The article says, "The funds' three-year annual average return is just 1.87%, reports one research firm." QLEIX must be an an outlier; the M* table shows an annualized 3-year return of 15.67%.

FYI: (Click On Article Title At Top Of Google Search)
Consumer staples aren’t the haven they used to be. the sector’s vulnerability became all too apparent in February, when news leaked that Kraft Heinz was making a play for Unilever. Staples stocks quickly traded down, as the promise of catching Warren Buffett’s eye dissipated. Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway (ticker: BRKA) and Brazilian conglomerate 3G Capital control Kraft Heinz (KHC).
Then Unilever (UL) rejected what would have been the largest food and beverage deal in history, and consumer staples stocks sprang back to life. The sector is up 1.4% since its February swoon, versus a 0.3% gain for the S&P 500.
https://www.google.com/#q=Consumer+Staples+Could+Be+in+for+a+Fall+Barron's&*
Regards,
Ted

FYI: Markets may be headed to an environment where active beats passive, but how do you find the right manager?
Regards,
Ted
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/how-should-active-management-fit-into-ones-portfolio-2017-03-25/print

Right now their website is saying NAV as of 05/01/17 is $10.00. Does that mean 5/1 they are launching?

I bet fuss launch with at least $50m

I used to have JORDX in this list. Unfortunately manager closed the fund. I guess it was not gathering enough assets. I would have thought $150MM was enough for him. Apparently not.
PVFIX is another fund that belongs to my list. Largely in cash forever, but I like it. Sometimes its about keeping money in cash or in a fund like COBYX, PVFIX. It's about Prudent risk. On the other hand, sometimes you just go with a CGMFX and FAIRX. Wierd Science, and I think that's okay.

Thanks @Ted,
Compliment me if I'm right, but wouldn't LEXCX be a concentrated (21 holdings, ER = .52) way of investing in a well managed fund that holds a pretty good slug of the Dow?
LEXCX has been around for 76 years and here is it's chart (@rono would like):

Cardinal sin committed without intending to do so and hijacking FMIJX thread. Attempting to correct the mistake.
@AndyJ. So these kind of funds you buy because of HOW they invest. This is what I call "Manager Risk" that you are willing to assume. For "Market Risk" there are index funds. I don't have any deep insight into APPLX. Just like I don't have that deep insight into the other funds I mentioned. It is just part of my go anywhere collection where you trust manager including his decision to go cash/gold. My hope is as a collection these funds will do well for me over time.
As an aside, SEQUX was once supposed to be part of this collection. However I could never pulled the trigger. MUHLX was once part of this collection. My rants on fund-alarm tell you why I quit this fund long time back.
I don't invest in individual stocks. So all these funds I mentioned are my "speculative" funds. Sometimes, when I see a lot of risk I only play with house's money. Also I never re-invest distributions, and I will only add following my "when you by vs what you buy" rule. So if FAIRX tanks 50% tomorrow, I might consider buying a little more. Else I will never add to the position.
Hope that makes some sense. Especially for these funds I expect manager commitment of his own money. BULLX was in this list and I sold it after learning Manager sold all his shares. Later realized he was transitioning out to a team and I see now new managers have some investment but not a whole lot. It's on my list to track along with BVAOX. If there is no significant market correction, I might never buy these funds. If there is one, there is good chance I will.

I am considering moving from WAFMX to Rondure New World Fund. Rondure New World Fund will invest in "both emerging and frontier" markets, so it won't be a pure frontier fund. Fees and expenses on Rondure New World Fund are capped 1.35% (Investor class) and 1.10% (Institutional class) -- much lower than WAFMX, which suggests that frontier markets might not make up a major part of the portfolio.

'Manager execution' is different here, right?
CAPE alone has been backtested to '02, fwiw:
http://investwithanedge.com/new-barclays-shiller-cape-sector-rotation-etn
... annualized return [['02-'12]] of +10.8% (adjusting for investor fees) with 19.6% standard deviation. For the same period, the S&P 500 Total Return Index gained +7.2% with a 21.2% standard deviation.

FYI: Their recent woes don’t raise concerns.
Regards,
Ted
http://news.morningstar.com/articlenet/article.aspx?id=799153

DSENX has certainly performed since its inception. As LouisBraham stated each bear market has different winners and losers. TWEIX did very well during 2000-2003 bear market +37% (3/1/2000-3/31/2003) versus -35% for FUSEX (FIDO S&P500 index fund). It had an edge during the 10/7/2007 -3/9/2009 bear market. It declined 39% versus 55% for FUSEX.
More recent, during the latest correction ( I'm using 6/1/2015 thru 2/11/2016)
DSENX declined 9.1%, TWEIX declined -4.3% and FUSEX declined 11.9%. From 6/1/2015 thru 3/22/2017 DSENX HAS returned 27.5%, TWEIX 23.2% and FUSEX 15.7%. DSENX exhibited less downside and much more upside than the S&P500 during this time frame during the same market conditions.
So what could go wrong with DSENX strategy? At present credit markets are robust and the trend of the S%P 500 is still up. What if one or the other or both change direction? The same question can be asked about TWEIX but at least there is some history with TWEIX in good/not so good markets and less questions to seek answers. DSENX is an intriguing fund with relative out performance. For me I'm gonna keep it simple and stay with stock funds and bond funds.

What's your advice when it comes to selecting mutual funds that are managed using sub-advisor?
A recent article from FA (Financial Advisor) mentions,

...many institutions and financial advisors favor sub-advised funds because they can hire the best managers and not rely on in-house staff. Currently 13% of mutual funds are managed by outside advisors. And assets in sub-advised funds have increase 25% to $755 billion since 2004. By contrast, assets of all mutual funds are up about 15%, or $453 billion, over the same period.
-(The) largest players in the sub-advisory marketplace include Wellington Asset Management, Alliance Bernstein, PIMCO and Prime Cap. But there are a number of smaller shops with strong track records.
-There often is turnover with investment company sub-advisors.
- The Masters' Mutual Funds group of four funds has outperformed the category average every year from 2002 through July 2006. Each fund has several highly regarded sub-advisors from other mutual fund shops. The Masters' Select Equity Fund, a large-cap blend fund, invests in the best picks of stellar managers, such as Bill Miller of Legg Mason, Chris Davis of Davis Select Advisors and Mason Hawkins of Southeastern Asset Management. The fund has outperformed the S&P 500 over the five years ending in July 2006.

Article:
fa-mag.com/news/sub-advisors-are-in-the-house-1503.html

I think counterparty risk is reduced, not eliminated, because in a bear market or some sort of crisis you'd expect the fund was losing even if it wasn't as bad as the S&P. There is no counterparty risk in that case. Of course there's still a risk because the swaps have a time period associated with them so if you're winning and there's a sudden crisis then you could still lose some money. They can manage that risk to some degree but you'd hope they've thought about it and how they'd manage that risk.
I also don't think the leverage is typical leverage risk either. Normally the really big risk with leverage is that you end up with a bigger debt than you have assets. That isn't the case here except in a situation so extreme that the fund isn't able to liquidate bonds in an orderly way to pay losses on the swaps when they expire. Considering the bonds they have, especially a decent chunk of Treasuries, and the fact that their swaps are laddered, my assessment would be that the risk related to being levered is small, not zero, but not something that would concern me.
You're right there are costs to the swaps and the management fee, but the swaps are essentially paper bets as I understand them. That means you're not dealing with a bid-ask spread and you don't have any trading costs for the equity. Considering the impact trying to buy or sell $750 million of a sector fund at the end of a month I guess the savings in this regard aren't insignificant. In addition, if you tried to mimic this yourself, assuming you wouldn't be trading enough volume to affect the market, you would almost certainly incur higher costs than the fund to create the leverage and to trade the etfs, plus whatever small expense ratio the etfs charge anyway.
I think it mostly boils down to whether you believe in the CAPE approach to the equity side and whether you believe in Gundlach (and Sherman) to manage the bond side well. CAPE isn't known for forecasting short-term movements so I wouldn't count on the equity side always being as good as it has been but I wouldn't bet against Gundlach on the bond side.

Columbia Strategic Income is one of these funds that has a share class for every possible selling opportunity, 10 classes that I count. I put NO store in where it ranks in the Non-Traditional Bond category, since that is a garbage bin created to stick funds that don't fit some company's box. It has actually raised its expense ratio over the years (COSIX was 0.95% in 2008, now at 1.02%, which is very odd). And turnover went from 41% to 168% now. It is really a multi-sector fund, similar to TSIIX, PONDX, and even LSBDX). And it looks pretty weak compared to PONDX.
We would advocate a broad mix of bonds, with an emphasis on short durations and maturities, and concentrate on downside risk. As most of you know, I really like OSTIX and would consider it a core holding for almost every client. Also like PONDX, THIIX, and TGBAX. Perhaps a bit of FFRHX and maybe a pinch of KIFYX, and you have a very diversified mix of fixed-income offerings.

Never said it was good or bad, my point was concentrated funds tend to closer sooner to preserve flexibility. Personally, I like them and own a few of them.

Sure. 35 stock IMO is not that concentrated. There are studies that show beyond 20 holdings it matters less. However, let's not get into statistical mumbo jumbo. It matters more if there is MUCH concentration in top 5-10 holdings. FAIRX as example.
I doubt you will ever see wild swings in FMIJX, and that's not just because managers are more competent or they invest in "value" stocks. Their top holding could be carved in half and it would go down 2%. Par for the course. And FMIJX is more diversified across sectors which is the real diversification we seek. We all know too well how diversified Large Cap Growth was (NOT!) in the early 2000s.
My point was - and I quoted some numbers already - FMIJX has more than 35 "holdings". Can't simply go by number of disclosed holdings to determine concentration.
As an aside, I didn't know Mutual Funds are not required to divulge ALL their holdings. Recently reading annual report for FPIVX, I read "the fund does not disclose all its holdings". So I went checking. I wouldn't be surprised if the 18 (other) and 11 (short) holdings of FMIJX are undisclosed. Need to go do some digging. Right now I'm trusting M* (what have I done!)
PS - Your logic on owning concentrated funds, i.e. best ideas I like. I own a few myself, but not what you might like :-)
COBYX, FAIRX, APPLX, PROVX, CGMFX, FVALX, INTLX,...not sure I got all of them.

FMIJX is a concentrated fund, that's the diff.

First, I don't think FMIJX is that concentrated. Second top 5 holdings of both funds have 18-19%. I seriously don't think this should be used as a decision point on which fund to chose. JMHO.

Don't take my word for it, take it directly from FMIJX's summary prospectus:
"As a non-diversified fund, the FMI International Fund tends to concentrate its investment on fewer companies than a diversified mutual fund. The Fund holds approximately 25-40 stocks, with most major industry groups represented."
Never said it was good or bad, my point was concentrated funds tend to closer sooner to preserve flexibility. Personally, I like them and own a few of them.

>> other than the fact it has performed well.
What else is there, ultimately? Plus the method.
I just now looked at the best LCV at M* for 3y and 5y, and graphed IFUTX and TWEIX, their winners, against DSENX since inception (3.5y ago). Outperformance. Also for every other period I could graph, short and longer, it is no contest.
Yes, past performance etc. My question would be how it would do against its category.
I am not comparing it with CGMFX or WEMMX or FRIFX.
As for mimicking, yeah, I also have looked at many bondy ways to augment CAPE and thus far come up short.
So that's the love answer, for me.

FMIJX is a concentrated fund, that's the diff.

First, I don't think FMIJX is that concentrated. Second top 5 holdings of both funds have 18-19%. I seriously don't think this should be used as a decision point on which fund to chose. JMHO.
Count the total number of holdings FMIJX = 35+18+11 vs OAKIX = 59+11. What is interesting is that 11 holdings for FMIJX are "Short". I'm guessing these are the holdings for hedging currency.
Anyways, I'm going to watch for divergence as indicator to switch.

What I like about DSENX is that its stock selection is based on mathematical model instead of human selection subject to emotions and other drawbacks. The model for CAPE index was back tested for at least 15 years and it shows very good results comparing to SP500.
If I could find another mutual fund or ETF based on math. model with similar consistency and outperformance of benchmark for at least 10 years I would be happy to jump in.