@DavidV & MFO Members Here are some suggestions.
Regards,
Ted
Suggested Bond Time Period Allocations:
25 Years + To Retirement:
11-25 " " "
1-10 " " ":
Retirement:
:
http://www.seninvest.com/article13.htm

Hi Sven,
I thought Deluxe no longer covered Schedule D and Turbotax forces you to move up to Premier. Or is it the case that the forms exist, but there is no interview to walk you through filling them out and you have to do it manually?
Anyway, I got too irritated with Turbotax's money grab two years ago and switched to HRBlock. Has a few quirks, but imported easily from TT files and is getting everything done for half the price of the software.
lrwilliams

I don't get the M* commentary. Nothing has changed with this fund's structure, style, process, or philosophy since it started. I have spent a lot more time than M* talking to the entire management team at Osterweis over the past 12 years. Interesting the commentary was written only about two weeks after the same analyst praised the fund and its management for its "excellent risk-adjusted" performance and as a "shelter in the current storm", and "outshining its benchmark", "relative resilience". He goes on to compliment the managers who "are better at assessing credit risk than the rating agencies", and then said the fund's volatility "has been on par with the Barclays Agg". Given that nothing changed at the fund during those two weeks, the new commentary is hard to swallow. When I first read it a few weeks ago, I tried to get a response from M*. Of course they did not respond to my inquiry about the 180-degree about face. This for me is more evidence that the written analysis of funds is often worth a lot less than digging through the numbers and fund documents themselves.

Hi Dex,
MikeM is exactly on-target.
You provide a fine list of glittering generalities. These are such motherhood concepts and values that they are typically acknowledged without careful scrutiny. They appeal to the emotions, but are they actionable in terms of retirement planning or a retirement decision?
My answer is a definite No. They are kindness and goodness, but are far too vague for decision making. It’s the kind of stuff we get from politicians. It sounds good and is even generically correct, but is it enough? No. We need hard numbers for the retirement process.
Your list provides soft (and admirable) guidelines. But they don’t come close to suggesting an answer to the quantity of needed savings. Suppose a worker saved one thousand dollars a year and invested with modest success for 40 years. Is that enough?
Likely not. Early Monte Carlo runs would inform that worker that he needs a more aggressive savings plan. A later Monte Carlo simulation might suggest that a longer work period is needed for a healthy retirement portfolio survival likelihood. That’s not pleasant news, but it helps for better decision making.
Why the reluctance to use accessible tools that will enhance the probability of a successful retirement? These “calculators” do not “make retirement complicated”. They put meat on the bones. They add numerical substance to pure guesswork and gross approximations.
I do not understand your position that more information will somehow damage the preparation for retirement and a final retirement decision. Monte Carlo simulations add scale to a retirement roadmap.
Best Wishes.

FYI: Investors have piled into U.S. mutual bond funds and exchange-traded funds targeting Treasury debt for 10 consecutive weeks, the longest stretch in nearly five years.
The winning streak underscores surging demand for safe-haven assets amid an uncertain global economic outlook and growing volatility across many asset classes.
Regards,
Ted
http://blogs.wsj.com/moneybeat/2016/02/19/investors-pile-into-treasury-bond-funds-for-10th-straight-week/tab/print/

"(ETHSX) is one of just a handful of funds that has consistently beaten the market over virtually every time period."
Statements like this always leave me wondering what "consistent" means, and what "market" means.
As an example, has a fund that underperformed by 2% in each of 2011, 2012, 2013, and 2014, but outperformed by 15% in 2015 "consistently" outperformed? Its 1, 3, 5 year records say that it has done well, but I'd hardly call it consistent.
ETHSX's record is somewhat like that, only it has done well in the past three calendar years. Though it has done poorly this short YTD (as has the entire sector) relative to "the market". It did not fare well relative to "the market" in 2012, while 2010 and 2006 were relative disasters. Here I'm using the S&P 500 and MSCI ACWI to represent "the market".
IMHO more significant (for any fund) is how well it has done relative to its sector. ETHSX's rankings are in the bottom half (M* category) for 3, 5, 10, and 15 year periods. With this statement I'm guilty of the same cherry picking as Barron's - I'm not looking year by year (or rolling periods). Though year by year, still it has ended only two of the last ten calendar years in the top two quintiles.
Lipper says pretty much the same thing, ranking it a 3 on consistency (3, 5, 10, and overall) within its Lipper category.
Note that Lipper divides the health care fund universe into two parts - domestic and global. This is another illustration of why defining terms, i.e. "the market" matters. Lipper considers ETHSX a global fund (JAGLX being a more consistent peer), while Lipper considers FSPHX to be a consistent domestic health care fund.

FYI: (Click On Article title At Top Of Google Search)
This year’s market has not been good for anyone’s health. After the rockiest start ever to a new year, the volatility has continued such that even the recent three-day rally still has stocks down more than 6% as of Thursday. Health-care stocks, after five years of market-beating gains, have been hit particularly hard, down 8.6% for the year so far. The only sector in worse shape is financials, down 12.3%.
In our Jan. 30 cover story, Barron’s told readers it was “Time to Buy Bank Stocks.” Investors would be wise to look at health-care funds as well.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.google.com/#q=Two+Top+Health-Care+Funds+Barron's

hmm. Not seeing that as much as you are. I know about the Pimco classes, thanks. Just was looking at performance of the various bond funds I mentioned, not seeing clearly how to make a true diversification decision.
>> You wanted to be heavy in VGLT till this week.
Not starting in the fall of 2010 or two years later, or the spring of 2013. Or indeed the spring of last year. How far back are you looking?

David, I don't know about others...but for me yes, I prefer to be UP 7% (VGLT) when the stock market is down 6.5% (VTI). As for how far back...well ytd VGLT UP 7% PIMIX DOWN .8%; 3yrs VGLT UP 6.1% PIMIX UP 3.8%; 5yrs VGLT UP 9.7% PIMIX UP 7.7% Over the longer term I expect PIMIX will beat VGLT since rates will likely rise slowly over time (though who really knows), but it will likely run in the direction of the stock market and hence is not what one looks for in the bond portion of a balanced portfolio.

hmm. Not seeing that as much as you are. I know about the Pimco classes, thanks. Just was looking at performance of the various bond funds I mentioned, not seeing clearly how to make a true diversification decision.
>> You wanted to be heavy in VGLT till this week.
Not starting in the fall of 2010 or two years later, or the spring of 2013. Or indeed the spring of last year. How far back are you looking?

http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=NCATX paying 3.20%
http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=HYD 4.79%
The gold rush might be over as the interest rates (especially for non Californians) are low for the Cali munis.
Was it 5 years ago that Cali was having financial problems? So, could their performance be coming from that low point and they have caught up with the market?

@DavidV: Yes, excellent point ! Example PCK 11.02% 5-Years
Regards,
Ted

FYI John Waggoner on Twitter just reported the following:
Regards,
Ted
Long-term Cali muni bond funds up an average 7.54% the past five years, beating all of Morningstar's diversified stock fund. categories.
M* California Mumi Bond Fund Returns:
http://news.morningstar.com/fund-category-returns/muni-california-long/$FOCA$MC.aspx
U.S. Equity Fund Returns:
:http://news.morningstar.com/fund-category-returns/

Lipper puts VBINX in the Growth Allocation category. There are 113 such funds in its database ending January 2016, at least 10 years old, oldest share class only, open and closed.
VBINX stacks up pretty well. Here is list from top, sorted by 10 year annualized total return (APR), which includes expenses, reinvested dividends, and any max front load. (As always, no accounting for category drift or survivorship.)
It beat out Dodge & Cox Balanced DODBX, which has delivered 5% APR, placing it 41 out of 113.
Here is same list based a Martin Ratio, which is the risk return adjusted metric used to computed MFO Return Group ratings. Martin is excess total return over 90 day TBill divided by Ulcer Index, as described in the paper by Peter Martin, entitlded: An Alternative Approach to the Measurement of Investment Risk & Risk-Adjusted Performance.
If we look across all the asset allocation categories, VBINX ranks even better.

Great post, Charles. Thanks for clearing things up !

Lipper puts VBINX in the Growth Allocation category. There are 113 such funds in its database ending January 2016, at least 10 years old, oldest share class only, open and closed.
VBINX stacks up pretty well. Here is list from top, sorted by 10 year annualized total return (APR), which includes expenses, reinvested dividends, and any max front load. (As always, no accounting for category drift or survivorship.)

It beat out Dodge & Cox Balanced DODBX, which has delivered 5% APR, placing it 41 out of 113.
Here is same list based a Martin Ratio, which is the risk return adjusted metric used to computed MFO Return Group ratings. Martin is excess total return over 90 day TBill divided by Ulcer Index, as described in the paper by Peter Martin, entitlded: An Alternative Approach to the Measurement of Investment Risk & Risk-Adjusted Performance.

If we look across all the asset allocation categories, VBINX ranks even better.
MFO groups the following categories as Asset Allocation (AA) type: Target Today, Target 2010, Target 2015, Target 2020, Target 2025, Target 2030, Target 2035, Target 2040, Target 2045, Target 2050, Target 2055+, Conservative Allocation, Moderate Allocation, Growth Allocation, Aggressive Growth Allocation, Absolute Return, Convertible Securities, Flexible Portfolio, Retirement Income.
There are 470 such funds ending January 2016, at least 10 years old, oldest share class only, open and closed.
Here's how VBINX stack up on that list, again, by APR:

What confusion and pointlessness.
Is the question seriously being heatedly asked if PPGFR (past performance guarantees etc.)? We know the answer to that: No.
Is it likely that outperforming balanced funds with long records and the same management will continue to outperform? We know the answer to that too --- sure it is likely in some sense, ... for the most part, ... within limits, ... given luck, ... and a whole host of other variables. This is the essence of mutual fund investing.
Will they do it every year, or every n years? No. Over the long haul, will GLRBX outperform, given the same decisionmakers? Likely.
How likely is likely? Who knows? It is unknowable. PPDNGFR.
If you're uncomfortable or flummoxed or upset with all this mishmash of variables, hopes, predictions, anxieties, but still determined to make some conclusive statements or other, forget it --- and please, please, please do go w indexing, and stop publicly fretting the odds. Horse is buried, dug up, eaten, then reburied.

The main takeaway point in my view is this: "My thesis is this: Can you say you can pick the top 3.0% to 7.4% of all balanced funds over the next 10 years that will outperform VBINX"? Sure there will be a few out performers, but knowing which ones they are in advance, well that's the hard part. Going with something like VBINV or VWINX (my personal favorite, though actively managed) is a MUCH Better bet. Even those with long records of success can stumble badly...as I've learned over time that out performance by straying from benchmarks inevitably carries risk, which can bite one in the a$$ in time.

Do you believe GLRBX, FPACX, OAKBX and BERIX will still be the best performing funds 20 years from now? If the answer is no, then can you give me the names of the 4 funds that will outperform so I can buy them today? VBINX outperforms 90% of everything else so do you want to risk your capital attempting to pick the best youngest managers you have never heard of today from 1000 balanced funds? How many start up balanced funds have come into existence since 1997? Double that? So you would have had to pick the best 4 out of 2000 in 1997 in order to get the returns you speak of.

What I don't understand is why there is something important about looking back at the ten year returns of mutual funds in the same general group. As if it offers some kind of prediction of future returns. I compared the results of glrbx, fpacx, oakbx and berix going back to 1997. These funds are generally regarded as being good funds, not necessarily the best. All of the funds mentioned soundly beat vbinx. So we have a general idea that vbinx did very well compared to it's peers in the last 10 years. In the last 20, vbinx didn't do nearly as well as the above mentioned funds. How can we use this information regarding the future?

"find a way to do it accurately" Accurate conclusions is what you want... but you persist that VBINX ranks 24 out of 148 when you know many funds have closed over the last 10 years due to underperformance and you ignore adding that to your calculation.
Just 5 closures a year would bring it back to high 88% outperformance.
Worst case/your best case.....83% is a number that would still be hard to beat amigo.

You trust M*'s statistics more than mine. Good idea. Seriously. Just as I would trust M*'s suggestion that 12% of funds beat VBINX over your claim that just 7.4% did. It's large discrepancies like that (1.5x) which raise credibility issues.
Over time, you'll find that a fair number of people here don't trust M* either, at least when it comes to which funds to count. You just hinted at that yourself with PRWCX.
Though closing a fund for years strikes me as a funny way to gather assets. Sooner or later you'll learn that TROW is the most investor-friendly publicly traded investment company (yeah, I know, faint praise).
Regarding which funds to count, you dismissed my selection of VBIAX as being the same fund as VBINX. Fine with me, I agree with your thought that funds should only be counted once. But then you turned right around and referenced a M* figure (12th percentile) based on 501 moderate allocation "funds" with ten year records. Two of the funds in that list of ten year funds are VBIAX and VBINX. You were the one who picked the list of funds, I just selected a fund off your sanctioned list.
You don't have to believe me. The 148 unique fund figure I cited came straight from M*. You can get it yourself. There may be around 500 moderate fund share classes with ten year records, but there are only around 150 funds (using your understanding of funds - counting VBIAX and VBINX as one fund).
One doesn't need a M* premium membership to figure this out. Just use their basic fund screener. Though it is limited to returning 200 funds (i.e. share classes), one can coax all 500-ish out by asking for them in three pieces - 4* and 5* funds, 3* funds, and then 2* & 1* funds. (Any ten year fund should have a star rating, so that captures all of them.)
Ask for moderate allocation funds with ten year performance exceeding (-10%), and do the star breakdown described. The neat thing about this exercise is that because the results come back alphabetically, it's very easy to scan for unique funds (as opposed to share classes). While this will still double count some funds (if a single fund has one share class with 3 stars and another with 4 starts), it gets you in the right ballpark.
It will show how exaggerated that M* 500 fund figure is, at least if you're not going to allow me to pick VBIAX :-) (i.e. if you're going to stick with counting unique funds only once).
I count around 70 unique 4 and 5 star funds (out of 191 share classes, including three instances of Vanguard Balanced Index). I could be off by a couple of unique funds as I counted quickly. The point is to see, in front of your eyes, M*'s (not my) data - how many unique funds there are, how some funds get counted many more times than others. Just look at that first page - it's nearly filled with different share classes of a single fund - American Funds American Balanced.
Along with 76 unique 3 star funds (out of 176 share classes) , and 43 unique 1-2* funds (out of 124 share classes), this totals 189 potentially unique funds out of 491 share classes.
We can eliminate much of the double counting by performing two more screens - checking for 2 and 3 star funds (and subtracting any fund that shows up with both 2 and 3 stars), and then checking 3 and 4 star funds.
Unfortunately, there are more than 200 2* and 3* funds combined, but even working with the 200 returned, there appear to be at least 18 duplicates there, and at least 19 duplicates between 3* and 4* share classes. Subtract 37 from 189, and we get 152 - darn close to the 148 unique funds that I said came from M* data.
Notice what I did. I showed how to reproduce the results and provided the methodology - what the definitions were, what was being counted. This adds to both comprehension and credibility. I showed that you too can come up with figures similar to the ones I gave above.
This exercise demonstrates just how much shrinkage there is going from share classes to unique funds. It offers a glimpse into how much distortion there is, when a single fund like American Funds American Balanced can get counted 16 times, while a fund like T. Rowe Price Cap Ap is counted only twice. This insight can lead to better understanding of what the numbers mean (and what the odds really are, and what factors can improve those odds).
Don't follow your 322 funds. They're not unique funds (by your definition), and they're skewed (I hope by now you're at least considering the possibility that by using Fidelity's screener to eliminate closed funds, you may be distorting your results by excluding funds like PRWCX and Wellington). Spend some time figuring out what you do want to observe, find a way to do it accurately.