@Joe: I don't recommend you throw the baby out with the bath water. TRAEX is an excellent fund, and has a better than average performance record over the years.
Regards,
TED

ZH behind the times, again:
This dramatic escalation now means that every single hedge and mutual funds will spend all Sunday night and Monday morning trying to ferret out any bonds that are especially illiquid or are mispriced
Meanwhile, the WSJ article it quotes (admittedly updated) said that this ferreting out was already done last week:
On Dec. 10, the day the firm announced it was halting withdrawals, traders at Wall Street banks circulated a list of bonds offered for sale by a single seller that matched many of the largest holdings reported by Third Avenue, said several hedge-fund managers who saw the list. Most hedge funds passed on the portfolio, which contained deeply distressed bonds and private equity investments that are hard to trade.
My two takeaways (from the WSJ article):
1) (Quoting one of the commenters): "Now consider that the CEO was in that position for 24 years and swiftly shown the door. There is a lot more going on here to warrant this type of draconian action by the BOD."
2) The fund did not technically prevent redemptions - it redeemed in kind, by distributing shares of a trust that was created to hold and liquidate the portfolio. It is the terms of the trust that bar its owners from cashing out.

As mostly a long term investor I have found it is as important as when I buy as much as when I sell for good gains. In today's market climate I am building cash over buying or adding to existing positions in what I consider to be a peaking and overvalued stock market. I'd much rather be buying in a market that has a TTM P/E Ratio of 14, 15 or 16 rather than the current 22 reading. I have found that the returns are greater when bought at reasonable valuations rather in an expensive and/or towards the top of a market.
With the above in mind, I am keeping both my bonds (due to anticipated rising rates) and equities (due to high valuations) towards their mid to low range while keeping my cash towards its high end within my portfolio's asset allocation.
As I noted above, a fund that trades on equity market volatility is CTFAX. And, since my cash is currently towards the top of its allocation limit, I thinking of buying more of CTFAX with all of this years mutual fund capital gain distributions.

David Winters has said he is longer-term in his views on multiple occasions (I guess aside from occasions where he stupidly faces off against Buffett and then sells his BRK shares in a huff after he didn't get his way - as if Buffett cares.) Where Wintergreen ran into trouble was that pretty much a couple of years ago a number of his major themes stopped working with some (Macau) doing horribly.
Before that, it was decent fund that I think was less than Winters made it out to be (Winters has talked in interviews about how the fund has all these tools - tools that he's rarely ever used.) I guess I don't really see how you can time actively managed funds with much/consistent success. I mean, anyone who tried to time a return to form for Heebner/CGM Focus is still waiting. The Kinetics funds (including flagship WWNPX) are another example.

Hi @Junkster
No longer an "investor" in HY from about 1 1/2 years ago; but I indeed pay attention.
I took a peek at some old numbers today just for the hell of it using only the etf HYG, although I never had monies in this holding.
I wanted to take a look back as I recall watching the yield numbers in the junk bond areas and shaking my head. Just a few numbers from the time frame of December, 2008; through December of 2010.
---December, 2008 found the yields running around the 20% area, including this number until mid March of 2009. There were a few fits and starts in this period, but a good general number. By December of 2010 the yields were wandering around the 8% range.
I didn't take a close look at pricing, but generally; this is the result of this two year time frame:
---yields decreased by about 60% in these two years
---pricing increased by about 60% in these two years
Just a few quick numbers.
I remain mostly of the consideration not so much about any bonds being an income stream, but being about appreciation in value to my monies, no matter how that appreciation arrives.
'Course, today's wacky and perverted world of central banks and all the rest make for some most interesting investing in bonds of whatever flavor, eh?
Take care,
Catch

Howdy professor,
Been dead for a couple of years now - since they peaked. feh. It was a great run - one of the all time easy bulls to ride.
Have some great holidays,
rono

I apologize in advance for this interruption in a "Fund Discussion".
This may not be very investment savvy but I am getting a bit tired of not raising the rates following the perpetual tease of "raising the rate". Now all I want is for them to raise the rates, good or bad - I don't care, so that we can get on with it. If it will bring the end of the world so be it; it might prove less boring. If no rate raise is feasible, quit talking about it. This has been going on for years now. I don't even know if not doing it or doing it is already baked in at this point.

All of my rollover IRAs and 401k are invested in Bonds Funds, DODIX and PTTDX for the most part. They provided a decent yield for the last several years but were flat this year.
From what I understand, bond funds will take a big hit when the upcoming interest rate hike takes effect. I'm not quite sure what, if anything I should do about my funds. Like most, I would at least like to see several percent per year to keep up with inflation.
I am 63 years old, enjoy my job and should be safe for another 3-5 years of employment. Fidelity runs our 401k and I have access to other funds via a brokerage account.
I know I haven't given near enough info, but are there options out there that might give me decent returns without a high level of risk? Any ideas would be appreciated.
Thanks in advance!

I started a position in First Eagle Global Income Builder (FEBAX) shortly after it opened 3 1/2 years ago, as a defensive compliment to my largest holding, PRWCX. It's done better than the category average, but not too well risk adjusted or versus the S&P 500. I just think I need to give it more time (like a full market cycle) since it's a global value oriented fund which focuses on capital preservation first - and those haven't performed very well the past few years.

Third Avenue's decision this week to block redemptions and liquidate a fund with $789 million in assets jolted Wall Street and caught the attention of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
Thanks for the link Ted. Junk bonds have a reputation for being highly illiquid. So I'm not surprised. I'll submit that when things are going well they are more often referred to as high yield bonds (or funds). But when things aren't going well, they're more likely to be called junk .
Price closed PRHYX to new investors about 5 years ago. In the past that always seemed to me a pretty good bell-weather of where the high yield market was heading. This time around, however, they proved way too early in the closing - assuming it was based on valuation and froth in the HY markets. (Of course, managers rarely speak that bluntly when closing a fund.)
Not to be alarmist, but the blocking of redemptions by Third Avenue is the type of thing that often leads to panic in other markets as well. Umm ... let's hope it's different this time. But Friday did resemble a bit of a train wreck across many markets.
Regards

Panic in high-yield hits BDCs
Dec 11 2015, 15:40 ET | By: Stephen Alpher, SA News Editor Contact this editor with comments or a news tip
Treasury yields are plunging, but high-yield is headed the other way again as investors mull a big selloff in the major averages and oil's plunge to below $36 per barrel.The pain is widespread, but a panic in credit is particularly painful for BDCs. Hitting the tape a few minutes ago, Jeff Gundlach says "there's never just one cockroach" when credit melts down.http://seekingalpha.com/news/2980206-panic-in-high-yield-hits-bdcs?uprof=46
Gundlach: If Fed met today, it wouldn't hike
Dec 11 2015, 15:30 ET | By: Stephen Alpher, SA News Editor
"There's never just one cockroach" when credit melts down, Jeffrey Gundlach tells Reuters, and investors have been on "credit overload."The best trade at the moment, he says, is to sell the S&P 500 and buy closed-end credit funds (not Third Avenue's!)
http://seekingalpha.com/news/2980186-gundlach-if-fed-met-today-it-wouldnt-hike
More Coal
OPEC piled on the bad news. After last week’s removal of a production target, this week the oil cartel released figures that showed the group collectively produced the most oil in three years in November, ramping up output to 31.7 million barrels per day (mb/d). Iraq accounted for most of the monthly gains, achieving more than 247,000 barrels per day in increases from October.
The bearish news suggests more pain in the offing for U.S. shale. The EIA put out an estimate, expecting U.S. shale to lose 116,000 barrels per day in production in January, with the largest losses once again coming from the Eagle Ford shale (down 77,000 barrels per day).
http://oilprice.com/newsletters/free/opintel12112015

A rather dumb story as the cost of electrical generation--the primary use for solar and wind power--has almost nothing to do with the price of oil. Natural gas and coal are the primary competitors in this sphere as they are used extensively to generate electricity while oil isn't. Also, highly relevant are the politics of green energy subsidies and utility price increases and the age and cost to maintain the existing electrical grid. American utilities have been raising the price of electricity in recent years even though there has been a dramatic decline in natural gas and coal prices. The reason is one there are high expenses to maintain our aging electrical grids. But also simply because utilities can raise prices. They negotiate a price increase with the local governments and then charge it regardless often where commodities trade. If commodities trade cheaply, that just means more profit for the utilities that pass along the price increase. Also, of course extremely important is the situation in China with major suppliers and now consumers of alt energy there. And of course there is the technological advancement in the alternative energy space--these are the primary factors, not the price of oil. This table provides all you need to know about how relevant oil is to electrical generation: data.worldbank.org/indicator/EG.ELC.PETR.ZS In the U.S. only 0.8% of electricity generated comes from oil. I suppose if the entire world were Jamaica or Lebanon, where oil is a primary electricity source, this story would be more relevant.

Another one bite the dust. It is too bad that after Third Avenue was sold several years ago. Majority of their funds have performed poorly, except for the Real Estate fund. Same thing can be said with Royce funds.

The idea that net worth (or salary) can serve as a proxy for investing expertise is IMHO absurd. One can luck into money (win a lottery ticket). Even without that kind of luck, what is it that makes a surgeon (high income) any more knowledgeable about startup investing than someone who's bounced around from startup to startup?
This is why I feel that the whole concept of accredited investor is fatally flawed. Investors are accredited so that a company can sell stock to them without having to go the nuisance of filing disclosures. Who cares if the investor is being taken for a ride? Caveat emptor. The investor's rich - so surely he can watch out for himself, ask all the right questions to get at the information that would have been disclosed anyway?
This legislation seems like a reasonable step toward qualifying investors, rather than using wealth/income as a proxy. But it also strikes me as grandstanding. The SEC is already required to revisit accredited investor requirements every four years (Dodd Frank). It was in the process of doing so, with better insight. There was not a need for this blunt legislation.
Here's a nice summary of where the SEC was a few months ago, including some of the nuances of various proposals.
http://media.mcguirewoods.com/publications/2015/SEC-Considers-Updating-the-Accredited-Investor-Definition.pdf?utm_source=Mondaq&utm_medium=syndication&utm_campaign=View-Original

When Trends Reverse
Posted on December 8, 2015 by David Ott Acropolis Investment Management
Some strategies, managed futures being the most obvious, are based exclusively on trend following and they really got hurt last Thursday.
Managed futures funds attempt to catch trends by buying what has gone up recently and selling short assets that have fallen recently. Going into the meeting, they were short euros and long German bonds (among other things) and were hit with a tough reversal.
The Newedge Trend Index, an equally weighted index of large managed futures managers, lost -3.66 percent on Thursday, wiping out all of the gains for that index for the year. http://www.newedge.com/en/newedge-indices/
Although we haven’t really invested in managed futures programs, we have been looking into them over the past several years.
We’re not opposed to managed futures and trend following, but we don’t feel like anyone understands them like traditional asset classes like stocks and bonds.
..there is good data on stocks and bonds that goes back to the 1800s for the US and many decades from countries all over the world.
As always, we’ll keep looking and learning, just like we did last Thursday.
http://acrinv.com/when-trends-reverse/

FYI: Jeffrey Gundlach, whose $51.3 billion DoubleLine Total Return Bond Fund has outperformed 99% of peers over the past five years, said the Federal Reserve may come to regret raising U.S. interest rates amid signs of a fragile economy and a crumbling credit market.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.investmentnews.com/article/20151209/FREE/151209917?template=printart

Eventide Healthcare & Life Sciences N ETNHX
Only real bright spot for me this year.Volatile with smaller companies.
http://eventidefunds.com/our-products/#!healthcare
As of September 30, 2015:

Collegium Pharmaceutical Inc (5.66%) Abuse-deterrant treatments for chronic pain
Ultragenyx Pharmaceutical Inc (3.37%) Bringing treatments to market for debilitating genetic diseases
Neurocrine Biosciences Inc (3.25%) Innovative pharmaceuticals for diseases with high unmet needs
DBV Technologies (2.85%) Patient-friendly therapies for food and pediatric allergy patients
BioMarin Pharmaceutical Inc (2.81%) Providing new therapeutics for severe or life-threatening diseases
Dyax Corp (2.68%) Treating hereditary angioedema and licensing phage display technology for research
Portola Pharmaceuticals Inc (2.64%) Treatments for thrombosis and other hematologic diseases
Kite Pharma Inc (2.59%) Clinical-stage therapies that harness patients’ immune systems to fight cancer
Bluebird Bio Inc (2.58%) New drugs for patients with severe genetic and orphan diseases
athenahealth Inc (2.57%) Cloud-based services for health records and medical practice management
Related
From WSJ Business
How Pfizer Set the Cost of Its New Drug at $9,850 a Month By Jonathan D. Rockoff
Updated Dec. 9, 2015 12:01 a.m. ET WSJ
Process of setting the price for breast-cancer treatment shows arcane art behind rising U.S. drug prices
At $11,000 a month, one official said the plan “would definitely require physicians to document medical necessity for Product X,” according to a person familiar with the surveys. It was the kind of paperwork obstacle Pfizer wanted to avoid.
Staff members put together a chart estimating the revenue and prescription numbers at various prices similar to those of the three drugs Pfizer had decided to use as benchmarks.
The chart showed a 25% drop in doctors’ willingness to prescribe the new drug if it cost more than $10,000 a month. This indicated Pfizer might collect higher returns by charging toward the lower end of its range.
Pfizer also had been talking with the Food and Drug Administration. The agency agreed in late 2014 to a speedy review, without waiting for results from an elaborate “Phase 3” clinical trial, so that patients with life-threatening conditions could get the drug earlier. This sped up the time to market by about two years.
Pfizer staff members staged two mock reviews by health-plan officials. The officials, who were paid for their time, sat around a conference table and simulated a day-long discussion of how to handle a drug such as this one.
Pfizer employees say the mock reviews supported a monthly price below $10,000. If it was higher, insurers could start requiring doctors to fill out paperwork justifying its use.
The staff felt they finally had it. When they met in November 2014 to nail down a price, they picked a figure just below the cutoff: $9,850 a month. This would be the list price, from which health insurers and pharmacy-benefit managers would negotiate discounts and rebates with Pfizer.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-art-of-setting-a-drug-price-1449628081

Do these people have some kind of secret sauce?

Yep - they get people willing to pay 1.25% per year to own their Large Growth fund. Paying more than .60 is highway robbery for a domestic stock fund, in my view. ;/
Of course it looks good -- it launched in 2011 and has pretty much ridden alongside the artificial 'bull' market these past 5 years. Most stock fund returns look good in that timeframe, which fund PR folks eagerly pitch at every opportunity. Let me see how such funds work "over a full market cycle" and through some major downtrends .... then I might be interested. Until then, not really. And not at that ER -- ever.

My energy exposure are two mlp funds, TMPLX and INFIX, which were bought when I switched from AMLP. Needless to say, I am down about 45% from when I bought them a year ago. I am in the process of deciding whether to just take the loss and sell, based on the fact that they would now have to almost double to get back to even. I don't see that happening in the next 3-5 years. This is in my IRA, so it is long term money, but I may be better off just putting these monies into S + P Index which in my opinion has a better chance of positive results at a faster pace than midstream pipeline companies.
Would love to hear some thoughts on this. Otherwise, I am very well diversified with stocks, funds etfs and 30% bonds. Do not need to tap IRAS for at least 6 more years when RMD starts.

I only just last week initiated a miniscule toe-hold in COP ConocoPhillips, and will very slowly grow it. (Their DSPP is about the best I've seen in terms of simplicity. The charges all come at the back-end, when selling, and it's not unreasonable at all.) I bought at $53.12, and a bit more will be recorded tomorrow (already sent and noted as "pending,") and the stock is today at $48.21. I intend this as a long-term position. If it takes even a few years for oil to bounce back, I'll be growing my dividend, which is being reinvested. 5.5% yield....In the back of my mind, I keep remembering the airlines barely able to stay afloat, (and the airline bankruptcies!) until oil swooned, and now I note HA at about 30 for 40 X where it was just several years ago. In the same vein, I don't want to look back and see that I missed the best entry-point for the biggest oil E & P company in decades or maybe my lifetime. (Jeez, if only I had money to invest, back in the '90s!) COP is shortly to have a conference call re: 2016 plan, and has a cost-cutting plan already underway, re-aligning its portfolio into cheaper sources of product. The company says in a "forward-looking statement" that they expect to become profitable again, in 2016.
https://www.flashratings.com/stocks/3529-COP?in=true