FYI: Dividend mutual funds as a group lagged the S&P 500 stock index over the 10 years that ended going into Monday.
The reasons for the underperformance are worth keeping in mind whenever you make buy or sell decisions in your portfolio, particularly the diversified portion — your mutual funds and ETFs. They could boost the octane in your funds’ fuel tank.
Dividend funds lagged despite having outperformed as a group over the first half of the decade. But as the post-financial-crisis bull market picked up steam, the S&P 500 began to top dividend funds in total return.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.investors.com/etfs-and-funds/mutual-funds/did-you-see-why-the-sp-500-is-outperforming-dividend-mutual-funds/

IMHO, trying to infer anything from a class name other than perhaps A, B, C, I, and Investor is an exercise in futility, since there's no standardization.
For example, Federated funds have classes A, B, C, F, R, and Institutional (IS). A,B, C, and F shares are all available to individuals directly or through brokers. See, e.g. this prospectus for Federated Capital Income (CAPAX, CAPBX, CAPCX, CAPFX, CAPRX, CAPSX) - "How is the fund sold?"
The F shares (at least for this fund) cost a basis point more than the A shares, which are available load-waived - you don't even need to go through an adviser. So these F shares don't seem limited to use by advisers, and they don't even seem to be cost effective.
These days, many load families (though not American Funds) waive loads if you go through discount brokers. The A shares may have a 12b-1 fee that's higher than the fund's share class (if any) designed for wrap accounts, but the net cost to you is still lower (since you avoid the wrap fee). For example, Templeton Bond Fund A (TPINX) is available load-waived, but carries a 0.25% 12b-1 fee (total ER 0.88%), while the Advisor share class (TGBAX) has no 12b-1 fee (total ER correspondingly lower, at 0.63%).
Traditionally, load families waived the load on A shares if they were sold in a wrap account. So we've now identified some F shares, ADV shares, and load-waived A shares sold through wrap accounts. I'm sure there's more.

Just to clarify AWF is a global fund in which 70% is invested in the USA. DSL has 40% foreign debt. Both of them reached near 15% discounts during the oil panic.

I went right to the results of this paper. Everything else puts me to sleep.
Results from the this investigative paper:

…a strategy of hiring managers with mediocre track records outperforms one of hiring past winners, and a strategy of hiring past losers turns out to be the best of all.
…the practical implication of our paper is that asset owners should focus on factors other than past performance when selecting managers.
…the “investment thesis” that drives a fund’s portfolio management strategy should be a key criterion for consideration.
…a variety of objective characteristics that predict future performance… :the presence of performance-linked bonuses in fund manager compensation packages (Ma, Tang, and Gómez (2015)), a high level of fund manager ownership (Khorana, Servaes, and Wedge (2007)), board of director ownership (Cremers, Driessen, Maenhout, and Weinbaum (2009)), a high active share (Cremers and Petajisto (2009), Amihud and Goyenko (2013)), lack of affiliation with an investment bank (Hao and Yan (2012)), outsourced execution of shareholder services (Sorhage (2015)), the presence of a short-term redemption fee (Finke, Nanigian, and Waller (2015)), having PhDs in key portfolio roles (Chaudhuri, Ivkovich, Pollet, and Trzcinka (2013)) and having strong positive firm culture (Heisinger, Hsu, and Ware (2015)).
In conclusion:
Evaluating a manager’s strategy ex-ante and taking account of fund characteristics may be more difficult than making decisions based on historical performance. Nonetheless, our research suggests that it is a better approach to delegated portfolio management.

Much if not all of these results have been stated by different people here at MFO, which makes this site so enlightening. It strengthens my resolve that there are only a few places where you might hire a fund manager. For me, International, EM's maybe small caps need active fund managers. Balanced funds for sure if you want to leave it up to a professional to adjust investment weightings (which I do).

FYI: We empirically investigate the investment results of commonly used fund selection strategies that involve redeploying assets from underperforming to outperforming funds. Based on portfolios constructed using U.S. mutual fund data over typical three-year evaluation periods, we find that investors who chose funds with poor recent performance earned higher excess returns than those who chose funds with superior recent performance. Our findings pose a challenge for asset owners: If past performance is used at all in selecting funds, it is the best-performing funds that should be replaced. Realistically, however, a policy of replacing successful funds with poor performers is unlikely to gain widespread acceptance. Instead, the practical implication of our paper is that asset owners should focus on factors other than past performance. We offer alternate criteria for selecting funds.
Regards,
Ted
http://poseidon01.ssrn.com/delivery.php?ID=438094071086119066002010083088101123024020030032038022077085101018094027090108104009120036123104050034053099090030004100110109109040002033054075065068084123004103058015033101012027103091100086127029094104004097087071074014106113086015101099123013103&EXT=pdf

@msf - I noted the 15-yr baseline but not David's suggested start date. In my look I started with the TIBIX start (inception) date of 12/24/2002 when running my comparison since I basically jumped on board then. Stop, we're both right? I don't know. It just seemed like a good place for me to begin, creaming included. I'm not sure there's a true apples-to-apples way to go after this.

I just compared the above top rated Forward Income Builder fund (AIAIX) to the fund I've been using in this space for the last 13+ years TIBIX. No thanks, I'll continue to remain oblivious.
Edited to add: I'm sure I'm missing something but it doesn't appear to be performance. I'd be thankful for any insight. FWIW, I'm not totally thrilled by the Thornburg offering as they have faltered in their objective of "income building" but I haven't been able to find or settle on a suitable alternative.

An obvious observation - TIBIX couldn't show up in the cited article, since it hasn't been around for 15 years.
What you're missing seems to be the fund's relatively poor performance through 2008 (falling further than both M*'s moderate allocation benchmark and the average world allocation fund). See this M* chart
For the chart, I used 9/30/2007 as the start date (David suggested fall 2007 as a start point, this date seemed as good as any). Over this period of time, TIBIX performed in line with AIAIX and the moderate allocation benchmark, though it significantly outpeformed world allocation funds.
It's that oversized dip that's killing it. It doesn't get brownie points for upside volatility with Sortino.
Over its lifetime, TIBIX has indeed excelled. Here's that same M* graph, stretched to lifetime.
While I'm not a fan of asking "what have you done for me lately" (e.g. YTD), I think it is fair to point out that all of that outperformance is due to the fund's first five years. Since then it has been doing well, but it's not beating a few other good funds. However, by the same token, if you throw out its 2008 performance, it again looks great.
If one is willing to live with the idea that the fund could get creamed (relatively speaking) in a bear market, it's a fine, high performing fund.

Just adding a little fuel to the fire so to speak (from Dow Jones via M*):
Oil Prices Lifted by Supply Cut Hopes
http://news.morningstar.com/all/dow-jones/us-markets/201603072580/oil-prices-lifted-by-supply-cut-hopes.aspx

The short version: a former Morningstar analyst ranked "balanced" funds with more than a billion in assets by their 15-year Sortino ratio. Sortino is an offshoot of the well-known Sharpe ratio, but it's more sensitive to a fund's downside deviation. By that measure, the best balanced fund is F P A Crescent.
Two quick notes:
1. a lot has changed for Crescent over the past 15 years, not least growing to 100 times their previous size. That is, from $170 million in 2002 to more than $18 billion now.
2. different parameters give different results. Lipper categorizes Crescent as a "flexible portfolio" fund, which seems more appropriate than benchmarking it against staid 60/40 funds as Morningstar does. If you look at 60/40 funds over the course of the current market cycle, which began in the fall of 2007, Crescent finishes sixth:

1. Forward Income Builder
   
2. Chicago Equity Partners Balanced
   
3. Bruce
   
4. Marsico Flexible Capital
   
5. Intrepid Capital
   
6. FPA Crescent
   
7. Provident Trust
   
8. JP Morgan Income Builder
   
9. Prudential Income Builder
   
10. Loomis Sayles Multi-Asset Income

If you sort by Martin ratio, Charles's preferred metric and the basis of our fund ratings, you get most of the same funds but Crescent pops to fourth:

1. Forward Income Builder
   
2. Intrepid Capital
   
3. Chicago Equity Partners Balanced
   
4. FPA Crescent
   
5. Provident Trust
   
6. Bruce

For what interest that holds,
David

FYI: When an ETF invests in the S&P 500 while offering less risk and a big yield, what’s not to love?
PowerShares S&P 500 High Dividend Low Volatility (SPHD) filters the iconic index for 75 companies with the highest dividend yields, then extracts 50 of those that are least volatile.
SPHD was up 5.99% this year through March 2 vs. a 2.39% loss for SPY. It has also outperformed SPY, the largest and oldest U.S. exchange traded fund, over the past three years.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.investors.com/etfs-and-funds/etfs/sp-500-etf-high-income-low-volatility-and-loads-of-investor-love/

Maybe these strategists know something that the other strategists in the past 5 - 7 years didn't.... The brilliant Ray Dalio of Bridgewater has had outsized positions in international / emerging markets for the last 7 years and they haven't budged. Because of the influence of the Modern Portfolio Theory crowd, there has been increasing pressure, over the last 10 years for investors to "go" emerging. And ETFs make it too easy for investors to attempt it ..... IMO, the domestic U.S. market is still the best and easiest to contemplate, even if it has occasional declines every 3 - 5 years ...

FYI: Go outside the ‘style box’? That worked for some funds over the past 15 years.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.wsj.com/articles/mutual-funds-rally-by-not-sticking-to-a-style-1457321007

There are so many ways of closing a fund that it's hard to fathom cash flow management being a difficult issue.
There is of course the hard close, where even existing investors cannot add more money. This should not impede funds with excess cash, as Lewis pointed out. Then there are funds that allow money to trickle in by restricting the amount that existing investors can add. The Vanguard Primecap funds that Mona mentioned are a good example of these. They used to be restricted to $25K addditional per SSN per year. Vanguard has since relaxed that a bit, allowing $25K per account type per SSN per year. (Vanguard also allows Flagship clients to open new accounts.)
Most funds that are closed still allow existing investors to add money (soft close). Some go further. Many funds allow new accounts via retirement plans (usually if the plan already has some minimum amount in the fund when counting all participants). Or they may allow clients of investment advisers to open new accounts.
Some funds that are closed via third party intermediaries are still open to investors that invest directly. American Century Midcap Value (ACMVX) and Vanguard Wellington (VWELX/VWENX) are good examples of that. I've seen funds that close off access through major brokers (typically Fidelity and Schwab) but leave access open through other brokers. Sorry, no current examples come to mind.
The point is that cash inflow is more like a spigot than an on/off switch. It's fairly easy to turn that knob. The problem with inflows comes about not because there's no spigot, but if there's no pressure behind it. That is, a fund won't attract cash when the market is plummeting and no one wants to put money in, regardless of whether it's closed or not.

Well we get to here his thoughts again Tuesday !
Jeffrey Gundlach (who many follow blindly because he is an expert and manages billions)
http://www.mutualfundobserver.com/discuss/discussion/26347/another-open-mic-for-doubleline-s-jeffery-gundach-connect-the-dots-3-8-2016-webcast

Actually before I get grief about it, the Jeffrey Gundlach DoubleLine bond funds mentioned (DBLTX and DLTNX have been among the best of the best over the past 1, 3, and 5 years. And obviously had you *blindly* put your money in the trust of DoubleLine you would be sitting pretty in that bond category if a diversified portfolio is your thing. I am as eager as anyone to hear Mr. Gundlach's views on 3/8 if only to see how the markets react.

Well we get to here his thoughts again Tuesday !
Jeffrey Gundlach (who many follow blindly because he is an expert and manages billions)
http://www.mutualfundobserver.com/discuss/discussion/26347/another-open-mic-for-doubleline-s-jeffery-gundach-connect-the-dots-3-8-2016-webcast
Thanks also @rabockma @Junkster
Schwab
Symbol
PHYZX (Minimum: $100.00)
PHYZX - Prudential High Yield Fund Cl Z As of 03/04/2016
NAV: 5.06 +0.03
POP: 0.00
52 Week High: 5.63
52 Week Low: 4.78
Trans. Fee Fund: No
Sales Load: None
as is ETHIX @ Schwab (Minimum: $100.00)

My high yield pick is PHYZX - low expenses of .58, seasoned management, and rated 5 stars by M*.

Among the better junk bond funds and wondered why it has never been on a my radar screen. Now I remember. At Scottrade where I trade it is only available to clients of registered investment advisers only. Maybe not so at other firms. Thanks for the heads up to the forum on a consistently good junk bond fund.
TSP_Transfer Appreciate your posts and keep em coming. But you know me, I never act on what I read but price and only price. But nonetheless I still read all I can on the markets if for any reason to see if there is becoming a consensus. The experts are almost wrong when there is a universal consensus are where particular markets are heading and often times I factor that into price action. Obviously the consensus is still that there is another shoe to drop in that bond category. Jeffrey Gundlach (who many follow blindly because he is an expert and manages billions) was still predicting a collapse in the junk bond market in early February just a few days before it took off on its biggest rally in years. The jury is still out on that call.

@Junkster.Only presented the S A link as a primer for high yield options and comparisons.
Here is another chart from the S A article that clearly shows your call of a bottom on February 11th.Even the much maligned FPACX is up 7.69% since then !

also @Junkster Risk-off to continue ? More for your perusal.
MLPs had another ripping week as higher oil prices and E&P equity issuance attracted new capital propelling the benchmark index higher +7.21%, and a -8.72% YTD loss. Crude rose 10.2% for the week as lower production numbers were reported by EIA (table below) which seemed to trump the higher crude storage reported, along with more cooperative comments from OPEC members and Russia. The reality of lower crude production has been good news for MLP's, despite what those lower volumes may mean for some midstream assets
http://mlpdata.com/mlp_newsevents/article_details?article_id=282&mbTrackingId=1
"If you are Exxon, you have to be looking around at all of the wreckage in the energy sector these days and feel like a kid in a candy store,” said Spencer Cutter, an analyst at Bloomberg Intelligence. The debt offer is a sign that Exxon may "start picking up great assets at fire-sale prices" and "take advantage of the downturn and start shopping," he said.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-02-29/exxon-said-to-plan-bond-offering-after-rating-downgrade-threat
Oil jumps as traders close short positions, U.S. producers cut rig count
http://news.yahoo.com/oil-rises-traders-close-short-positions-u-producers-015805943--finance.html
http://www.tradingeconomics.com/commodities
Asian shares hit two-month highs on Monday, extending sharp gains from last week, following upbeat U.S. jobs data and a rebound in oil and commodity prices.
http://news.yahoo.com/asian-shares-hit-two-month-high-solid-u-004607584--business.html
Add 3/07 Latest From Otter Creek L/S Fund -2.32% since Feb 11th
On the Bearish Side .From OTCRX March 7th posting of Feb Fact Sheet
Market Commentary
We continue to be mindful of both credit growth and credit conditions. Financial conditions remain tighter than several months ago and access to the high yield
market has become more challenging since last year. In addition, despite the rise in equity markets recently, the spread on the 2 year and 10 year treasuries is
the lowest since 2008 which does not bode well for future credit growth. We believe these dynamics are worth monitoring closely.
Equity market valuations remain relatively unattractive, in our view. We estimate the S&P 500 is trading at approximately 16x-17x earnings – modestly above its
historical average – despite fairly tepid sales and earnings growth. Given the ongoing deterioration in global growth trends, we see more downside than upside
to earnings near-term. We are closely monitoring the potential for consumer spending to accelerate on the back of an improved labor market, better wage
growth and low gas prices. A potential acceleration in consumer spending coupled with a further stabilization in the dollar and commodities could help drive
improved earnings growth later in the year.
Our long portfolio is structured around owning high quality companies benefiting from secular tailwinds, idiosyncratic ideas that should perform well regardless of
the market environment, and special situations. Our short portfolio is structured to take advantage of companies overearning due to ultra-low interest rates and
companies with a high likelihood of missing sales forecasts due to a weaker macro environment.
As we enter March, we have approximately 20% of the Fund in cash. Considering the rise in equity markets over the past several weeks and the collapse in
volatility, we have taken the opportunity to add to our highest conviction ideas by adding both common stock shorts and out of the money puts
http://www.ottercreekfunds.com/media/pdfs/OCL_Factsheet.pdf

My high yield pick is PHYZX - low expenses of .58, seasoned management, and rated 5 stars by M*.

As an aside, I talked Friday with Steve Romick, the lead manager of FPACX, about why the fund remains open. One of his arguments is that managing a closed fund is harder than you'd think. All funds are subject to regular redemptions. In an open fund that's drawing assets, those redemptions are met using the inflows. In a closed fund, managers may need to liquidate positions to cover them. That can goof with both the fund's portfolio positioning and its tax efficiency.

The folks at Primecap Management seems to do just fine managing the portfolios of their stable of closed funds such as VPMCX, VPCCX, VHCOX, and POAGX with low turnover and cash levels below 5% (except VPCCX is a bit over 6%).
While not a stated critera, if we want to stay with moderated allocation funds, David Giroux at PRWCX also does pretty good managing his closed fund.
Mona

Summary From an article earlier this week from Seeking Alpfa looking @ E T Fs in this space
authored byFundGuru Mar. 3, 2016 8:40 AM ET
High yield bonds have performed poorly of late, despite historically delivering equity-like returns with lower volatility.
We believe the recent sell-off provides an attractive entry point for long-term investors.
E T Fs At A Glance
The high yield bond E T F space is currently dominated by four large players:
iShares iBoxx $ High Yield Corporate Bond E T F (:HYG)
SPDR Barclays High Yield Bond E T F (:JNK)
SPDR Barclays Short Term High Yield Bond E T F (SJNK)
PIMCO 0-5 Year High Yield Corporate Bond Index E T F (:HYS)
The key distinguishing feature between the four E T Fs is their duration. The HYG and JNK are normal duration ETFs, while SJNK and HYS are shorter duration ETFs.

http://seekingalpha.com/article/3950906-buy-hyg-high-yielding-lower-risk-equities
@Junkster said on March 1
We both started on 2/12. This may surprise you. I hold 4 junk funds - my largest is PYHRX (doesn't accumulate daily) PHYDX, EIHIX ( I said never again a fee fund but) and JAHYX (not banned there in my taxable. You will notice no MWHYX. It's action last Tuesday was enough for me. A fun ride let's hope we don't have to cut and run and oil behaves itself.
@SlowLane said
March 1 Flag
I meant to say "Did you instigate this exodus from Treasuries to junk?"
You pick some good funds. I am in ABHIX, along with PHYDX and EIHIX.
http://www.mutualfundobserver.com/discuss/discussion/comment/75775/#Comment_75775
Edit
I own BGH
(% of Assets*)
Bond Ratings
Baa 1.29
Ba 5.63
B 77.25
Caa and below 10.43
Not Rated 0.75
Cash and Accrued Income 4.65
TOTAL 100.00
Country Diversification
United States 59.71
United Kingdom 16.71
Germany 3.35
France 2.94
Netherlands 2.13
TOTAL 84.84
Top Holdings
Oil and Gas 13.33
Healthcare, Education and Childcare 10.48
Jan 31 2016 Fact Sheet
http://www.babsoncapital.com/assets/user/media/Babson_Capital_Global_Short_Duration_High_Yield_Fund_Factsheet1.pdf