@dryflower: FYI: 11/24/15 thread on FAIRX distribution.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.mutualfundobserver.com/discuss/discussion/24482/fairholme-fund-fund-s-successful-bet-on-aig-triggers-a-big-tax-bill-for-investors#latest

Fairholme has declared an upcoming distribution equaling over 1/3 of the share value. It appears to me that for those who have purchased FAIRX over the past 5 years or so in a taxable account, they would save on taxes by selling the shares now and paying taxes on their capital gains which would be less, possibly significantly less than paying taxes on the $12 distribution. This is true especially because their tax basis includes distributions from prior years. (Then they can just buy the shares right back after the distribution if that's what they want to do.)
It seems a real possibility that just about everybody is going to realize this same thing and the assets of FAIRX are going to be significantly depleted. Meeting redemptions could possibly even put pressure on the market price of the fund's holdings, specifically SHLD.
Of course when the investor sees that pile of real cash money in his account, he may or may not decide to follow through on the original plan of investing all of it back into the Fairholme Fund.

Chinfist, what is the goal of owning 4 Alternative funds in a portfolio. Just curious on the thinking behind this. In asking that question I do have a bias. I myself wouldn't own 4 of any type kind similar fund category where all funds had the same goal. These "alternative" funds just do not out perform a typical balanced fund over time. And 4 of them? What is the goal?

These funds might not outperform a balanced fund over time (particularly if you are looking at performance during a decreasing interest rate environment as we have had). These funds are not meant to replace the performance of a balanced fund. If comparing to a balanced fund, they would mostly be meant to replace the bond portion of a balanced fund. My portfolio mostly consists of dedicated stock funds, with alternative funds thrown in.
I own a lot of mutual funds, as I like to diminish manager risk. I understand some would disagree with that strategy, but that is what I do. I have owned a bunch of alternative funds over the years, some of them bad or useless, and have whittled them down to the few I have left, as 3 of them are doing what I want them to do (providing low relatively consistent returns with low volatility…these take the place of the bond portion of a balanced fund, as I was concerned with interest rate risk when I had purchased them. I wanted investments that would not be impacted by interest rates).
The 4 alternative investments I have are not the same. Only 3 of these have similar goals of absolute returns with low volatility, which are QVOPX, HFXIX and AZIIX, and these 3 use different strategies to get there. MCXIX, tries to generate returns any way it can while taking on more risk compared to the other funds through macro/commodity bets and alternative type strategies. The outsized gain of 53% YTD return shows this. When delving into the alternative type funds, because many of these funds have been unsuccessful, I find it even more important to spread my bets among these funds. So far I have liked all of these funds for the role they play in my portfolio.

"And I do wonder about you sometimes, but that might be a separate matter."
David, that may be part of what -- in some mysterious way -- makes MFO what it is, for all of us. And whatever it is -- don't mess with the mix, 'cause it is something special.
Also a "LL" -- loyal lurker --
***
(Can't resist this off-the-record.. I grew up in rural MA, graduated from HS in a '50's class of ~100, of which perhaps 10 went to college -- and "3" of those went to "Augie"! What a coincidence!!! 2 of those are still in touch, & I still regularly hear about "Augie". Must be the air....
(JHU alum)

I like reading articles that confirm my thinking. Currently, I'd rather be cash heavy rather than equity heavy due to stocks being currently well overbought by my thinking. In addition, I am light in fixed income due to anticipated rising interest rates. According to a recent Morningstar's Instant Xray analysis my portfolio bubbles at about 25% cash, 20% income, 50% equity and 5% other.
My take-a-way from the article is one might do well to hold more cash (dry powder) than one normally would; and, in this way one can take advantage of buying opportunity when it presents itself. In addition, the author favors high yield bonds in the fixed income area (I'am thinking high yield short duration) and emerging markets for those with a long term outlook in the equity area.

Hi, Pudd.
On Alphacentric, it appears that the fund launched on May 28, 2015. The "A" shares ticker is BDRAX. No guess about when or if Fido will offer it.
Fund companies must get SEC clearance before they're permitted to offer a new fund to the public. Once they file the necessary paperwork, SEC has 75 days to review it. Absent an SEC objection, the prospectus becomes effective.
That is, however, not the same thing as saying that the fund company will launch of the fund at that point, just that they have the regulatory clearance to do so. They may, at their discretion, sit on a fund for months (RiverPark Focused Value gave itself a sort of subscription period, as a recent example) or forever. The only course of action is to call the adviser and ask.
David

How long does it take to get through registration and to start getting money? And to get listed? The following are funds I've been looking at: AAPHA-Centric bond rotation fund (since February 2015), Aston-Pictet premium brand (since March), TCW high dividend equity fund long/short fund (since August). Still see nothing on the Fidelity platform.
God bless
the Pudd

FYI: Sometimes the best choice is to make none at all, particularly when all the options look risky.
So if you're deciding whether to invest in stocks, bonds or something else, remember that you could leave some of it in cash. So says Matt Freund, chief investment officer of USAA's mutual funds.
Regards,
Ted
http://bigstory.ap.org/article/17919795aa5442ed9450ad294bc208e9/fund-manager-qa-usaas-matt-freund-defends-holding-cash

There are plenty of closed-end bond funds trading at 10-15% discounts and paying out 9-12% distributions. They're usually either global bond funds, emerging market bonds or junk bonds. They'll usually use leverage, tend to be owned by individuals rather than institutions, and are often subject to year-end tax selling (I'd guess that this will be the case this year, but I'll emphasize that word 'guess').
One thing that I'd be careful about is that the particular fund is only paying out the income that it's earning. Many of them return your capital to you in order to pay out a large distribution. I'm looking at DSL (another Doubleline cef), BGH (short-term junk) and the AllianceBernstein Global Income cef whatever its ticker symbol is (AWF?). They seem to fit the high distribution, high discount criteria while paying out only income earned. Good management teams, too, I think. Personally I'll wait until January if I do buy.

BRUSX risk/return metrics across various time frames ...

Does anyone have any thoughts on these Closed End Bond Funds, or others? I know that Doubleline also has a Closed End Bond Fund, DBL, but it is at a +2.54 premium.
Bonnie Baha said that "A good alternative for investors interested in corporate credit is closed-end bond funds, some of which trade at "incredible discounts,"
From Kiplinger
Two closed-ends worth considering: Pimco Income Opportunity Fund (PKO, $22.61), which invests in all types of debt, from mortgages to corporate and government bonds, trades at a 6.5% discount to NAV and yields a whopping 9.4%. BlackRock Multi-Sector Income Trust (BIT, $15.75), which invests mostly in corporate bonds and asset-backed securities, sells at a 15.7% discount to NAV and yields 8.9%. Both funds employ leverage. (Share prices, yields and discounts are as of November 12.)
Read more at http://www.kiplinger.com/article/investing/T041-C009-S003-doubleline-s-gundlach-buy-closed-end-bond-funds-in.html#g4YlAZdx3GK82cTy.99

I am a long term share holder in this fund but last 10 years have been miserable if you look at 1, 3, 5, 10 years performance. Has this fund lost its charm ? (bottom 10% of smallest). I have been unable to decide if to hold this fund or trim it enough for now to stay in the fund? It is missing consistency and inception to today performance still looks excellent but not last 10 years.
Clueless. :-)

FYI: Are investors bailing on so-called alternative funds at precisely the wrong time?
Regards,
Ted
http://blogs.barrons.com/focusonfunds/2015/11/27/investors-are-dumping-alt-funds-precisely-the-wrong-time/tab/print/

@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.