FYI:
Regards,
Ted
http://www.forbes.com/sites/fidelity/2014/04/25/5-ways-to-protect-your-retirement-income/print/

Lots of good stuff in this thread. My take is that it very much depends on the company and your own relationship with it. How long have you been a client? How well do you understand their engrained culture (including hiring, promotion and oversight of managers)? How appropriate are their fund offerings to your potential needs? How broadly diversified among various holdings are their funds? How well do their expenses compare to other families? How have they performed in down markets? Any "red flags" in the news media? And how do they treat you when you call with an issue? If they've earned your confidence over 15, 20 or 25 years, than a sizable commitment is not only justified, but probably wise.

Hi Scout.
Strictly performance numbers...looks like dropped to 4 in December:

Still gets M*'s Gold Metal =).
Looks strong past three years. M* five year risk adjusted returns, which emphasize absolute returns, is a drag on composite rank.

Here's look at MFO risk/return profile on VDIGX:

Interesting here is difference between risk assessments given by the two systems, M* and MFO..."low" for the former, and "4, or aggressive" for the latter.
That's because M* compares only within category, while MFO compares risk against overall market. An important distinction, which I am sensitive to. I worry that novice investors see that "low" and don't realize such good funds, like VDIGX, can drawdown heavy, like the -41.5% it did in 2003.
But if that is your expectation and you've allocated accordingly, steady as she goes...one of best funds in class.

Hadn't VDIGX been a 5 star gold fund for a while? Am I imagining things? It's now a 4 star fund? Why?
Sorry if this has been covered before.

"Family risk" depends on the family.
Structurally, each fund in a family is independent with a custodian. So, neither the family ownership nor a fund manager can harm across the family directly. I consider a single fund risk to limit my investment in any one fund to say 10% of the portfolio or $100k whichever is less. The custodian could fail but typically the fund is watching this carefully.
The biggest "family risk" is sudden outflow of money from investors for reasons related to the family - loss of reputation, fraud, scandal, fear, etc. Families like Fidelity, Vanguard, TRP, etc are at much lower risk than small fund families or any that are dependent on an iconic figure. PIMCO, Strong funds in the past, etc. If I were to invest in funds like the latter, I use the same limits as a single fund limit for the entire family. I have no limits for the former type of families.

cman -- much obliged; great points.
I misappropriated a term, it seems.
I guess what I had in mind was more risk attributable to a firm's overall view of the market, or use of a common core research / analytic staff. Others have alluded to this above.
So, let's say that the portfolios of DODBX, DODWX, DODFX, DODGX, DODIX all have a common bias because they draw upon the same research staff (and have overlapping investment committees, etc.). Then, having 35% of one's portfolio spread across DODIX, DODFX, DODGX might subject 35% of the portfolio to the same degree of misread on the economy and individual companies, and so forth.

FYI;
Regards,
Ted
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/print/2014-04-25/short-investors-exit-health-care-etfs-amid-big-drug-deals.html

"Family risk" depends on the family.
Structurally, each fund in a family is independent with a custodian. So, neither the family ownership nor a fund manager can harm across the family directly...
The biggest "family risk" is sudden outflow of money from investors for reasons related to the family - loss of reputation, fraud, scandal, fear, etc. ...

@cman I'm not sure that each fund in a family should generally be considered separately. In the case of Oakmark funds, (from what I understand,) the family analysts vet a certain set of stocks as investable and then allows fund managers to choose from that list in order to determine which of those stocks they will invest in and to what degree. Here it seems that there is a strong possibility for family risk across or between funds. Similarly where there are managers heading a set of funds, say ARTIX, ARTJX, ARTHX, and ARTWX, with Yockey and crew, I would imagine a similar set of correlated risks.
Myself, I limit it to 25%. (but have a small denominator).

Considering selling PRBLX and just buying individual dividend stocks a la Josh Peters. DE, MAT, F, COH, CSX, CVX, AMNF, BBL, APAM, TROW, INTC, CA, CSCO, ESV, TUP, HCP on research list.
There is still time to talk me out of this foolishness, so fire away...

I can't speak to the qualities of PRBLX, but I certainly wouldn't try to talk you out of a sleeve of good divi payers. I started accumulating these types of equities, also known as "the things my dad would buy" about 5 years ago. They now comprise about 20% of my total portfolio. Frankly, I wish I would have started this 20 years ago. My plan is to reinvest the divi's until I turn on the Social Security spigot, and then let the divi's flow.
Current holdings include AEP, HCN, RPM, JNJ, NGG, PAYX, O, KMI and WCP.

My largest fund family percentage is about 20% of my portfolio and it is with American Funds. There are a good number that follow in about the 10% range. Some of these are Lord Abbett, Franklin, Thornburg and Loomis Sayles. Then, I also have a good number that follow in the 5% range. And, a good number that follow with single holdings only.
I'd say I would not want any more than 25% with any one family.
Old_Skeet

I think the ~ 30% I had in Pimco bond funds for a few years was the most ever. Most now is 15%; there's the 20% in a 401k, but that's all indexes.

If standard deviation is normal (standard) then it makes sense that stocks would have a normal vibration. The market isn't the only thing that effects these vibrations. The currency that the stock are exchanged for also play a part. Stocks that were once traded in gold and silver back dollars are now traded with fiat currencies backed by the faith of central bank credit.
I believe credit and currency valuation has played a bigger and bigger role in these vibrations and apparent upward valuation. Ray Dalio does a nice job of explaining the short term and the long term debt cycle and how stocks are a transactional component of these exchanges.
economicprinciples.org/
Finally, I think a monetary policy that operate outside of constraints can manipulate currency value and over time make stocks appear higher in value, but when these same stocks are priced in a currency that has constraints (gold or silver in the past) stock's (the dow) true value is revealed.

Both TMSFX and HHCCX were going nowhere from January 2011 to mid 2013, so the beautiful figure above does not fully represent them. TMSFX had a manager change a month ago.

The point of the chart is to follow a fund (PRHSX) against an indicator (in this case TMSFX). Short charts can be very telling. They can tell me when to stay fully invested, when to employ hedging, when to scale out, when to take profits, and when to scale in.
This short YTD chart shows how I recently went from being fully invested mode (green comment box and arrows) to when I began scaling back (in this case it could also be called take profits) (top red comment box). The most recent action (lower red comment box) make me believe there is still some downward movement ahead for Health Care. An investor doesn't have to own TSMFX to utilize it as a helpful indicator.
A very short YTD chart with my my three investment decisions (comments):

If you are a short term investor, L/S health funds may add value.
As boomers become geezers, it's more important to select your manager, or just buy the health fund index. These ERs don't make sense over 5 or 10 years.
If you think health care funds are currently overpriced, buy RSIVX and wait for your entry point. Health care funds have to gain over the next decade, if any class of funds will. I really think the growth will extend beyond the decade.
The re-entry for biotech, if you are out, is more problematic, but that is where the most growth will occur, since the individual companies have a pricing advantage for their successful products. Unless there is a major change in health policy, these are funds to buy and revisit yearly. Either average in or buy on a major market dip.

As the board and radio/tv news, is generally equity-centric reporting, I'll lend a helping hand to the bond side of life with the below link.
Regards,
Catch
Bonds, weekending 4-25-14

@Scott, so what are your favorite ways to play infrastructure? Is it through funds or stocks, ie BIP? I agre on the water front have been considering CFWAX, which is load waived through Fidelity.

My position in BIP is a long-term one, although noticeably smaller than it was a year or two ago. I don't own it, but a company somewhat similar to BIP is Cheung Kong Infrastructure (CKISF.PK), which is a subsidiary of the giant Cheung Kong conglomerate.
I own INF, which I just continue to reinvest the monthly divs on.
I own a wide variety of energy infrastructure, although a favorite is Gibson Energy (GBNXF.PK), which is an enjoyable mix of infrastructure (including pipeline, rail loading and storage) as well as various oil services. They are the largest independent for-hire truck hauler of crude in the US and have an environmental business as well.
I think agricultural infrastructure is highly appealing, but options are limited. I own Graincorp in Australia, as well as a speculative position in Ceres Global Ag (CERGF.PK). The latter is really speculative, but owns both ag infrastructure, as well as rail and is building a commodity logistics center on the Canada/US border that will hook up to the BNSF rail line. Graincorp is somewhat volatile as well, but has a terrific dividend policy.
The Andersons (ANDE) is a US stock that is similar to Graincorp in a number of ways, but the volatility on that stock is enough to make one need dramamine. The Andersons has great assets, but the stock is too exceedingly volatile for me. There's also Archer Daniels Midland, although I think that's run up a bit much.
The railroads are a favorite and really something that I own and don't think about - very much a long-term investment. The railroads continue to do very well, whether it be frac sand or oil or the massive grain harvest in Canada.
In terms of frac sand, "U.S. frac-sand shipments jumped more than fourfold to 20.9 million tons in 2012 from 4.9 million tons in 2007, according to Freedonia Group, a Cleveland-based market researcher. Demand is expected to more than double to 52.1 million tons by 2022, Freedonia said" (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-04-17/fracking-sand-spurs-grain-like-silos-for-rail-transport.html)
The pipelines are also worth exploring, but I do think that there's names both in the US and north of the border. It's clear that Keystone is probably not going to be approved this year (if ever), so other Canadian/US pipelines will continue to be popular, such as Kinder's Transmountain pipeline, which is pushing to expand. Enbridge and Plains All American (PAA) are other companies with exposure and there are a number of others.
I think most people can (and are probably best) playing infrastructure via a position in a fund such as TOLLX or GLFOX. I focus on individual names primarily because of my interests and a desire to focus on specific segments.

...IVA Worldwide at >30% cash, First Eagle Global similar. FPACX is about 45% cash. Tweedy Browne's funds lower than these, oddly enough.
Yeesh.

FYI:
Regards,
Ted
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/stocks-close-broadly-lower-friday-down-for-week-2014-04-25/print?guid=D9862DE4-49AA-4E7D-BF5F-E108299A4B73
Major Stock Indexes: http://markets.wsj.com/us

TMSFX's ER is 1.78 and has a short (inception 2011) long / short history. $53 M AUM.
"The investment seeks capital appreciation. The fund invests primarily (at least 80% of its net assets) in stocks of companies engaged in the health care sector using a long/short growth strategy in seeking to capture alpha, reduce volatility, and preserve capital in declining markets. "
Charted against PRHSX provides an interesting performance comparison over the last 16 months.
How would an investor use TMSFX to hedge PRHSX (or any other Health Care fund) from volatility or downside risk?

Thanks for the heads-up, bee. GLFOX is really interesting. I didn't realize the range of approaches infrastructure funds use. There was an article from WSJ in Feb (which quotes David, by the way) with a survey of i-funds. (It came up in full for me on a google search, so try that if the link doesn't penetrate the pay wall.)
The article mentions the TRP i-fund that's being merged away. With a mix of utilities and industrials like GLFOX and others, it was pretty much a failure, apparently in the execution rather than the strategy.

@Scout: Does it make sense based on yield and expense? I do live in California.
Fund Notes:
Expense Ratio: 0.57%
7-Day Yield:
As of 04/24/2014 0.01%
The fund invests principally in high-quality, California tax-exempt securities with maturities of 397 days or less.
----------------------
It makes no sense based on yield. The yield is 0.01%. Consider that zero yield. You get nothing. Doesn't matter that it's tax exempt: you're not being paid anything
If you want "a place to park money for liquidity", you also can't go with a bond fund, because even short term bonds do not give you the stated purpose.
The best bet for your stated purpose is online FDIC Insured banks that pay a decent yield. Ally Bank is one of the best choices for this. It currently pays 0.87% yield on a savings deposit account, no minimums, no fees. When you subtract out the California taxes you will pay on that 0.87% yield, you will be WAY ahead of anything else that I am aware of that gives you a "place to park money for liquidity". There are several other online FDIC insured banks that have yields from 0.85% to 0.95% at this time. You can find a list of them on bankrate.com and several other websites. Some others are American Express Bank, Barclay's, GE Capital, CIT, etc.
Why not just choose the highest yielding one, which I believe is about 0.95% at this time? That's an option, but some banks offer higher rates temporarily to attract money, then later lower the rates. Ally Bank has a long history of offering high rates and they don't do this as a short term teaser.
You can set up a "link" between your brokerage account and an online bank and transfer money back and forth without fees, very quickly and simply.
If anyone has found a better option for the stated purpose, I would like to know about it.