@carminusa: I not clear if your already are invest in Wellington, but here are some Moderate-Allocation Funds suggested by M* If I were you I'd stick with VWELX, 8% + returns for over 86 years.
Regards,
Ted
M* 5 of Our Favorite Moderate-Allocation Funds:
http://news.morningstar.com/articlenet/article.aspx?id=693877

Unfortunately, the fund closed April 22, 2015 per the link:
http://www.bizjournals.com/birmingham/news/2015/04/23/vulcan-value-partners-names-new-president-closes.html

Thanks for sharing David.
Here is a post from Baird along the same lines (from February).
http://www.bairdfunds.com/news/changes-to-bond-markets-create-liquidity-concerns-and-systematic-issures-bond-investors-should-consider
Edit: Driehaus shared concerns about "The Evolving Liquidity Crisis in the Bond Market" in their February commentary of LCMAX
http://driehauscapitalmanagement.com/pdf/funds/summaries/lcmax-summary-22815.pdf

FYI: The Federal Reserve seems unlikely to give stock investors reason to finally show some trading conviction when it meets this week.
Regards,
Ted
http://blogs.wsj.com/moneybeat/2015/04/27/morning-moneybeat-why-the-fomc-could-keep-markets-rangebound/tab/print/
Current Futures:
http://finviz.com/futures.ashx

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
BIRMINGHAM – April 22, 2015 –
Vulcan Value Partners is closing to new investors. The firm closed its Small Cap Program in November of 2013, and closed its All Cap Program in early 2014. Effective immediately, Vulcan Value Partners is closing its Large Cap Programs – which include Large Cap, Focus and Focus Plus.

FYI: After 15 years the Nasdaq Composite Index has returned to its dot-com-era record, just as the bull market is looking tired.
Many money managers warn that U.S. stocks are overdue for a pullback. They are shifting money to stocks in Europe, Japan and even developing countries.
Yet some who correctly foresaw the 2000-2002 meltdown say U.S. stocks are less risky today. Their reasoning: Although stock prices are high, interest rates and inflation haven’t gotten to the levels that killed bull markets in the past.
Regards,
Ted
http://blogs.wsj.com/moneybeat/2015/04/26/why-this-old-bull-market-may-not-be-ready-to-die/tab/print/

Wellington is still open to retail investors, in case that's the reason you're looking for alternatives. See Reuters' article.
It's hard to find something really similar in terms of long term performance and history, portfolio attributes, management experience, and cost to Wellington. For example, D&C has similar long term management and performance and low cost, but higher volatility and a more flexible asset allocation. Villere likewise has similar long term management and performance, but even higher volatility and an equity sleeve that's nontraditional (mid cap growth vs. the usual large cap value).
If you're open to funds that go their own way, there's Bruce Fund (BRUFX). As with the funds above, it also has long term management and fine long term performance. But in common with those other alternates it also has higher volatility.
The Fidelity funds named, like many Fidelity funds, are very growth oriented, with what I'll generously call "substantial" turnover (over 150% annual).
If the focus is on portfolio similarity, something like American Beacon Balanced (AABPX) might fit the bill. Traditional large cap value, low turnover, long term management. Though it now has three subadvisor companies. That's common to Vanguard also, but not to Wellington fund - you'd hardly expect a fund named Wellington to be submanaged by anyone but Wellington Management :-)

Welcome @carminusa
You did not state whether you have access to broad range of moderate allocation funds; but if this is the case:
You may also consider VILLX, FBALX or FPURX .
Note that VILLX, for whatever reason had a nasty 2014; but appears to be back in the groove for 2015.
This is a list of Morningstar Moderate Allocation funds. Click on the 5 year or any other column header to sort the list by return rate.
Keep in mind that these so called MA funds may vary quite a lot with internal allocations and related. They are not twins and performance will vary, as indicated by the 5 year returns.
Regards,
Catch

""1. ‘It can’t go up forever,’ or ‘We are overdue for a downturn or a correction.’"
It cannot go up forever, but theoretically, it can go far further than anyone could expect. It really strongly appears to me that Central Banks are absolutely of the view that economic Winter has to be held back at all costs. I'm not saying that they will be successful, but they will push their theories until things get disorderly.
QE (and as I've noted, market didn't even have to go down much and there was a Fed governor the other day talking about the potential for more asset purchases - I thought the market would have to drop 15-20% for that conversation to even start) and ZIRP will not in and of themselves result in a sustainable recovery or fix underlying problems that need to be addressed.
This is not saying that stocks can go up forever, but there's a lot of variables and reflation or bust clearly seems to be the theme of central banks. Again, I'm not saying that stocks go to the moon, I'm simply saying that - for some reason - central banks this time around seem as if they are going to take this to the limit.
If it doesn't work, they'll never admit it - problems are "transitory" and theories don't work because there "wasn't enough". With those views, things will - I think - be taken to the limit until they get disorderly. What that looks like we'll have to see, but I still think this period ends badly. I think in some ways with ZIRP and QE this is the ultimate bubble and it would not surprise me if the global economy looked very different on the other side."
======
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-04-26/boston-fed-admits-there-no-exit-suggests-qe-become-normal-monetary-policy
"Boston Fed Admits There Is No Exit, Suggests QE Become "Normal Monetary Policy"

If anything will be different for those younger than you and I it will be that defined benefits will not be a common component of retirement.

In a way defined benefits were never a common component for retirement. People didn't get it if they didn't stay with a company long enough, companies went bankrupt etc. I think at its peak only 25% of workers had defined pensions (again they may not have received it.).
The best place to get a defined pension now is the US Gov't.

Hi Dex,
I made a decision to take an early pension (defined benefit) at age 51 after 27 years of service. If anything will be different for those younger than you and I it will be that defined benefits will not be a common component of retirement.
I will not qualify nor did I significantly contribute to SS. I needed to combine my "defined benefit" with a one time opportunity to buy and "extra annuity" to make my budget work. Budgeting, saving and thriftiness is what has allowed me to consider retirement at 51 and it will be that same attention to personal finances that will serve me well going forward.
I moved to a no income tax state, bought a condo in 2012 for $35K that has tripled in value in three years. I drive multiple 20-25 year old cars...that's plural. I furnished my place mainly by finding good deals on Craigslist and the like.
After 50 I started reminding my 50+ year old friends that:
"Today is our last best day...and tomorrow will be our next last best day."
In other words, If you have a desire to do something...do it today. There are no guarantees when it comes to tomorrows.
Thanks for the thread.

"Covenant-lite" corp junk and the impact of second-lien debt issuance. Be cautious; this asset class has a tendency to get crazy-stupid, just before it "gives it (overvaluation) up."
http://www.businessinsider.com/martin-fridson-junk-bonds-are-in-extreme-overvaluation-2015-4

@Junkster, regarding your thoughts on old age, perhaps you are correct in general but remember that stuff happens once you get past the age of 50 or so. I was doing well then all of a sudden I was fatigued. Type 2 diabetes. Diseases have a way of changing your life's course. Anyone can come down with something out of the blue so it's a lottery. I still hold a positive mind though.
I'm not disagreeing with your statement, just adding some additional thoughts. I don't wish for anyone to get sick.
Good to see you here more often lately.

Could not agree more. And keep that positive mind! Superb health or not, I realize I am just as susceptible as any other old timer to a heart attack or stoke or whatever at my age. Still, would never want to relive my youth as life is far better now than ever.

I agree with you there. My older years have been great. I would not want to go back either.
Comment: I wish we could just get the last part of a message using the quote function instead of copying the whole thing. I'll post a comment in tech side. ( I see that it does display what I want. It looked like the whole thing was going to post )

@Junkster, regarding your thoughts on old age, perhaps you are correct in general but remember that stuff happens once you get past the age of 50 or so. I was doing well then all of a sudden I was fatigued. Type 2 diabetes. Diseases have a way of changing your life's course. Anyone can come down with something out of the blue so it's a lottery. I still hold a positive mind though.
I'm not disagreeing with your statement, just adding some additional thoughts. I don't wish for anyone to get sick.
Good to see you here more often lately.

Could not agree more. And keep that positive mind! Superb health or not, I realize I am just as susceptible as any other old timer to a heart attack or stoke or whatever at my age. Still, would never want to relive my youth as life is far better now than ever.

@Junkster, regarding your thoughts on old age, perhaps you are correct in general but remember that stuff happens once you get past the age of 50 or so. I was doing well then all of a sudden I was fatigued. Type 2 diabetes. Diseases have a way of changing your life's course. Anyone can come down with something out of the blue so it's a lottery. I still hold a positive mind though.
I'm not disagreeing with your statement, just adding some additional thoughts. I don't wish for anyone to get sick.
Good to see you here more often lately.

Our only disagreement is about enjoying life when you are young because it will suck at 55+. At 68, life has never been better - both financially and health-wise. No way would I want to go back to my younger years. They sucked!

You get off my lawn also ( the 55+ was for those born after '55).

Dex, love that someone here has finally talked about their annual expenses in retirement. I live in a real low cost of living region of the country and all my *single* friends that are retired live *very* comfortably off $32,000 to 42,000 yearly. Some even travel to wherever. The key is being debt free. Our only disagreement is about enjoying life when you are young because it will suck at 55+. At 68, life has never been better - both financially and health-wise. No way would I want to go back to my younger years. They sucked!

Here is '15's budget. Not very extravagant and I really just buy what I want. I'm not constricting myself in any way. The total is what is important - it is close in the end.
Basic Living
House
1,981 RE Tax
2,556 HOA - includes outside mtc - painting etc, water, trash, lawn care.
489 Electric
928 Insurance
300 Misc Purchases
133 Mail Box
6,386 Subtotal House
Car
138 AAA
744 Routine Mtc.
1,164 Insurance
147 Registration
1,800 Gas
3,993 Subtotal Car
Personal Expenses
327 Income Taxes
1,200 Cash
360 Medical
340 Cell Phone
3,300 Food
600 Wine
133 Mail Box
396 Internet Access
300 Dining Out/Entertainment
4,230 Health Ins.
300 Clothes
- Driving Lic
-
11,485 Subtotal Personal Expenses
21,865 Total Basic Living
Incremental Living -1
- Travel Trailer Reg
492 Storage
- Good Sam
492
Incremental Living - 2
6,643 Travel/Education/Etc
Misc Hobbies
6,643
7,135 Total Discretionary
29,000 Total Basic + Incremental

First this is for the younger people. Not the first half of the baby boomers ('14-55) or those older.
Give up the idea of retiring comfortably. You don't have a defined pension plan, little in 401K, social security will be pushed out further, a VAT will be instituted to help with the debt (and Obamacare).
I own my home (no mortgage), truck and travel trailer, single (no debt). I retired in '07 at 51 and since then I averaged $27,000 in spending - that includes health ins and taxes. I'm estimating I will spend an average of $38,000 (includes $30,000 for a new truck) from '16-25.
I did a line item budget for this period. After '25 I grow expenses at 4%
Even with a small pension (13,000) and social security I estimate that only 6 years will be cash flow positive (from pension & SS I'm starting it at 63) starting in '19. I do use conservative estimates for capital growth 5%.
Now the younger people will not have a defined pension and will have to take full SS later or early at a reduced rate. I doubt the workforce will have many 65 y.o. in int or even 62.
The small pension and a good amount of savings that allowed the numbers to work.
So, abandon all hope and enjoy life while you are young. It will suck when you 55+.

My individual investments in actively managed mutual funds almost exclusively involve individual funds that focus on one market segment or one investment style. So, it makes sense that my comparisons of active share numbers between funds would be restricted to the group of funds that share the same benchmark or style.
The AQR paper linked above includes a chart (Exhibit 1, page 6) that displays the fund data used by Petajisto. It displays the average active share percentage for the funds included in each of the benchmarks. It also looks more broadly at how average active share varies between the Large Cap, All Cap, Mid Cap, and Small Cap fund categories. It shows the average active share at about 75% for the funds included in the Large Cap benchmarks, 80% for the All Cap benchmarks, 88% for the Mid Cap benchmarks, and 92% for the Small Cap benchmarks. This supports the conclusion that sorting according to active share simultaneously sorts according to market cap.
I leave it to other to determine whether the data supports the proposition that high active share increases the odds that a fund will have superior fund performance. My point is that the data does appear to indicate it is most useful to compare active shares numbers only between funds that share the same benchmark...or at least that share the same broad categories. Both Exhibit 1 of AQR's paper and the response Cremers and Petajisto made to that paper in the link @David_Snowball provided above appear to support this conslusion.