The subject here reads like Goldilocks test results. The overall thought here is related to the MFO junk bond link in PART 2.
PART 1: Once upon a time, there was a little girl named Goldilocks. She went for a walk in the forest. Pretty soon, she came upon a house. She knocked and, when no one answered, she walked right in.
At the table in the kitchen, there were three bowls of porridge. Goldilocks was hungry. She tasted the porridge from the first bowl.
"This porridge is too hot!" she exclaimed.
So, she tasted the porridge from the second bowl.
"This porridge is too cold," she said
So, she tasted the last bowl of porridge.
"Ahhh, this porridge is just right," she said happily and she ate it all up.
How can we trust Goldilock's assessment of hot, cold and just right? What is the baseline, how does she compare with a peer group of porridge temperature testers?
PART 2: Now. A recent link here (not directed at you @Ted , but the article author)
https://www.mutualfundobserver.com/discuss/discussion/36721/u-s-junk-bond-funds-post-4th-biggest-week-of-outflows-ever
--- relative to the article:
.....would be nice if these data folks related the money values relative to 1992 or whatever time frame they choose to a "percentage" of total values involved; as to have a reference point for now.
What is this $4.4 billion withdrawal in terms of total monies in the HY sector? And how does this relate to 1992 values?
Oh, well; reader beware, eh?
GOSH, couldn't resist: All data believed accurate.
---U.S. high yield bonds outstanding value, July, 2017
$1.5 Trillion
So, HY outflows at $4.4 billion were .29% of total value, yes? Is this going to blow up the HY bond area and take equities with it.......???
PART 3: As to the .29% sell off/withdrawals in the HY sector; this could be similar to my telling the lady down the street who was born in 1925, that the St.Gaudens,1925-D, $20 gold piece presented to her on her birth day, by an uncle, recently declined in value by .29%; but that she should not be too concerned, as the worth of the coin was still acceptable.
https://www.ebay.com/itm/1925-D-ST-GAUDENS-20-NGC-MS-65/172873495315?hash=item2840103313:g:CvQAAOSwIdpZwVnz
NOTE: By reading this far into this write, you have electronically signed my "hold harmless" agreement regarding content and accuracy; as this document was formalized while under the influence of OTC head cold medicine.
Comments, corrections or suggestions wholly accepted.
Summary: I'm just asking for a bit of proper reporting, i.e.; junk bond outflows.
End of whine !!!
Thank you.
Catch

Hi @Art,
Below are some funds that I own (by sleeve and my classification) that kick off some good income.
In world equity I use CWGIX, DEQAX & EADIX
In domestic equity I use ANCFX, FDSAX & SVAAX
In global hybrid I use CAIBX, PMAIX & TIBAX
In domestic hybrid three I favor of seven owned are AMECX, FRINX & HWIAX.
In hybrid income three I favor of seven owned are APIUX, FKINX & PGBAX
In tactical hybrids (income) I use BAICX & PCGAX
Funds of funds I use CTFAX, ISFAX & LABFX
Multi sector bond funds I use LBNDX, NEFZX & TSIAX
I am not saying these are the current very best funds to own; but, they are the ones I have would up with through my many years of investing; and, I feel they have treated me well.
Know that I own some other funds as well (in the growth area of my portfolio) that kick off some good income in the form of capital gains with some paying dividends as well
Global growth sleeve I own ANWPX, SMCWX & THOAX
Large mid cap sleeve I own AGTHX, AMCPX & SPECX
Small mid cap sleeve I own IIVAX, PCVAX & PMDAX
Specialty & theme sleeve I own LPEFX, NEWFX & PGUAX
In short words most funds that I own kick off some good income in some form and fashion. Usually, my portfolio's distribution yield usually runs from a range of 4 to 6 percent which includes interest, dividends and capital gain distributions. Over the past five years my total return ranges form 8 to 12 percent. Generally, I take no more than one half of my five year average return has been. In this way, principal builds over time.
Old_Skeet

I don't think this is a 'challenge' at all and in fact I think it supports this theory. I understand Gundlach as warning that investors are too interested in bonds that have interest rate risk and they most likely don't understand what will happen when rates go up.
Here's another piece on Gundlach's current perspective and hopefully it hasn't been posted before: https://advisorperspectives.com/articles/2017/11/17/gundlachs-top-etf-recommendation?
He warned of dangers in the high-yield market. “Covenant-lite” (bonds with weak protections for investors) as a percentage of total loan issuance has averaged over 70% for the last three years, versus never being above 33% from 2003 to 2012.
With regard to the investment-grade market, he said the average duration is 7 but investors “don’t think prices can go down. Watch out, they have interest-rate risk.”
Is there any way to evaluate whether a high yield manager is investing in "covenant-lite" bonds? I presume the ratings of bonds don't tell you as they focus on the health of the company and the risk they'll default rather than the protections investors have if they do default.

FYI: With U.S. asset flow data for the first three quarters of 2017 in the bank, the trends are pretty clear: Investors love bond funds of just about all stripes, they’re choosing international stocks over U.S. stocks, and there’s no letup for the hemorrhaging of active funds. And then there's Vanguard.
Regards,
Ted
http://news.morningstar.com/articlenet/article.aspx?id=837447

FYI: A record month for inflows into corporate bonds is "setting up a disaster for when rates rise & `investors' learn that, yes, these bonds have rate risk" was yesterday's latest tweeted warning from Jeffrey Gundlach. So what would the billionaire bond manager make of the first BBB-rated borrower actually getting paid to sell new bonds?
Regards,
Ted
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-11-17/a-french-challenge-to-gundlach-s-disaster-bond-theory

FYI: WHAT’S A GOOD REASON to dial down your stock market exposure? A year after Donald Trump was elected president, many folks are still smarting from their decision to bail out of stocks. Clearly, we shouldn’t lighten up on shares just because we don’t like the guy in the White House.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.humbledollar.com/2017/11/all-the-right-reasons/

Chuck shows ALMGX inception as 12/29/16. MS the same. That would make it 2 years young 12/29/18.
Derf

Thank you David. You highlighted Alambic Small Cap Value Plus Fund ALAMX. Alambic is another California-based shop. A quant shop. Each of its four young funds have outperformed out of the gate (click image to enlarge) ...

FYI: It is and it isn't.
Regards,
Ted
http://news.morningstar.com/articlenet/article.aspx?id=837417
M*: AQR Family Of Funds:
http://quicktake.morningstar.com/fundfamily/aqr-funds/0C000021ZL/fund-list.aspx

**But Yale’s allocation to U.S. stocks is simply too low. And Swensen may need to acknowledge that the passive strategies he derides have stacked up well against endowments in the past 10 years.**
In Dr. Swenson's book he lays out a passive portfolio with Vanguard funds for the average investor(like me). Derides seems a little strong. The article didn't mention the portfolio's standard deviation relative to the SP500 or a 80/20 stock bond portfolio. Something else I find interesting is that Vanguard's Wellesley Income (40%dividend/value stock/60% income) has a 10 year record competitive with the SP500 if you consider that that the Admiral shares are 15 basis points and the 10 yrs STD deviation is 6.34.
JMHO,
Mike

FYI: (Click On Article Title At Top Of Google Search)
Over the past decade, the performance of university endowments has lagged behind the U.S. stock market.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.google.com/search?ei=F_QPWq_6OMTQmwGJkomoAg&q=Barron's+Yale's++Endowment+Learns+Hard+Diversification+Lesson&oq=Barron's+Yale's++Endowment+Learns+Hard+Diversification+Lesson&gs_l=psy-ab.3...27107.30962.0.32889.7.7.0.0.0.0.94.632.7.7.0....0...1.1.64.psy-ab..0.0.0....0.7W4xr4ODG7o

FYI: (Click On Article Title At Top Of Google Search)
Pamela Corrigan says her biggest challenge in a time of higher markets is to push back on clients who want more-aggressive trading.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.google.com/search?ei=AvgPWpf3L4LdmwHwtpDQAg&q=+Seeking+Safe+Dividend-Paying+Stocks+In+A+Pricey+Market+Barron's&oq=+Seeking+Safe+Dividend-Paying+Stocks+In+A+Pricey+Market+Barron's&gs_l=psy-ab.3...22047.29550.0.29814.17.17.0.0.0.0.201.1885.10j5j1.16.0....0...1.1.64.psy-ab..1.3.474...35i39k1j33i160k1.0.8CAjHPL6Ixk

FYI: U.S. fund investors walloped high-yield funds with their biggest week of withdrawals since March, Lipper data shows.
The junk bond mutual funds and exchange-traded funds posted $4.4 billion in net withdrawals during the week ended Nov. 15, the fourth-largest weekly outflow on record dating back to 1992.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.fa-mag.com/news/u-s--junk-bond-funds-post-4th-biggest-week-of-outflows-ever-35781.html?print

FYI: Mohamed A. El-Erian is the chief economic advisor for Allianz SE. Before joining Allianz, Dr. El-Erian held positions as chief executive and co-chief investment officer of PIMCO and president and CEO of Harvard Management Company, the entity that manages Harvard’s endowment and related accounts. Dr. El-Erian was also a managing director at Salomon Smith Barney/Citigroup in London and spent 15 years with the International Monetary Fund in Washington, DC.
Dr. El-Erian has published widely on international economic and finance topics. His 2008 best-seller, When Markets Collide, was named a book of the year by The Economist, and one of the best business books of all time by The Independent (UK). He was one of Foreign Policy’s “Top 100 Global Thinkers” for four years in a row, and is a contributing editor for the Financial Times. His newest book – The Only Game in Town: Central Banks, Instability and Avoiding the Next Collapse – is another New York Times best-seller.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.advisorperspectives.com/articles/2017/11/15/mohamed-el-erian-which-asset-classes-are-most-vulnerable

Hello,
Here is the Market barometer report for week ending November 17th.
This week the barometer closed with a reading of 147 (up one point form the previous week) leaving the S&P 500 Index in fair value. The Index closed down 0.13% for the week at 2579. The three best performing sectors for the week were discreationary (XLY) up 1.27% ... staples (XLP) up 0.88% ... and, utilities (XLU) up 0.54%. Industrials (XLI) scored just barely undervalued this week on a technical score basis.
Currently, Old_Skeet is just watching and awaiting a pull back (3 to 5 percent) before putting new money to work.
Have a good week ... and, thanks for stopping by and reading.
I wish all ... "Good Investing."

Thanks Ted. This new inverse ETF makes me chuckle.
While it's true that XRT is the most shorted ETF, it's also true that high short interest in an ETF is usually a predictor of OUTperformance, not UNDERperformance, at least with ETFs that are decently traded.
Here's a test I ran on the period 1999-2017:
Assumptions:
Universe: All Unleveraged Equity ETFs in the Top 50% of average daily turnover.
Rebalance: Weekly on Mondays at the Close
Slippage: Assumed at 0.1% per trade
Ranking: Buy Top 10 each week with highest Short Interest Ratio
Results: 7.2% annualized return for the period, compared to 5.9% for SPY.

Rolled over 401k to both new global funds at Vanguard.

Hi Ben. I'm afraid I am the culprit here. I read each of David's profiles and make an "objective" assessment. At the time, he mentioned a few dings, which influenced my assessment. If I recall, here are some of the statements:
Management’s stake in the fund
As of the last Statement of Additional Information (April 2013), Mr. Reddy and Mr. Cook each had between $1 – 10,000 invested in the fund. The manager’s commitment is vastly greater than that outdated stat reveals. Effectively all of his personal capital is tied up in the fund or Zeo Capital’s fund operations. None of the fund’s directors had any investment in it. That’s no particular indictment of the fund since the directors had no investment in any of the 98 funds they oversaw.
Expense ratio
The reported expense ratio is 1.50% which substantially overstates the expenses current investors are likely to encounter.
Fund website
Effectively none. Zeo.com contains the same information you’d find on a business card. (Yeah, I know.) Because most of their investors come through referrals and personal interactions it’s not a really high priority for them. They aspire to a nicely minimalist site at some point in the foreseeable future. Until then you’re best off calling and chatting with them.
Break, break.
Venk and Paige were kind enough to provide an update via telecom last month and after discussion with David, we're trying to set-up a visit with them in mid December for a profile update in January commentary.
Since 2014, they've doubled in AUM ... much better website now, lower er (if not low enough), not sure of director stake yet. But, in any case, they remain genuinely thoughtful in approach to investing and investor solicitation.
Here are some of their impressive risk numbers (click screen to enlarge):

Can you link Chip's writeup you are referring to? Thanks
http://www.mutualfundobserver.com/2014/07/zeo-strategic-income-zeoix-july-2014/

No money in any of the funds mentioned; but curious as to total returns.
The time frame is from May 31, 2011 to current date.
http://stockcharts.com/freecharts/perf.php?ZEOIX,LALDX,RPHYX&n=1627&O=011000