@willmatt72: "How Different Should Your Taxable Account and Nontaxable Account Look?"
Regards,
Ted
http://abcnews.go.com/Business/story?id=88395&page=1

http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/793769/000119312515389490/d39381d497.htm
497 1 d39381d497.htm HARBOR FUNDS
Harbor Fixed Income Funds
Supplement to Prospectus dated March 1, 2015
Harbor High-Yield Bond Fund
The following information regarding Shenkman Capital Management, Inc., the subadviser for Harbor High-Yield Bond Fund, will be changing effective January 1, 2016:
Mark Flanagan, one of the six co-portfolio managers for Harbor High-Yield Bond Fund, will be retiring from Shenkman Capital Management, Inc. at the end of 2015. Mark Shenkman, Eric Dobbin, Justin Slatky, Steven Schweitzer and Robert Kricheff will continue to serve as co-portfolio managers for the Fund following Mr. Flanagan’s retirement using the same team-based approach with Mr. Dobbin remaining the lead portfolio manager of the Fund.
November 27, 2015
Harbor Emerging Markets Debt Fund
Harbor Funds’ Board of Trustees has determined to liquidate and dissolve Harbor Emerging Markets Debt Fund. The liquidation of the Fund is expected to occur on April 29, 2015. The liquidation proceeds will be distributed to any remaining shareholders of the Fund on the liquidation date.
Shareholders may exchange shares of the Fund for another Harbor fund, or redeem shares out of the Fund, in accordance with Harbor’s exchange and redemption policies as set forth in the Fund’s prospectus, until the date of the Fund’s liquidation.
Because the Fund will be liquidating, effective immediately a redemption fee will no longer be applied to the redemption of any shares out of the Fund.
In order to ready the Fund for liquidation, the Fund’s portfolio of investments will be transitioned prior to the planned liquidation date to one that consists of all or substantially all cash, cash equivalents and debt securities with remaining maturities of less than one year. As a result, shareholders should no longer expect that the Fund will seek to achieve its investment objective of maximizing total return.
Because the Fund will be liquidating, the Fund is now closed to new investors. The Fund will no longer accept additional investments from existing shareholders beginning on April 22, 2015.
March 6, 2015

matt:
a. I would not select an investment for purchase due to its tax-efficiency, regardless of its investment merit. If you find munis (for example only) a good value here, then, I suppose they can be considered a possibility. But even in that example, if pricing gets too rich, I'd consider selling them - paying the tax on my gain -- and finding a new, better asset to own. If/when all risk-assets seem expensive, I tend to de-risk my portfolio and wait for Mr. Market to hand me an opportunity.
Vehicles which have as their objective tax avoidance (muni funds would be the obvious example), are definitionally NOT managed for total (pre-tax) return. They are generally obliged to hold tax-advantageous securities, even if those securities are priced to deliver NON-advantageous total returns. Buy tax-advantaged securities when they are cheap, but don't hold them regardless of price.
b. Yields on MOST vehicles (excluding perhaps CEFs, and BDCs) are low enough that I really don't find the tax to be a concern.
c. I generally hold individual stocks ONLY in taxable accounts, not because their divds are favorably taxed vs. bond coupons, but because they are more volatile and when a stock drops, I want the ability to aggressively tax-harvest. Tax-harvesting is seldom discussed as a part of tax-efficiency, but it can have a big impact if practiced with discipline during market declines. Never let a stock correction go to waste.
But I also hold a chunk of plain-vanilla bond OEFs in my taxable accounts. - Funds which throw off a real return (cash distys), which tend to be total-return driven, and which tend to not be too volatile. --- These vehicles can serve as sources of funds/buying power of more volatile assets when stocks sell off.
I guess my philosophy when it comes to taxes & investment is the old saw: "don't let the tax tail, wag the investment dog". Obviously, each person's tax situation is unique. In my case, I'm in the 25% Fed tax rate, residing in a state with NO state income tax. If I lived in CA, NY, NJ, or MA, I might be more tax-aware...
Just my opinion. Good luck.

I don't see most taxable bond funds as yielding enough (with sufficient stability) to be particularly useful these days for income. For income, it seems the idea is to generate a steady reliable cash flow without eating into principal. That would limit me to A grade or better, and (on average) intermediate term bonds.
BBB may be "investment grade" but there's a reason why it's not called A-. There's a significant jump in risk between letters. Intermediate term because long bonds don't offer enough of an increase in yield to be worth the risk - especially in a low (and likely rising) interest rate environment. Short term bonds simply pay too little.
So one winds up with funds like Fidelity Investment Grade Bond (FBNDX). SEC yield a tad under 3%. (I use SEC yield because it incorporates both the coupon payments and the decline, if any, in principal; that's something you need to watch for in a longer term investment.)
Compare that with a strategy of combining a MMA (1%) with broadly diversified equity funds. The latter should return a couple of percent above bonds (expecting 5%-6% over time is not unreasonable). This approach comes with more volatility, which is why one uses the MMA for cash - this needs to be much larger than the proverbial emergency fund. Over time, as the equity market does well, one sells shares and moves to cash. When the equity market swoons, one draws from the MMA.
Plusses are an expected higher average rate of return than a bond portfolio, and lower taxes (the dividends and cap gains from the equity funds will be taxed less than the bond fund alternative). Just as you wrote. Minuses are that this requires closer monitoring and a tolerance for greater volatility on paper.
You can throw in some munis to give more stability and another source of income in case you're queasy about selling lots of equity at one time (when the market is up, to replenish the MMA).
As interest rates go up, one might make more use of bond funds for income, but I don't see them helping much right now. (Multisector, junk, etc. are different - but one invests in them much as one invests in equity - for total return and diversification - and this is why they wind up in nontaxable accounts.)
In short, one can make a barbell out of the "three bucket" strategy, discarding the middle bucket as dead weight.

Some of you have asked me about Brazil. Here's one very smart guy's point of view:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/27/business/dealbook/brazil-hedge-fund-star-looks-elsewhere-for-his-next-big-bet.html?src=me

@Edmond said
OTOH, 2025 is 10 years away. The odds of a nice, smooth 5.3% each year are so infinitesimal as to not even to be considered a possibility. Wherever we wind up 10 years hence, it won't be a smooth ride.Observation: we are now in the midst of the 7th year of the current Bull. We are overdue for a Bear. And Bear events tend to correlate at/near Presidential handoffs.
And History "BEARS" This Out With All It's Volatility
2000
-9.03%
2001
-11.85%
2002
-21.97%
2008
-36.55%
Overview of Markets 1928-2014
http://pages.stern.nyu.edu/~adamodar/New_Home_Page/datafile/histretSP.html

If we take 2092 as "a little below 2100" and divide it into 3500, we get 1.673, or a 67.3% increase. If we divide 67.3% by 10 years, we get 6.73% per year, as stated above. However, this is the wrong way to do it. Approximately 5.3% per year, as Edmond calculated, is correct because 1.053 raised to the 10th power is 1.676, close enough to 1.673.

FYI: It’s that time of year again when the mystics peer deep into their tea leaves, entrails and crystal balls to divine what’s ahead.
Happy Thanksgiving,
Ted
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/get-there/would-you-let-a-mystic-manage-your-investment-portfolio/2015/11/25/cc731cae-92b7-11e5-8aa0-5d0946560a97_story.html

>>>3.57% over 5 years for a bond fund is nothing to sneeze at in these ZIRP days.<<<
We could debate that statement. The average junk muni is over 6% annualized for the same time period with a few twice that 3.57%. But still in an ugly bond category PRSNX is a standout.

Thanks rabockma, that helps. There are 2 ways to look at performance such as we have here:
1. The 10 years numbers aren't so hot, but the fund has been doing excellently lately. Its performance has gotten lots better, and we expect the "better" to continue. A promising fund!
2. The 1 year is simply part of the 3 year which is part of the 5 year, which is subsumed by the 10 year number, which....is not so hot. A not so promising fund.
I tend towards the latter philosophy.

John Browne actually sounded intelligent and adroit and adept today. I see he's with Euro Pacific Capital. That's uncle Peter's outfit. Strange bedfellows, eh?
http://video.cnbc.com/gallery/?video=3000459876&play=1
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Browne_(Conservative_politician)

Got that base covered with TRP global multi-asset bonds PRSNX. The only negative performance number is for 1 year back, other time-measurements are positive. 3.57% over 5 years for a bond fund is nothing to sneeze at in these ZIRP days. Monthly div. is consistently over .03 cents. Ya, I know the Fed will raise rates soon. Unbelievable, the negative German rates. Why on earth would anyone put their money into those instruments?
PRSNX: half portf. is in US. Germany, Mexico, Brazil, Indonesia round out the top 5.
http://www.morningstar.com/funds/XNAS/PRSNX/quote.html

First all, the US news ranking is actually an average ranking of 5 other sites - M*, Lippers, S&P, Zacks, and The Street. For example Zacks, has the fund as a "Strong buy". However, I have never been able to able to understand how Zacks rates mutual funds as I have seen some very good funds get "Strong sell" recommendations from them. The only one of the 5 ranking services that I actually follow is M*. Second, whereas for the 10 year performance period GLDSX has underperformed, the 1, 3 & 5 year performances have been very strong - top 1 and 3%. M* uses 3, 5 and 10 year performance results for their rating. Hence the 4 stars from M*. Bottom line the US news rankings are a little like Mad Magazine, good for only entertainment value. I hope this helps a little.

FYI: How about Art's turkey day tie !
Regards,
Ted
http://video.cnbc.com/gallery/?video=3000459616&play=1

Attention Charles!
Thank you for your time and information. Check is in the mail
as of 11/25/2015 PM please allow for snail mail. I have been
retired from post office for 27 years as a letter carrier in
Scotts Valley Ca.95066. Idaho is less expensive place to
own a home "etc" Again thank you
regards
circa33

http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1480207/000119312515387559/d59825d485bpos.htm
The fund will be managed by Gundlach. Expenses after waivers are 0.71% and 0.96% for institutional and N shares.
Anyone interested?

FYI
Regards,
Ted
http://www.mfwire.com/common/artprint2007.asp?storyID=53035&wireid=2

Mutual Fund Observer, Inc.
5456 Marquette Street
Davenport, IA 52806
Email me when in mail and I will set up account for you.
Thanks!

Lazard has a nice presentation of distributions, with dollar amounts and percentages of NAV all in columns. No need to figure the percentage. I don't see my other MF companies offering this service.
http://www.lazardnet.com/_images/23-25741YE_Estimated_Distribution_Rates_LFI.pdf

Punching the numbers into a spreadsheet, I get a 5.3% annual price increase (assuming 3500 is reached by EOY in 2025.
That's not a stretch. -- In fact, its fairly conservative and may reflect secular headwinds of aging demographics and normalization (to some degree) of interest rates.
OTOH, 2025 is 10 years away. The odds of a nice, smooth 5.3% each year are so infinitesimal as to not even to be considered a possibility. Wherever we wind up 10 years hence, it won't be a smooth ride.
Observation: we are now in the midst of the 7th year of the current Bull. We are overdue for a Bear. And Bear events tend to correlate at/near Presidential handoffs.
caveat emptor