RNDLX is a fine fund. It's had a bit of a down year because of the closed end allocation. The closed end space has been hurting this year. Expect out performance most years. And it is a "total return" fund, "The RiverNorth/DoubleLine Strategic Income Fund seeks to provide current income and overall total return."

I need a Large Cap Value fund for my IRA at Fidelity, preferably a NTF fund.
I was looking at BPAVX (Boston Partners All Cap Value Fund). It did quite well **comparitively*** in down market of 2008-09. Seems like it is one of those lesser known funds but has great performance for last 10 years.
Anyone heard of BPAVX?
My other Options are JVAAX, TWEIX, BRLVX.
Thoughts?

I might suggest adding REGN to GILD and CELG as cornerstone holdings in the biotech space. I will be adding to ETNHX as a basket.
Not to be overlooked is a stock I've held for many years which is now available for what I consider to be a bargain price, and that's JNJ. And you get a growing divi which is currently 3.2%.

REGN is an excellent choice, too. JNJ is down quite a bit, as is ABT. The latter - I think - is particularly penalized because of its significant EM exposure.

I might suggest adding REGN to GILD and CELG as cornerstone holdings in the biotech space. I will be adding to ETNHX as a basket.
Not to be overlooked is a stock I've held for many years which is now available for what I consider to be a bargain price, and that's JNJ. And you get a growing divi which is currently 3.2%.

Here are the risk/return metrics for GLDSX through August since inception and across various evaluation periods. (The screenshot is from our beta MFO Premium site.)
David points out that GLDSX trails the pack at the 10 year mark, which is reflected in the lifetime metrics below and across the current market cycle since November 2007.

Its performance here is another example of a fund that gets recognized for its shorter term performance (eg., Great Owl and Honor Roll designations), while the longer term performance may be lacking. We've discussed other such funds before on the board.
As a reminder, Honor Roll from the legacy Fund Alarm rating system means the fund is top quintile based on absolute return across the past 1, 3, and 5 year evaluation periods. While MFO Great Owls are top quintile based on risk adjusted returns for all evaluation periods 3 years and greater (eg., 3, 5, 10, and 20).
In this case, through August the fund is just under 10 years, so there is no 10 year ranking. But when our rankings get updated through September, the 10 year performance will be pretty poor and GLDSX will no longer get the GO designation, which is supposed to go to funds that have consistently produced top risk adjusted returns.
My rambling here is because I've been considering updating the GO designation slightly to require lifetime performance to also be top quintile if that period is less than 20 years. David Moran got me thinking along these lines a while ago...he actually has bigger issues with the designation, but he did get me thinking about imposing the lifetime constraint. As always, would appreciate any thoughts.

Given the relatively small amount of money involved (as was pointed out in the NYTimes article), this may have been a situation where First Eagle cut legal corners on something it could have done legally.
It could have gone to the board and said: The fund is bleeding cash. This is causing fire sales and hurting investors. We need to staunch the outflow, by increasing marketing. Raise our management fees to cover that marketing and we'll pay for the marketing services. That would have been legal, and the net effect would have been to have the investors pay for the extra marketing expenses.
Instead, First Eagle decided to short circuit the process and just use the fund assets directly without involving the board. It was aware this wasn't legal, because it hid the payments from the board and from shareholders by saying they were for shareholder services (which were allowed to come from investor assets).
I'm not saying this was their thinking, and what they did certainly wasn't legal. But since the same investor money could have been spent legally on marketing, it doesn't seem to me that investors were fleeced. Rather, what bothers me is the deliberate illegality.
A footnote - Morgenson's calculation of the amount of money First Eagle netted from management fees on the net inflows is wrong. She said that First Eagle took in $23.1B over six years. Multiplying it by the management fee of 0.75% per year, she gets additional management fees of $173M.
But this was over six years. The average extra AUM was half of the $23.1B (assuming linear growth). And this amount should be multiplied by 0.75 times six (for six years). That makes the $25M spent on marketing look even smaller, and thus less likely that this was done by First Eagle to make an illegal buck. Hardly excuses it.

So..........First Eagle is a branch of Volkswagen? They sold their integrity and good name for 25 mil? I've had a bunch of money with these guys for 10 years -- and they stole from me? Time to move on.

"Succession planning" sounds like you might consider active management a risk because sooner or later the manager(s) must be succeeded by other managers. Vanguard states that VMFVX is actively manged, selecting approximately 200 stocks from out of the roughly 7200 in the FTSE Global All Cap Index (hedged).
(Vanguard PR on VMFVX)
Hedging is a hidden expense that may be increasing the total costs incurred by VMVFX by 50% or more: "the direct transaction costs of currency hedging have generally been low to moderate, historically in the range of 1 to 18 basis points annually for developed-market currencies. ... Unlike most major developed-market currencies, emerging-market currencies tend to have lower trading volumes and may be more difficult and costly to hedge." (Vanguard paper on hedging)
This fund "seeks lower risk, not outperformance". (First Vanguard link, above). IMHO, risk (volatility) reduction is an objective that makes this fund worth considering for many. Though you justifiably questioned its value for an investment intend to last 30+ years. Volatility of performance over that long a period of time would likely average out.
Vanguard does offer an unhedged fund (lower transaction costs but higher risk/volatility), passively managed (no succession planning) with stocks culled from the same FTSE Global All Cap Index (except it's the unhedged version of the index). VTWSX/VT (ER of 0.27%/0.17%).
I'm not advocating one fund over the other in general; just looking at how well these two funds fishing in the same pool align with some factors mentioned.

I have $300k to invest for generating income. The money will be income invested for 3 years and at that point pension kicks in so the money can be reinvested less for income and more for growth at that time. I was looking at TRPrice Spectrum Income as a convenient income vehicle with some diversification of income sources. I am open to other suggestions and possibilities of mutual funds or even ETFs, individual securities. Any comments are welcome and appreciated.

Because of the currency hedging, that may be an apples and oranges comparison. The dollar has been growing stronger over the past few years, so a hedged fund is likely to have done better than unhedged funds. That doesn't mean the fund will do better in the long run, as the dollar fluctuates in strength. Unless one believes that the dollar will not come down.
See my comment in another thread, which cites a Vanguard paper explaining the differences in performance between hedged and unhedged funds.
Quoting from another section of the Vanguard paper:

Over the long term, for a currency management program to produce added return in strategic asset allocations, one must believe not only in a persistent return (positive or negative) from foreign currency, but also that this return will differ substantially from the return realized by hedging.

GLDSX has all of the trappings of a friends and family fund. Golden Asset Management runs 10 strategies, including this one, through separately managed accounts. They've got about $6.5 billion in AUM. This appears to be the only one also available as a '40 Act fund.
...
David

Are you sure about that last part?
I recently ran a screen for large cap blend funds that beat the S&P 500 over the past 3,5, and 10 years (don't ask why). One of the dozen or so funds that popped out was GLDLX. I remember it because I'd never heard of Golden either.
Anyway, according to the SAI, each of these two funds "is a separate series of the Trust. The Trust is an open-end investment management company organized under Delaware law as a statutory trust on August 29, 1995." I don't see anything in the SAI that differentiates the legal status of one series (fund) from the other. They both (or neither) seem to be '40 Act funds.

Yep. The past five years have certainly been ... uhhh, golden for them. Here's their 10-year record versus their peer group:
2006: (4.2) - that is, they trailed the pack by 4.2% that year
2007: (2.1)
2008: 0.1 - that is, 0.1% better than their peers
2009: (17.7)
2010: (2.9)
2011: 5.4
2012: (1.0)
2013: (2.2)
2014: 8.5
2015: 6.4
So, they've trailed in six of the past 10 years by 1.0 - 17.7%. They've led in four years, including 2015 YTD, by 0.1 - 8.5%. Happily for them, most of the good years are appearing in the 1, 3, and 5 year windows.
David

One thing I did notice is that this fund is very tax efficient for a small cap fund. The tax cost ratio for the fund over the 1, 3 and 5 year periods is 0.06, 0.22 and 0.13, respectively. That's very low.

Hi, willmatt!
And "nuts." I wrote a response a couple hours ago, hit "post" and ran off to a meeting. Upon return, I discovered no-post. Nuts.
GLDSX has all of the trappings of a friends and family fund. Golden Asset Management runs 10 strategies, including this one, through separately managed accounts. They've got about $6.5 billion in AUM. This appears to be the only one also available as a '40 Act fund.
The small core strategy launched in 2002 and claim they're managing about $300 million in the strategy. Why "claim"? Because the performance composite for the strategy lists a composite value of $87 million. Even if you count the fund's $98 million separately, you're still under $200 million.
In any case, it's a focused, even-weight, sector-neutral portfolio. 60 stocks with a 1.67% target weighting. Over the past three and five years, it's beaten the Russell 2000 by 250-300 bps/year. That said, returns tend to be lumpy and performance strikes me as unpredictable. That's not automatically bad but since I don't know why they do what they do, it's hard to know what to make of them.
I did write Golden today and I'll happily share whatever I hear back.
As ever,
David

Hi David !
Thanks for the information ! I visited their website and found it to be lacking in some information. I could not find the Top 10 holdings, among other things. I look forward to reading any additional information they have to share !
Regards,
Will

Yep. The past five years have certainly been ... uhhh, golden for them. Here's their 10-year record versus their peer group:
2006: (4.2) - that is, they trailed the pack by 4.2% that year
2007: (2.1)
2008: 0.1 - that is, 0.1% better than their peers
2009: (17.7)
2010: (2.9)
2011: 5.4
2012: (1.0)
2013: (2.2)
2014: 8.5
2015: 6.4
So, they've trailed in six of the past 10 years by 1.0 - 17.7%. They've led in four years, including 2015 YTD, by 0.1 - 8.5%. Happily for them, most of the good years are appearing in the 1, 3, and 5 year windows.
David

Hi, willmatt!
And "nuts." I wrote a response a couple hours ago, hit "post" and ran off to a meeting. Upon return, I discovered no-post. Nuts.
GLDSX has all of the trappings of a friends and family fund. Golden Asset Management runs 10 strategies, including this one, through separately managed accounts. They've got about $6.5 billion in AUM. This appears to be the only one also available as a '40 Act fund.
The small core strategy launched in 2002 and claim they're managing about $300 million in the strategy. Why "claim"? Because the performance composite for the strategy lists a composite value of $87 million. Even if you count the fund's $98 million separately, you're still under $200 million.
In any case, it's a focused, even-weight, sector-neutral portfolio. 60 stocks with a 1.67% target weighting. Over the past three and five years, it's beaten the Russell 2000 by 250-300 bps/year. That said, returns tend to be lumpy and performance strikes me as unpredictable. That's not automatically bad but since I don't know why they do what they do, it's hard to know what to make of them.
I did write Golden today and I'll happily share whatever I hear back.
As ever,
David

Hi @hank
You noted:
"(And I haven't met any rich nurses lately.)"
From recall, the current line worker at GM in Michigan earns $22 or $25/hour ($45,800 annual gross). They have a healthcare plan and I believe had about $5,600 last year in a profit sharing scheme.
Lower peninsula, mid-state towards metro Detroit finds a nominal pay scale for an RN nurse at:
---pay at about $32/hour after 5 years of service
---health plan that includes dental/eye
RN's with union representation, in some cases are considered full time employees with only 16 hours of work/week; which allows them to qualify for full benefits...health, etc.
A full and normal work week of 40 hours arrives at $72,800 gross/year. There are RN's, of course; who have a "fair" amount of overtime, which bumps the annual gross.
You're not looking hard enough for the rich nurse. :)
Take care,
Catch

Like it or not drug pricing was bound to be an issue over the next year in the run-up to the election, at the likely expense of anything even remotely related to health care. Hillary waged war with the drug companies 20+ years ago and is doing so again.

She did?
"Health-care sector, once a critic of then-first lady's plans for reforms, now lavishing contributions on senator.
July 12 2006: 10:41 AM EDT
NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- The health-care industry, once a fierce critic of then-first lady Hillary Clinton's reform plans for the sector, is now lavishing campaign contributions on the U.S. senator ahead of her expected presidential bid.
According to Center for Responsive Politics, a non-partisan group that tracks campaign finance filings, Clinton has received $781,112 in contributions from the health-care sector during the current election cycle, which makes her the No. 2 recipient of funds from that sector, behind only Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa., who received $977,354."
http://money.cnn.com/2006/07/12/news/newsmakers/healthcare_clinton/

Like it or not drug pricing was bound to be an issue over the next year in the run-up to the election, at the likely expense of anything even remotely related to health care. Hillary waged war with the drug companies 20+ years ago and is doing so again.

Drug prices not related to health care?

LOL, this doesn't mention a very angry looking St Louis Fed president Bullard on CNBC this morning, where he went mental at Cramer for "cheerleading lower rates" and calling him "unsavory" . One of the most awkward moments on CNBC in a while.
Someone on ZH put it well, basically saying, "are we going to see FOMC members having cooking shows? Doing movie reviews? On "Dancing With the Stars?" Absurd, but the amount that they are talking and basically cancelling out one another is far more a negative than a positive in terms of the markets having any sort of clarity.
The Bullard thing this morning on CNBC was embarrassing, calling out Cramer for pushing for low rates for longer after the Fed has basically been the one to keep rates at ZIRP for several years in an attempt to create "wealth effect." Bullard also said that the "Fed can't support stocks forever" ... essentially admitting it's been one of their goals.

Like it or not drug pricing was bound to be an issue over the next year in the run-up to the election, at the likely expense of anything even remotely related to health care. Hillary waged war with the drug companies 20+ years ago and is doing so again.