http://www.forbes.com/sites/greatspeculations/2016/12/02/how-to-find-the-best-style-etfs-4q16/#4f6d75061794
"Finding the best ETFs is an increasingly difficult task in a world with so many to choose from. How can you pick with so many choices available?"

Anyone else find it odd that Geritz's new funds will only buy stocks over $1.5 billion? I know this is what Grandeur probably wants to have a friendly non-competitive partnership, but doesn't this play against some of her core strengths? She was quite a good small cap manager. It seems a loss to give that up for a partnership.

The owner of Berwyn Funds (TriState Capital Holdings) loses a big client and bails on an acquisition.
Vanguard is replacing Chartwell Investment Partners as one of the subadvisors of Explorer and MidCap Growth.
Tristate Capital is also abandoning its plan to buy a fixed income team and about $4-billion in assets from Aberdeen Asset Management in Philadelphia.
Chartwell owner Tri-State Bank, based in Pittsburgh, recently bought the Berwyn Funds investment group, including BERIX and BERWX.
Reading the release, it seems that Tri-State is fixated on "growing revenue...and attracting meanful inflows," rather than its results.
http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20161205005194/en/TriState-Capital-Updates-Chartwell-Investment-Partners-Business

Highlights of the Week:
Securitized Product: November was the busiest month of CLO issuance for the year driven by refinancing and reset activity, front-running the soon-to-be-implemented Dodd-Frank risk retention requirements. In residential mortgage land, agency conforming limits were raised from $417,000 to $424,000 for the first increase since 2006!
High Yield: Earlier this week, OPEC and several non-OPEC countries agreed to output reductions in 2017. Assuming none of the agreement’s adherents defect, US shale producers, many of which are High Yield issuers, stand to profit from tighter global oil supplies.
Municipals: Municipal bonds are currently offering a very compelling relative value proposition, as the ratios of Municipal to US Treasury yields exceed 100% across the yield curve for the first time in the past three years https://www.payden.com/weekly/wir120216.pdf

@rmt &MFO Members
Regards,
Ted
I-Shares $5 Million
N-Shares $ 1 Million
R6 Shares $100,000

Their managed futures fund (QMHIX/QMHRX) is heavily touted by a Pied Piper over on the Bogleheads board. YUCK! Down over 13% YTD!! Maybe some don't mind underperforming for 3,4, or 5 years as the article points out, but not my idea of accumulating wealth.

FYI: For the last 35 years, the classic 60/40 portfolio returned 10.5% a year. It’s hard to imagine that these results will be matched over the next 35 years, which has a lot of people looking to alternative ways of managing a portfolio. Today I’m going to examine one of these alternatives, the “Permanent Portfolio,” which was outlined in William Bernstein’s “Deep Risk” (and elsewhere). The Permanent Portfolio consists of 25% of each of the following:
U.S. Stocks (S&P 500)
Cash (One-month t-bills)
Long-Term Government Bonds
Gold
Regards,
Ted
http://theirrelevantinvestor.com/2016/12/02/the-permanent-portfolio/
M* Snapshot PRPFX:
http://www.morningstar.com/funds/XNAS/PRPFX/quote.html
Lipper Snapshot PRPFX:
http://www.marketwatch.com/investing/Fund/PRPFX
PRPFX Is Unranked In The (30/50 Equity) Fund Category By U.S. News & World Report:
http://money.usnews.com/funds/mutual-funds/allocation-30-to-50-equity/permanent-portfolio/prpfx

>> year-to-date return was reflected at 6.2%, 1 year return at 4.4%, 3 year return at 4.1%, 5 year return at 7.5% and the 10 year return was shown at 4.8%.
fwiw (not the identical mix, but a good mix), AOR is
5% ytd, 4.3% 1y, 4.15% 3y, 7.4% 5y, and 9% 8y (life, I think).

"Getting the SARs and ARs from TGBAX. ... [On the fund's website] I see the following items/updates, which were NOT distributed to shareholders ... I don't appreciate such methods of under-the-radar shareholder updates."
From the AR dated August 31 (M* version, SEC version):
Effective December 31, 2016, as approved by the board of trustees at a meeting held on July 13, 2016, each of the Funds’ fiscal year ends will be changed to December 31.
Effective December 31, 2016, Templeton Global Bond Fund, which has historically sought to pay a level distribution amount from net investment income on a monthly basis, will implement a variable pay distribution policy.
Perhaps your radar is on the blink?

Getting the SARs and ARs from TGBAX, I haven't been on the Franklin website in ages -- but in poking around there this evening, I see the following items/updates, which were NOT distributed to shareholders via the same channels we get 'regular' fund info from. (I only noticed the reduced dividend when it hit my account for the first time, but otherwise if I didn't see my statement I'd never have known about that. And I just now learned of the Sept announcement about the change in distribution policy ... so if I hadn't checked the website I'd not have know about that, either.)
While probably legal, I don't appreciate such methods of under-the-radar shareholder updates from a fund company.
Sep 27 2016 Templeton Global Bond Fund Fiscal Year-end Date and Distribution Policy Changes Effective 12/31/16 - Read More
Templeton Global Bond Fund will change its fiscal year-end date from August 31 to December 31 and change its distribution policy to begin paying a variable distribution, scheduled to be effective on December 31, 2016. For more information on these changes, please contact your financial advisor or call Franklin Templeton Investor Services at (800) 632-2301.
May 18 2016 Templeton Global Bond Fund – Dividend Adjustments in May 2016 - Read More
In May 2016, Templeton Global Bond Fund adjusted its dividend as follows: Class A from $0.0300 to $0.0200 per share; Class C from $0.0262 to $0.0161 per share; Class R from $0.0276 to $0.0175 per share; Class R6 from $0.0338 to $0.0239 per share and Advisor Class from $0.0323 to $0.0224 per share. Dividends vary based on the fund's income. Past dividends are not indicative of future trends. For more information, contact your financial advisor or call Investor Services at (800) 632-2301.

Hello,
I enjoyed reading Charles Boccadoro's blurb he wrote about "A Low Cost Alternative to One USAA Managed Portfolio."
I decided I'd carry the analysis work a little fauther on the 50/25/25 portfolio consisting of FFNOX, FTBFX & BBALX and inputed the funds along with the necessary data into Morningstar's Portfolio Manager. The things that stood out in this analysis was that the portfolio as a whole had a yield of 2.54%, with an average bond duration of 5.26 years along with an average maturity of 7.4 years. The funds within the portfolio combined were trading back of their 52 week high by 2.1%. The portfolo's year-to-date return was reflected at 6.2%, 1 year return at 4.4%, 3 year return at 4.1%, 5 year return at 7.5% and the 10 year return was shown at 4.8%. Year-to-date the porfolio's performance was pretty much in line with my bogey, the Lipper Balanced Index.
All in all, this is not a bad three fund portfolio ... and, if I were a new investor starting out today it is one that I'd most likely find favor in. But, to reconfigure my own portfolio would necesitiate tax payments for the large amounts of capital gains I'd face if I began to liquidate funds within my own portfolio and move towards something similar. Plus, I'd be taking a pay cut. My trading activity alone within the growth area of my portfolio has generated capital gains amounting to about 10% of my gross income this year. And, if I am not careful I'll be getting dinged for higher medicare premiums. So for me, I plan to continue my sleeve investment system which has also offered good returns. From review of your suggested portfolio's performance compared to my more complex one justifies running my more complex portfolio.
Thanks Charles for writting about your low cost three fund portfolio. I enjoyed reading about it very much as it provided something, crafted by an expert, for me to compare my own against.
Old_Skeet

Seems that some MFO members are trying to find bond funds that fit where the economy "appears for the moment" to be headed judging by recent posts. I have about 50% of my bond portfolio (38% of total assets)geared more toward decent but not best yielding and capital preservation first, return second. Yes I have done some changes, like dumping DBLTX for GIBIX, rebuying some OSTIX recently and adding some interim corporate bond funds in 2016, but don't feel the need to try and find "whats working now" for everything, Im not that smart to know when to get in and out :) Fortunately 50% of my bond portfolio is still in 2 individual munis that Im holding til maturity, so just glad to get their 4.25% yield.
I can live vicariously through some of your choices and be glad for you when it works, and not say anything if it doesn't.
Curious as to whether your bond allocations are more for income and balancing total portfolios or for return. Would love to hear some feedback on this.
Thanks!

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?