VF - I agree, at age 47 at the height of your career you don't quit - especially someone as good as Gibson Smith was - something else is going on. I've owned several Janus funds in taxable accounts, some for 20 years, but have been paring them down in recent years and am left with JANIX, JNGLX, and JNPSX. Although they have nothing to do with the fixed income side, I'm still concerned about Janus' corporate culture.
As far as my balanced funds go I'm not worried - when interest rates rise, the balanced funds will buy new bonds at higher rates to offset the loss in principal when their existing bond holdings mature. My balanced funds I own have short durations and mostly corporate debt.

I think it is bigger than that. I think bond funds in general are not going to be the place to be for the next 10 years. People don't leave at age 47 to spend time with their family. No, they don't. They don't. The smartest managers are those who know how good they've had in their "area of expertise" and quit at the top.
I'm going to seriously reconsider all my bond and balanced funds. Cash might be better option. Also looking at GTSOX and TALSX, but so far not been convinced enough to pull the trigger.
On a side note, Weil is pals with Gross. I can't help but wonder there is a something cooking in bond-world at Janus. I'm frankly SEEin the rat before I'm smelling it.
Full disclosure, I own JUCDX and JPVDX.

@scott- With respect to entities like American Tower, there are some "yes, buts". I'm speaking here from my experiences as a retired radio technician. It's important to understand the differences between "high level" and "low level" towers: the "level" indicates the altitude with respect to the surrounding terrain, and of course in that context high and low has the obvious meaning.
American Tower owned a number of the high-level transmission towers (and associated radio equipment facilities) that San Francisco uses for Public Safety communications, and I did acquire a bit of information regarding those sites. High-level sites are typically located on mountaintops and on very tall buildings, and are used for two purposes: broadcast (think AM or FM broadcast radio and TV), and microwave relay for almost any sort of communication you can imagine. The height advantage, combined with high-powered transmitters, allow broadcasts from these sites to cover a large geographical area. The microwave is very narrow point-to-point, typically between tower locations.
While it's certainly true that cellular and data communications are proliferating like crazy, virtually all of that expansion is located at low-level sites. There are several reasons for this. First, the frequencies available for this type of RF communication are limited- there is a much greater demand for radio-frequency (RF) channels than there is available radio spectrum. Second, this type of radio use does NOT benefit from either a high-level site nor from high-powered transmission.
The two issues are related: to maximize the usage of the limited RF spectrum, low powered transmission is used from low-level sites- the opposite of radio broadcasting. Because the sites are low-powered and low-level, they cover a tightly defined small geographical area, commonly called a "cell". This allows maximal reuse of the RF spectrum, as the same frequencies can be reused in nearby cells. Which brings us back to American Tower.
The small cell size means that the transmission sites for this type of equipment can be located on low-level buildings, and even on what we would think of as "tall telephone poles". Church steeples are a favorite choice. Look around as you travel, and you will see huge numbers of these installations, characterized by clusters of special antennas that sort of resemble thick police shields. Those transmission sites are typically leased from the owners of the individual properties, and not a large entity such as American Tower.
From what I've heard American Tower is doing OK lately, which is a definite change from some years ago. But be aware of what their limitations are with respect to cellular voice and data transmission.

The apparent text section in question from the December 1 commentary is below and is opening of the paragraph just above "Briefly Noted", which is #17 in the content list.
I do agree with the two previous comments; that I also don't understand who to attribute this statement to.....as noted by @VintageFreak...."Who is Several of us?"; followed by @JohnChisum and his question/statement.
"Several of us have taken the position that we’re likely in the early stages of a bear market. The Wall Street Journal (12/01/2015) reports two troubling bits of economic data that might feed that concern: US corporate capital expenditures (capex) continue dropping and emerging market corporate debt defaults continue rising. For the first time in recent years, e.m. default rates exceed U.S. rates.
Briefly Noted . . ."
Regards,
Catch

HP Enteprise (HPE) article on the trends in Telecom. I like FSTCX and PRMTX to own exposure to these trends.
The six major disruptions that will drive the most change in Telecommunications by 2020 are:
Integration
Thingification
Mobility
Saturation
Security
Ascension
Let's visit each of these in turn, and take a look at the world of Telecommunications five years into the future.
https://hpematter.com/issue-no-4-spring-2015/content-barons-smart-dust-skynet-6-telecommunications-disruptions-2020

Several of us have taken the position that we’re likely in the early stages of a bear market. The Wall Street Journal (12/01/2015) reports two troubling bits of economic data that might feed that concern: US corporate capital expenditures (capex) continue dropping and emerging market corporate debt defaults continue rising. For the first time in recent years, e.m. default rates exceed U.S. rates.
Who is Several of us?

Isn't a taxable distribution just an accountant's way of saying, "You made a profit...now you need to pay your taxes on that profit."

True, except in this case, the "person" that made the profit is the fund, and not necessarily the investors. FAIRX was down 2.72% in 2014 (compared to +13% for the S&P 500). So far this year, it is down another 2.39% (compared to +3% for S&P). So folks who bought into FAIRX during the last two years are probably not feeling all that "profitable" with their FAIRX taxes.

@dryflower thanks for posting this. This distribution is crazy. FAIRX was supposed to be tax-efficient, at least that's what M* said when I bought it 9 years ago. And it was, for a while. What the hell?
I did notice recently that it's performance is no longer so correlated with AIG. Wonder what he's buying?
Well, I will sell, then decide whether to put some of it back into FAIRX, or FAAFX, or finally fulfull the vows I keep making and postponing, and put money into index funds. But I have a feeling that after striking out so much recently, he's going to start hitting home runs again.

While this game is usually played with funds having large distributions, it can also prove useful for a fund with slow, virtually inexorable declines in NAV, viz. RPHYX. Not to mention other cash-substitute funds. For example, ZEOIX has spent nearly its whole life except its first year above $10. It's now at $9.90.
It turns out that because this year has been somewhat flat, many funds (even with more reasonable size distributions) have shares whose NAVs will drop below purchase price after distribution. This is where specific share identification becomes so handy. You can sell just those shares that you purchased (or got via reinvestment) in the last couple of years, and recognize their losses without also recognizing gains on the other shares.

Fairholme has declared an upcoming distribution equaling over 1/3 of the share value. It appears to me that for those who have purchased FAIRX over the past 5 years or so in a taxable account, they would save on taxes by selling the shares now and paying taxes on their capital gains which would be less, possibly significantly less than paying taxes on the $12 distribution. This is true especially because their tax basis includes distributions from prior years. (Then they can just buy the shares right back after the distribution if that's what they want to do.)
It seems a real possibility that just about everybody is going to realize this same thing and the assets of FAIRX are going to be significantly depleted. Meeting redemptions could possibly even put pressure on the market price of the fund's holdings, specifically SHLD.
Of course when the investor sees that pile of real cash money in his account, he may or may not decide to follow through on the original plan of investing all of it back into the Fairholme Fund.

For me, it was the Augie bunnies. When I interviewed here in '84, I stayed in an on-campus guest room. I came out in the morning to find three rabbits playing on the lawn and three different colors of squirrels - reddish, gray and black - in the tree.
I thought something like, "this is just freakishly pleasant" and subsequently accepted a job offer here, intent on staying just three years (the time I would take me to rebuild their debate program and qualify a team to Nationals). And my plan has never changed: I'm outta here ... in three years.
Cheers,
David

Chinfist, what is the goal of owning 4 Alternative funds in a portfolio. Just curious on the thinking behind this. In asking that question I do have a bias. I myself wouldn't own 4 of any type kind similar fund category where all funds had the same goal. These "alternative" funds just do not out perform a typical balanced fund over time. And 4 of them? What is the goal?

These funds might not outperform a balanced fund over time (particularly if you are looking at performance during a decreasing interest rate environment as we have had). These funds are not meant to replace the performance of a balanced fund. If comparing to a balanced fund, they would mostly be meant to replace the bond portion of a balanced fund. My portfolio mostly consists of dedicated stock funds, with alternative funds thrown in.
I own a lot of mutual funds, as I like to diminish manager risk. I understand some would disagree with that strategy, but that is what I do. I have owned a bunch of alternative funds over the years, some of them bad or useless, and have whittled them down to the few I have left, as 3 of them are doing what I want them to do (providing low relatively consistent returns with low volatility…these take the place of the bond portion of a balanced fund, as I was concerned with interest rate risk when I had purchased them. I wanted investments that would not be impacted by interest rates).
The 4 alternative investments I have are not the same. Only 3 of these have similar goals of absolute returns with low volatility, which are QVOPX, HFXIX and AZIIX, and these 3 use different strategies to get there. MCXIX, tries to generate returns any way it can while taking on more risk compared to the other funds through macro/commodity bets and alternative type strategies. The outsized gain of 53% YTD return shows this. When delving into the alternative type funds, because many of these funds have been unsuccessful, I find it even more important to spread my bets among these funds. So far I have liked all of these funds for the role they play in my portfolio.

Thank you Everyone!
I will be retiring within the next 3 to 4 years and need to change allocation to "living off my money" rather than accumulating it. I am searching for things to begin to trade into for the future.
I do listen to Gundlach's webcasts and always find them interesting. I am looking forward to his always informative January forecast.

I still maintain taxable and non-taxable positions in BRUSX. Sure, the fund has some of bad years, but WSCVX also had some good years in the beginning;however, the last several years have not been so fantastic in comparison as value has not been doing well compared to growth as well as the overall market dropping. Currently adding a monthly ACH to my BRUSX taxable account while the fund is in the doldrums.

Gotta love these self-promoting articles from Barrons. Concur with Edmond assessment. Through the market's ups and downs, Vanguard Wellesley is a solid and consistent fund with an expense ratio unmatched by any ALT funds. In the past 10 years the annual total return is over 7.1% while charging 0.16% fee.

Of course. They are all peddlers. However, generally speaking everyone writes "I told you so articles" after the fact. Only individual investor knows what his/her situation is.

Gotta love these self-promoting articles from Barrons. Concur with Edmond assessment. Through the market's ups and downs, Vanguard Wellesley is a solid and consistent fund with an expense ratio unmatched by any ALT funds. In the past 10 years the annual total return is over 7.1% while charging 0.16% fee.

I am a long term share holder in this fund but last 10 years have been miserable if you look at 1, 3, 5, 10 years performance. Has this fund lost its charm ? (bottom 10% of smallest). I have been unable to decide if to hold this fund or trim it enough for now to stay in the fund? It is missing consistency and inception to today performance still looks excellent but not last 10 years.
Clueless. :-)

Actually, for anyone looking for a global bond fund, I'd suggest they look at a not-so-obvious choice which is right in front of us... Pimco's BOND ETF.
Ostensibly, its an intermediate/core bond ETF. However it seems to be able to deploy allocations anywhere, within certain limits: Its prospectus allows up to 30% to be deployed to non-USD denominated foreign debt (with no apparent limit on USD-denominated foreign debt). It currently has a net-short allocation to developed foreign, and a ~ 17% allocation to EM. The EM position has probably hurt them a bit here. But EM looks cheap to me, relative to other bond-market sectors. It is certainly unloved. BOND will probably never have a measurable chunk of assets in Ukraine (a la Hassenstab). But that may be a good thing.
Gross' departure in late 2014 struck me as a positive for management of the PIMCO funds --- he struck me as erratic in the 2-4 years before he left. (Very bizarre that M* seems 'conflicted' about that event.) The current troika running the ETF strike me as among the strongest in the bond-management industry. AUM in BOND and its much bigger, but similarly-managed OEF cousins (PTTRX etc.) has shrunk dramatically. -- Frankly, I never thought the large AUM was an issue, but for those who did, that issue should now be off the table.
Anyway, for someone wanting a global bond, one probably tamer than most, and with a strong management pedigree, BOND might be one to consider.
JMO.

matt, actually, those 2 funds are both superior funds IMO.
MWTRX is general intermediate bond fund which holds corp, govt, and mortgage debt.
DBLTX is strictly mortgages. As for figuring it out -- the manager "barbells" the portfolio - holding agency mortgages, and non-agency mortgages. (the former are generally guaranteed by Uncle; the latter are not -- so THOSE will have credit risk). The former (agencies), typical of quality bonds move inversely in price to interest rates. The latter (NON-agencies) tend to respond positively to an improving economy (which reduces likelihood of defaults). By owning both, the manager offsets the risks of one vs. the other. He also "tilts" the allocation to where he finds relative value. Meanwhile, he collects coupons from both sides of the barbell along the way.
As for the average rating, I'm no expert, but seem to recall hearing several years ago, that while the mortgage bundler pays S&P and Moodys for an INITIAL rating, no one is paying the rating-agencies for a "current" opinion/rating. So a bundle of mortgages rated BB at time of issuance (say a year 2006 vintage) would still carry the original rating, even if mortgages within the particular security are still paying. This is in contrast to corporate-issuances, which generally continue to pay S&P/Moody's for ongoing coverage/opinions.
Basically, for MWTRX and DBTLX both, you are relying on the expertise of active managers. My own personal opinion: those are good bets to make.

@Edmond said
OTOH, 2025 is 10 years away. The odds of a nice, smooth 5.3% each year are so infinitesimal as to not even to be considered a possibility. Wherever we wind up 10 years hence, it won't be a smooth ride.Observation: we are now in the midst of the 7th year of the current Bull. We are overdue for a Bear. And Bear events tend to correlate at/near Presidential handoffs.
And History "BEARS" This Out With All It's Volatility
2000
-9.03%
2001
-11.85%
2002
-21.97%
2008
-36.55%
Overview of Markets 1928-2014
http://pages.stern.nyu.edu/~adamodar/New_Home_Page/datafile/histretSP.html