Comparing GLRBX and VWIAX is not quite comparing apples and oranges, but perhaps oranges and tangerines. One is a 50/50 stock/bond fund. The other is a 40/60.
That VWIAX has performed as well is a testament to the 83 basis point ER advantage it enjoys. You can see this by looking at the average 10 year performance for moderate allocation funds (typically 60/40) and conservative allocation funds (typically 40/60). The former returned an average 6.41%, the latter 5.15%.
So an allocation fund with 10% less in stocks than GLRBX might have been expected to underperform by about 0.63% (half the difference between the two averages). But VWIAX performed about the same, despite this allocation headwind. The 0.83% ER advantage pretty much explains this.
VWIAX has 10% more in bonds than does GLRBX. Of course it's expected to be less tax efficient. But it's also going to be less volatile.
Its 10 year standard deviation (you're looking back to 2008) is 6.13, while GLRBX's is 6.93. That's likely part of why M* rates the former as below average risk, while it rates the latter as average to above average, depending on time frame.
Losing money in the 2008-09 bear market: For both funds, their worst quarter was the first quarter of 2009. GLRBX lost 7.09% (from its 2010 prospectus). VWIAX did better, losing less than 6.69% (that's how much the Investor class shares lost, per 2010 prospectus).
If you want an orange (50/50 allocation) instead of a tangerine (40/60 allocation) you might try equal parts of Wellesley and Wellington. Just a thought, I haven't crunched the numbers.

The "big deal with it" is the 3, 5, 10 and 15 year Standard Deviation.
Regarding the the tax cost ratio as being "big drag on performance", I hold VWIAX in a non-taxable account, so there is no tax drag.
As I said, "the ER is just about the only metric you can be certain will be the same the next day. And, 83 basis points does not come for free. It's a significant drag, that if overcome, will be through increased risk"
Mona

If you check my original post, I am talking about my taxable account, so the TCR means something to me -- especially considering the 10 year pre-tax returns are essentially the same on the two funds.
Did you note my other reasons for switching?
P.S.: I am -- and was -- well aware of their slightly different allocations.

Leroy,
I tried my best to get you to understand the "obsession" with low expenses.
Mona

So what is the big deal with it? The tax cost ratio is also a big drag on performance.
Anybody?

The "big deal with it" is the 3, 5, 10 and 15 year Standard Deviation.
Regarding the the tax cost ratio as being "big drag on performance", I hold VWIAX in a non-taxable account, so there is no tax drag.
As I said, "the ER is just about the only metric you can be certain will be the same the next day. And, 83 basis points does not come for free. It's a significant drag, that if overcome, will be through increased risk"
Mona

@Junkster @MJG - thanks for the kind words. They are much appreciated.
@Dex - I agree with you that money may be more useful/valuable early in retirement, when it can be enjoyed. (Of course this depends on one's objectives - if it is to horde every penny for a legacy, then we're throwing enjoyment out the window.)
A problem is that people often tend to underspend in precisely this time period, because they are worried about the possibility of living "too long" (outliving their money). An event that may never happen. So we could view the issue you're raising as asking how to avoid underspending while not having the risk of living too long.
Say, what if we came up with some newfangled insurance product to offload that risk? Maybe we could call it longevity insurance :-)
IMHO that is one of the few products the insurance industry has come up with in the past several decades that could meet a real need at a reasonable price. Deferring SS is sort of like a longevity insurance product. You're "paying" (in foregone checks from age 62 to whenever - 66, 70) for higher payments starting in the future. That increase in SS payments is your longevity insurance payout.
Like longevity insurance, the higher future payments enable you to spend more now, because you don't have to worry (or at least worry as much) about what happens after you're 85. If you don't live to 85, you won't be around to fret that the policy didn't pay off.
Regardless of how long you live (and whether the deferred SS checks pay off), you wind up with more cash to spend in your earlier years (even after subtracting the amount of money those foregone early SS checks cost you). That's because you're no longer saving for that long life that may or may not come.
As you wrote, this is something you have to be able to afford. If you need those checks at age 62, then you collect early, no questions asked.

Leroy,
Because, as the sun rises from the east, the ER is just about the only metric you can be certain will be the same the next day. And, 83 basis points does not come for free. It's a significant drag, that if overcome, will be through increased risk.
Mona

Schwab and Morningstar both show the 10 year returns as:
VWIAX: 7.40%
GLRBX: 7.42% (Ted's link above shows GLRBX as being even a bit farther ahead)
Call it a wash.
However, the (M*) after-tax 10-year returns are:
VWIAX: 5.84%
GLRBX: 6.56%
That, along with GLRBX's better bear performance, and the ability to buy more shares with no fee, leaned me in its direction. Will it be the better choice in ten year's time? Who knows, and who knows if I'll even be alive then.

A few random comments (by someone who otherwise is intrigued by the shop)
1. Only downside I can see to OSTFX is that it tracks very much the Vanguard all-cap index, with slightly less volatility (and Osterweis benchmarks the fund against the S&P500, in spite of the fact that its an all-cap fund; a fact that their investor relations department has been unable to explain to my satisfaction). So, unless I'm misreading the charts, I don't see much value-add there.
2. OSTIX is a wonderful fund. Will be interesting to see how it weathers the impending turns in the bond market in the years ahead. I think the fund has extended beyond what Osterweis cited as their intended capacity for the strategy.
3. OSTVX tracks, remarkably, TRRCX.
4. Osterweis says, across their strategies, they intend to limit downside risk. Admirable enough. On paper, however, their funds look to be more volatile than their respective benchmarks.

Always wonder about the Big concern with Costs, Performance is based on NET figures, (that is minus all costs), for your easy comparison, If you NEED to Worry.....
be concerned with Performance! 10 yr. returns would be a good place to start

I've never quite gotten the obsession with low expenses, despite having read several books about it. All else being equal, sure, I'll take the lower expenses. But rarely are "all things equal."
I am in the process (will do over a 2 year time span) of transferring my taxable account in VWIAX (Vanguard Wellesley) to James Balanced Golden Rainbow (GLRBX) for various reasons, even though it has a 1.01% ER vs. Vanguard's .18%.
The ten-year return for both funds is essentially the same, but James has a much better tax efficiency so its after-tax return handily beats VWIAX.
My accounts are at Schwab, so to buy any Vanguard fund (including additional shares) costs me a $76 fee. Not a huge deal, but it does dampen the idea of adding a thousand or two dollars on a whim. There is no fee for buying or adding to James.
Although James has a beta of .81 vs. .54 for VWIAX, it only dropped (roughly) 5% in 2008 vs. VWIAX's 10% loss. Of course, that doesn't mean it will also happen like that in the next bear.
FWIW: Aside from other mutual funds I do have two stock and one REIT ETFs, so I am not opposed to them when they suit my purpose.

Here's SSA's life expectancy table At age 62, a male is expected to live to just short of 82 years of age, on average. Females to age 84.6.

Msf - another good way at looking at the question.
I think as time goes on the number of people who have the option to ponder when to take SS will decline.
Another variable to ponder is he value of SS$ to a younger more active person vs later in life. Let's call it the age deflator. If taking SS$ earlier allows you to spend more on your enjoyment of life, taking SS$ should have a higher value then later in life. That could mean you have more money, so you do more. Or you are less worried about your investments so you feel better spending more so you do more.
I'd look at the deflator this way:
Take SS at:
62-65 100%
66 - 90%
and subtract 3% per year.
70 - 78%
75 - 63%
Summing up, the evaluation can be by the numbers only. Or it can be a evaluated on the emotional, quality of life, and needs in life. So far, my spending over the 8.5 years I've been retired have been fairly constant. I'm guessing as we age spending on travel/etc will decline and other expenses will increase.
I'm still leaning to earlier is better - If you can afford to do it.

Let me offer a different analysis that I think is simpler, yet equivalent to Kitces. It leaves until the end assumptions about inflation rate, tax rate, and rate of return on investment, so that one can decide for oneself whether the risk/reward is worth it.

Really long post. If you don't care at all about the reasoning or calculations, skip to the final three paragraphs, following the clearly marked break (====)
Everything that follows is in constant (inflation-adjusted dollars). This removes inflation as a factor (until the end), it removes complex adjustments on SS payments (which remain fixed if measured in constant dollars).
Rather than discuss break even point, I'm going to use average life expectancy. If taking money early and investing comes out better for an average life span (i.e. average for a person reaching age 62), then that's the better path on average. If deferring the money comes out better for an average life span, then that's the better path.
Finally, what does it mean to come out better? If you take money at age 62, you invest it for four years. Then starting at age 66 (assuming that's FRA, and you are comparing with starting SS at that age), you use some of the invested money to make up the shortfall on your SS checks (you'd be getting larger ones by waiting until age 66). The remainder of the money you keep invested, to grow and to keep making up monthly shortfalls. If you come out with investment money left over when you reach the average life expectancy, you win. Otherwise, deferring (at least until age 66 wins).
The amount of money you have invested each month =
last month's balance * (1 + montly real rate of return) * (1 - monthly tax rate).
Let's call this multiplier net real rate of return (NRRoR).
Before age 66, you also add in the amount of the check you get from SS (age 62 monthly check).
After age 66, you subtract the shortfall (age 66 check amount minus age 62 check amount).
I put all this in a spreadsheet. I used $1000 as the FRA, $750 for the age 62 amount, and $1320 for the age 70 amount. All after tax values.
The tax rate on SS doesn't matter, so long as it remains constant. You can divide by (1 - tax rate) to get the SS check amounts.
Here's SSA's life expectancy table At age 62, a male is expected to live to just short of 82 years of age, on average. Females to age 84.6.
Comparing taking money at age 62 vs. 66, and investing to break even just before age 82, we need to achieve a net real rate of return of 3.0%. (One runs out of investment money about age 81 years, 10 months). For females, we need to have that investment last until age 84.6, and that requires a net real rate of return of 4.2%.
Here's where you get to say how good an investor you are. I look at that 3% real rate, and think that one might target a 3% inflation rate, a 7% nominal rate of return (4% real), a 15% annual tax (not completely tax efficient, but taxed on capital gains).
That gets us to 3% net real rate of return. 15% tax on a nominal 7% rate of return bleeds about 1% off of the return. So we have a 4% real return less 1% in taxes, or 3%. To get that 4.2% real return with 3% inflation would require about a 8.5% nominal return (bleeding 1.3% in taxes, leaving 7.2% nominal, or 4.2% real).
That's an admirable target. Now factor in risk, since we're comparing a sure rate of return with SS (i.e. like an interest rate) with a volatile and uncertain market return.
It's a bit better if one compares age 62 with deferring until age 70. Then, you have more years to invest the money before having to make up shortfalls, and fewer shortfall years (only a dozen years until the men die - on average - at age 82).
Now, one needs only a 2% net real rate of return for the average male to come out ahead (money left over after age 81, 10 months), and 3% for the women to come out ahead. In other words (assuming 3% inflation, 15% tax annually), 5.75% nominal return for males, 7% nominal for females.
===========================================
The bottom line here is that if you've got an average life expectancy, then it looks like you need to be able to invest for around a 7% nominal rate of return with zero risk to do as well as by deferring SS. The more uncertainty there is in achieving this rate of return, the higher that rate needs to be to beat SS on a risk adjusted basis.
It's interesting that people who advocate taking SS early often state that they're taking the "bird in the hand". But when it comes to comparing the certainty of a fixed (real) income stream with the vagaries of the marketplace, they'll go for the uncertain "two in the bush".
That may be a matter of perception - people may feel they don't have control over how long they'll live, but they have control over their investments. I respectfully submit that if anything, the reverse is true. Live a healthy lifestyle, and you can increase your odds of a longer life. But you have no control over the market, which seems to be what has the most effect on how investments perform in general.

Okay, so lots of people ask this question, but first ask yourself another question. Will you really hold this fund for 35 years :).
Also, you mention low growth environment for 35 years...we HAVE to be more confident than that. Regardless...
IF answer to my first question is YES, you want a fund that you expect to be around after 35 years, will have decent succession planning. So you need to look at measure players. You need it to be well diversified. I have two recommendations for you. These are fairly new funds, launched after careful consideration I would think. You can expect the fund company having a lot invested in their success and them not being passing fads
Vanguard Global Minimum Volatility - VMVFX
TRP Global Allocation - RPGAX.
I own both of them, and I don't want to live on this planet for 35 years, but I'm unlucky these are what I would likely leave my grandchildren...if they are well behaved.

Always wonder about the Big concern with Loads, Performance of Level Load is based on NET figures, (that is minus the 0.75% load paid every year) for your easy comparison.
10 yr. return of class-C (level load) OSMCX blows its competition away (#1 over ten years by more than 1%/year).
On a serious note, if one would consider owning the Great Owl Fund WAIOX (now closed), that was the second best performing fund in the category over the past decade, then why exclude the better performing and cheaper (including embedded load) Oppenheimer fund OSCMX simply because it has a load?
Though now one can purchase the much cheaper A share class OSMAX load-waived, which offers even better performance (how could it not - same fund at lower cost) at a low (for the category) ER.

FYI: As long as the economy is growing, and inflation isn't a problem, any increase in rates caused by the Fed should be a good sign, not a bad sign, says the Osterweis Capital Management chairman and CIO.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.morningstar.com/Cover/videoCenter.aspx?id=695719

It sounds like you're trying to get a better understanding of basic investing and follow good guidance. May I suggest a bit more reading (and asking questions here) before making major changes?
While I'm not familiar with Dave Ramsey, three things immediately stood out for me when I looked up his advice:
- His use of growth, aggressive growth, etc. (your question) is at best quaint. Morningstar abandoned these categories decades ago, because it found that what a fund says it is doing (its objective) wasn't reliable; what is more reliable is how the fund is actually investing. So you can't necessarily go by the name or objective of the fund. See, e.g. http://mutualfunds.about.com/od/typesoffunds/a/What-Is-Aggressive-Growth.htm
- He is advocating a pure equity portfolio for retirement plans (no bonds, real estate, etc.). That might be okay for a 25 year old, or for someone with a high risk tolerance, but is generally not considered good advice. You are implying this also in asking about balanced funds; the page I linked to above makes the same point.
- He recommends front end load funds. If you are managing your own portfolio, there is (almost) never a reason to pay a load. That goes into the pocket of your adviser. If you're getting advice for that money, it may be okay, but if you're managing your own investments as you want to do, it makes no sense (or cents).
All that said, here's my suggested mapping from CREF funds to Ramsey's four categories. This is quick and dirty, I suggest you learn more about the funds instead of relying upon a list like this; also, because I'm not researching now, don't count on my accuracy:
CREF Equity Index - Growth and Income (traditionally, equity index funds are considered G&I)
CREF Global - not quite international, because it includes US as well
CREF Growth - growth (not aggressive; CREF is a conservative manager; also this invests "primarily in large, well-known, established companies"; it might be consider G&I, as part of its portfolio is invested in an index)
CREF Social Choice - none (it is basically an allocation fund - a mix of US (and a few foreign) stocks, and bonds)
CREF Stock - growth (it has a lot of foreign, somewhat like FLPSX)
Regarding the TIAA-CREF funds:
Emerging Markets Equity - international
Emerging Markets Equity Index - international
Enhanced International Equity Index - international
Enhanced Large Cap Growth Index - growth
Enhanced Large Cap Value Index - growth
Equity Index - growth and income
Growth & Income - growth and income
International Equity - international
International equity Index - international
International Opportunities - international
Large-Cap Growth - growth
Large Cap Growth Index - growth
Large-Cap Value - growth and income (close call; typically large cap value stocks pay more in dividends, so this inherently focuses on some income as opposed to pure growth)
Large-Cap Value Index - growth and income (as above)
Mid-Cap Growth Fund - growth (TIAA-CREF is not an aggressive fund manager)
Mid-Cap Value Fund - growth (could be growth and income but smaller caps tend to not be considered income-oriented investments)
S&P 500 Index - growth and income
Small Cap Equity - growth (not aggressive - focused on long term growth, managing risk)
Small Cap Blend Equity Index - growth
Anything else is a hybrid, bond, or sector fund.

" In 1945, the largest 25 mutual funds in the United States cost an average of 0.76 percent per year. ... The biggest active funds in 2004 cost 1.56 percent."
I don't know about 2004, but in 2015, the average ER of the 25 largest active funds (using the share class that M* picks with "distinct portfolio") is 0.66%, about 13% lower than it was in 1945.
"No active fund is as cheap as it appears [because of trading costs]." Misleading in a couple of ways, the main one being that index funds also have trading costs (for the most part, it's turnover, not index vs. active, that matters). The minor issue is that there is a fund that never changes its portfolio, and it's not an index fund. Most of the people here don't need to be reminded of it - LEXCX.
If one talks about bond funds, even index funds, they're going to have a lot of trades, because they're constantly replacing bonds that mature (or come too close to maturity to keep in the portfolio). Looking at the pure equity funds in the largest 25 active, one sees turnover ratios ranging from 11-12% (D&C Int'l DODFX and Harbor Int'l HAINX) all the way up to 45% (Fidelity Contra FCNTX); no other fund is above 0.39%. These are all way below the "average" fund's 72% turnover.
Then there is a trading cost particular to index funds - front running (related to reconstitution). No mention of it in this article. And what about index funds that are not market (or at least free float) weighted? They have higher turnover by design. See, e.g.
http://www.investingdaily.com/11263/equal-weighted-index-etfs-pros-and-cons/
None of this is to suggest that index fund "hidden" costs are higher than active fund costs. Just that it would be nice to read articles that didn't start from a conclusion and apply data selectively to reach that conclusion.
For completeness, the bond/hybrid funds in the largest 25 funds are:
ABALX, CAIBX, AMECX, MBLOX, SGENX, FKINX, MWTRX, PTTRX, TPINX, VFSTX, VWELX
The equity funds in the largest 25 funds are:
AMCPX, CWGIX, AEPGX, ANCFX, AGTHX, AIVSX, ANWPX, AWSHX (all American Funds!), and DODFX, DODGX, FCNTX, HAINX, VGHCX, VWNFX

FYI: U.S. stocks are near record highs. But what if there's another market meltdown like the one from October 2007 to March 2009? Such a catastrophe can be tough if you're ready to retire or early in your retirement years. A severe bear market right before or after your paychecks cease can make mincemeat of your carefully constructed retirement planning.
Regards,
Ted
http://license.icopyright.net/user/viewFreeUse.act?fuid=MTkzMjMxMTE=
NY Times Slant: New Math for Retirees and the 4% Withdrawal Rule
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/09/your-money/some-new-math-for-the-4-percent-retirement-rule.html?ref=business

There is one fact that I don't think is part of common knowledge, is only occasionally mentioned here and there, but has been acknowledged by the SSA itself (when pressed):
most SS beneficiaries die before receiving, in cumulative monthly payments, the amount of money they have paid into the SS system.
Now, this fact could change for baby boomers, since we fancy that we "reinvent" everything, and perhaps the age-specific mortality rates for our demographic may be different. Too early to tell, I suspect, but we should have a pretty good idea in 5-10 yrs how things are gonna "trend" on that score. We may nudge our Bell Curve up a tiny bit, but as far skewing the Bell into a distorted 90s bulge.... I think not.
These are a couple of things I put into my Monte Carlo and smoke, as I whistle past the graveyard.

>> The problem is systemic. And brainless geeks put it together in such a way as to make everything as difficult as possible, rather than to SERVE the public.
Such bullshit. Such.
Fwiw, I had a few phone interactions in my recent SS filings, and it went unbelievably smoothly and responsively and with callbacks, even. Names and contact info, one person. I admit I was a little surprised. And everything got done correctly. 35yo wedding forms mailed and returned. Dates hit. Confirmations. The whole nine, and ten, yards.
Same with Medicare.
I must add I did have to be patient. More than once. And hold.
That need to be patient however threw me into this total libertarian rage and I vowed then and there never to deal with SS again ever, and refuse to open their mail, and I have been glued to AM talk radio ever since, the one true set of messages. No, wait.

I own two equal weight index funds. One is a large cap fund (IACLX) which invest in equal amounts in the largest 100 stocks found in the S&P 100 Index. The second is a large/mid cap fund (VADAX) that invest in equal amounts in companies found the S&P 500 Index. Both funds rebalance quarterly. In this way stocks that have done well are trimmed and those that have lagged are increased back to their target weightings.
Old_Skeet

Hi Shostakovich, it wasn't quite clear to me whether you were looking for an investment for the next 30-35 years or whether you're just looking for something for some portion of that time while growth is "low".
In the very long-term I think emerging and frontier markets are the place to be. They have favorable demographics, they're growing faster than the rest of the world, they're implementing necessary reforms that will make their markets more and more attractive, and some of them are gaining more and more importance and will most likely end up being dominant economies of the world. I'd rather not focus on the commodity dependent markets so I own funds like WAFMX, MEASX and GPEOX that are more interested in the rising middle class and consumer oriented investments.
In the shorter term I'd focus more on the places where central banks are aggressively easing monetary policy because I think it will lead to multiple expansion even if it doesn't drive fantastic growth. So far my choices for new investments have been HEDJ and DXJ because I believe there's value in hedging the currency exposure, but the un-hedged international funds I own are still outperforming their US counterparts. That doesn't mean to say I've given up on the US, but I've been shifting more assets towards Europe and Japan than I had previously. China is also easing monetary policy pretty aggressively and I like China long-term but I'm not making shorter-term China specific bets because I feel like the volatility is a lot higher than elsewhere.

@bee: Thanks ! Your the buzz !!
Regards,
Ted
https://www.google.com/search?q=buzz+bee&biw=1280&bih=585&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=G01OVfvnEsLkoATv9oH4Cw&ved=0CEgQsAQ#tbm=isch&q=+bee