Go to Yahoofinance, Enter your fund in the search box, select performance tab, scroll down to the annual total return history.
Here's link USSTX and a snapshot
finance.yahoo.com/q/pm?s=USSTX+Performance
Here's a snap shot of USSTX:

It's an interesting concept, but I'll be a little critical of it as a catch all.
My score ranked, seemingly, around the 20th %ile. I suspect it would have been lower if it weren't for the reason Charles mentioned. But asking questions regarding *if* you have the ability to stick with a task doesn't address *why* you may or may not do so.
I have several learning issues which limit my ability to stick with any one task for extended periods of time. While I score quite high on tests designed to measure ability to manipulate information, testing regarding my immediate processing skills and short term memory rank in the 12th and 4th %iles respectively. In clinical terms I have ADD inattentive type and some form of dyslexia. Physically, I have been told I lack gray matter in my prefrontal cortex. The upshot is that I am highly distractable, forget things easily, and can wander through my day in a daze going from one incomplete task to another repeatedly getting excited for a new task while literally forgetting all about what I was doing not :30 prior. I don't have "grit" as measured by this test.
Yet my non-gritty brain structure also has the ability to conceptualize theory and future results very well. Certain things just make sense. So I am able to set long term investment goals and stick to them because I can conceptualize the framework of the time value of money. While I get slightly upset when things go down, I know that this is a lifelong plan, and that today's results are not my portfolio 35 years from now. If my stocks and funds have bad days, I use my distractability and go find something else to do. It's pretty easy for me. Having most holdings in tax sheltered accounts where I might incur penalties for withdrawl also helps.
My fiancee, I suspect, would score quite highly on the grit test. She's as practical as they come (other than marrying me), but she is not theoretical and does not have an ability to project money's future time value. At least part of that is an over-conservative and anxious attitude towards money learned from her mother (while my grandparents had me charting stocks at 6 or 7, teaching me about ownership in corporations. Like much in life, upbringing is so determinative). She has no intuitive grasp of liquidity, for instance, so wants money in a bank where she can get it immediately, just in case, and doesn't conceive the problems that causes with inflation. She would be entirely incapable of watching a market crash if she knew what she were invested in. So she has agreed to let me handle all retirement and investment accounts. She sends money with each check, I invest it and give her a report every year at Christmas.
Different strokes for different folks and all, but you have to be adaptive to life's complexities. I'm not sure this test completely measures that ability.

USFIX also has exposure to equities (about 20%) which will hurt this fund in market downturns.
Maybe ST muni funds similar to NEARX or USSTX. Hogan's fund, VWLUX, I believe is also a long term muni fund, Vanguard offers VWSTX. NEARX has had only one negative year over the last 23 years. Its ER is .45%. For USSTX...no negative returns over the last 30 years with an ER of .55%. VWSTX...36 years without a loss with an ER of .20%.
Here's a 3 year chart of the three:

Plugging "all ass" =) into Multi-Search, I find:

And for "real ass" I get:

Although I know PAAIX has fallen from grace on the board, I think it offers a lot of what you are asking for, except maybe pure precious metals. Here was review last time I looked: Three Messages from Rob Arnott.

And, here is David's profile of T. Rowe Price Real Assets (PRAFX). It's had a rough time in this bull market, as you might expect.

Related article from Bloomberg:
"Isolated lurches in the Nasdaq 100 Index have become more common in the last two months as investors reassessed equities that have posted annual gains of 25 percent since 2009. The gauge twice tumbled more than 1.8 percent over two-day stretches last week and lost 2.1 percent on March 13 and 14."
U.S. Stocks Fall as Technology Selloff Drops Nasdaq Index
My Take:
I personally wonder where margin debt has been positioned lately. Hot stock sectors often expand and contract as margin (borrowed money) positions increase and shrink. Not sure where we stand now with margin debt in the market, but I wouldn't be surprised if some of that money is coming off the table on days like this.
I believe we have reached a point where some of this QE (borrowed money) has spilled over into margin accounts (borrowed money) to buy stocks. Reminds me of the saying, "I know a guy, who knows a guy, who thinks he knows a guy."
My concern is that when the government provides reserves (money) to the banks and also pays interest to the banks to hold this liquidity it's no surprise to me that banks figure out ways to put this borrowed money to work. I worry that these same banks have somehow promoted margin account use and other risky ventures. I believe QE has not only prop up the economy, but where banks are backstopped (by reserves and free interest from the government) this "better than risk free money" ends up too easily in margin debt and other bubble inducing activities.
Crazy talk? Maybe.

@MJG: "With an apology to our own John Wayne, I suspect it is essential for each and everyone of us to have “True Grit”. You know me, I couldn't resist.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.google.com/search?q=john+wayne+true+grit&biw=1600&bih=731&tbm=isch&imgil=ov9NCsr9LGYIbM%3A%3Bhttps%3A%2F%2Fencrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com%2Fimages%3Fq%3Dtbn%3AANd9GcSEIBuajDZjFUXHOLNqWDIOKZpHICVk2zOdQO7ucMdFtyqRTHFA%3B460%3B276%3BZjdpiuyvxiIkMM%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.theguardian.com%252Ffilm%252F2009%252Fmar%252F23%252Fcoen-brothers-plan-true-grit-remake&source=iu&usg=__P4poE7ZAzejU7fUJ60hEGwIUyeo=&sa=X&ei=q_s_U_qzAuGlsASi_IGgAw&sqi=2&ved=0CC8Q9QEwAQ#facrc=_&imgdii=_&imgrc=ov9NCsr9LGYIbM%3A;ZjdpiuyvxiIkMM;http%3A%2F%2Fstatic.guim.co.uk%2Fsys-images%2FFilm%2FPix%2Fpictures%2F2009%2F3%2F23%2F1237809061255%2FJohn-Wayne-in-True-Grit-1-001.jpg;http%3A%2F%2Fwww.theguardian.com%2Ffilm%2F2009%2Fmar%2F23%2Fcoen-brothers-plan-true-grit-remake;460;276

FYI Copy & Paste 4/5/14: Ben Levisohn Barron's
Regards,
Ted
Change is inevitable, but for mutual fund investors, it can be something more worrisome -- a red flag.
For evidence, look no further than Pacific Investment Management Co., or Pimco, which recently found itself in the news for all the wrong reasons when CEO Mohamed El-Erian quit, and the bond giant's dirty laundry spilled out onto the front pages. Investors have withdrawn $5.1 billion in 2014 from the Pimco Total Return fund (ticker: PTTAX) through the end of February.
While the Pimco soap opera gets the ink—it involves big names, big egos, and the kind of feuding that is typically reserved for an episode of Dallas -- change is a constant in the world of mutual funds. During the past 13 months, stock funds have seen nearly 1,000 managers come and more than 1,200 go, 17 have reopened to new investors, and countless others have changed their styles in ways big and small. The difficult part is determining whether these changes are signs of trouble -- or just noise to be tuned out. "Small changes over time lead to big shifts," says Scott Clemons, chief investment strategist at Brown Brothers Harriman "You have to ask what problem they're seeking to resolve with the change."
.
CONTEXT ALSO MATTERS. It's unlikely that Pimco's internal turmoil would have spilled out if 2013 had been a better year for the bond market. Recent changes have come after the Standard & Poor's 500 has gained 210% since bottoming on March 9, 2009, which could be problematic if those changes have intentionally or inadvertently shifted the fund in a way that sets it up for failure if stocks start to fall. "The question becomes what kind of stresses will come to the fore if we get into a different kind of environment," says Tom Brakke, principal at TJB Research.
Consider something as simple as the decision to reopen a fund to new investors. The timing could be fortuitous if it follows a fallow period in an asset or style, and the new money is put to work scooping up bargains. In that context, the reopening of the $7.4 billion Virtus Emerging Markets Opportunities fund (HIEMX) makes sense, coming after a long period of emerging-market underperformance. Following a big rally, however, a reopening should at least raise questions, says Brown Brothers Harriman's Clemons. "Has the opportunity changed, or is the fund just hungry for new assets?" he asks.
Consider the BlackRock US Opportunities fund (BMEAX), which reopened to investors in January. Now, there's no question the fund had been out of favor with investors, who pulled $2.9 billion from it from 2011 through 2013 as it trailed the S&P MidCap 400 by nearly four percentage points in that period; the fund now has $1.6 billion in assets. BlackRock also brought in two new co-managers last year to shake things up. The reopening's timing, however, leaves much to be desired: Last year, the S&P MidCap 400 rose 34%; the BlackRock fund returned 39%. Finding reasonably priced stocks, let alone bargains, will be that much harder.
LIKEWISE, A CHANGE IN MANAGEMENT doesn't necessarily portend trouble -- if done for the right reason. For example, on March 3, the Vanguard Windsor II fund (VWNFX) announced that one of the fund's managers, Armstrong Shaw Associates, was being booted and its 4% stake in the $47.6 billion fund was being given to Hotchkis & Wiley, an existing manager in the portfolio, to handle. On the one hand, that decision might look like a boon to investors if it helps Windsor II beat the S&P 500: The fund has come within 0.5 percentage point of the S&P 500's return each year based on one-, three-, five-, and 10-year returns. Critics contend too many managers in a multimanager fund can make the overall portfolio look like the benchmark even if everyone runs a different strategy. But the change will also magnify the fund's exposure to Hotchkis & Wiley's bets. If they fall out of favor, performance could be hurt.
"The changes have nothing to do with the great market last year," says Dan Newhall, a principal in Vanguard's portfolio-review department. "Our goal is to have the best managers positioned in the fund to deliver the kind of performance investors expect over the longer terms."
The solution: Really know your funds. Understanding why you're invested in a fund and what you expect from it can make a reopening, the addition of new managers, and even a shift in style less frightening.
Take the $17 billion FPA Crescent fund (FPACX), which has gone through many changes during the past six years. It reopened to new investors in 2008 -- near the peak of the last bull market -- and along the way became less focused on small and midsize stocks. Then last year, the fund added two co-managers. The changes, however, have meant little as FPA Crescent has managed to stay in the top quartile of moderate allocation funds during the past five years. The reason: The fund stuck to its knitting even as it changed. The new co-managers, for instance, were longtime fund analysts who had helped make the fund such a success, and Crescent maintained its contrarian bent even as it shifted away from smaller stocks. "The reason the changes haven't been major is they have been more evolutionary in nature than revolutionary," says Morningstar analyst Dan Culloton. "It's a consistent process."
.
.

Hi Charles,
My Master Portfolio has a Forward P/E Ratio of 15.6 and at Trailing P/E Ratio of 16.3 with a value tilt along with being overweight to the defensives. It will usually better the Lipper Balanced Index in a downdraft and trail it in an updraft. It does not hold a lot of high flying, high P/E mutal funds although it does have a representation in them. They are mostly found in the specality sleeve which is a small part of the overall portfolio. They have also have been found in other sleeves, at times, as well.
I am more of a steady Eddie, meat and potato, type investor with a portfolio that has a yield of better than a good number of fixed income bond funds but with the performance of a conserative growth fund. Right now it seems to be in good (not great) sync with the markets.
Old_Skeet

0.2-0.3% loss?
With SP500 off 1.3? Tech off 2.6%?
That would indeed take a lot of diversification, as aggregate bonds were only up 0.2-0.3%.
I did see that GLD (for a change) and some EMs were up also.
My only positives for day were WBMIX, SIGIX, HCP, and APA.

FYI: Copy & Paste 4/4/14: Joe Light WSJ
Regards,
Ted
There is expensive and then there is exorbitant.
Small-company stocks increasingly look like the latter.
Consider: The S&P 500 index of large-company stocks is up 176% since its low on March 9, 2009. Over the same period, the Russell 2000 index of small-company stocks is up 236%.
On some measures of value, small-cap stocks—which are often used to juice a portfolio—look pricier than they ever have been. With that in mind, investors should consider cutting their holdings of small companies and favor the least speculative parts of the market, some experts say.
"No matter how you slice the data, small caps look expensive," says Steven DeSanctis, a small-cap strategist at Bank of America Merrill Lynch
Investors expect bigger returns on small-company stocks, typically those with a market capitalization of $5 billion or less, than their larger peers. That is because small companies have uncertain earnings and revenues, making them riskier.
But historically that small-cap premium has been relatively tiny, and some researchers argue that it doesn't even exist, says William Bernstein, co-principal of investment-advisory firm Efficient Frontier Advisors in Eastford, Conn.
Mr. Bernstein says that he doesn't think small-company stocks are pricey enough to warrant making big shifts in a portfolio. But by some measures, small U.S. companies look increasingly rich.
There are lots of ways to determine if a stock is overpriced.
For small caps, Doug Ramsey, chief investment officer at investment-research and asset-management firm Leuthold Group, likes to look at the stock price divided by an average of five years of earnings, which he says historically has been the most useful in picking times to buy and sell.
By that method, the median small-company stock has a price/earnings ratio of 28.4, well above the historic median of 21.4, according to Leuthold. That also is a much steeper price tag than that of large-company stocks, which have a P/E of 21, nearly the same as they have had historically. The 34% premium for buying small caps over large caps also is well above the mere 2% median premium they have had since 1986.
Some investors prefer measuring the stock price against sales, since small companies may not have profits. By that method, such stocks look even more overpriced. At the end of February, the latest data available, the Russell 2000's price/sales ratio was about 1.6, the highest it ever has been, according to Mr. DeSanctis, whose data go back to 1979.
For long-term investors who aren't convinced small caps are overpriced and prefer not to sell outright, an option might be to rebalance their portfolios ahead of their normal timetable.
Small-cap stock prices would have to rise another 7%, assuming five-year earnings stayed constant, to reach the height of expensiveness they attained during the dot-com bubble.
But more-active investors, such as Mr. DeSanctis and Mr. Ramsey, advise that investors start scaling back their small-cap exposure sharply now.
One good reason: Toward the tail end of bull markets, large-cap stocks tend to lead small caps, Mr. Ramsey says. At more than 60 months, the current bull market already is longer than the one that ended with the financial crisis in October 2007.
Small-cap stocks make up between 7% and 10% of a typical U.S. total-stock-market mutual fund or exchange-traded fund. For their own portfolio, investors would be well-served to cut that in half to 3.5% to 5%, Mr. Ramsey says.
The balance can go to parts of the market that look cheaper. Right now, that means going abroad, Mr. Ramsey notes. The cheapest options include the Vanguard Total International Stock VXUS -0.23% ETF, which charges annual fees of 0.14%, or $14 per $10,000 invested, while the iShares Core MSCI Total International Stock IXUS -0.24% ETF, which costs 0.16%.
To the extent that an investor keeps a small slug of small caps, he should tilt toward high-quality companies with earnings and away from companies not making a profit, Mr. DeSanctis says. That means being wary of biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies, many of which aren't profitable.
And in choosing between overpriced stocks or overpriced bonds, don't forget cash. It won't give a positive return, but could come in handy once a drop in stocks inevitably arrives.
Russell 2000 Index: http://www.russell.com/indexes/americas/indexes/fact-sheet.page?ic=US2000
S&P 600 Index: http://www.spindices.com/indices/equity/sp-600
.

Hi Cman,
Thanks for your comments and your suggestion.
GBLAX is carrying to great of a foreign allocation and seems to be split about equally between domestic and foreign in the stock area. According to M* Xray, GBLAX is about 10% cash, 30% US stock, 29% foreign stock, 27% bonds, and 4% other. Whereas, I am about 20% cash, 30% US stock, 15% foreign stock, 25% bonds and 10% other.
I match up better against Franklin Balanced fund (FBLAX) although I am a little heavier in foreign stock than they are but the rest of the assets match up better with respect to its domestic stock, bonds, cash and other assets weightings although there are some differences.
As you probally know being classified a domestic balanced fund does not preclude it from holding foreign stocks as the Lipper Balanced Index is made up of the 30 largest funds in the Lipper Balanced objective and does not include multiple share classes of the funds within the index. Since, I am about two thirds domestic and one third foreign in my stock allocation I think the Lipper Balanced Index is the better choice over a global balanced type fund. A conserative or a moderate allocation fund might even be a better benchmark. LABFX seems to be much closer over GBLAX to my allocation however I am holding more cash and would therefore expect to trail it in an up trending market. It's allocation is about 3% cash, 38% US stock, 14% foreign stock, 32% bonds, and 12% other.
I still feel overall the Lipper Balanced Index is a good reference point. Many balanced funds have a walking allocation so to speak and as of my last look ABALX was holding about 72% in stocks (65% in US stocks and 7% in foreign stocks). At times, the Index has bettered me and at times I have bettered it. There are other benchmarks found in a report compiled by the WSJ that is titled Mutual Fund Yardsticks. Within this report there are two fund objectives that might fit, a Stock & Bond category and a Balanced Fund category . However, the Lipper Balaned Index seems to be the tougher Index to beat over these.
I have linked the Yardstick report for those that might wish to have a look.
http://online.wsj.com/mdc/public/page/2_3023-fundyrdstick.html?mod=topnav_2_3020
Cman, if there is another balanced fund or an index that you know of that is easily referenced and you feel might be a better benchmark please let me know. For now, I plan to stick with the Lipper Balanced Index as my benchmark; however, I am open to thoughts and suggestions.
In the past, before you came, I enjoyed reading when others would chime in and report how they were fairing and what their benchmarks were. What they were seeing and how they were positioning. In more recent times this seems to have wained. Catch 22 was good about reporting his returns but often caught flack form doing so. There was one alpha, I felt, that picked on Catch a good bit and at great lengths. I felt in a subtle way I could get a dig in towards this alpha with my performance comment. I beleive he may have barked at you when you first came. My comment was not ment to be a chest thump. Although, seems you, perhaps others, might have taken it that way.
We all have to establish ourselves and at times hold our ground. It saddens me greatly that Catch 22 does not post like he use to. Others, just moved on. And, yes ... I am still a little miffed as to how some have been treated. Still this subject alpha does a great deal to make this one of the better investment boards on the net. And, I appreciate that too plus the others that make this happen.
My late father's posture was to be sturdy like a tree and stand your ground but also be flexible enough to give to the wind.
Thanks again for your thoughts and comments. They were appreciated.
Old_Skeet

I have a lot of respect for several of the First Eagle mutual funds, especially First Eagle Global (SGENX), which has a long history of good risk adjusted returns in all markets.
This one has super high expense ratios: The Class A shares have an expense ratio of 2.69% prior to expense waivers. These expense waivers on inception of funds concern me. The issue is, when will they drop the expense waivers? So I have to count on the full 2.69% going into effect at some point.
Then there is the troubling Load........fine if that's how you pay your investment adviser. Not fine if you are a DIY investor like I believe most MFO participants are. So add 5% to the costs, or an extra 1% a year for the first 5 years, however you want to account for that 5%.
Then this type of fund (goes long and short, etc) will have increased brokerage expenses on top of it.
So a fund family with a lot going for it, but a mutual fund with lots of expenses.

I've been hearing about a rising rate environment for 5 years now. There are no easy calls. My VWLUX is up nicely this year.

@cman: "For example USFIX gets its performance in its short life from overweighting short term junk bonds while having a small asset base. It has a short duration because of that allocation"
Not sure how you arrived at this. Morningstar.com says that 54.52% of their bonds have maturities over 30 years, and 11% in the 20-30 year maturities. And 16% of the bonds in the 7-10 year maturities. I only see 4.42% of their bonds as somewhat short term. My guess is that they have arrived at their 1.66 year duration by using derivatives rather than short term bonds.
I certainly agree that the opportunity cost can be large and is also a type of loss. But due to the very specific purpose for my fixed income allocation, probably the opportunity cost should not be weighted much.
One option I am seriously considering is FPNIX, because it has not had a negative calendar year return in 30 years, and they have as their stated purpose to not lose principal, and to be risk averse. But I would like at least 4 fixed income investments, with FPNIX probably being one of them. And since the purpose of my fixed income is to not lose principal, this is a top consideration. If I could find another 3-4 funds that do a great job with risk management and not losing principal, I would be set.
A great investment would be similar to the "stable value funds" that many 401ks have, which wrap fixed income investments in Guaranteed Investment Contracts, and manage to keep the NAV at $1.00 while still providing acceptable return. I'm not aware of these outside of retirement plans.
I also think that most fixed income managers hew pretty closely to a benchmark, and this limits them in managing risk and loss of principal. Bill Gross tends to use the Barclay's Aggregate Bond Index as the benchmark for his Total Return Fund, which limits his ability to keep the portfolio out of harm's way. And his unconstrained bond fund is very expensive, 1.30% plus a load for the A shares.

Since my purpose is to use fixed income as a safety net, it should err on the side of caution, and therefore be invested 'as if' rates will normalize/rise. The purpose is to protect the portfolio for when equities do poorly. So I can't risk having the fixed income portion go down when equities go down. This calls for short duration fixed income investments, as I see it.

Let me address the last sentence first. Last year (2013), the 10 year treasury rate went up from 1.78% (12/31/12) to 3.04% (12/31/13). Over that year, about 15% of intermediate bond funds did not lose money. Among these were several of the more popular funds on MFO, including D&C (DODIX), DoubleLine TR (DBLTX, though DLTNX was slightly negative), MetWest Int Term (MWIIX, MWIMX), MetWest TR (MWTIX, MWTRX), TCW TR (TGLMX, TGMNX), USAA Int Term (USIBX). (If one wants Dan Fuss/Loomis Sayles managing a basic intermediate term fund w/o a load, there's Managers Bond MGFIX, which was also positive for 2013.)
The point is that unless you expect yields to spike (exceed 4% this year or 5% next year), decently run funds will likely not lose much and can even make you a little money. Heck, the average intermediate bond fund last year lost "only" 1.4%, and with yields a percent higher this year (so the interest should boost the total return by about a percent over last year), even the typical intermediate bond fund will pretty much break even.
Sources: US Treasury (treasury yields), and Morningstar.
As to the first part of the quoted post, I've started questioning more and more seriously the value of the bond portion of a portfolio. If the purpose is a safety net - to ride out a market downturn until stocks recover - then one might set aside something like five years worth of money, and expect to draw that down to zero. That might not be enough for the market to fully recover, but I expect it should come close enough. The risk of losing a percent or so each year in a bond fund shouldn't affect the portfolio allocation significantly (thus the observations above regarding intermediate term funds). To the extent that this risk is deemed too large, a portion of that allocation can be kept in cash rather than bonds.
If the purpose is to sleep at night (i.e. it's not a question of living off investments), then I respectfully submit that restful sleep is overrated. If one doesn't need to use the investment money, that's just another way of saying that one can afford to trade short term volatility for longer term gains.

Hi Guys,
With an apology to our own John Wayne, I suspect it is essential for each and everyone of us to have “True Grit”. In the investment community, passion, perseverance, and persistence are dependable characteristics for financial success. It is critical to stay the course.
University of Pennsylvania researchers are developing a wide database that purports to measure Grit from a simple 12-question test that is accessible on their website.
The initial work in this nascent field can be traced to some experiments conducted at Stanford a few decades ago. In these experiments children were seated alone at a table. The test conductor placed a sweet treat on the table and told the very young kids that they could either eat the sweetie now or wait for 15 minutes with a promised doubling of the sweeties. Upon their return, if the child had resisted the immediate attraction, he/she was indeed rewarded for his patience.
Some waited; others did not. The real test was finally completed a dozen years later when these same test subjects were interviewed with regard to their schooling success. Those who resisted the immediate satisfaction of the tempting treats as youngsters recorded far more success in their subsequent schooling accomplishments. The current studies have expanded from this simple beginning.
Here is a Link to an article by Dan Solin titled “Grit is Critical to Your Success”:
http://thebamalliance.com/blog/grit-is-critical-to-your-success-dan-solin/
Grit is not a constant. Solin provides a few tips to toughen your grit quotient. Based on our many commentary exchanges, I suspect that MFO members have an abundance of Grit. I challenge you to take the test; it requires just a few minutes of your time. Here is the Link to the quiz:
https://sasupenn.qualtrics.com/SE/?SID=SV_06f6QSOS2pZW9qR
There are no right answers here. But a high Grit score seems to be an attractive attribute that should contribute to an investor’s overarching market performance. That’s especially true given the definition of Grit as formulated by one of its key researchers, Angela Duckworth. Her powerful definition is repeated here for your convenience and inspiration. It was lifted from an interview with Forbes about a year past.
“Grit is passion and perseverance for very long-term goals. Grit is having stamina. Grit is sticking with your future, day in, day out, not just for the week, not just for the month, but for years, and working really hard to make that future a reality. Grit is living life like it’s a marathon, not a sprint.”
This definition directly applies to successful investing.
The brief test that I hope you completed has been given to all sorts of groups over a long timeframe. At West Point, the freshman class is exposed to it. It is a better predictor of future undergraduate overall performance than an IQ test.
Let us know how high on the Grit scale you measured.
I wish you all True Grit.
Best Regards.

Hi Cman and others,
I'd much rather see up days in the market. No doubt, down days are also a part of investing. I have my portfolio benchmarked against the Lipper Balanced Index. Thus far, year-to-date the Index is up 1.68% and I am up 2.25%. For the week the Index is up 0.40% and I am up 0.56% and for the day the Index was down 0.57% and I was down 0.49%. With this, I am pleased.
I wonder how those alpha types that are running a focus type portfolio are fairing? I believe one alpha in paticular preached volumes about running a concertrated portfolio.
Old_Skeet

Looking at effective duration for an actively managed multi sector bond fund is a deeply flawed fund selection strategy. There is very little correlation between reported duration and returns for such funds. To see this, check the performance of different funds between mid Apr and mid June of last year when the 10 year went up almost 1.25%. Or any period when your interest rate metric went up.

Calvert Global Water Y - CFWYX M* rates this fund 5 star.