Weird. This fund was NTF early in 2016, then it was transfer fee, now back to NTF. All in less than a year.

PTIAX - Performance Trust Strat Bd Fd
NAV: 22.36 +0.01
POP: 0.00
52 Week High: 23.09
52 Week Low: 22.21
Trans. Fee Fund: No
Sales Load: None
As of 01/03/2017
Initial/Additional both regular and retirement
Minimum: $100.00/ $1.00)
http://www.schwab.com/public/schwab/investing/investment_help/investment_research/mutual_fund_research/mutual_funds.html?path=/Prospect/Research/MutualFunds/Summary.asp?symbol=PTIAX

AMJVX is only 41% bonds. How does this fit with fixed income bond funds? M* classifies it as a 30-50% allocation fund.
Bonds: low duration to me just means you will lose less than longer duration. But you are still going to lose. I think you have to be in the sweet spot for bonds, which happens to be floating rate right now and likely the near term future. My largest bond fund holding right now is PFIDX, fwiw. Daniel Ivascyn is a co-manager on this fund. You can't get any better manager than that.

SLVRX up 62,741% in one year. John, why didn't you mention this last year???

Yeah - I ran my own simulation and arrived at the same answer. Pretty much destroys everything I thought I knew about math. Still doesn't make sense to me - but never learnt much math after 8th grade. :) Thanks msf for the math lesson.
Base amount $100
Example 1:
Year 1 experiences gain of 30% = $130
Year 2 experiences gain of 10% = $143
Year 3 experiences gain of 5% = $150.15
Example 2
Year 1 experiences gain of 5% = $105.00
Year 2 experiences gain of 10% = $115.50
Year 3 experiences gain of 30% = $150.15
* Edit: In my (humbled) defense - and where I probably mis-learned something long ago - a lump sum dollar amount received early on (in say a pay scale) is more beneficial than the same amount received/contributed later on. Came up in contract negations once "many moons" ago.

This may not be hank's day for math. A 20% gain followed by a 10% gain is no different from a 10% gain followed by a 20% gain. Either way, one winds up with 132% of the original investment. That's because multiplication is commutative.
120% x 110% = 110% x 120%.
A reason why conventional wisdom says a large gain early is better is because in retirement you're bleeding off fixed dollar amounts each year. If the large gain comes early, then in the first year you're bleeding off a smaller percentage of the investment, leaving a bigger fraction to grow.
Say you've started with $100K, and are drawing down $10K annually. If the 20% year comes first, then starting at year zero you have:
0: $100K
1: $120K - $10K = $110K
2: $110K x 110% - $10K = $121K - $10K = $111K
If the 20% year comes later, then starting at year zero you have:
0: $100K
1: $110K - $10K = $100K
2: $100K x 120% - $10K = $120K - $10K = $110K
The first sequence leaves you with more money.

@hank: Yes, I am absolutely paying attention... @BenWP: I see it...... But David and others here are in love with SFGIX. M* rates it highly, within its peer group. Great performance in a stinky category? Like YAZ winning the batting title at .301, in a year when pitchers, not hitters, dominated. Wasn't that Denny McLain's 30-win year? What's a mother to do?

Hi @ron,
Not JohnC,
As of 12/30/2016 my average duration within my overall portfolio is 3.4 years with an average maturity of 5.7 years according to Morningstar Portfolio Manager. Within my income sleeve I'm finding an average duration of 2.6 years with an average maturity of 4.6 years.
Since, I am not active on the fixed side of my portfolio like I am on the equity side I plan no changes on the fixed side in my funds; and, I will let my bond and hybrid fund managers determine how best to proceed concerning bonds.
However, if I were to do anything, I would add to my bank loan fund.
Old_Skeet

I will sometimes pare back but still a buy hold type. I still hold stocks owned as far back as 1978 1995, etc. some have merged, taken over but I never sell out a portfolio even during the worst crashes. So I guess I didn't mean when the trend changes I sell out, I've held when down 25- 45% because if I like what I have owned I will still own it. It has often been scary but almost always turns out for the better.

What I was demonstrating was how Hank's quick and dirty averaged total return (as contrasted with your averaged annual) figure compared with the true (geometric mean) annual return.
BTW, the new base was $20K, as the hypothetical started from $10K and doubled each year. To get $25K, you're mixing and matching. You're computing intermediate values based on a multi-year annual rate (150%), and then turning around and using those intermediate values to compute piece-part individual annual rates.
To be fair, that will tend to give a closer approximation of each year's rate. But at the expense of many calculations (each year's approximate value), still leading to an overestimation of annualized rate in most cases. If you're going to all that effort, you might as well look up the real annual rates.
Since I picked a constant rate of growth (each year's rate of growth is 100%), the arithmetic average of those rates equals the geometric average. It's only when rates fluctuate that the former exceeds the latter.

The second year return would be 60%... $15k on the new base of $25k... So the "average" annual return would be 105% ((150%+60%)/2). Either way, "average" annual returns are worthless, IMO.

@Hank, you may need a little coffee this early in the morning. 2/15/12 to today (1/3/17) is a tad under five years, not four. What was that about calculators? :-)
Glad to see you mention that "true" (compounded) interest rate is a bit lower than the (arithmetic) average rate you computed.
For example, if a fund doubles in value, then doubles again, it's going from $10K to $40K in two years; a gain of $30K. That "averages" $15K/year, or 150% of the initial investment each year. But the compound rate is "just" 100% (we assumed an annual doubling).
Like yours, my eighth grade math teacher was also one of my best. I used to stay after school doing math puzzles with my teacher. No, not a crush, I really did like this stuff. Now my 10th grade teacher, that was one to have a crush on. But I'm still miffed at getting my lowest math grade, ever, from that teacher.

Balvenie is my go-to scotch. I prefer the Carribean Cask myself, but they're all excellent.

Hey, guys. I was just checking my MATH, is all. I'm mathematically challenged. I'm holding, not adding. And for the New Year, THIS was a real find:
http://sr1.wine-searcher.net/images/labels/04/46/the-balvenie-doublewood-12-year-old-single-malt-scotch-whisky-speyside-scotland-10560446.jpg

Good year, in 2016. I've been in it for a bit more than 4 years. Is it really up by about 15% in 4 years---or so? Double checking myself.

Lipper shows $10,000 invested in this fund at inception on 2/15/12 to be worth $12,368 today: http://funds.us.reuters.com/US/funds/overview.asp?symbol=SFGIX.O
Here's how I learned to do percentages:
1. Subtract initial value from current value = a difference of $2368 (represents gain).
2. Divide the gain ($2368) by the initial investment ($10,000) = 0.2368.
3. Shifting decimal 2 points to the right gives you the 23.68% increase in value since inception.
4. Dividing above by 5 (approximate years of existence) gives a very rough (slightly understated) return of about 4.74% per year.
You can further refine this by dividing that 23.68% increase in value by 58.5 (the approximate number of months the fund has existed) resulting in a monthly gain of aporoximately .405% and than multiplying that by 12 (number of months in a year) to arrive at an annual average gain over that period of: +4.86%. Geez - Considering the amount of risk assumed in investing in emerging markets, I'm not impressed.
Regarding Balvenie 12-year (from your later post), a check of the store shelf finds that selling for about $50 locally. The best I can afford, occassionally, is Tomatin 12 year, selling locally for $33. Doing the math I find your single malt priced about 51.5% higher than mine. I'm sure you find it better tasting.
I learned my best math from Miss Milton in Eigth Grade back in the late 50s. (She was actually the school librarian.) My high school math teacher, by contrast, was a dork. And, can't remember taking any math classes in college. I'll say, if you needed to do any math back in my younger days before the electronic calculator was mass marketed to the public it was quite an experience - and one you younger folks probably can't remember. :)
** There are several different ways growth can be expressed in percentages. For example, the figure I got is not the compounded rate of growth which I believe would be lower. But I still think my method useful for providing a rough comparison of performance with other funds during the same period. As for SFGIX: This fund is outside my normal risk perameters in retirement. While I might speculate in small amounts on this type of fund for short periods, it wouldn't do much for peace of mind or ability to sleep at night.

Try Ainsley Brae Sherry/Satuernes, if you want to save money and invest in SFGIX instead. Not quite 12 year old, but still a single malt and freaking good and dirt cheap.

:)

Some other taxable fixed-income mutual fund categories, not well represented in the AGG, with significantly different results per M* category return pages: multisector +7.6%, bank loan +9.2%, high yield +13.3%, emerging mkts +10.0%.
Short duration high yield funds (not a M* category): RSIVX +9.9%, OSTIX +11.0%.

Basically you're looking at bond funds whose portfolios land them in the lower left corner of the style box (short term, junk)?
That covers a pretty broad swath of funds. Bank loan funds, obviously. More generally, any floating junk (since the float keeps effective duration small). Also some other funds of interest: DBLTX +2.17%, JUCTX +3.92%, ZEOIX + 4.32%, DFLEX +5.48%, TGBAX +6.61%, BXIAX +14.59%.

Try Ainsley Brae Sherry/Satuernes, if you want to save money and invest in SFGIX instead. Not quite 12 year old, but still a single malt and freaking good and dirt cheap.

Take a look at MSCFX from Mairs and Power. It hasn't failed me since my entry in the Spring of 2012. I scored with it in 2016, again. And as Dizzy Dean would say: I "slud" that profit into MAPOX on 01/01/2017. I did not want to look back and figure that I SHOULDA slud, and not do it, and be OUT by a heifer's step. I don't always remember to do it, but: "always take profits early." (Zurich Axioms.) This profit-transfer to the bigger balanced fund (MAPOX) is an annual tradition--- so far. :)
Slide right in to the 1hour, 20 minute and 35 second spot in this great old film, and you'll hear what I mean. I'm very confidential that you will. (Just less than a month and a half until Spring Training!) "THE PRIDE OF ST. LOUIS:"

Hey, guys. I was just checking my MATH, is all. I'm mathematically challenged. I'm holding, not adding. And for the New Year, THIS was a real find:
http://sr1.wine-searcher.net/images/labels/04/46/the-balvenie-doublewood-12-year-old-single-malt-scotch-whisky-speyside-scotland-10560446.jpg