Aren't you leaping to conclusions?
- That money managers are married, and
- Their spouses are female.
Not easy to get this sort of data. I did run across these bit of trivia, since you broached the subject:
"We find that single CEOs, who are more likely to exhibit status concerns, are associated with firms that exhibit higher stock return volatility and pursue more aggressive investment policies."
http://fbe.usc.edu/seminars/papers/F_4-8-11_ROUSSANOV-Rev.pdf
This suggests the possibility that spouses (female or otherwise) are not "over quota" but "underrepresented" among gun slinging fund managers.
Better that fund managers should be confirmed bachelors without distractions, since "We find that marriages and divorces are associated with significantly lower fund alpha, during the six-month period surrounding the event and for up to two years after the event."
Limited Attention, Marital Events and Hedge Funds
I suspect that if I look hard enough, I'll find that kids are bad for managing money too. Amazing what useless factoids one can string together.

>> JG will likely not allow
If only it worked like that, as a matter of effort.
Yes, I trust his navigational skill. 53% in DSEEX / DSENX alone.

@Sven, I think domestic equities will likely have a dip at the inauguration, which should be bought. Then hang on through the April or May. The market should be choppy through the summer, and then head up in the fall of 2017. I am bullish on domestic SC/MC equities for the next 3 years, and have 100% of my TSP in the S fund (VXF equivalent).
@davidrmoran, I am comfortable in the process involved with DSEEX, and we continue to have 15% of our portfolio invested in this fund. And JG will likely not allow the FI portion of this fund be a drag on performance, so I am fine with holding this fund in a rising interest rate environment. And if the equity exposure hits a downdraft, the FI portion will be beneficial.
Kevin

I think PRPFX is a great vehicle to help investors think about diversification -- especially diversifying beyond standard stocks/bonds. That said, I don't plan to put any money in PRPFX myself. A couple things bother me about the vehicle:
a. Permanent allocations. Even if one identifies an optimal collection of asset classes, Its unlikely that "freezing" allocations permanently is a good idea. Investing conditions change. One's allocation should adapt to change, not ignore it. -- Even if the only change you want to make is one's shrinking time horizon as one ages.
b. Equal allocations: PRPFX essentially slices its portfolio into 3 more/less themes: "ex-USD assets (gold, silver, Swiss francs), equities (including REITs) and "safe bonds". While slicing a portfolio pie into 3 (approximately) equal pieces is simple, I doubt its optimal.
c. Cost: With the proliferation of ETFs, the cost of owning these assets has gone way down, and the convenience has gone way up. I am not sure why I would or should pay a "permanent" annual MER of 0.8% to PRPFX for the Treasury bonds it holds. Or the gold bullion.
I think there is a good case to be made for owning assets, like PRPFX does, some of those benefit from deflation/disinflation, others from inflation, other from slow growth. But one can do so for less costs, and perhaps hire better stock/bond managers. I'd probably construct something like:
1. Stocks: VIG & VIGI (or VMVFX)
2. Reits: VNQ & VNQI
3. Bonds: Any 5-star, low-cost, core-interm bond funds. Or munis if taxable.
4. Gold/silver: GLD & SLV (though I would just buy/store the bullion outright). And probably not more than 10% of the overall portfolio. More likely 5-7%.
5. Swiss Francs: I'd probably forego the currency spec altogether.
Assembling the components yourself, you can probably replicate the benefits of PRPFX, but at 1/3 the cost, ad end up hiring better (bond) managers. (And re-balance/alter allocations as investment conditions warrant.)
Just my 2 cents.

Examples:
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/923184/000119312516784851/d299132d497.htm
497 1 d299132d497.htm 497
SUPPLEMENT DATED DECEMBER 5, 2016
TO THE INVESTOR AND INSTITUTIONAL PROSPECTUS OF
MATTHEWS ASIA STRATEGIC INCOME FUND AND
MATTHEWS ASIA CREDIT OPPORTUNITIES FUND
DATED APRIL 29, 2016
Effective immediately after market closing on December 30, 2016, the minimum initial investment for Institutional Class shares is lowered from $3,000,000 to $100,000.
Therefore, effective immediately after market closing on December 30, 2016, the Institutional Class Shares chart under the “Purchase and Sale of Fund Shares” section on page 11 is hereby removed in its entirety and replaced with the following:
INSTITUTIONAL CLASS SHARES
Type of Account Minimum Initial Investment Subsequent Investments
All accounts $100,000 $100
Minimum amount for Institutional Class Shares may be lower for purchases through certain financial intermediaries and different minimums may apply for retirement plans and other arrangements subject to criteria set by Matthews.
The minimum investment requirements for both the Investor and Institutional Classes do not apply to Trustees, officers and employees of the Funds and Matthews, and their immediate family members.
Also effective immediately after market closing on December 30, 2016, the Minimum Investments in the Institutional Class Shares chart under the “Purchasing Shares” section on page 31 is hereby removed in its entirety and replaced with the following:
MINIMUM INVESTMENTS IN THE INSTITUTIONAL CLASS SHARES OF THE FUNDS
(U.S. RESIDENTS*)
Type of Account Minimum Initial Investment Subsequent Investments
All accounts $100,000 $100
Minimum amount for Institutional Class Shares may be lower for purchases through certain financial intermediaries and different minimums may apply for retirement plans and other arrangements subject to criteria set by Matthews.
* Additional limitations apply to non-U.S. residents. Please contact a Fund representative at 800.789.ASIA (2742) for information and assistance.
Finally, also effective immediately after market closing on December 30, 2016, the second paragraph under the heading “Minimum Size of an Account” on page 35 is hereby removed in its entirety and replaced with the following: “The Funds reserve the right to redeem small Institutional Class accounts that fall below $100,000 due to redemption activity. If this happens to your account, you may receive a letter from the Funds giving you the option of investing more money into your account or closing it. Accounts that fall below $100,000 due to market volatility will not be affected.”
For all existing and prospective Investor Class and Institutional Class shareholders of Matthews Asia Strategic Income Fund:
Effective immediately, Gerald M. Hwang no longer acts as a Co-Manager of the Matthews Asia Strategic Income Fund. All references with respect to Gerald M. Hwang in respect of the Fund are hereby removed.
Please retain this Supplement with your records.
******** https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/923184/000119312516784870/d288429d497k.htm MICSX
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/923184/000119312516784873/d288429d497k.htm MIPIX
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/923184/000119312516784859/d299132d497.htm All other Matthews Funds & above

@David & MFO Members: In case you missed my eariler link on Category Kings !
Regards,
Ted
http://www.mutualfundobserver.com/discuss/discussion/30505/lipper-mutual-fund-category-kings-top-ten-ytd#latest

The top domestic equity category, YTD, is ... small-value? Hmmmm.
The top five performers there are:
1. Hodges Pure Contrarian (HDPCX): up 69% YTD, two-star, high vol, $14 million in assets.
2. Aegis Value (AVALX): up 59% YTD, one-star, high vol, $130 million in assets. Very microcap. We've profiled it.
3. Schneider Small Cap Value (SCMVX): up 53%, one-star, high vol, $45 million in assets. Trails 99% of its peers over the past 10 years.
4. Towle Deep Value (TDVFX): up 51% YTD, four-star, $139 million in assets (a fair chunk of it is internal), top 1% in every trailing time period. Also profiled.
5. CMA Advisors Small Cap Value (CMOVX): up 49%, one-star, $51 million in assets.
Hmmmm ...
The worst funds in the category are Intrepid Endurance (ICMAX), up 8% with lots of cash including mine, Bridgeway Ultra-Small (BRUSX), their original fund, up 9.5%, James Small Cap (JASCX), Diamond Hill Small Cap (several classes), closed and Gold-rated, and Huber Small Cap Value (HUSIX).
I always like to imagine that there's some pattern there, but maybe it's all no and no signal.
As ever,
David

Jaffe seems to be setting up a straw man again. He talks about 40+ page index fund prospectuses as though fund companies were required to send these to investors (whether via paper mail or, if the investor elects, electronically). False.

Rule 498 provides that if a fund elects to rely on a summary prospectus to meet its 1933 Act prospectus delivery obligations, the fund’s current summary prospectus, SAI, and most recent annual and semi-annual reports to shareholders may be accessible, free of charge, at an Internet website address specified in the summary prospectus.

http://www.pli.edu/public/booksamples/5519_sample4.pdf
VFINX 8 page summary prospectus: https://personal.vanguard.com/pub/Pdf/sp40.pdf?2210120533
What he's calling "personalized" is merely configurable. He's not suggesting incorporating any personal information, like how much your investment is costing you in dollars, which would be personal to you. He's just suggesting that you be able to order your prospectus with an orange cover instead of a blue one; with the expense table in front and the investment strategies behind that instead of vice versa; and so on.
Just because it can be done dosn't make it beneficial. Which would you find more helpful on a credit card disclosure - a fixed boilerplate table where you could compare features side by side, line by line, in standardized form with standardized terminology, or ones where things were rearranged and perhaps didn't line up for various reasons (including the possibility that not all issuers offered the same configuration options)?
Brevity? I prefer that things be as simple as possible but not simplistic.
http://quoteinvestigator.com/2011/05/13/einstein-simple/
A few years ago, I had an email exchange with Jaffe, where I pointed out an error (or misleading sentence, I forget). His response was that he had just so many column inches to work with.
Name a company that would reduce its fees (I assume that's what Mark meant by expenses) if its costs went down? Vanguard.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/greatspeculations/2016/12/02/how-to-find-the-best-style-etfs-4q16/#4f6d75061794
"Finding the best ETFs is an increasingly difficult task in a world with so many to choose from. How can you pick with so many choices available?"

Anyone else find it odd that Geritz's new funds will only buy stocks over $1.5 billion? I know this is what Grandeur probably wants to have a friendly non-competitive partnership, but doesn't this play against some of her core strengths? She was quite a good small cap manager. It seems a loss to give that up for a partnership.

The owner of Berwyn Funds (TriState Capital Holdings) loses a big client and bails on an acquisition.
Vanguard is replacing Chartwell Investment Partners as one of the subadvisors of Explorer and MidCap Growth.
Tristate Capital is also abandoning its plan to buy a fixed income team and about $4-billion in assets from Aberdeen Asset Management in Philadelphia.
Chartwell owner Tri-State Bank, based in Pittsburgh, recently bought the Berwyn Funds investment group, including BERIX and BERWX.
Reading the release, it seems that Tri-State is fixated on "growing revenue...and attracting meanful inflows," rather than its results.
http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20161205005194/en/TriState-Capital-Updates-Chartwell-Investment-Partners-Business

Highlights of the Week:
Securitized Product: November was the busiest month of CLO issuance for the year driven by refinancing and reset activity, front-running the soon-to-be-implemented Dodd-Frank risk retention requirements. In residential mortgage land, agency conforming limits were raised from $417,000 to $424,000 for the first increase since 2006!
High Yield: Earlier this week, OPEC and several non-OPEC countries agreed to output reductions in 2017. Assuming none of the agreement’s adherents defect, US shale producers, many of which are High Yield issuers, stand to profit from tighter global oil supplies.
Municipals: Municipal bonds are currently offering a very compelling relative value proposition, as the ratios of Municipal to US Treasury yields exceed 100% across the yield curve for the first time in the past three years https://www.payden.com/weekly/wir120216.pdf

@rmt &MFO Members
Regards,
Ted
I-Shares $5 Million
N-Shares $ 1 Million
R6 Shares $100,000

Their managed futures fund (QMHIX/QMHRX) is heavily touted by a Pied Piper over on the Bogleheads board. YUCK! Down over 13% YTD!! Maybe some don't mind underperforming for 3,4, or 5 years as the article points out, but not my idea of accumulating wealth.

FYI: For the last 35 years, the classic 60/40 portfolio returned 10.5% a year. It’s hard to imagine that these results will be matched over the next 35 years, which has a lot of people looking to alternative ways of managing a portfolio. Today I’m going to examine one of these alternatives, the “Permanent Portfolio,” which was outlined in William Bernstein’s “Deep Risk” (and elsewhere). The Permanent Portfolio consists of 25% of each of the following:
U.S. Stocks (S&P 500)
Cash (One-month t-bills)
Long-Term Government Bonds
Gold
Regards,
Ted
http://theirrelevantinvestor.com/2016/12/02/the-permanent-portfolio/
M* Snapshot PRPFX:
http://www.morningstar.com/funds/XNAS/PRPFX/quote.html
Lipper Snapshot PRPFX:
http://www.marketwatch.com/investing/Fund/PRPFX
PRPFX Is Unranked In The (30/50 Equity) Fund Category By U.S. News & World Report:
http://money.usnews.com/funds/mutual-funds/allocation-30-to-50-equity/permanent-portfolio/prpfx

>> year-to-date return was reflected at 6.2%, 1 year return at 4.4%, 3 year return at 4.1%, 5 year return at 7.5% and the 10 year return was shown at 4.8%.
fwiw (not the identical mix, but a good mix), AOR is
5% ytd, 4.3% 1y, 4.15% 3y, 7.4% 5y, and 9% 8y (life, I think).

"Getting the SARs and ARs from TGBAX. ... [On the fund's website] I see the following items/updates, which were NOT distributed to shareholders ... I don't appreciate such methods of under-the-radar shareholder updates."
From the AR dated August 31 (M* version, SEC version):
Effective December 31, 2016, as approved by the board of trustees at a meeting held on July 13, 2016, each of the Funds’ fiscal year ends will be changed to December 31.
Effective December 31, 2016, Templeton Global Bond Fund, which has historically sought to pay a level distribution amount from net investment income on a monthly basis, will implement a variable pay distribution policy.
Perhaps your radar is on the blink?

Getting the SARs and ARs from TGBAX, I haven't been on the Franklin website in ages -- but in poking around there this evening, I see the following items/updates, which were NOT distributed to shareholders via the same channels we get 'regular' fund info from. (I only noticed the reduced dividend when it hit my account for the first time, but otherwise if I didn't see my statement I'd never have known about that. And I just now learned of the Sept announcement about the change in distribution policy ... so if I hadn't checked the website I'd not have know about that, either.)
While probably legal, I don't appreciate such methods of under-the-radar shareholder updates from a fund company.
Sep 27 2016 Templeton Global Bond Fund Fiscal Year-end Date and Distribution Policy Changes Effective 12/31/16 - Read More
Templeton Global Bond Fund will change its fiscal year-end date from August 31 to December 31 and change its distribution policy to begin paying a variable distribution, scheduled to be effective on December 31, 2016. For more information on these changes, please contact your financial advisor or call Franklin Templeton Investor Services at (800) 632-2301.
May 18 2016 Templeton Global Bond Fund – Dividend Adjustments in May 2016 - Read More
In May 2016, Templeton Global Bond Fund adjusted its dividend as follows: Class A from $0.0300 to $0.0200 per share; Class C from $0.0262 to $0.0161 per share; Class R from $0.0276 to $0.0175 per share; Class R6 from $0.0338 to $0.0239 per share and Advisor Class from $0.0323 to $0.0224 per share. Dividends vary based on the fund's income. Past dividends are not indicative of future trends. For more information, contact your financial advisor or call Investor Services at (800) 632-2301.

Hello,
I enjoyed reading Charles Boccadoro's blurb he wrote about "A Low Cost Alternative to One USAA Managed Portfolio."
I decided I'd carry the analysis work a little fauther on the 50/25/25 portfolio consisting of FFNOX, FTBFX & BBALX and inputed the funds along with the necessary data into Morningstar's Portfolio Manager. The things that stood out in this analysis was that the portfolio as a whole had a yield of 2.54%, with an average bond duration of 5.26 years along with an average maturity of 7.4 years. The funds within the portfolio combined were trading back of their 52 week high by 2.1%. The portfolo's year-to-date return was reflected at 6.2%, 1 year return at 4.4%, 3 year return at 4.1%, 5 year return at 7.5% and the 10 year return was shown at 4.8%. Year-to-date the porfolio's performance was pretty much in line with my bogey, the Lipper Balanced Index.
All in all, this is not a bad three fund portfolio ... and, if I were a new investor starting out today it is one that I'd most likely find favor in. But, to reconfigure my own portfolio would necesitiate tax payments for the large amounts of capital gains I'd face if I began to liquidate funds within my own portfolio and move towards something similar. Plus, I'd be taking a pay cut. My trading activity alone within the growth area of my portfolio has generated capital gains amounting to about 10% of my gross income this year. And, if I am not careful I'll be getting dinged for higher medicare premiums. So for me, I plan to continue my sleeve investment system which has also offered good returns. From review of your suggested portfolio's performance compared to my more complex one justifies running my more complex portfolio.
Thanks Charles for writting about your low cost three fund portfolio. I enjoyed reading about it very much as it provided something, crafted by an expert, for me to compare my own against.
Old_Skeet

Seems that some MFO members are trying to find bond funds that fit where the economy "appears for the moment" to be headed judging by recent posts. I have about 50% of my bond portfolio (38% of total assets)geared more toward decent but not best yielding and capital preservation first, return second. Yes I have done some changes, like dumping DBLTX for GIBIX, rebuying some OSTIX recently and adding some interim corporate bond funds in 2016, but don't feel the need to try and find "whats working now" for everything, Im not that smart to know when to get in and out :) Fortunately 50% of my bond portfolio is still in 2 individual munis that Im holding til maturity, so just glad to get their 4.25% yield.
I can live vicariously through some of your choices and be glad for you when it works, and not say anything if it doesn't.
Curious as to whether your bond allocations are more for income and balancing total portfolios or for return. Would love to hear some feedback on this.
Thanks!