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.

I agree that this is their narrative regardless of how unlikely it is that they hike. Frankly, I think it's a good thing to not telegraph with certainty that a hike is off the table. The Fed has been very talkative in recent years. Maybe a little too talkative, IMO.

@ducrow - Thanks for the question. Following is my Buy & Hold group. Many are of the balanced and allocation variety. A lot of this evolved over the years by placing square pegs (funds already owned) into round holes (different sleeves within the plan) ... so it makes sense to me, but wouldn't be a model I'd recommend to anyone else,
Multi-Income - RPSIX 18-22%
Balanced - RPGAX and DODBX 18-22% combined
Hybrids - OAKBX, PRPFX, and TRRIX 12-15% each
Hard Assets - (currently 3 funds) about 10% combined
Global Income - (currently 2 funds) about 10% combined
Above represents approximately 75% of retirement assets. Rebalancing is minimal.
More to your specific question
Balanced funds: DODBX and RPGAX
Allocation funds: RPSIX and TRRIX
OAKBX is sometimes called balanced. I consider it "moderate allocation - equity."
PRPFX is sometimes called allocation. I'd call it a "specialty" fund.
Outside Buy & Hold, I own PRWCX. It is sometimes called balanced. I'd call it "moderate allocation-equity".

Oil News
Oil Price
FREE
WEEKLY REPORT oilprice.com Evan Kelly
News Editor, Oilprice.com
18/09/2015(excerpts)
The Fed cited strong consumer demand, solid job gains, declining unemployment – all reasons that a rate increase is likely sometime soon. When that increase does occur, it will be the first increase in almost a decade. Crude oil prices barely budged on the news, trading slightly down.
Goldman made headlines recently when it outlined a scenario in which oil prices would drop to $20 per barrel. Now the bank is outdoing itself with a prediction that oil will remain around $50 per barrel though 2030. For evidence, it points to the bust of the 1980s when oil prices did not rebound until the turn of the century.....there is a recipe for a rather strong rebound in oil prices in the coming years. Obviously, the big question is when that will happen. The glut could persist through this year and next, but calling for oil to remain near $50 per barrel for 15 years seems like a stretch.
The $70 billion takeover of BG Group (LON: BG) by Royal Dutch Shell (NYSE: RDS.A) ran into a road block in Australia this week. Australian regulators decided to push off a decision on the merger by two months due to a wave of opposition from Australian businesses worried about higher costs of natural gas.
Statoil (NYSE: STO) brought the first subsea compression plant in the world online this week. The subsea facility, located at Asgard in the Norwegian Sea, will increase production by around 306 million barrels of oil equivalent, boosting output from the aging field. ...the closer you can get to the well, the more oil and gas can be recovered. Usually, compression is done at the sea surface on a platform. This is the first gas compression facility at the sea floor. It is illustrative of an important emerging trend in the offshore oil industry.
The U.S. House of Representatives is moving on legislation to repeal the decades-old ban on crude oil exports. After previously passing a subcommittee vote, the full House Energy and Commerce Committee passed the bill this week by a 31-19 vote. Next up is the full House vote, which could take place in late September. The White House came out against the legislation this week, arguing that the decision to allow crude oil exports should be left to the Department of Commerce. The hotly contested issue has caused a clash between the upstream energy sector and downstream refiners.
WTI and Brent benchmarks. The spread between the two is narrowing, shrinking to its lowest level in eight months. For several years WTI had traded at a discount, owing both to the crude oil export ban in the United States as well as the resulting localized glut of oil trapped within its borders. Also, pipeline shortages led to oil being diverted into storage, pushing down WTI. But with new pipelines now in place, along with declining U.S. oil production, WTI is now converging towards Brent. And as the discount vanishes, so does the opportunity for U.S. oil exports. At the current spread, exports are largely uneconomical.
The state-owned Colombian oil company Ecopetrol and Occidental Petroleum (NYSE: OXY) have announced plans to invest $2 billion over the next 10 years to boost production at the onshore oil field La Cira-Infantas.
Finally, in a bit of natural gas news, this fall could see an uptick in natural gas consumption as several nuclear power plants go offline for refueling. The EIA projects that 9 percent of the U.S.’ nuclear power capacity is currently offline, a number that could grow this fall. Between September and December, around 30 reactors could undergo refueling maintenance
http://oilprice.com/newsletters/free/opintel18092015

@LB
Yeah - I get that impression of Oppenheimer having had a small sum invested with them for 18 years. That's one thing I appreciate about the firm.
Nothing worse than having the rug pulled out from under you after investing in a depressed fund with the intent of waiting it out.

Many EM countries produce oil or raw materials - both of which which have tanked. The strong dollar is a second blow. Some of the carnage is probably due to investor flight.
I just put a little in OEMAX, Oppenheimer Emerging Market Debt (already owned Class A shares there). It was down over 15% for 1 YR.
What struck me when I looked at the AUM (after investing) is the very low 29M at last report. One wonders how they can keep the fund open with that small a pool of investors.
I think it's around 5 years old, so that explains some of the small AUM. But, I imagine there's been a stampede out as well.

Fed Keeps Rate Unchanged: What Experts Say Thomson Reuters | Last Updated: September 18, 2015 01:24 (IST)© Thomson Reuters
Scott Wren, senior global strategist for Wells Fargo Investment Institute in St. Louis, Missouri
"...wage growth not hardly doing anything, when you look at almost 10.5 per cent of the working population is either unemployed or underemployed, that is why wages aren't going up. The labour market is not tight, inflation is nowhere near their target, it totally doesn't surprise me they didn't do that. Saying that, they almost backed themselves into a corner here, our call is they do make one move this year, it is going to be in December. It is going to be a 25 basis point move and it's basically a credibility, 'let's get the normalization ball rolling' here."
Steve Gutch, senior portfolio manager, Federated Investors, Rochester, New York
"In our view, they are going to wait until it's essentially crystal clear before they raise rates."Now it's a waiting game. In our view, we don't think this is material, and I would expect a volatile market to continue."
Omer Esiner, chief market strategist at Commonwealth Foreign Exchange Inc. in Washington
...a little surprised at the dovishness of the statement. I would have expected 'no move' to be accompanied by a slightly more upbeat assessment of the economy. Instead, what we got was more focus on macroeconomic uncertainties,..
Hugh Mcguirk, head of Municipal Bonds Team, T. Rowe Price, Baltimore, Maryland
"I'm a little disappointed. We've got to rip the Band-Aid off. Clearly they're being very cautious, as they have been all along. We'll just have to wait until October."
Gene Mcgillian, senior analyst, Tradition Energy in Stamford, Connecticut
... probably be neutral for oil, although maybe you could say it will weaken the dollar and that would be supportive to oil.
"But we've been at this level so long and this just moves the Federal Reserve watch to the next meeting. The oil market will go back to watching to see if the economic slowdown in China spreads to other economies and whether low oil prices start to lower US oil production significantly."
Bob Michele, global chief investment officer, head of global fixed income, JPMorgan Asset Management in New York,
I would have been shocked if the Fed raised rates because the market wasn't at all prepared for it. It's the first rate hike in nine years, they have to be careful. Do I think they should have raised rates? Yes I think they have had the opportunity, but they clearly decided that the international economic conditions warranted waiting for a while. I think they could have stuck to their guns. I think they need to get off the zero lower bound."
Brian Dolan, head market strategist, Drivewealth, New Jersey
"...did the right thing. There's no need to rock the boat right now. Again the disconcerting element is the downgrade to the interest rate trajectory, which could provide solace to investor sentiment overall. Given the global headwinds, the last thing we need right now was a hike in rates and any kind of hawkish projections."
http://profit.ndtv.com/news/global-economy/article-fed-keeps-rate-unchanged-what-experts-say-1218868
By James Picerno | Sep 18, 2015 at 04:45 pm EDT
The Capital Spectator
Investing, Asset Allocation, Economics & The Search For The Bottom Line
Negative US Interest Rates: A Primer (Just In Case)
The crowd is buzzing over the possibility that the Federal Reserve may be considering negative interest rates. Where did that notion come from? Well, from the horse’s mouth. As noted earlier, an unnamed FOMC member recommended—for the first time in Fed history in terms of a formal, public document—that the central bank’s policy rate be set slightly below zero for this year and in 2016, as per two dots in yesterday’s dot plot (see chart below). It’s an idea that seems to be catching on… again. The Bank of England’s Andy Haldane just outlined the case for going negative in the UK.
As for the Fed’s tentative foray into the concept of negativity, some wonder if yesterday’s below-zero advice constitutes some sort of monetary joke. Or is it an early clue that lays the groundwork for QE4 and yet another embrace of monetary stimulus that goes above and beyond the usual fare? Not so fast, said Fed Chair Janet Yellen, who was quick to dismiss the idea in yesterday’s press conference. When asked about the subject, she quickly sacked the issue: “Let me be clear that negative interest rates was not something that we considered very seriously at all today,” she insisted. “It was not one of our main policy options” under consideration. Ok, but is it under consideration going forward?
In any case, the rumor mill has been set in motion and the machinery of inquiry and analysis has been let loose on this formerly esoteric subject in the annals of US central banking. Is it ready for prime time? Maybe not, but to be fair it was the Fed that let this gnarly monetary cat out of the bag.
Lots of links on the topic.
Current News/Analysis on the Negative Rate Dots
General Research/Commentary On Negative Rates
Recent News Stories On Negative Rates
http://www.capitalspectator.com/negative-us-interest-rates-a-primer-just-in-case/

I would keep VTMFX in taxable account, and sell VWENX over several years to spread the tax burden. If you have assess to VWENX, I would use it over the rest of the balanced funds.

I understand your first point, Sven, but not your second idea about having access to VWENX and use it over the rest of the balanced funds. Can you explain? Thanks.

I would keep VTMFX in taxable account, and sell VWENX over several years to spread the tax burden. If you have assess to VWENX, I would use it over the rest of the balanced funds.

FYI: The oldest target-date funds have seen several market cycles as they've progressed from more growth-oriented portfolios to wealth-retention mode. Most have lagged the all-stock S&P 500 the past three, five, 10 and 15 years. But many are slightly outperforming the stock market benchmark this year.
Regards,
Ted
http://license.icopyright.net/user/viewFreeUse.act?fuid=MjA0NDc1MzU=
Enlarged Graphic:
http://news.investors.com/photopopup.aspx?path=WEBlv091615_1K.jpg&docId=771328&xmpSource=&width=1000&height=1111&caption=&id=771170

Hi, Vintage. Your comments on companies getting too big, getting bought out by bigger fund companies, and not being able to do what made them good in the first place...these are quite good. The best example that I see is MFLDX, which is still run by a gifted manager. The fund did exceedingly well for a number of years, added more assets, still did well, then was bought by Mainstay. Once that happened, it seems the trolley went off the tracks. Assets more than tripled in one year, and the management team let their risk parameters shift. Performance tanked, then assets fled (typical), the fund now has fewer dollars than it did before the takeover, and performance is still bad.
I do take exception to your comments about Thornburg. I have made a number of visits at their headquarters and believe they are one of the very few truly independent fund groups, both in terms of how they treat their fund shareholders, and their investment philosophy. Being isolated from the noisy financial centers of the world, they really do take a long-term view of things. Their basic fixed-income offerings are run with a barbell style, very unusual, but successful. Their Income Builder TIBIX has one of the very best long-term records, and it has been totally consistent in its investment approach since the beginning. In fact, just about all of their funds have strikingly good long-term records. If they launch a new fund and it does not pan out, they waste no time in closing it, unlike a lot of shops that work to take in more and more assets in the hopes that asset size alone will somehow make things right. It will be interesting to see what happens to THDIX now that star manager Kaufman was lured away by more money at Artisan. Assets are less than half of what they were prior to his leaving.
We use several of their funds in our client models, mostly because we know what we are getting.

Looking at the current political scene, I see no shortage of fear premium. (I've deleted some earlier specifics, not wanting to precipitate a political debate)
I can tell you gold is not for the timid - whatever else one may think of it. The cyclic swings in value are huge. (It can quadruple in price over just a few years and than lose half its value just as fast.)
Time spans between peaks and bottoms are great - often lasting decades. I don't know anyone who believes gold (or other hard assets) will produce the same long term appreciation as stocks in good companies will. That's not why people buy it.

It's very gratifying to read your postings, MikeM and prinx. :)
A couple of years ago, I had a conversation with a pro. He was great. Time well spent.

I've decided that I've developed the mutual fund sickness of being a fund collector. I'm sure there are others who suffer from this malady. The first step is admitting to the problem, so.....with that in mind, I've decided to consolidate my portfolio so it's more manageable and not duplicative. The first step is to whittle down some of my balanced funds, which are numerous. Currently, I hold VWENX, VTMFX in taxable accounts and FBALX, JABAX and GAOAX in tax-deferred accounts. The tax deferred accounts are easier to deal with, but VWENX poses more of a problem because I've amassed considerable capital gains and a sale would trigger a big tax bill. OTOH, VWENX is not a tax efficient holding to begin with, but I purchased it many years ago when I knew nothing about the concept of tax efficient holdings. I do hold VTMFX in a taxable account due to the municipal income generated by it. Any suggestions for consolidating these funds? Holding five balanced funds seems a bit much to me. Thanks in advance.

Crash,congratulations that you chose PRWCX to be over allocated.
So am I and I have been very pleased with my choice for over 20 years.
Your investment experience has led you to this position. So........don't change it as you might regret it later. PRWCX is a diversified fund and the best I know. If you want more bond diversification then sell some other funds and open up an account with PONDX.
prinx

I actually like the idea of creating a mechanism that funds bucket one throughout the entire investment time frame by taking profits during periods of market out performance. Always nice to have some dry powder for emergencies, buying opportunities, or to reduce portfolio volatility.

Yes, I agree completely and was fortunate that my retirement happened after a multi-year run-up, with the accumulation of bucket one assets during that period. I'd rather be lucky than good.
The key benefit of this bucketing approach is that it allows a retiree to not obsess about what is happening in the market since you have several years of expenses already in pocket. I personally differ a bit from what M* lays out, in that I have more years of funds in bucket one, but take a bit more aggressive approach in how the overall funds are invested.
press

I'm looking at this strategy backwards.
If I were 11+ years away from retirement I would hold only bucket three, but add NAESX to the portfolio. Percentages could be adjusted in bucket three to make it more or less aggressive depending on individuals age and risk tolerance.
When 3-11 years away from retirement hold buckets 2 & 3. Again, phase into this bucket 2 over the 8 years by using profits raised from bucket 3 or from new investment contributions.
When you are 1-2 years away from retirement be sure to raise enough cash to create bucket 1 by reallocating from buckets 2 & 3. Continue reallocating into bucket one from buckets 2 & 3 throughout retirement for distribution needs and during periods of bucket out performance.
I actually like the idea of creating a mechanism that funds bucket one throughout the entire investment time frame by taking profits during periods of market out performance. Always nice to have some dry powder for emergencies, buying opportunities, or to reduce portfolio volatility.

PIMIX / PONDX is doing very well so far this year. Their good picks are clearly compensating for the bad ones. The Petrobras bet hasn't worked out in the short term, but it still might within the next few years. They got bonds paying almost 9% from a company with huge oil reserves and a sovereign standing behind them. Of course no one wants the oil now, and that sovereign is in bad shape, but that could change in a couple of years (especially the oil part.) I personally think the odds are good (though less than 100%) that Petrobras won't default and they'll keep clipping those 9% coupons until they decide to move into something else.
Anyway, you make a bunch of bets on 9% bonds, most work out, a few don't, and you've got a nice return for a bond fund.
I don't own PIMIX, because I don't want any excitement in my bond fund, but those guys ain't dumb and have done well for their investors.

Lots of valuable insights here. M* X-RAY shows my portf now looks like this:
8% cash (but held in the funds, not by me.)
US 41
Foreign 10
Bonds 40 (Of that 40%, 29.2% is in dedicated bond-only funds: DLFNX, PREMX, PRSNX.)
"other" 2
Bond quality is LOW, with 67% at Moderate risk, 22% with Limited risk.
Equities: 44 growth, 34 Core and 22 Value.
Large cap: 62.72
Mid and small-caps. 37.26
...If the 8% cash position (aggregate) were invested in equities, I'd be just a baby-step from a 60/40 stocks/bonds portfolio, which pleases me. I'd like to have more overseas exposure, but I think this much smaller foreign chunk at the current time is prudent. Asia is the future. But I could let a lotta years pass waiting and hoping for it to be fruitful. I have only 1.57 in UK and 3.26 in Europe Developed. Emerging Europe = 0.71%, and that's fine with me. Japan is at 1.3%.
I have found 2 rather good Balanced funds in PRWCX and MAPOX, though the latter is not performing as well as the former. MAPOX pays quarterly divs, and I like that. PRWCX pays only in December. That's fine, too.
The exercise of spelling all of this out to you guys is a response to a very good question or two from ibartman. ALL of the input is valuable, and of course, there's no perfect answer or resolution.
One last thought: I'm intending to invest all of this for heirs. And the tiny, new position (joint with wifey) in the electric utility PNM will grow by tiny baby-steps each month, too. I chose it from among a list of companies offering DSPP, and after examining it. I know that utilities are going nowhere, but this one looks like a good relative prospect in a category I didn't have any money in, yet.
http://www.morningstar.com/stocks/XNYS/PNM/quote.html
I'm grateful to you all. Vintage Freak, from among your replies, is most concerned about the size of my PRWCX holding. I'm taking his words seriously, but does that "rule of thumb" about keeping holdings down to 20% of total or lower a good idea, here? (10%, per VF.) It's not a pure equity play. Maybe M* rates it to be riskier than it really is...And I'm not ignoring heezsafe.
As it is, I'd prefer not to collect any more funds. With wife's 403b, I'm up to 11 (eleven.) That's enough for me.
I made good profit in TRAMX, waited too long to get out, but still happy about it. I funneled that profit (back at the New Year) into PRWCX precisely because PRWCX is domestic and thus "safer," and riding high in a core-fund category.
New IRA money is earmarked for MAPOX. I think I WILL stand-pat. Thanks, all.

I dunno man. 10%, i.e. 10 funds. Seems like a reasonable number to manage. That's how I'm constructing each of my portfolios at each of the brokerages. If you like 9 or 13...it's YOUR portfolio.
One can buy that Fido fund that invests in 4 indices (I think) and be diversified across asset classes that way. Why does not everyone pile into that fund? Frankly, I'm not sure what the basis of discussion is any more.
Here's my story and I'm sticking to it. In my 401K I have stopped investing in bonds. I own cash, some S&P 500 index, and some S&P 400 index. That's it. In my my taxable portfolios, knowing how good/bad active fund managers are it is prudent to diversify manager risk. If one is going to invest in Active fund managers, I don't see why one would bet the farm on a single fund / fund company. It makes no sense whatsoever. 37% of portfolio in one actively managed fund should given anyone pause. Heck, put 100% in PRWCX then. Then why ask question?
One decides portfolio should have 60% stocks 40% bonds. One can buy XYZ balanced fund. There is a 1 in zillion possibility Bernie Madoff was cloned and his clone will start managing XYZ Balanced. 3 years later, one will come and tell VF he is an idiot for not investing entire portfolio in XYZ Balanced. VF will rue the day but go to sleep knowing he invested in ABC, DEF, GHI, .... Balanced funds knowing chance Bernie Madoff's clone managing any one of his funds is now 1 in gazillion.