Thanks @ MJG for your comments.
Whether one agrees with my investment style or not ... I still wear a smile on my face much the same as I did years ago with my betting style and system that I employed many, many years ago when I visited the dog tracks.
While my betting style was not for everyone, it worked well for me. It was a simple system in which I bet historical fast dogs to win, place or show wagers when they were running in lanes that had a good probabilty of being in the money over the other lanes. Many would think that lane number one would produce a good number of money dogs; but, it did not. For me, I kept my bets mostly to fast dogs running in lanes two through seven with win, place, show betting on my best three picks.
Thanks again for stopping by and making comment.
Old_Skeet

"Although LSBDX has had about a 20% equity inclusion."
The fund has tended to add a little equity in recent years, but nothing over 10%. A higher equity position must have been a long time ago. Here's what I found in the (semi) annual reports over the past few years:
Common + Preferred Stock by report date:
3/31/15: 6.4% + 1.8%
9/30/14: 5.1% + 1.9%
3/31/14: 6.8% + 2.0%
9/30/13: 5.8% + 3.6%
3/31/13: 5.4% + 2.9%
9/30/12: 4.9% + 2.5%
3/31/12: 5.4% + 2.6%
9/30/11: 4.8% + 2.6%
3/31/11: 2.6% + 3.3%
9/30/10: 2.3% + 2.6%
3/31/10: 1.5% + 2.5%
9/30/09: 0.7% + 1.4%
3/31/09: 0.0% + 0.1%
9/30/08: 0.7% + 1.2%
3/31/08: 1.1% + 1.7%

Hi @ MikeM,
I know you are looking at top line performance which would consists of both income and capital appreciation (total return) as a major factor to pick your choices.
One of the things that is paramount for me is income generation with now being retired. I have chosen to pick funds that have respectful total returns but kick off a good income stream if held within my income and hybrid sleeves and I moved toward these type funds many years ago after I had reached my investment goal. Even today, I still maintain a growth & income area along with a growth area within my portfolio to keep pace or exceed inflation creep.
I have listed the yield for the funds you have made reference to. They are PRWCX with a yield of 1.23%, FBALX with a yield of 1.39%, FPACX with a yield of 0.60%, OAKBX with a yield of 0.78%, VWELX with a yield of 2.42% and MAPOX with a yield 2.42%.
The yield on my overall portfolio is much, much higher and according to M* is about 3.2% on valuation and better than 4% on amount invested. The income and hybrid sleeves generate a yield of about 4.25%. With this, my portfolio can make its distribution needs to supplement my income requirements without having to sell any securities. When you consider the profit that has been made from my spiffs from time-to-time I have a surplus of income generation. Then factor in the capital gains distributions made time-to-time form my mutual funds and with this I am well head of my income needs and can either grow my cash position and/or reinvest into my funds with the excess income generated.
Although top line performance is important it was not the only item I was looking for in selecting the funds that I currently hold as I was also looking for their ability to generate yield.
Thanks again for your participation and comments.
Old_Skeet

Had invested monies with Hasenstab; but sold this holding 3 years ago. Sold all of LSBDX in January. Although LSBDX has had some equity inclusion.
More to do with this investment area (global bonds) in general and not favoring one manager over another manager.
Edit note: I incorrectly noted a 20% equity position in the past with LSBDX. @msf has corrected this with his below report. Thank you, msf.
Fidelity via M* composition for LSBDX dated 5-31-15

Hi everyone,
I appreciate everyone's comments. Certaintly at times one strategy will lead another just as at times active will lead over passive and at other times passive will lead over active. I think one of the most important things, for any investor, is to start early in life and if nothing more put at least seven percent of what one makes aside for the future and not to spend everything that one makes.
I had buddies that made more than I did through the years and now seemed to have little to show for it now that we are in our sixties. Some have said to me from time-to-time I know I made more than you did ... but, now you seem to have little concerns when it comes to money ... and, well I seem to be short. How did you do it?
It is simple ... I saved through the years and around my age of fifty my portfolio had grown in size that I was making more through investing than I was taking home from my daytime job. So, as it has turned out, investing became the best job that I ever had; and, even though I have now retired from my daytime job I am still with my investing endeavors. And, I plan to keep on keeping-on.

Bee,I think you make good points on balanced funds going forward. But the individual investor has to contend with the same total return concerns outline by Ed Studzinski and yourself. My guess is 10 years from now, the amateur investor, which we all can be classified as, will not out-perform these well managed balanced or allocation funds. We may feel more secure to be in control and we may pick a benchmark our systems can beat, but we likely won't beat the Mairs and Power's, the Wellington group, the TRP allocation team, Romick's team and the many other well managed systems available.

I've held TGBAX for the past 6+ years. Pretty solid fund that at times acts like a stock fund. I generally like it but waffle about keeping it sometimes. As for the Ukraine impact, the fund's got like 2.5% exposure to the country, which to me is hardly worth worrying about, frankly.

I was a long-term holder of TTRZX & TGBAX (it was ~9% of my portfolio at one time). I sold, shortly after I became aware of his Ukraine bets, which was preceded by some time of underperformance.
I came to ask myself: would I, on my own, invest in ANY Ukrainian bonds? (not a chance, not a dime) Do I really want or need to be taking risks with the bond portion of my portfolio, to the extent that he was? I'd rather take the risks on the equity side of my portfolio.
I think the nature of some of the risks he take, are philosophically, not the kind I am prepared to take with bonds. My sense is that over the years he has gotten more "swing for the fences" in making bets. I'm not too comfortable with that type of manager in equities, let alone in bonds. But that is just me.
Just one opinion. Good luck.

Hi Old Skeet,
Congratulations to both you and your Engineer friend. You have each chosen separate investment pathways, but your common decisions to save and invest early in your earning lifecycle is yielding a huge payoff today. That’s no great surprise.
Every single financial advisor who has developed a set of financial rules recommends consistent savings and accepting the risks of investing. In his Zurich Axiom book, Max Gunther’s first axiom is to accept the risk challenge. He said: “Worry is not a sickness, but a sign of health. If you are not worried, you are not risking enough.”
It is amazing how many folks are not up to that challenge. I too have experienced the reluctance of smart and successful folks to engage in the investment world. They don’t consider it investing, but identify it as speculation or gambling. Among these folks, the deep recession of the 1930s has a long arm.
A long time ago, I gave lectures to senior citizens and High School age kids to encourage both savings and prudent investing. My single most effective graph when making the presentations was the comparative Stocks, Bonds, and Inflation historical chart. I know you are familiar with it, but here is a convenient Link:
http://www.morningstar.com/products/institutional/SBBI.pdf
This Ibbotson chart was a terrific deal closer. I was always surprised by how conservative folks were, and how uninformed they were with respect to inflation’s erosive impact.
The goal was to get these folks into the ballgame. What game they played and/or what position they took was far less important. “There is no one right portfolio, but there is one right for you.”
That saying comes from Larry Swedroe’s “14 Simple Truths”. It is Number 14 on his list.
I currently own a mixed portfolio of both actively and passively managed mutual funds and ETFs. I am moving in the direction of more passively focused funds, so I am now more inclined towards your engineer buddy’s program than yours. Some of the logic in doing so is captured succinctly by Swedroe’s Truths Numbers 2 and 3.
Truth 2 is that “The past performance of an actively managed fund is a very poor predictor of its future performance.”
Truth 3 is that “If skilled professionals don’t succeed, it is unlikely that individual investors will.”
I believe these are statistically correct with plenty of experimental data to corroborate them. Over my investing career, I have experienced both sides of those arguments. It is indeed a challenge to overcome the professionals’ advantages. As the professionals have become more knowledgeable, and compete more against each other, Alpha is a disappearing quantity.
I especially congratulate you on winning at this most difficult challenge with such a demanding, complex portfolio construction. Just the numerical size of your portfolio would overwhelm me. If fact, the primary reason I defected from a portfolio of individual stock ownership a number of years ago was that I just couldn’t stay current on 50 stock holdings. I wish you continued good luck and much success.
You might consider working on your hesitant cash holder friends to change their losing ways. You would be doing them an invaluable service. You might want to show them the referenced chart. I've now closed the circle of my post.
Best Wishes.

Here is one more perspective for you to consider....
This is a fund I evaluate over a full market cycle (or maybe 10 years). I made my first investment in YAFFX in 1997 shortly after the fund opened for business. The fund lost about 20% during its first 3 years of existence while the S&P 500 was gaining about 90%. But, by mid 2002, its performance since inception had surpassed the S&P 500. And, since inception, it has now turned $10K into about $50K versus about $36K for the S&P 500.
During the past 3 years, YAFFX is up about 35% while the S&P 500 is up almost 60%. So, it is again lagging the S&P 500's performance in an aging bull market, but not by nearly as much as it did during its first 3 years of operation.
I don't see that the investment process has changed due to the son's involvement or AMG. And, I don't see asset level to be a problem due to the fund's investment universe and low turnover rate.
I do any decided upon culling in my core portfolio once a year. But, I currently plan to stick with YAFFX at least until the next substantial downturn in the market has run its course.

I wanted to resubmit a comment I left in another thread since the two threads seems related.
The thread:
my-engineer-buddy-is-now-crowing-but-we-both-have-smiles
My comment:
Let's keep in mind that what worked in the past for Balance Funds may not work going forward (ala Ed's commentary about balance funds). That's not to say smart balance fund managers (much like Ed) won't find new ways to manage risk and return.
@Old_Skeet portfolio construction always reminds me that asset allocation (ala his sleeves) is often the more important component of a well design portfolio. To me it include three things: Income for present spending, growth for future spending, and portfolio Insurance for the unexpected but very real market risk events.
Income for a young investor is often merely wages, but for a retiree their guaranteed income (pension, social security,etc.) may also need to be augmented with a monthly stream of non-guaranteed income (rent, dividends, etc.). Income pays the bills and retirees often need to design their portfolio to throw off adequate income with a minimum amount of risk.
Growth for the young investor is a very loose term since this could mean an investment over a period of 60 plus years. Growth for a retiree could entail a time frame of 30 plus years. Growth comes with lots of market risk, but often works out over the long term. The periodic downside market volatility combined with human emotions (fear and safety) can derail these important portfolio risk assets in the short term. Designing a portfolio that offsets this market risk requires holding uncorrelated assets. Ed mentioned in his commentary that some of these uncorrelated assets may not perform as well going forward as they historically have.
Trying to meet present and future growth and income needs seems achievable so long as investors stay the course by trying to maximize a balance between risk and return. For me, this means holding adequate uncorrelated risk investments or owning a well managed balance fund.
For over 75 years VWELX has successfully managed risk for its shareholders. I have a feeling this fund (and others) will meet the challenges Ed outlined in his commentary.

Let's keep in mind that what worked in the past for Balance Funds may not work going forward (ala Ed's commentary about balance funds). That's not to say smart balance fund managers (much like Ed) won't find new ways to manage risk and return.
@Old_Skeet portfolio construction always reminds me that asset allocation (ala his sleeves) is often the more important component of a well design portfolio. To me it include three things: Income for present spending, growth for future spending, and portfolio Insurance for the unexpected but very real market risk events.
Income for a young investor is often merely wages, but for a retiree their guaranteed income (pension, social security,etc.) may also need to be augmented with a monthly stream of non-guaranteed income (rent, dividends, etc.). Income pays the bills and retirees often need to design their portfolio to throw off adequate income with a minimum amount of risk.
Growth for the young investor is a very loose term since this could mean an investment over a period of 60 plus years. Growth for a retiree could entail a time frame of 30 plus years. Growth comes with lots of market risk, but often works out over the long term. The periodic downside market volatility combined with human emotions (fear and safety) can derail these important portfolio risk assets in the short term. Designing a portfolio that offsets this market risk requires holding uncorrelated assets. Ed mentioned in his commentary that some of these uncorrelated assets may not perform as well going forward as they historically have.
Trying to meet present and future growth and income needs seems achievable so long as investors stay the course by trying to maximize a balance between risk and return. For me, this means holding adequate uncorrelated risk investments or owning a well managed balance fund.
For over 75 years VWELX has successfully managed risk for its shareholders. I have a feeling this fund (and others) will meet the challenges Ed outlined in his commentary.

Skeeter, here is the point I'm trying to make, again. Your benchmark is relative only to yourself. Your added "spread" on return of 1.2% added value per year is relative. You can say over 10 years you have gain $120,000 on your million dollar bogey, but you could also pick a different benchmark and find you may have shorted yourself $100,000 over 10 years.
What I'm trying to express is most investors, even possibly yourself, could have had better returns just by investing in 1 well managed balanced fund. I'm not proposing a 1 fund portfolio but I'm making a point. Even you who has worked hard to come up with an elaborate and skilled portfolio plan, has not beaten many of the good, seasoned balanced fund managers available to all of us.
Examples: Returns over 5 and 10 years:
PRWCX 13.8% 8.9%
FBALX 11.3% 7.2%
FPACX 10.1% 7.7%
OAKBX 9.8% 7.5%
VWELX 10.8% 7.8%
MAPOX 10.8% 7.3%
skeeter 9.8% 6.9%
engineer 10% 5.6%
And again, this is not a knock on your work. Your returns are right there with some of these great funds. I'm just trying to point out that anyone can have good returns just by sticking with a seasoned proven manager or management team. You don't need an elaborate portfolio and you don't need a lot of funds to do it. Simple is most often better for most investors.

I also was not seeing the downside protection, and felt uncomfortable with the fund since the AMG move. So....I swapped it this past Friday for GLRBX. I had been admiring this fund for several years, and the recent MFO spotlight got me moving. It is not a one for one match in terms of portfolio allocation, but it fit my current plans.

I dumped it a few weeks ago. I don't care if it does well in a down market. It's been doing poorly for five years now. In addition, it does have a high ER for its category. I found more reasons for dumping it than holding it.

Hi jlev,
For me that extra spread earned has justified my time and effort and from my perspective made it worth the effort. Just think in these terms 1.2% on a million dollar portfolio is an extra $12,000.00 a year. Over ten years this out size performance amounts to $120,000.00. So, from my perspective it has indeed been worth the effort.

I did not Bee. Connecting a line across all the new lows for this stock over the last 3 years shows a very predictable pattern. 20-22 looked like the new low before yet another predictable bounce up, but I didn't bite :( I did make a safer buy on AAPL when it dropped to 114 this week.
Maybe when I retire I'll have more time play.

Thanks for sharing Old Skeet.
I read many years ago from different publications, M* is one that sticks in my mind, that the actual funds you invest in are a smaller contributor to your total return over time compared to how you construct your portfolio. More importantly for return is the portfolio construction, mainly equity to bond ratios. Sounds to me your 2 portfolio comparison agrees with what I've read.
Given that belief, it has moved my investing style to hold fewer funds, and not duplicate funds in a category. At least that is what this information tells me. If I expect alpha from managed funds, duplication doesn't help the cause.
Not arguing with others who think management diversification helps them. I just don't buy it for me. Give me an index sprinkled with 1 proven "alpha" manager and you are in good shape from my view.
Heck, to be real simple, maybe we should all just invest in a great managed balanced fund like PRWCX (and I've given that thought). The older I get the more I question the idea I can do better:
returns for one of the great balanced funds, PRWCX
1year 13.0%
3year 15.6%
5year 14%
10year 11.6%
the average moderate balanced fund wasn't bad either. very similar to your friend's.
1year 4.3
3year 9.9
5year 9.5
10year 5.8

I'd have a hard time characterizing Ed as a "perma-bear" having invested successfully under him for many years. Whether or not you agree with his currently cautionary outlook, his wry insights into investing and investors make for valuable reading.
All of us to a greater or lesser extent tend to be myopic in viewing markets. (Won''t bore you with a long list of "sure-bets" that later cratered). It's this tendency towards near-sightedness, I think, that Ed's railing against more than anything else.
It's difficult to lower expectations. When I retired at 50-something I was still aggressively invested with high expectations of return. By 70 I'd gradually scaled-back those expectations (kicking, dragging, screaming). Sure - the markets always "come back." It's the requisite time-frame for recovery that makes the difference.

From March of this year, a section of a thread for a simple portfolio of 50% each for VTI and BND :
The results are listed below using VTI and BND; which will find this portfolio at age 5 years, this July.
--- 2010 averaged return = 11.89%
--- 2011 averaged return = 4.39% equity market melt in July
--- 2012 averaged return = 10.23%
--- 2013 averaged return = 15.69%
--- 2014 averaged return = 9.25%
--- 2015 averaged YTD = 1.76%
M* 5 year anualized to date = 10.31%