Government, emerging markets, and long term bond funds up over 7%. World and corporate bond funds up over 4%. Junk corps up 3.62% with some of the larger ones up over 5%. Even some of the stodgy bank loan funds are up in the 3% to 4% range and some of the steady eddie funds in this category have had but one or two down days in the past two months. The junk munis are trailing at 2.62% albeit some of the better ones are near 4%. Munis in general seem to be overloved. Never a good thing from a contrarian point of view. Entering today I was 41% bank loans, 29% junk corp, 26% junk munis, and 4% emerging markets. That could be subject to change (as it is almost everyday) as may exchange more out of my Nuveen junk muni (NHMRX) into more of my Nuveen junk corporate (NCOIX) This scattered and diversified approach is normally not my thing but it sure has been less stressful. Hopefully can incorporate more of that strategy as I continue to age. Up around 4.35% YTD (edit: 4.99% through 4/22) and would be thrilled to get 10% for the year - or whatever the market has to offer. I am always more concerned with a smooth ride upward in my account with as least volatility as possible than I am hitting it out of the ballpark Harper style.

Interesting link, Ted, thanks for it. I'm curious what some of the many saavy bond investors here think about current junk valuations, @junkster and @dex maybe?

Not an investor but the "experts" are all over the ball park when it comes to the prospects of the junk bond market. In Ted's linked and bullish article we see this comment Payson Swaffield, chief income investment officer at Eaton Vance, thinks we are at the beginning of a new cycle of positive junk returns that could last a few years. Yet, in this week's Barrons we see an interview with Michael Weilheimer, head of Eaton Vance's Income Fund who is cautious and thinks we will be rangebound and are anywhere from the 6th to 9th inning of the credit cycle. Same firm yet two entirely different opinions on junk bonds. Marty Fridson the junk bond guru says ex oil we are an extreme valuations in the junk bond market. And of course we all know the Bond King's (Gundlach) constant and continual bearishness on the junk bond market.
The market though, who never listens to the experts has been very bullish and the average open end junk fund is up 3.62% YTD with many up over 5%. So unless oil goes back to $30 it is looking more and more like double digits gains for 2016 will be achieved.
Edit Ted's linked article was a good one as it highlighted the dampened volatility of junk bonds.

These funds are too varied to make meaningful comparisons. I understand you want some concrete historical comparisons. But I think the wide variety of approaches precludes such an analysis.
- Some funds hedge against currency fluctuation vs the Dollar. The degree of hedging and methods vary. (I don't pretend to understand the technicals.) Expect more muted returns but an easier ride with funds that hedge. (Prospectus should clarify degree of hedging, if any.)
- Those classified as local currency funds normally don't hedge. It's a bit like adding rocket fuel to your tank. They outperform greatly during periods of weak Dollar, but are dangerous to own if the Dollar undergoes sustained strengthening. Since the Dollar can undergo multi-year periods of rising or falling against other currencies, performance of local currency funds cannot be predicted and tends to be erratic.
- Geographic concentrations vary widely. Lately, funds investing in Japan have outperformed others as the Yen has appreciated rapidly. In addition, the more aggressive funds dabble in risky places like Brazil and Russia where currencies can fall or appreciate 50% in a single year. Others avoid these markets, sacrificing potential gain in favor of stability.
- International or Global fund? International bond funds invest primarily in non-U.S. markets. Global funds are much more likely to include U.S. bonds. Dodge & Cox Global Bond DODLX (which I own) for example, has about 50% of assets invested in the U.S. If you're looking to offset your U.S. Dollar denominated assets, you're getting less impact with a fund like this.
- Since the question does not reference EM bonds, I'll assume you mean investment grade funds. But many of these (including OIBAX which I own) can invest in EM markets. A 20-30% weighting to EM or sub investment grade debt would not be uncommon for some of these. Result: Exposure to EM helps in healthy markets, but makes the manager look like an idiot when EMs falter.
- Finally (and very importantly), as with U.S. bond funds, considerations like duration, weighting to sovereign debt, industry concentration, and credit quality all affect the performance.

If you own the fund in a taxable account and have a large, unrealized gain, maybe best to hold but watch. If in a retirement account, at least move to watch status with no additional purchases, or sell if you are so inclined. Keep in mind FPACX has underperformed its category in 2015 and 2016 YTD, not a long period. Performance itself is not problematic for me. The fund should not be compared to an S&P Index. Yeah, it was convenient for management to do this when their numbers looked good by comparison, but we never compared it to the index. The sudden change of comparable index by management, however, is troubling, especially when the selected index does not resemble the fund in any way.

@Sven
Hopefully, your question was sincere and not rhetorical. As I'm sure you realize, those ETFs were not in existence in 1993 (the inception of FPACX), in 2000-2002, or in 2008. One would have to come up with some other fund combination which would resemble the portfolio compositions of FPACX during those time periods. I was unable to find the portfolio x-rays of FPACX for those periods so I can't use PortfolioVisualizer to answer your question.
Also, according to BrightScope, FPACX had only $84M in AUM at the end of 1999, and only $1.3B in AUM at the end of 2007. So during those time periods, FPACX likely had very little resemblance to the fund it is today with $17B in AUM -- 15% down from the all time high of $20B -- in terms of exposure to SC and MC equities, its ability to short equities, and its ability to move in and out of stocks with agility. Also, because of huge differences in AUM, I don't think anybody can draw any conclusions about how FPACX will perform in future downturns based on how it performed in past downturns when AUM were much, much smaller.
Kevin

Corporate junk bonds continue to follow oil. Defaults in the energy and mining sectors will be much higher than 5%. I've seen estimates of 50% default rate for oil junk bonds.

I've always been an admirer of Romick but I've never been able to justify the fees. In 2000 I was 50 and could still bench 400 lbs. Times have changed for me and I suspect Romick as well. 'Course that's what makes a horse race.
The thing about IVV is one can swap for voo, vti etc and reap the tax loss instead of paying more taxes for people that bail out of the fund. Those years you mention it seems like I had funds that lost money and I paid taxes too.

@msf
Thanks for the background links.
Here's another article focused on early cellphones. No desire to detract from Lewis' article. But suspect cell phones and their modern variant smart phones play a critical part in today's investing, be it tracking current investments or (as was often the case with the Fido Selects) actively trading. Since my Fido investments in the early 80s probably amounted to a couple K, plunking down $3,995 for an early cellphone (1984 price) probably would have been imprudent. :)
"Somewhere in either Chicago, Baltimore or Washington, someone plunked down $3,995 to buy the Motorola DynaTAC 8000X, the first handheld cellphone, on March 13, 1984 — 30 years ago today."
http://mashable.com/2014/03/13/first-cellphone-on-sale/#uyYq9kRydaq6

Hi @expatsp,
Interesting question and one that I have explored myself in looking for an answer. I am not sure my findings will fully answerer your question but I'll share my discovery. To begin, I looked at what an index bond fund's weighted price was and found it to be around 108. To me, this suggest the index is selling at about an eight percent premium over par. Then I looked to see what the average weighted price was in my income sleeve of my portfolio and found it's average weighted price for the bond funds that it holds to be about 95. With this, I took it that the bonds held in the funds found in my income sleeve were priced, on average, at about 5% below their par value.
This amounts to about a 13 point spread between the index and the bonds found in my income sleeve. And, with this, I am thinking, some upward price appreciation might be expected. Naturally, there are some influences and factors that I did not mention that will effect bond prices. However, this was my down and dirty quick look. The return, five percent price appreciation if held to mauturity plus interest.
Perhaps, the above information might be helpful in you finding an answer, you seek, to the question.
For me, I think, I found mine.
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Additional comment: In addition, I found that the index fund I used as my proxy to have an average maturity of 7.6 years with a duration reading of 5.4 years while my income sleeve has an average maturity of 4.8 years with a duration reading of 2.9 years. With this, I am thinking there is more downside risk for the index over my income sleeve in a rising interest rate environment. Please note, not all the funds contained within my income sleeve have great exposure to junk bonds although some representation to the sector can be found in most of them. For information purposes their ticker symbols are as follows: GIFAX, LALDX, LBNDX, NEFZX, THIFX and TSIAX.

@MFO Members: "The funds were sold with a 3% load, plus a 0.75%" The load only applied to the first select fund you bought.
Regards,
Ted

The instant AT&T divested itself of the RBOCs (1/1/84), it started marketing its 3B line of minicomputers, developed at Bell Labs. Coincidence?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3B_series_computers

Nice point in Lewis' article about dispersion.
Many years ago I posted in misc.invest.mutual-funds opining that Fidelity's use of inexperienced managers in its Select funds really didn't matter, because they were effectively buying bunches of similar stocks (i.e. no skill needed). It seems I was half right - correct only for sectors where companies tend to move together, not for all sectors.
A few bits of inconsequential trivia:
- Fidelity Select Funds started in 1981(if there was anything older, it hasn't survived)
- Those funds appear to have been FSENX (Energy), FIDSX (Financials), FSPHX (Health), FSPTX (Technology), FSUSX (Utilities), and Precious Metals and Minerals (merged into Gold in 2000)
- The funds were sold with a 3% load, plus a 0.75% redemption/exchange fee for equity funds held under 30 days, and a flat $7.50 for shares held 30+ days
- Daily pricing started in 1986
- There are still funds priced more than once daily, viz. some Rydex funds are priced at 10:45 and 4PM
- Cell phones were invented before Fido Selects. Bell Labs' Advanced Mobile Phone Service ("advanced" being handoff from cell to cell) was invented in the mid 1970s. There was trial service in 1978, and the first commercial service was in 1982.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/2377716_Advanced_Mobile_Phone_Service_-_An_Overview
(Years ago I spoke with people from Bell Labs who had worked on AMPS. They felt that but for regulatory issues, cellphones would have been deployed earlier.)

Per -- US news & world report Money----FPACX ranks # 31 in Mod Allocation
= cut & paste
#31
FPA Crescent Portfolio Fund (FPACX)
Performance (1-yr.): 5.18% Expenses: 1.11%
Performance (1-mo.): 5.05% Total Assets: $18.12B
See all details for FPACX »

Hi Catch,
Yes, I remember playing with Fido's Select Funds too. Way back in the 70s or early 80s. Minimums weren't very high. Maybe $500 or $1,000? Closest thing to legal gambling in our state than.
Must have been a lot of fun. Remember pulling off I-75 on the way north one Friday afternoon to phone in a trade at a coin-operated pay booth. (Cell phones hadn't been invented yet.) :)

Value investors generally have had a tough go the past couple years.
Here's good post by the folks at AlphaArchitect ...
Update on the Valuation Metric Horserace: 2011-2015
and even better ...
Has the Value Investing Pain Train Ended?
c

If anyone wishes to hold cash in large amounts, I'll be happy to hold on to it for you at only 0.5%.
Note: In the event of unanticipated requests for withdrawal of large amounts of cash ($10 or more), management, in it's sole discretion, reserves the right to make such payments in Monopoly scrip.

@Ralph
Dr. Snowball very politely exposed the weaknesses of FPACX, and the responses from the FPACX reps were essentially "FundSpeak" as far as I am concerned. I honestly do not care how actively managed fund managers justify huge cash positions, as such allocations objectively represent market timing -- or market guessing -- which has never worked over long periods.
One question I have for the FPACX team: Why has the management fee remained a constant 1% despite the ballooning of AUM ? The answer, unfortunately, is that FPACX is the cash cow for the firm, and asset gathering is in their best financial interest, but obviously not in the best interest of investors. The cow must be milked.
I would avoid FPACX solely for fund stewardship, which is poor in my opinion.
Instead of FPACX, I would consider using the Backtest Tool of Portfolio Visualizer to construct a viable alternative.
Two attractive combinations would be an 80/20 mix of VWIAX with either VIG (preference) or VYM. Since 2007, each of these combinations would have had higher total returns, lower standard deviations, lower maximum drawdowns, higher sharpe ratios and higher sortino ratios than FPACX. And both combinations have an average expense ratio of 0.15%, as compared to 1.11% for FPACX.
At this time, I would never, ever recommend FPACX to friends or family.
Kevin

Latest Update.I continue to own the fund.
FPACX 1st Quarter Update
TOTAL CASH & EQUIVALENTS 6,183,252,260.14 36.25%
TOTAL NET ASSETS: $17,059,264,885.05
Activity:
o Sold out of Anheuser-Busch, Jardine Matheson, Joy Global, Orkla, and Walgreens
Boots Alliance.
o Added to several names, including Alcoa, American Express, Bank of America, CIT
Group, and Citigroup.
o Top contributors for the quarter were Oracle, Aon, Yahoo/Alibaba pair trade, United
Technologies, and Cisco. Citigroup, an undisclosed equity position, AIG, Bank of
America, and Esterline were the largest detractors for the period.
Positioning:
o Gross exposure to equities is 60.9% and net equity exposure is 57.6%. Corporate Bond
exposure increased to 4.9%.
o Cash and cash equivalents allocation is 36.3%.
Outlook:
o We continue to research financials, high yield, cyclicals and various commodities-related
businesses.
http://www.fpafunds.com/docs/fpa-crescent-fund/q1-2016-crescent-update.pdf?sfvrsn=2
Full Schedule of !st Quater Holdings
http://fpafunds.com/docs/funf-holdings/crescent-03-31-16-for-website.pdf?sfvrsn=2
You can attend this event and ask for your self.
Southern California in Early June ? F P A Investor Day on the Pacific !
t
http://fpafunds.cvent.com/events/a-day-with-fpa-2016/agenda-66af952dc057428fbafd4a90b856dcb7.aspx
From David Snowball
The better question is, can the fund consistently and honorably deliver on its promise to its investors; that is, to provide equity-like returns with less risk over reasonable time periods? Given that the management team is deeper, the investment process is unimpaired and its size is has become more modest, I think the answer is “yes.” Even if it can’t be “the old Crescent,” we can have some fair confidence that it’s going to be “the very good new Crescent.”
But....Beware the Siren Song ?

http://www.sirensongwetsuits.com/home

Also:
Gundlach: Swap Corporate Bonds for Mortgage
J. Gundlach, bond King, Doubline, is suggesting to blow out of your corporate bonds, especially junk, that were purchased at the height of panic when everyone thought the Fed was crazy enough to hike rates four times this year.
Wait, aren’t they still saying that?
Gundlach quote from Tuesday:
“The junk market was scared to death that the Fed was actually going to go forward with their suicide mission to raise rates four times this year, four times next year and four times the year after,” Gundlach said. “It’s not surprising that the same burst of enthusiasm for Treasury bonds, once the Fed seemed to abort their suicide mission, it also helped junk bonds. I don’t think that can continue any longer.”
Government-backed Ginnie Mae mortgage-related securities “are cheap relative to Treasuries,” the fund manager said. “That’s been a good buy point for the past six years.”
http://ibankcoin.com/flyblog/2016/04/12/gundlach-swap-corporate-bonds-for-mortgage/
From Ted's link
"The easy money has been made," Gundlach said.
Seemed to be his general theme not only with "junk" but oil and C E F's.Harder to get to $45 oil than from $30 to $40. Many C E F nav discounts have narrowed .Good way to
participate is RNDLX/RNSIX .Likes the Puerto Rico Municipals for high income individual/family taxpayers.Likes C M B S '( Principal Real Estate Income PGZ up near 2% today ). Continues to stick with his now 2 year old prediction of $1400 gold.Bond investors at least 25% defensive posture which of course would be comparable to his own managed (DFLEX/DLINX).
Also
Try this asset allocator
http://bluerockfunds.com/asset-allocator/
And questions or comments besides WHY?
TI+ is a fund for individual investors that seeks current income, low-volatility, capital preservation and long-term capital appreciation. In the three+ years since its inception through February 29, 2016, TI+ has delivered a total annualized return of 8.93%, including 12 consecutive quarterly distributions at an annualized rate of 5.25%. Significantly, the Fund has achieved risk-adjusted returns of five to seven times higher than leading stock, REIT, and bond market indexes, underscoring the Fund’s low volatility.
As of 4/14/2016 NAV
TIPRX $28.79
TIPPX $28.37
TIPWX $29.00
http://bluerockfunds.com/documents/

--Morning Star has recently upgraded FPACX from 4 star to 5 star
--Kiplinger on line- has removed Fpacx from it's 'Kip 25' =best funds by catagory - and replaced with VWELX .
-Here on MFO David suggested replacing FPACX with Lcorx . and then suggested a 'wait & see' hold position.
- Any further analysis will be appreciated.
Thanks
Ralph