December and January are the best months seasonally for high yield junk bonds. They have survived the rise in Treasuries as have bank loans/floating rate. That category (bank loan) has seemed like a "can't miss" trade since the real bottom in Treasuries this summer and "sure thing" trades always make me leery. Nevertheless remain 100% invested there with around 60% in BXFYX and 40% in EIFAX.
The past many months have been the less in and out I have done in many a moon and hope to remain there barring any 0.75% or so decline from any highs. Bank loans being junk corporate light do not have the volatility associated with the latter (ex 2008) and have been more of a tight rising channel vehicle (much like junk munis were in 2014 and 2015) since the February bottom. I am sure enjoying life without having to fret over the markets.

Munis suffer worst month since 2008
S&P's index of municipal bonds fell 3.46% in November, writes Amey Stone in Barron's. That's the worst month since September 2008, when it fell 4.83%.
That interest rates rose sharply in November isn''t news, but S&P Dow Jones' J.R. Rieger says potential tax reform in which the highest marginal tax rate could be cut lowers the attractiveness of municipals.
http://seekingalpha.com/news/3228362-munis-suffer-worst-month-since-2008
PTIAX
Performance Trust Strategic Bond Fund
POST ELECTION 2016 COMMENTARY
Key Themes
Continued Strong Exposure to Seasoned Non-Agency Residential Mortgage Backed Securities and Commercial Mortgage Backed Securities
We believe both sectors still provide the best relative defense in a rising rate environment as well as strong cash flows from coupons..
Further Decreases to Taxable Municipals
From first quarter to second quarter, the team decreased the Fund’s allocation to taxable municipals by nearly 7%...
Increased Exposure to Tax-Exempt Municipals, With an Emphasis On 5% Coupon Bonds For Potential Rates Down Offense
We continue to believe that the overall municipal sector offers strong potential cash flows
and total returns, as well as being a more credit worthy substitute to investment grade
corporates.
http://ptiafunds.com/documents/ptiax_commentary.pdf
PTIMX
Performance Trust Municipal Bond Fund
POST ELECTION 2016 COMMENTARY
Why has the bond market reacted negatively to the election of Donald Trump?
Many investors have been confused by the municipal bond markets’ negative reaction to the election results. After markets took time to digest the potential effects of a Trump Administration, they made the speculative determination that many of President-elect Trump’s policies are pro-growth, and thus inflationary, which could lead to higher rates. ...our investment approach,..is that market “experts” cannot
consistently predict the direction of markets or interest rates. At this point, bond markets are merely speculating on potential government policy and its possible impact on rates. Policy actions should speak louder than words, and substantive direction may take weeks or months to materialize. The recent spike up in rates may or may not be short-lived, and we believe --based on experience-- that
chasing predictions does not lead to outperformance over time..
http://ptiafunds.com/documents/ptimx_commentary.pdf
And High Yield Investors
Oil Gains 14% On OPEC Deal – Analysts See Further Gains
Banks are also happy with OPEC. Another constituency pleased with higher oil prices is the banking sector, which will benefit from improved prospects of loan repayment to energy companies. Banks have had to set aside cash reserves to cover from expected defaults on their loans. Earlier this year, 15 of the largest U.S. banks stockpiled $6 billion in cash to cover energy losses, however, as the WSJ reports, defaults have not been as bad as expected. Higher oil prices will likely mean that most banks will emerge in decent shape from the two year oil bust.
http://us2.campaign-archive1.com/?u=ed58b19f2b88e4a743b950765&id=90f27389ac&e=41e04eb3d1
The top performer for the year so far among the major asset classes: US high-yield bonds (iBoxx High Yield Index), which is ahead by a strong 14.2% in total-return terms.

http://www.capitalspectator.com/major-asset-classes-november-2016-performance-review/

Apologies to all. I just watched the film again. I couldn't help myself. Great ensemble cast, including Kevin Costner's body, but not his face. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0085244/trivia "The Big Chill." All of them went to school together at U-Michigan. TV football scenes from their Saturday together show Bo Schembechler . "Go Blue!"
"The name of the American higher educational institution in the USA that the seven friends had attended during the 1960s was the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA. This campus that the characters in the picture attended, Michigan University, was the same tertiary educational institution that director and co-screenwriter Lawrence Kasdan had studied at." ("Tertiary?" His third academic degree?) "Whatever happened to that land we were all going to buy up by Saginaw?" ..."None of us had any money."

"Nepotism, I should think, is in play, here"
Nah, nepotism entails favor by a relative or friend. No such second person here - Hussman himself is the president and primary shareholder of the management company (according to M*). In theory, fund boards are supposed to be independent of the management company, but that's almost never how things work.
An offbeat clue as to what may have piqued Hank's interest: before Hussman put himself in charge of the fund, he was a professor at Univ. of Michigan and Michigan Business School. (Again from M*)
One has to be careful with figures for funds that make heavy use of derivatives. This is a market neutral fund (formerly a long-short fund), which IMHO automatically makes cash figures suspect. It's a matter of interpretation.
According to the annual report, the fund had net assets of $580M, it was long $587M in equities, but these were 99% hedged with various options (that according to the report, behave like shorts).
It also held $261M in "real" cash, while the value of the call options it wrote was negative $282M. Throw in a few other small items, and you get a net portfolio size of $580M.
In round numbers, the stocks represent 100% of the value of the fund, the cash 50% of the value of the fund, and the written options -50%. If you want to say that means 50% of the (net) assets are cash, fine. That seems to be what M* and Lipper are doing. Then the 50% equities comes from the 100% stock minus the 50% options.
Or you could say the $261M of cash represents 1/4 of the stuff it's managing (counting the magnitudes or absolute values of its holdings). Or you might completely disregard the cash, as it appears to be there to cover the options; it doesn't seem to be typical cash "sitting on the sidelines".
It takes a lot of work to figure out what the numbers really mean, and I've only spent a couple of minutes here. Not enough to get my head wrapped around it.

Just looking at that -5.24% 4-week return, I'd say somebody got caught flat-footed by the election result and the ensuing bond collapse.

I suppose it is possible that Gund's secret bond sauce may suffer and the fund may just track CAPE. Not sure.
But while it did slump last Jan, like everything else (still less than SP500), it was flat prior, through the last rate mini-hike, from mid-Oct '15 onward until last early Jan slump.
Still outperformed SP500 at every interval.
So it may be largely unreactive.
I am wondering how PONDX will do. But then I trust that smarties like Gundlach and Ivascyn know what they are doing and that this next hike is baked in or planned for....

@kevindow, I agree and (of course) also hope you are right. DSEEX ytd has >doubled SP500, and I do not know whether to stick with it and its successful algorithmic LCV quasi-churn. Am inclined to stick.

The most amazing stat in your post is the AUM. There is still $528.5 million in this fund?

Hi Guys,
This is not a worrisome problem since it is slowly self-correcting as a function of time. What is true in the financial industry has been historically true in most other industries. I have first-hand experience in this arena.
Fifty-six years ago, I married the love of my life who was studying physics at that time. She was close to being the female Lone Ranger in that field at that time. Also, in my engineering class, only one female represented that sex in a cohort of about 70 engineering students. That situation is dramatically changing at the present time.
I have questioned my wife extensively about her motivations, her influences, and pressures that prompted her to swim against the prevailing tide in that period. She claims no unwanted pressures that moved her into the scientific field. For her, it was simply a matter of choice. It was what she wanted to do.
I asked if others attempted to dissuade her by treating her badly or unfairly. Again the answer was negative. Overall, other students (all male) and her instructors (all male) encouraged and helped her. It was a very positive experience with universally healthy interactions.
All this happened decades ago, and I believe the situation has improved immeasurably. It's always a mistake to automatically exclude 50% of the population from active participation. Predicting when or from where the next Warren Buffett will emerge is an impossible task. Men and women do emphasize different elements when making a decision. Each has a different decision pathway. That diversity of thinking will generate more varied approaches and better solutions when merged in a fair and respectful way.
I've learned that I'm a far more productive and more successful investor when I honestly discuss investment options with my wife. Getting more females to consider the financial industry as a life long career will improve that industry from just a sheer numbers perspective alone. But the likely improvement runs much deeper than the simple numbers game. The way in which decisions are formulated and made is greatly expanded which should benefit all of us.
When our family discusses financial matters with professionals, I am more comfortable when the professional team includes a few female members. That comfort extends well beyond trust; it includes a belief that options will be more fully explored.
Best Wishes.

Goal: "... long-term capital appreciation, with added emphasis on the protection of capital during unfavorable market conditions."
Inception: July, 2000
No-load
Manager Tenure: 16 years
(From Lipper):
ER: 1.13%
AUM: $528.5M
Current Holdings: 52% Stock, 49% Cash
Annualized Performance (mostly negative)
YTD: -9.54%
4-Weeks: -5.24%
1-Year: -7.90%
3-Years: -9.13%
5-Years: -9.60%
10-Years: -4.94%
From Inception (16 years): +1.49%

@ibartman & MFO Members: For what it's worth, here is the Reuters article dated 12/1/16.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-pimco-sec-idUSKBN13Q5WZ

As originally posted by Ted -of course!- on Dec 2 2016: http://www.mutualfundobserver.com/discuss/discussion/30451/john-waggoner-pimco-settles-with-sec-for-nearly-20-million
Pacific Management Investment Co (Pimco) will pay $20 million to settle charges it misled investors about the performance of a top exchange-traded fund it manages, U.S. regulators said on Thursday...
The SEC said Pimco overstated the E.T.F.'s value and provided "misleading" reasons for the fund's early success, which was premised on buying small pieces or "odd lots" of mortgaged-backed securities that sell at a discount to larger units.

Hi guys,
I like what both Edmond and kevindow have written above and, for me, it makes sense. My portfolio has been valuation flat since election time mostly due to my sector orientation. And, I agree that by historical standards the S&P 500 Index is more expensive today over it's historical standard.
Below is my SWAG (Scientific Wild Ass Guess) Forecast ... and, what I am doing.
One of the things I have done to help me find value is to use a blended approach to valuation. I combine the TTM P/E Ratio and the Forward Estimate P/E Ratio and divide by two and then apply the Rule of Twenty as being plenty. This takes into account what stocks have done over the past twelve months plus allows for their outlook.
With this, I have determined, by my measuring stick, that the Index is presently, as of Friday's market close, overvalued by about six percent. In review of some S&P earnings data, earnings are project to grow by about 13% for the Index over the next six months. Fundamentally this is indeed bullish.
By applying my forecast in earnings against todays valuation, the Index is currently selling at somewhat its fair value looking out six months ... I plan no major allocation adjustments based upon this outlook.
Still, with the favorable comments from Edmond & kevindow, I am not backing the truck up either and loading equities as my Portfolio Equity Weighting Matrix Barometer calls for a weighting of 50% in stocks in today's market spectrum. My November Instant Xray analysis reflects a 50% position in stocks and this is about where I should be positioned based upon my risk tolerance and need analysis.
With anticipated yearend capital gains distributions usualy paid in December, I estimate I'll need to do a little equity buying come January to restore the current 50% bubble. Since, I am positioned about where I need to be I plan no changes within my portfolio until January arrives.
I wish all ... "Good Investing."
Skeet

FYI: We live in exciting times, don’t you think? November, punctuated as it was by wrenching changes in financial market expectations, was thrilling indeed. Equities, gold, the US dollar and domestic interest rates – pick one – they all jumped or dived substantially following Election Night.
Not that it was just the election that had investors electrified. Take interest rates, for example. Rates for the long government bond bottomed back in July at 2.11 percent. Yields had already risen more than 50 basis points by the time ballots were counted on Election Night. And now? Well now we’re at 3.12 percent.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.wealthmanagement.com/print/72426

During this period of thanksgiving, I am grateful for Bruce Berkowitz (FAIRX, FAAFX), Scott Barbee (AVALX), Eric Cinnamond (ARIVX ... RIP), Malcolm Fobes (BFOCX), Ken Heebner (CGMFX, LOMMX) and the poker face David Einhorn (GLRE) for convincing me that I should mainly invest in low cost index funds/ETFs, and that I should be extremely cautious with investing in actively managed funds. And if I am tempted to invest in actively managed funds, I need to make certain that the fund is a category killer over the short and long haul (think PRWCX, POAGX, VWIAX) and that I have a disciplined exit plan such as a move below the fund's 20 or 50 day EMA. Get out when the getting is good, and do not hang on hoping that some day off in the distant future I will break even with my investment. Faith is good, but not in investing. Just my opinion.
I realize that most of the chatter on this and most mutual fund forums focus on "hot" funds that have "low assets" and are "emerging" and are "breaking out" and are "must own" and are projected to "beat the market," but ...
SPIVA Is Real
Kevin

I am always perplexed why reference is made to the P/E on prospective/future OPERATING earnings, and then attempt to compare/contrast that to historical P/E ranges --- when that latter is NOT based on operating earnings, but on net, bottom-line GAAP results. Its like comparing apples to oranges.
My latest Barrons, indicates the S&P is currently trading at a 25 X multiple of TTM GAAP earnings. So US stocks are aberationally expensive vs. historical valuations.
That said, if:
a)Money is fleeing bonds, AND
b) Euro-headline risk (exit votes, etc.) and lousy growth continue, AND
c) Money continues to stay away from EM markets, AND
d)A tax-incentive is inacted to repatriate overseas corporate cash AND
e) Lowered corporate tax rates are enacted, leaving more money for shareholders...
Well, stocks can go higher!

AF has had F-2 shares with no 12b-1 fees since 2008. You're referring to F-3 shares.
http://mutualfundobserver.com/discuss/discussion/29858/american-funds-files-for-new-share-class-to-cut-fund-expense-ratios-f-3-shares
Great marketing (agree 100% with BobC on this aspect of AF). Don't think it will significantly affect TCO (total cost of ownership) - I expect it simply to shift costs.
As stated by AF's head of distribution in the article linked to in that other MFO thread:
"This doesn't mean that all of a sudden there will be a significant decline in what's charged to the investor ..."

Dear friends,
The season of darkness and light is upon us, which is a pretty good signal that the December issue of the Mutual Fund Observer has launched. You can find it at http://www.mutualfundobserver.com/issue/december-2016/
If you prefer the long scrolling read, that's available at http://www.mutualfundobserver.com/2016/12/
Highlights of our December issue include:
Snowball’s reflections on how to react to the fact that five major U.S. equity indices reached all-time highs at the end of November (short version: the last such occurrence was 12/31/1999, which implies a degree of circumspection is in order) and to the fact that Donald Trump is president-elect (short version: don’t).
Leigh Walzer, president of Trapezoid LLC, starts with the premise that investment risks are now tilted strongly toward inflation but that traditional inflation hedges (e.g. TIPs) are unattractively value. As he models superior alternatives, he offers up the surprising possibility that modest doses of small cap funds might well make a major difference.
Ed Studzinski has far more extensive investment experience than the rest of us and often pursues matters into the thickets. This month he looks at not-quite criminal misstatements of qualifications in a case surrounding a royalty trust to raise the prospect that we need to be a bit less credulous when our managers are introduced to us, then recommends James Cloonan’s new Investing at Level 3 for its cautions on conflicts faced by mutual fund directors. He ends by encouraging folks to learn from Yale’s David Swensen’s advice, don’t hire managers who seem bewildered by their own portfolios.
Many of us have portfolios that have sprouted funds like a garden sprouts weeds; Charles Boccadoro offers another tutorial on how to systematically assess and simplify a portfolio, using a friend’s USAA collection as a guide.
One of the great virtues of scholarly writing is that it’s valued for its care and precision, not for its ability to generate clicks or get the author invited onto some Fox Business show. That sometimes masks the fact that really important insights are available, if only you’ll look for them. This month Snowball highlight’s three of the most interesting bits of research from 2016: (1) the largest sample of funds ever assembled offers evidence that small funds consistently outperform large ones, (2) a study of over 3000 fund management teams finds that intellectual diversity on the team is a major predictor of performance and (3) an examination of the behavior of 7000 German individual investors shows that introducing ETFs into a portfolio drives performance down. We offer summaries of what each scholar did and found, and how it might affect you plus there’s a link directly back to the original.
Mark Wilson, the Cap Gains Valet, offers a short Thanksgiving reflection on the cap gains season: less pain, more time with family.
Snowball profiles the best small cap fund you’ve never heard of. Really. 20 year record. Same manager. Asymmetrical risk-return profile over the last 3 years. And the last 5. And 10. And 20. It’s never made it to the top of the hot, hot, hot list but continues offering what you need: reasonable gain, minimal pain. (And it’s from Nebraska.)
Like Leigh Walzer, T. Rowe Price is worried about instability in the world economy and in the fixed-income market, which led them to launch a new fund at the beginning of November. We offer a first look in our Launch Alert for T. Rowe Price Total Return.
One development that’s not important to you yet, but might soon be, is the decision of former Wasatch manager Laura Geritz to launch her own advisory firm in partnership with her former Wasatch colleagues who launched Grandeur Peak. We spoke with Eric Huefner of Grandeur Peak to give you a clue of where that partnership is going.
But wait, there’s more! We detail 36 fund liquidations that make sense, and three or four that don’t. Chip tracked down 50 manager changes, one of which might be portentous. We found only a few funds (and one really irksome ETF) in registration. And, well, stuff. There’s other stuff, too.
We hope you enjoy it all in the December Mutual Fund Observer at www.mutualfundobserver.com!

@Alban
The only time I have used American Funds in the last 30 years is with a broker, but I understood then that they were expensive. I NEVER did any better than I would have done in an index fund.
To combat the "passive revolution" they are making a huge push to convince the public that splitting the funds into sleeves will enable them to be nimble and risk conscious.
You have to ask yourself, "why wouldn't I be better off in an Index Fund?" It is almost impossible for any manger running billions ( AWSHX has 84 Billion to move) to beat an index, over a significant period of time. How can you move even 5 billion dollars around in a couple of weeks? So why try?
I have a broker friend who desperately wants me to give him my money to put into American funds.. in the next breath he crows about how much money he has with them and all the bennies that he gets because of this. Where does this money for his free trips etc come from? you and me!
Look at AWSHX over ten years... VFNIX beats it by 5% . VFNIX lost 4% more in 2008 but you are still ahead because of the fees. M* lists AWSHX is a great choice for "risk adverse" investors. Why? Because it lost 33% vs 37% in 2008?
If you want to watch good mangers at work, do some digging into some small funds here at MFO and put some money with someone whose previous results and focus fits with yours... or even better, choose a fund that is totally opposite what you would do because those funds will diversify your investments.
even 0.58% adds up over the years

Oppenheimer does this all the time. Don't know if this clause exists in all their Prospectuses, but it's certainly in many. The following excerpt is from the Prospectus for their Flexible Strategies fund. The same setup (Cayman Islands Subsiderary) was used with my Commodities Total Return fund (QRAAX) before it crashed and burned last spring. Hmm ... I haven't seen anything like this from my other fund houses. I supposed in the past that with Oppenheimer it was either (1) a tax-dodge or (2) some way of their limiting liability from disappointed investors (of which they've had many). Just a guess.
(Excerpt) "ABOUT THE FUND’S WHOLLY-OWNED SUBSIDIARY. The Subsidiary is an exempted company incorporated with limited liability under the laws of the Cayman Islands and is overseen by its own board of directors. The Fund is the sole shareholder of the Subsidiary and it is currently expected that shares of the Subsidiary will not be sold or offered to other investors. If, at any time in the future, the Subsidiary proposes to offer or sell its shares to any investor other than the Fund, shareholders will receive 60 days’ prior notice of such offer or sale and this prospectus will be revised accordingly."
https://www.transamericaannuities.com/media/PDF/MerrillLynch/Prospectus/IRA_Annuity/Oppenheimer-Flexible-Strategies-Fund.pdf
PS: Oppenheimer's operations in many respects offer a stark contrast with those of T. Rowe Price. I've owned a few class A shares there for near 20 years. I'm planning on dumping them in a few more years. I converted to a Roth in early '15 and prefer to leave that money with them until the 5-year holding period is met (just my intent - not a requirement).