out include:
- TIORX has more securitized bonds and less corporate (as discussed in article)
- TIORX has high turnover (308%, mentioned in article) vs. 34%
- TIORX costs twice as much (0.62% vs. 0.30%)
- TIORX has lower SEC yield (2.31% vs. 2.61%)
With the notable exception of 2008, BCOIX generally outperforms. In 2008 it underperformed by 4.64%, but made that up and more with its 2009 9.08% outperformance. In all other recent years, performance figures were much closer.
It is fair to look back this far, as BCOIX's management started in 2000. Though the article implies that Higgins (starting in 2011) is the only manager of TIORX, the prospectus says: "The following persons manage the Fund on a day-to-day basis: ...Higgins ... since 2011 [and] ... Cerra ... since 2003." Both are listed as "Managing Directors". Neither the prospectus nor M* says anything about 13 managers.

msf,
BCOIX over DBLFX (less Corportate Bond and more US Treasury)?
Mona

To paraphrase: Vanguard knows better than its shareholders what is in their best interest.
How patronizing.
When Vanguard says that it must maximize returns, is that returns over the next quarter, or over the next decade? Penny wise and pound foolish comes to mind.
Vanguard seems to be saying that it is required to vote this way to meet its fiduciary duties. It is thus tacitly accusing Allianz, Wells Fargo, DWS, Schroeder (which submanages VINEX and VWIGX), and others of breach of fiduciary duty.
http://www.ecowatch.com/is-your-mutual-fund-a-climate-change-denier-or-climate-champion-1882190571.html
(The figures in the article linked to above show that exact voting percentages depend on how you count. Nevertheless, the split among fund companies is clear. Thanks to Lewis for the info on Blackrock's change of heart, since its 2015 voting performance was 0%.)
It gets worse. From a 2014 article (writing about 2014 and earlier votes):
"Industry giant Vanguard remains sole mutual fund to ignore climate-related resolutions for 11th-straight year. ... Vanguard ... has failed to cast a single vote in support of a climate-related resolution in 11 years."

Thanks, but I'll take BCOIX over this fund.
Nearly identical in most metrics (duration, credit quality, credit breakdown, number of bonds/bonds in top 10%, country breakdown). TIORX is long and short in cash, but with same net cash as BCOIX (no shorts).
Differences that pop out include:
- TIORX has more securitized bonds and less corporate (as discussed in article)
- TIORX has high turnover (308%, mentioned in article) vs. 34%
- TIORX costs twice as much (0.62% vs. 0.30%)
- TIORX has lower SEC yield (2.31% vs. 2.61%)
With the notable exception of 2008, BCOIX generally outperforms. In 2008 it underperformed by 4.64%, but made that up and more with its 2009 9.08% outperformance. In all other recent years, performance figures were much closer.
It is fair to look back this far, as BCOIX's management started in 2000. Though the article implies that Higgins (starting in 2011) is the only manager of TIORX, the prospectus says: "The following persons manage the Fund on a day-to-day basis: ...Higgins ... since 2011 [and] ... Cerra ... since 2003." Both are listed as "Managing Directors". Neither the prospectus nor M* says anything about 13 managers.

Not exactly an answer to your question but "lower returns going forward" seems to be the latest buzz phrase. Actually has been around many years and popularized by the likes of Jeremy Grantham long ago and others (especially value managers) Last year's punk returns really had them howling the era of low returns was upon us. But last I checked the market was still powering ahead and at all time highs. Sort of reminds me of post 2008 when a bunch of funds were rolled out pandering to the fears of another 2008. Now I guess the marketing machines will be pandering to the low returns going forward fears. As an aside, your aforementioned MWATX (not MWTAX) looks good and has performed well over the years - certainly no low returns in that fund.