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.

FYI:
Regards,
Ted
Bloomberg Slant:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-02-16/asian-stock-outlook-mixed-as-yen-holds-rebound-crude-below-30
Reuters Slant:
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-stocks-idUSKCN0VQ1G9
MarketWatch Slant:
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/wall-street-set-for-rally-as-investors-hope-for-dovish-fed-minutes-2016-02-17/print
USA Today:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/markets/2016/02/17/wednesday-stocks-dow/80493356/
IBD Slant:
http://www.investors.com/market-trend/stock-market-today/stocks-rally-for-3rd-day-tesla-surges-9/
WSJ Markets At A Glance:
http://markets.wsj.com/us
Sector Tracker:
http://www.sectorspdr.com/sectorspdr/tools/sector-tracker
Current Futures: Positive
http://finviz.com/futures.ashx

Since 11/13, DSENX (inception date) and PONDX 50/50, much less 60/40, appear to significantly outperform most if not all of these --- except for PRWCX (which of course is on this major tear) and BRUFX. Combo Martin ratio >5 and UI >2 (short-term).
I wonder if the two funds will continue in this vein.
And I found out about DSENX via Snowball, woohoo. I should become a 0.75% adviser and put clients into them and nothing other....

Love DSENX and PIMIX...have nice allocations to both but could never bring myself to going all in on a 50/50 basis. I could see both imploding in a way I really can't see VWINX (PIMIX has had it's "moments" despite it's fantastic record) and DSENX relies on derivatives, so who knows.

First off, I like and own both. As for going all in, DSENX is too new to draw any firm conclusions except that it seems to add some alpha without much downside risk. The closest analogy with a longer track record is the PIMCO stocks plus series. I think they too have had great run(s) but over very long periods of time the alpha is mostly lost. Whether the shiller pe aspect of DL adds alpha over time without significant risk, we'll have to see. PIMIX, while great is absolutely NOT a diversifier of stock risk as you would want in a bond fund holding 50% of your portfolio. It's had some bad moments, including this year, when you would want your bond fund to smooth out the volatility (VGLT up 7%; PIMIX down 1%). To me PIMIX should be treated more like a high yield offering rather than core bond. That said, PIMIX IS my second largest bond holding after Vanguard LT Tax Free.

Thanks so much for this encouraging response; but can you possibly elaborate on implosion hunches, scenarios and circumstances and any other thoughts or variables, if you have anything beyond gut feeling? (not arguing, just curious).
At some wealthier point, if my thesis continues successful, I will go to DSEEX and PIMIX, yes, and probably not 50/50, actually.
I also see that for the last 1y and 2y, the 50/50 combo beats or equals the mighty PRWCX, not that shortish periods are altogether conclusive. So maybe I have stumbled on a winner combo. Not that this is really original thinking :) .

I came across DSENX on this site thanks to you, David, and I've been happy with it, but I too would be nervous about putting 50% of my modest portfolio into it. All I have to back up my gut feeling is a general sense that a fund based on derivatives has an additional layer of risks (including counterparty, though Doubleline's site insists that risk is minimal), and that relatively simple quant strategies have a habit of working until they suddenly don't -- or in a best case scenario, until everyone figures out they work and the advantage is lost.
But I'd love to hear I'm wrong! I've been steadily adding to DSENX...

Thanks so much for this encouraging response; but can you possibly elaborate on implosion hunches, scenarios and circumstances and any other thoughts or variables, if you have anything beyond gut feeling? (not arguing, just curious).
At some wealthier point, if my thesis continues successful, I will go to DSEEX and PIMIX, yes, and probably not 50/50, actually.
I also see that for the last 1y and 2y, the 50/50 combo beats or equals the mighty PRWCX, not that shortish periods are altogether conclusive. So maybe I have stumbled on a winner combo. Not that this is really original thinking :) .

Since 11/13, DSENX (inception date) and PONDX 50/50, much less 60/40, appear to significantly outperform most if not all of these --- except for PRWCX (which of course is on this major tear) and BRUFX. Combo Martin ratio >5 and UI >2 (short-term).
I wonder if the two funds will continue in this vein.
And I found out about DSENX via Snowball, woohoo. I should become a 0.75% adviser and put clients into them and nothing other....

Love DSENX and PIMIX...have nice allocations to both but could never bring myself to going all in on a 50/50 basis. I could see both imploding in a way I really can't see VWINX (PIMIX has had it's "moments" despite it's fantastic record) and DSENX relies on derivatives, so who knows.

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 !

Since 11/13, DSENX (inception date) and PONDX 50/50, much less 60/40, appear to significantly outperform most if not all of these --- except for PRWCX (which of course is on this major tear) and BRUFX. Combo Martin ratio >5 and UI >2 (short-term).
I wonder if the two funds will continue in this vein.
And I found out about DSENX via Snowball, woohoo. I should become a 0.75% adviser and put clients into them and nothing other....

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:

@shipwreckedand alone: With all do respect, in my opinion, your _______ _ ____ _____ !!
Regards,
Ted

-

"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.

PRWCX is a great great fund, but possibly an equity fund cloaked as a balanced fund in order to gather assets. I will spend some time researching in that area.

@shipwreckedandalone: Please share the results of your research when you have finished. I have myself long suspected this is really an equity fund. And having held PRWCX since the mid-'90s, I've always considered it part of my equity allocation. This has caused more than a little consternation and second-guessing as to whether I have it placed correctly. Seems to me various rating sites have classified the fund over the years at various times as equity, moderate allocation, balanced or even hybrid.
Observing its performance now for nearly two decades, I can say PRWCX consistently behaves on a daily basis like a balanced fund (the old walks like a duck, quacks like a duck test). However, Price places it among their equity funds at their website, reserving the balanced label for others (seeming to dispute your suggestion they're intentionally misrepresenting the fund). But they put the fund's recent domestic stock component at 60% - exactly where you would expect a 60/40 balanced fund to be.
Curiouser and curiouser
From T. Rowe's website: Composition of PRWCX (closed to new investors)
Asset Allocation as of 01/31/2016
Domestic Stock 60.0%
Domestic Bond 21.0%
Cash 11.1%
Foreign Bonds 4.5%
Foreign Stock 2.0%
Convertibles 1.2%
Preferreds 0.8%
Options -0.2%

Andy, Mainstay's MMHIX (no 5 million minimum at Scottrade) have been in numerous times since 2014. And you are right, not as volatile as the others in its category. However, since around mid 2015, the story has all been PYMDX as it has led the pack because of its allocation to tobacco bonds. That's pretty much been where I have had all my junk munis YTD albeit surprised I haven't been banned by them from overtrading. So if I have to ramp back up in the next couple days it will be in ABHYX which has done very well this year too. I like California munis but they have been overbought until Friday. But I worry the whole muni story is merely a tagging along with the Treasuries so far in 2016 as you alluded to. If rates do begin to rise even more reasons to get more involved in the junk corporates as risk assets get a bid. Of course, bottom line it is and always has been the past year and more all about oil. My other forays into corp junk haven't panned out in 2016 especially when I have increased so not overly confident this time around will be any different.

90 years of academic research shows outperformance of small cap value vs. all other stock universes https://docs.google.com/document/d/1kToqLWLISRk4n4YnSzv1hT5kBN54l5CvhwGgDwJKPJI/edit?usp=sharing. Money may have been flowing into large mega cap growth stocks that pay dividends over the last 12 years because of favorable tax treatment instituted during the G. Bush administration. But that universe has since become overvalued in the last couple years advisorperspectives.com/articles/2015/12/15/why-dividend-paying-stocks-are-riskier-than-you-think/4.

Don't know about junk corporates; I'm tempted to first buy more shares in the core low-vol, "quality" equity funds I own when it looks like a general turn toward risk assets is happening.
On munis, the last WealthTrack guest, Dimella of Mainstay muni funds, said he expects he'll stay fairly junky in his HY muni fund for the time being. He cited munis' yield as 95% of T's of same maturity now, down from the 100% + of the past several years but still above the long term 80-some-%. So, to him they still look good on a tax-equivalent basis.
That leaves rates, not competition with Treasuries, as the main risk, and rates have taken such a deep dive, seems pretty certain they'll be higher to some degree in the not-too-distant future. Meanwhile, several muni cef's with really overbought signals are still doing fine. There's got to be a momentum swing coming, just a matter of when.
P.S. Dimella's MMHAX looks like a decent fund - prob'ly competitive with and a little less volatile, up and down, than NHMAX.

Here are a few datapoints that might help - there are approximately 148 moderate allocation funds (not share classes) in the M* universe. (For reasons I won't go into, I don't believe that number is precisely correct, but it's accurate enough to show that the total number of funds is manageable, i.e. one could easily examine each one in detail.)
Of these, approximately 103 are available through Fidelity retail brokerage (i.e. in the Fidelity universe). Of the 103, VBINX ranks 16th (16%). The fact that it ranks lower among funds than among share classes tends to confirm that lower performing funds have more share classes than better performing funds.
Curously, VBINX ranks 25th out of the 148 (17%). Virtually no different from the Fidelity universe.