The article indicates if one had put the money in REITS, rather than the S&P, one could have done even better.
The problem with these types of articles is there is they are based on a single "end-point". --- With stocks near all-time highs, and gold 4-5 years into its bear market, the case to avoid gold is a easy --- but fallacious argument to make. It could just as well been made in Dec 1999 -- but would have proven a lousy argument to have made over the ensuring decade.

I agree that asset bloat is a potential problem, but more to watch out for than a reason to rule out MWTRX now - especially in a tax-sheltered account where switching funds is painless.
As a reference point, posts here have had only positive words about DBLTX (OP holds it, PRESSmUP wound up with it, Samuel spoke of it as a fine fund). It now holds $57.6B, with DoubleLine as a whole taking in $10B in the past quarter (total $95B AUM).
http://www.mutualfundobserver.com/discuss/discussion/26816/gundlach-s-doubleline-capital-grew-to-95-billion-in-march
Which raises another fact. A few years ago, the MetWest team took on managing the TCW funds when MetWest was acquired by TCW. IMHO that was the time to have been concerned about asset bloat at MetWest. Big percentage jump in assets while also having to deal with significant outflows.

FYI: Another quarter, another lesson in long-term investing.
Economic uncertainty around the world and a brutal start to the year for stocks helped send the price of gold surging to its best quarter in 30 years. But an analysis of 10 common investments by the Associated Press shows that regular investors who put a steady amount of money every month into an account like a 401(k) would have been far better off in stocks or bonds.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.bigstory.ap.org/article/9e6749ab7e694bf3b95cb56be104cbe4/investor-derby-gold-won-first-quarter-stocks-win-long-term

FYI: It may sound strange, but my wife and I live nowhere and everywhere. We’re Digital Nomads. That means we can make our living from a hammock, as long as we have Wi-Fi and a laptop. We often watch global currency rates and travel to countries where our dollars go the furthest. That’s why we flew to Canada instead of Costa Rica..
Three years ago, Canada’s dollar was valued higher than the U.S. dollar.
By January 2016, it was 30 percent lower. Two weeks ago, I took U.S. dollars and bought a condo in Victoria, B.C. I also bought a Canadian stock market ETF
Regards,
Ted
https://assetbuilder.com/knowledge-center/articles/why-bargain-hunting-investors-should-take-a-look-at-canada

BIV/VBILX/VBIIX also has noticeably more treasury exposure than AGG. It's basically AGG if you restrict in two ways: 1) limit to intermediate term bonds (those with maturities in 5-10 years), and 2) remove securitized bonds (about 1/4 of AGG).
The government and corporate portions increase proportionately, so there is more government bond and more corporate bond exposure. The latter resulting in an increase in credit exposure (relative to the MBS's it is replacing).
However, an MBS will generally yield more than a comparably rated corporate bond. That's because the MBS has extension/prepayment risk (which I view as a variant of interest rate risk). "To quote a Wall Street adage, a mortgage-backed security 'goes up like a two-year bond' when rates fall and 'goes down like a six-year bond' when rates rise." See negative convexity.
So if one swaps MBS for corporate, it is necessary to go down the credit ladder just to maintain yield. To put it another way, just because the credit rating has gone down doesn't mean that the yield has gone up - the rating may have dropped just enough to compensate for the inherently lower-yield of corporates.
The bottom line is that while it is true that there's more credit risk than AGG, without quantifying that difference it isn't clear that this is a factor that's increasing the yield. Even if the credit rating difference is large enough to increase yield, the resulting yield increase isn't as sizeable as the credit difference would seem to make it at first blush.

BIV is not a very credit sensitive fund, but it has noticeably more credit exposure than the Barclays Agg. During the financial crisis the mutual fund lost more than the Agg and fell about as much as DODIX in the Q4 2008. The fund currently has about 39% in Baa bonds v. 26% for the Barclays Agg and has a lower government bond stake.

Maybe we are looking at different websites but *M shows BIV as currently having 57% in AAA rated bonds, 16% with A rating and and 23% in BBB rated bonds. Based on these numbers, the fund does not appear to be credit sensitive overall. The duration is on the high end for an intermediate fund (6.5 years) so I do believe it has more risk on the interest rate side.

And of course interest rates can fall even from here. And anything less than investment grade might get crushed. The argument you made re interest rates is the same one that has been made for years now, and it's been a very bad bet.

My take on his commentary:
SEQUX: Just another reason in the long line of reasons for the need to index. Not a popular opinion for stockbrokers or financial advisors or anybody who makes their living advising people. But these are the same people charging 4% commission for a Certificate of Deposit annuity paying 2.5%. I have previously discussed the value of VBINX or similar.
FPACX: I sold it a month ago. Held it for many many years. My reason is different from Mr. Snowball. IMHO, I believe human nature is such that it is difficult to be the best at a profession that requires so much. Eventually your motivation and drive begins to weaken. Asset size doesn't help matters. The funds commentary alerted me to that possibility.
Money Market: Are we saying that Treasury only Money Markets will not break $1.00 NAV? Is there no option left come October that will not break the buck for a brokerage sweep account?

"It's not just what happened lately".
To repeat my point, what happened lately (if there's a sizeable performance difference) distorts comparisons in all time frames. If it's not just what happened lately, let's throw out the past year (4/1/15 - 3/31/16) and run those figures again (e.g. 5 years 4/1/2010 - 3/31/2015):

Cumulative	BIV	MWTRX
1 year		10.69%	10.54%
3 years		11.25%	11.66%
5 years		13.43%	13.52%

Here's the source: 1 year, 3 year, 5 year
"OP had a specific request, and quite a valid one IMO"
Yes, a "bond fund that may act as a substitute for DODIX, which is a TF fund at Fidelity". BIV has transaction fees at Fidelity that are even higher than those for DODIX.
"You need something like BIV in your portfolio, perhaps now more than ever."
What does something "like" BIV mean, and why do you need something like that now more than ever?
In the context of the OP's request (with treasuries first on the list), I took note that BIV is heavily weighted in Treasuries. So if by "something like BIV" you mean something loaded with treasuries, why not a treasury (or more broadly, a government) bond fund? That would at least give one the ability to tweak allocations (by adding/selling some of the fund, especially in the tax-sheltered account).
Why now more than ever, when treasuries have had an extremely long run, and BIV has a longer duration than almost any other intermediate bond fund? (Out of 214 distinct intermediate term bond funds for which M* has duration figures, BIV/VBILX/VBIIX has the fourth longest.)
It is true that BIV (because of its large treasuries weighting) did well in 2008. Sovereign debt (such as treasuries) was virtually the only asset class that gained then. Are there other times where that's been true, or is stocking up on treasuries a Maginot line?

M* really pumped this fund up in the last couple of years. Their mid cap strategy is pretty close to this one, DHPAX. I believe they've got the same manager on board for that.

BIV beats MWTRX ytd, 3 and 5 years. The other recommendations are not what you're looking for (vanilla high quality corporates and treasuries). If you want a higher yielding bond fund with great performance, go for PIMIX. A no brainer and one of my largest holdings. BUT do not expect PIMIX to hedge stock market risk. It won't serve that function.

TIPS are perhaps the worst investment of all time. Sure the interest return rises with inflation, BUT the price will fall with rising rates just like any other bond. Nothing like a "safe" bond fund with an avg return of sub 2% over the past 5 years. Yes, you can make money trading these if you guess right twice (in and out), just like any other trade of a dog. I know many disagree with my sentiments. So be it.

Who knows, the Baby Boomers drove stocks in the 80s and 90s as they were in the accumulation phase. Maybe they will drive bond funds of all sorts and varieties as they are in the retirement income stage.

Very interesting comment Junkster. Most financial pundits see bonds stagnant or losing money over the next 10 years. But your pondering statement makes sense.

More Jumping In
Money poured into fixed-income ETFs in Q1
Mar 31 2016, 14:56 ET
Fixed-income E T F net inflows of $32.5B in Q1 were nearly triple the average of the prior 12 quarters according to Marketfield Asset Management. A notable beneficiary of the trend was the iShares Core. U.S. Aggregate Bond E T F (NYSEARCA:AGG) with about 10% of that $32.5B. This BlackRock (NYSE:BLK) stalwart has pulled in a "remarkable" 14% of all fixed-income E T F flows over the last three years and now has A U M of $34.8B.
The Vanguard Total Bond Market E T F (NYSEARCA:BND) is growing more slowly, but has the 2nd-fastest 3-year growth rate and A U M of $28.4B.
The cash, says Marketfield's Michael Shaoul, doesn't appear to be coming from other fixed-income ETFs, but instead continues a shift from actively-managed to passive funds. Shaoul also notes that flows weren't limited to those benchmark E T Fs, but also included strong moves into Treasury, investment-grade, and high-yield E T Fs.
http://seekingalpha.com/news/3170768-money-poured-fixed-income-etfs-q1
BND
Vanguard Total Bond Market E T F Experiences Big Inflow
March 29, 2016
Read more: http://www.nasdaq.com/article/vanguard-total-bond-market-etf-experiences-big-inflow-cm598895#ixzz44VbpRLWA
Looking today at week-over-week shares outstanding changes among the universe of E T Fs covered at E T F Channel , one standout is the Vanguard Total Bond Market E T F (Symbol: BND) where we have detected an approximate $172.7 million dollar inflow -- that's a 0.6% increase week over week in outstanding units
Read more: http://www.nasdaq.com/article/vanguard-total-bond-market-etf-experiences-big-inflow-cm598895#ixzz44Va5TjtL
The chart below shows the one year price performance of BND, versus its 200 day moving average:

Read more: http://www.nasdaq.com/article/vanguard-total-bond-market-etf-experiences-big-inflow-cm598895#ixzz44VTWvGFz
VTIP
"A Fed less concerned about [inflation] shifts risk to a price breakout," says F T N Financial's Jim Vogel, quickly summing up the bull case on TIPS.
Yellen's dovish remarks yesterday - especially in the face of core CPI up 2.3% Y/Y in February - sent the five-year T I P S yield lower by 15 basis points. It's off another four bps today to negative 0.33%. TIPS have returned more than 4% Y T D, outperforming most vanilla Treasurys, according to Barclays.
Pimco and BlackRock are among those bullish on the paper, and TIPS E T Fs have raked in a record $2.14B this quarter.
http://seekingalpha.com/news/3170373-tips-stay-popular-yellen
Vanguard Short-Term Inflation-Protected Securities Index Fund Stock Chart
Read more: http://www.nasdaq.com/symbol/vtip/stock-chart#ixzz44VYWxf5Z

@BenWP Chuck Akre ran the Hennessy Focus Fund (formerly called FBR) for many years before launching AKREX in 2009, so much of the long-term track record you see is his. Kudos nevertheless to the current managers who continue to deliver great returns. Akre taught them very well. Both are worthy holdings, but holding both may create some overlap.

Hi Derf,
The very best time to buy a fund is right after three or more consecutive years of outperformance during which time assets under management have at least tripled. (If they've quadrupled that's even better.)
What could possibly go wrong?
---
PS - Derf, you're OK as long as you checked the box on your application allowing them to sell your assets should the fund liquidate and redeem proceeds in cash. If you didn't, however, than you could receive assets in kind, meaning you might wake up some morning to find gold bars, stacks of plywood, Swiss Francs and whatever else the fund invests in on your doorstep. :)

Not surprising, since PRPFX has lost $14 billion (or more than 80%) of its assets since 2012. That's bottom 8% for 3 yrs and bottom 5% for 5 yrs. Yeah, this year in top 1%, but that's because of its gold allocation. So nothing changes in this fund's allocation, and there is next to nothing going on from an active management standpoint, but annual expenses have actually increased each of the last three years. Perhaps with sales by commission brokers the fund will gain some assets? But for many advisors who left the fund, the A & C shares are a desperate measure to even stay afloat as a company. The fund company's other three funds have gone nowhere. Even it's Short-Term Treasury fund has lost money every year for the past 7 years. That is pretty hard to do.

Sorry to hear it, Ted. Just imagining what I'd feel like if my best pal of many years & best man had passed ...

@msf: Not having a very good day, just learned that my best friend for over seventy years and best man at my wedding died on Sunday. I feel like 1090 !
Regards,
Ted