I used to be a big fan of the Manning & Napier target date offerings. Their performance has only been average (or worse) over the past five years. Not sure what is going on, but I believe they may have had (in the past) one shot successes with holdings such as Hess.

@bee - Thanks for the information. I was familiar with VTMFX, but not with USBLX.
These don't really fit my current needs (as explained above) or my style, but would be a nice fit for some people. Like you, I generally prefer to control my own mix (separate stock and bond funds), though in recent years, I've become more open to global funds (as opposed to separate foreign and domestic funds), and even to world allocation funds (balanced funds on a global scale).
It depends on what value they bring, and how well they fit into my portfolio.

Thanks for the positive comments on the (now) Baird team.
Hardly a performance chaser. Just playing year end tax games and have cash on hand.
This is one of those unusual (but not extremely rare) years where a good year is being followed by a flat year. Pent up cap gains in funds are being realized, resulting in distributions sometimes exceeding share appreciation (virtually zero for the year). In those cases, it's better selling before dividends are distributed.
For other tax reasons (and also that I expect more stability in shorter munis than shorter taxable funds), I'm looking more at short/intermediate muni funds than taxable funds. Seems a good idea to diversify in the space (literally avoiding putting all of my "eggs" in a single basket, i.e. fund), so I'm poking around.
Regarding PRFSX - as you wrote, it seems a conservative, solid fund. M* likes it (gold rated), which could be a negative mark for some here :-). Though with an SEC yield of 0.62%, I think bank accounts (1% taxable) are better for now - guaranteed principal, and may even pay more if/when inflation (or Ms. Yellen) makes a showing. Savings accounts may be interesting to watch over the remainder of the year.

The Fed has talked this one up, so it'd be surprising if they don't move now.
But all the blather about it over the past years is coming mainly from the financial press, most of whom have never had any idea what they're talking about.

I skip the ultra short, because they pay so little that a taxable bank account (paying 1%) is clearly better.
In the short to short/intermediate range, I use VMLTX/VMLUX as my benchmark. It's toward the upper end of the range in duration (2.5 years) and maturity (3.1) years. That (plus very low fees) gives it one of the higher SEC yields (0.94%) and one of the higher 1 year returns (1.05%). All while maintaining a AA average rating (many funds tend to be A or BBB).
Using those criteria (solid SEC yield, good 1 year return indicating some stability, and A or better credit), I'm finding few alternatives. What I do see are:
NEARX (SEC yield 0.79% as of 9/30, 2.6 year duration, 2.7 year maturity, A rated)
FSTFX (SEC yield 0.85% as of 11/30, 2.8 year duration, 3.2 year maturity, A rated)
BRMIX (new fund, 2.2 year duration, 2.7 year duration, per M*)
I'm curious about the latter - it's a new fund from a fine bond fund house (Baird). But it isn't using their usual managers. Rather, two of the three managers came over from BMO this year, where they'd been managing BASFX.
Like Baird funds in general, it is allowed to hold some junk (with this fund, 10%, including D rated bonds). But looking at its holdings, most bonds are trading at a premium, or at worst a very slight discount, to par. That suggests that these are all high grade bonds, and the portfolio has little credit risk.
The managers seemed to do well with BASFX (which is itself another fund to look at - it's available load waived, but the risk is new management, which is one of the reasons for looking at BRMIX instead of BASFX).
At least there seem to be choices for good short term muni funds.

Didn't recall that. Thanks. Sounds like this latest problem was just the last straw.
You noted: "It's not clear that "CEO for 24 years" was exactly correct (there were a couple firms, a couple titles and a gap)."
Hence the very careful wording on Third Ave's web page: "Mr. Barse has led investment boutique Third Avenue Management LLC for more than two decades ..."
Not necessarily continuously since 1991, and not as CEO. The WSJ took this and reinterpreted it as:
"Mr. Barse had led Third Avenue since 1991, according to the company’s website ..."
and captioned its picture as: " David Barse, ... chief executive since 1991"
FWIW, the Reuters article got it right (or at least different): "He had been CEO of Third Avenue since 2003"
I've got to read more carefully.

I was going to say something similar - Danoff and Primcap seem to move somewhat out of sync - one fund can do better for a few years, then the other takes the lead. Hard to say one is better than the other - they seem to be complementary in the large cap growth space.
Agree also on getting rid of blend, but unlike David, feel you can better do this if you hold value. That is, I would not bet on growth vs. value (or vice versa), but keep a good counterbalancing fund.

There is, I think, some evidence that Mr. Barse was hard to love. It's not clear that "CEO for 24 years" was exactly correct (there were a couple firms, a couple titles and a gap). It's pretty clear that TAM has been in turmoil for years, which makes a "fire the coach" reaction understandable - especially if the coach has been assuring the board that there was no problem with values on the illiquid securities ... or the concentration in the illiquid securities. And, in this case, over half of the board had a substantial investment in - which means lost a lot of their own money in - the Focused Credit fund.
Here's the sort of caution we'd written back in February:
In sum, the firm’s five mutual funds are down by $11 billion from their peak asset levels and nearly 50% of the investment professionals on staff five years ago, including the managers of four funds, are gone. At the same time, only one of the five funds has had performance that meets the firm’s long-held standards of excellence.
Many outsiders noted not just the departure of long-tenured members of the Third Avenue community, but also the tendency to replace those folks with outsiders. The most prominent change was the arrival, in 2014, of Robert Rewey, the new head of the “value equity team” and formerly a portfolio manager at Cramer Rosenthal McGlynn, LLC, where his funds’ performance trailed their benchmark (CRM Mid Cap Value CRMMX, CRM All Cap Value CRMEX and CRM Large Cap Opportunity CRMGX) or exceeded it modestly (CRM Small/Mid Cap Value CRMAX). Industry professionals we talked with spoke of “a rolling coup,” the intentional marginalization of Mr. Whitman within the firm he created and the influx of outsiders.
David

@Joe: I don't recommend you throw the baby out with the bath water. TRAEX is an excellent fund, and has a better than average performance record over the years.
Regards,
TED

ZH behind the times, again:
This dramatic escalation now means that every single hedge and mutual funds will spend all Sunday night and Monday morning trying to ferret out any bonds that are especially illiquid or are mispriced
Meanwhile, the WSJ article it quotes (admittedly updated) said that this ferreting out was already done last week:
On Dec. 10, the day the firm announced it was halting withdrawals, traders at Wall Street banks circulated a list of bonds offered for sale by a single seller that matched many of the largest holdings reported by Third Avenue, said several hedge-fund managers who saw the list. Most hedge funds passed on the portfolio, which contained deeply distressed bonds and private equity investments that are hard to trade.
My two takeaways (from the WSJ article):
1) (Quoting one of the commenters): "Now consider that the CEO was in that position for 24 years and swiftly shown the door. There is a lot more going on here to warrant this type of draconian action by the BOD."
2) The fund did not technically prevent redemptions - it redeemed in kind, by distributing shares of a trust that was created to hold and liquidate the portfolio. It is the terms of the trust that bar its owners from cashing out.

As mostly a long term investor I have found it is as important as when I buy as much as when I sell for good gains. In today's market climate I am building cash over buying or adding to existing positions in what I consider to be a peaking and overvalued stock market. I'd much rather be buying in a market that has a TTM P/E Ratio of 14, 15 or 16 rather than the current 22 reading. I have found that the returns are greater when bought at reasonable valuations rather in an expensive and/or towards the top of a market.
With the above in mind, I am keeping both my bonds (due to anticipated rising rates) and equities (due to high valuations) towards their mid to low range while keeping my cash towards its high end within my portfolio's asset allocation.
As I noted above, a fund that trades on equity market volatility is CTFAX. And, since my cash is currently towards the top of its allocation limit, I thinking of buying more of CTFAX with all of this years mutual fund capital gain distributions.

David Winters has said he is longer-term in his views on multiple occasions (I guess aside from occasions where he stupidly faces off against Buffett and then sells his BRK shares in a huff after he didn't get his way - as if Buffett cares.) Where Wintergreen ran into trouble was that pretty much a couple of years ago a number of his major themes stopped working with some (Macau) doing horribly.
Before that, it was decent fund that I think was less than Winters made it out to be (Winters has talked in interviews about how the fund has all these tools - tools that he's rarely ever used.) I guess I don't really see how you can time actively managed funds with much/consistent success. I mean, anyone who tried to time a return to form for Heebner/CGM Focus is still waiting. The Kinetics funds (including flagship WWNPX) are another example.

Hi @Junkster
No longer an "investor" in HY from about 1 1/2 years ago; but I indeed pay attention.
I took a peek at some old numbers today just for the hell of it using only the etf HYG, although I never had monies in this holding.
I wanted to take a look back as I recall watching the yield numbers in the junk bond areas and shaking my head. Just a few numbers from the time frame of December, 2008; through December of 2010.
---December, 2008 found the yields running around the 20% area, including this number until mid March of 2009. There were a few fits and starts in this period, but a good general number. By December of 2010 the yields were wandering around the 8% range.
I didn't take a close look at pricing, but generally; this is the result of this two year time frame:
---yields decreased by about 60% in these two years
---pricing increased by about 60% in these two years
Just a few quick numbers.
I remain mostly of the consideration not so much about any bonds being an income stream, but being about appreciation in value to my monies, no matter how that appreciation arrives.
'Course, today's wacky and perverted world of central banks and all the rest make for some most interesting investing in bonds of whatever flavor, eh?
Take care,
Catch

Howdy professor,
Been dead for a couple of years now - since they peaked. feh. It was a great run - one of the all time easy bulls to ride.
Have some great holidays,
rono

I apologize in advance for this interruption in a "Fund Discussion".
This may not be very investment savvy but I am getting a bit tired of not raising the rates following the perpetual tease of "raising the rate". Now all I want is for them to raise the rates, good or bad - I don't care, so that we can get on with it. If it will bring the end of the world so be it; it might prove less boring. If no rate raise is feasible, quit talking about it. This has been going on for years now. I don't even know if not doing it or doing it is already baked in at this point.

All of my rollover IRAs and 401k are invested in Bonds Funds, DODIX and PTTDX for the most part. They provided a decent yield for the last several years but were flat this year.
From what I understand, bond funds will take a big hit when the upcoming interest rate hike takes effect. I'm not quite sure what, if anything I should do about my funds. Like most, I would at least like to see several percent per year to keep up with inflation.
I am 63 years old, enjoy my job and should be safe for another 3-5 years of employment. Fidelity runs our 401k and I have access to other funds via a brokerage account.
I know I haven't given near enough info, but are there options out there that might give me decent returns without a high level of risk? Any ideas would be appreciated.
Thanks in advance!

I started a position in First Eagle Global Income Builder (FEBAX) shortly after it opened 3 1/2 years ago, as a defensive compliment to my largest holding, PRWCX. It's done better than the category average, but not too well risk adjusted or versus the S&P 500. I just think I need to give it more time (like a full market cycle) since it's a global value oriented fund which focuses on capital preservation first - and those haven't performed very well the past few years.

Third Avenue's decision this week to block redemptions and liquidate a fund with $789 million in assets jolted Wall Street and caught the attention of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
Thanks for the link Ted. Junk bonds have a reputation for being highly illiquid. So I'm not surprised. I'll submit that when things are going well they are more often referred to as high yield bonds (or funds). But when things aren't going well, they're more likely to be called junk .
Price closed PRHYX to new investors about 5 years ago. In the past that always seemed to me a pretty good bell-weather of where the high yield market was heading. This time around, however, they proved way too early in the closing - assuming it was based on valuation and froth in the HY markets. (Of course, managers rarely speak that bluntly when closing a fund.)
Not to be alarmist, but the blocking of redemptions by Third Avenue is the type of thing that often leads to panic in other markets as well. Umm ... let's hope it's different this time. But Friday did resemble a bit of a train wreck across many markets.
Regards

Panic in high-yield hits BDCs
Dec 11 2015, 15:40 ET | By: Stephen Alpher, SA News Editor Contact this editor with comments or a news tip
Treasury yields are plunging, but high-yield is headed the other way again as investors mull a big selloff in the major averages and oil's plunge to below $36 per barrel.The pain is widespread, but a panic in credit is particularly painful for BDCs. Hitting the tape a few minutes ago, Jeff Gundlach says "there's never just one cockroach" when credit melts down.http://seekingalpha.com/news/2980206-panic-in-high-yield-hits-bdcs?uprof=46
Gundlach: If Fed met today, it wouldn't hike
Dec 11 2015, 15:30 ET | By: Stephen Alpher, SA News Editor
"There's never just one cockroach" when credit melts down, Jeffrey Gundlach tells Reuters, and investors have been on "credit overload."The best trade at the moment, he says, is to sell the S&P 500 and buy closed-end credit funds (not Third Avenue's!)
http://seekingalpha.com/news/2980186-gundlach-if-fed-met-today-it-wouldnt-hike
More Coal
OPEC piled on the bad news. After last week’s removal of a production target, this week the oil cartel released figures that showed the group collectively produced the most oil in three years in November, ramping up output to 31.7 million barrels per day (mb/d). Iraq accounted for most of the monthly gains, achieving more than 247,000 barrels per day in increases from October.
The bearish news suggests more pain in the offing for U.S. shale. The EIA put out an estimate, expecting U.S. shale to lose 116,000 barrels per day in production in January, with the largest losses once again coming from the Eagle Ford shale (down 77,000 barrels per day).
http://oilprice.com/newsletters/free/opintel12112015

A rather dumb story as the cost of electrical generation--the primary use for solar and wind power--has almost nothing to do with the price of oil. Natural gas and coal are the primary competitors in this sphere as they are used extensively to generate electricity while oil isn't. Also, highly relevant are the politics of green energy subsidies and utility price increases and the age and cost to maintain the existing electrical grid. American utilities have been raising the price of electricity in recent years even though there has been a dramatic decline in natural gas and coal prices. The reason is one there are high expenses to maintain our aging electrical grids. But also simply because utilities can raise prices. They negotiate a price increase with the local governments and then charge it regardless often where commodities trade. If commodities trade cheaply, that just means more profit for the utilities that pass along the price increase. Also, of course extremely important is the situation in China with major suppliers and now consumers of alt energy there. And of course there is the technological advancement in the alternative energy space--these are the primary factors, not the price of oil. This table provides all you need to know about how relevant oil is to electrical generation: data.worldbank.org/indicator/EG.ELC.PETR.ZS In the U.S. only 0.8% of electricity generated comes from oil. I suppose if the entire world were Jamaica or Lebanon, where oil is a primary electricity source, this story would be more relevant.