I really don't pay much attention to fund families in general, unless they do something really stupid or illegal (yeah, Janus comes to mind here, along with a select few other groups). There are some fund groups that continue to surprise me they are even still operating, and Putnam is the classic case, along with Pioneer. Oppenheimer as a whole is a disappointment, although ODVYX has been an exception. Also surprised that Invesco and Harbor are still going. The disappointing fund families for my own experience are no longer in existence, having been bought out and eventually disappearing: Fremont, Nicholas-Applegate,
If it were not for the commission brokers, American Funds would never have grown so large. It's recent ability to continually add share classes has been a brilliant marketing move.
Interesting note to prior comments on TGBAX: just when many had written off Mr. Hastenstab, his management once again has brought the fund to the top of its group. Hot money flowed in, hot money fled. In 2010, the fund had about $18 billion in assets, which grew to $37 billion in 2014, and is now at $21 billion. The fund now is again top decile for 1, 5, 10, and 15 yrs. The manager's ideas often take time to pay off, but like all great managers, Hastenstab might have 2-3 years of under-performance then it's back to the races. We'll see.

FYI: U.S. stock futures on Wednesday pointed to a modest rise at the open, putting the Dow average on track to approach its milestone level of 20,000 again.
Regards,
Ted
U.S.:
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/dow-on-track-to-make-a-fresh-attempt-to-hurdle-over-20000-2016-12-28/print
Europe:
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/european-stocks-inch-higher-in-light-trade-as-miners-gain-2016-12-28/print
Asia:
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/commodities-fuel-australia-stock-rally-nikkei-flat-on-disappointing-data-2016-12-27/print
Current Futures: Positive
http://finviz.com/futures.ashx

From a hard bottom in early Feb. 2016, a large portion of the better managed HY bond funds are running about +16% returns. This movement may exist and continue the trend into the unknown future for "x" months or ??? One is or would be buying HY at a pretty high price at this time, IMHO. If pricing starts to decline for any number of reasons, one will find the yield even better than now; but at the expense of the loss of capital (losing money on the pricing, eh?). This situation would likely find a loss in value overall. We've held as much as 60% of our portfolio in HY/HI; but not at this time, nor would I buy at this time. Just my personal 2 cents opinion.
As to VWINX (40 bond/60 equity): you may entry any fund you choose to compare at this site page and find how returns compare going out to 10 and 15 years for this conservative fund. Yes, bonds may affect this fund going forward more so than in past years. Institutions and folks will buy bonds going forward. Pension funds and others have limited choices for some holdings to maintain policy pay out into the future. Bonds may have been wounded recently, but they are not dead. And as you understand, there are many types of bonds; and all have their day(s) in the sun.
http://performance.morningstar.com/fund/performance-return.action?t=VWINX&region=usa&culture=en_US

Pimco Crown Adjusted for New Bond Era
By Lisa Abramowicz Dec 27, 2016 8:00 AM EST
I spoke with Ivascyn recently about how Pimco is approaching the year ahead given this difficult backdrop. He emphasized the process by which the Pimco team debates its investment views, where different members challenge one another ..
"The human mind tends to play tricks on us," he said in a phone conversation. "There's a tendency to seek out research that supports an existing view."The better approach, he said, is to actively seek out credible, contrarian views and data and consider the possibility that your views are wrong.
Going into next year, Pimco has fewer high-conviction, macroeconomic calls than in the recent past, and it's aware that it's never been more expensive to execute trades. In 2017, the firm will likely spend a considerable amount of time trying to understand the policies of President-elect Donald Trump, whose election has spurred the biggest monthly selloff in U.S. government bonds since 2009.
Given the unpredictability, Pimco's funds have been increasing cash allocations in some portfolios and preparing for a default cycle at some point. While Pimco isn't expecting an imminent rash of insolvencies, Ivascyn thinks that a recession is coming and that it's time to start preparing.
The market has "gone from fear to what seems like a good deal of complacency," he said. Investors have to be "very, very careful about a reliance on investments that are only where they are based on central bank policies." He cited Italian government bonds as a perfect example of this.
https://www.bloomberg.com/gadfly/articles/2016-12-27/pimco-crown-adjusted-for-ivascyn-and-a-new-bond-era
Added
What Complacecy?
Last-minute spending surge lifts U.S. holiday shopping season By Nandita Bose | CHICAGO....There is growing evidence that an improving job market, lower gasoline prices and growing consumer optimism all contributed to the surge.
President-elect Donald Trump attributed the spending increased to his impending arrival at the White House.
"The world was gloomy before I won - there was no hope. Now the market is up nearly 10 percent and Christmas spending is over a trillion dollars!" Trump wrote on Twitter.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-holidayshopping-idUSKBN14H02C

An email greeted me back from vacation saying fund will close 1/27/2017. Needless to say I'll sell tomorrow itself. I'm guessing it simply did not gather enough assets - 6.4M.
Shame. I think Champlain is a solid shop and I own their small and mid funds as well.
Thinking of replacing CIPYX with BPAVX. Not trying do necessarily a do a 1-1 match. But I could use some suggestions.

Hi @VintageFreak
@JoJo26 noted: "Most overrated, BY FAR = Fidelity", @sma3 noted: "Fidelity Most too big too identical" and your notation of ditching your RiverPark and moving the monies to Eaton; I will note.....
>>>One must consider what might be found at a "fund house", sort what you find of value for your investing needs, quality of timely and accurate data processing and ease of use of the existing structure.
Fidelity has had a long list of mutual fund choices for a number of years, including what were first of a kind choices for the "common folk" investors with the introduction of the "select" funds. Fidelity also helped beat down the cost of investing from the full "load" fees charged by the big retail houses of the earlier period for mutual fund investing.
We use Fidelity (since late 1970's) as a portal for investments. There is nothing written stating that one's brokerage account is restricted to Fidelity offerings.
The portal is as flexible as needed by this house.
Over the years, from the point of Fidelity fund choices; we have traveled into these choices (may be a few that escape memory at this time):
FCNTX FDGRX FLPSX FAGIX FSPHX FLBIX SPHIX FRIFX FNMIX FINPX and several of the select funds.
The majority of our holdings today are not Fidelity funds; with the brokerage portal allowing travel to........well, everything, to which, we desire access.
If one can't find an investment path(s) within this fund house; I can't offer another solution.
Our 2 cents worth.
Catch

FYI: Relax. The next week tells you nothing about whether the stock market will be higher or lower in 2017.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/what-this-weeks-stock-market-will-tell-you-about-2017-2016-12-26/print

Of course, this does not address fund families that died long ago does it?
Anybody remember Mathers Fund? Henry van der Eb was almost 100% cash in the 1990s writing lucidly why the market was wrong. He was eventually right but by that time the fund dissolved.
In rank order of most disappointing families (ie not worth the ER)
American funds... Maybe I would feel more positive if I had made any money with them or if I could tell them apart. They all look pretty homogeneous to me and too big
Franklin Templeton. too expensive, rarely excel. Bond funds are Ok but too expensive. to make up their expense ratios they go out on a limb. I ended up in some of them when Michael Price sold out, but have stuck with MDISX given large capital gains, and their ability to slide over to new management relatively successfully
Fidelity Most too big too identical. Too much work to tell what is going on.
Janus They seemed to know what they were doing in the go go 1990s but we all know how that turned out.

Sorry --- forget DSE_X, since that introduces bonds; I shoulda just asked about CAPE.
FT's lexicon defines quant as 'using computer-based models to inform their decisions on whether to buy or sell securities.'
>> ... the more discretion there is held by humans, the less quantitative the fund is [@msf].
Why I asked. Since there is no discretion for CAPE, seems to me it's as quant as can be. Hence in answer to your 'overrated' query, since for the last 4y it matches or outperforms (depending on timeframe) about all other SP500 constructions, it seemed to me that maybe it was the opposite of overrated. - ?
@MikeM ---
>> what 4 of the 10 sectors of the S&P the fund is invested in at any given time?
No. This is as recent as I have uncovered:
http://www.etnplus.com/US/7/en/details.app?instrumentId=174066

There are other views that are better elucidated.
I just finished reading James Cloonan ( head of AAII) book on "Level 3 investment" where he makes the case that there has only been one ( 1929) situation where the SP500 has not recovered from a bear market in five years. So it must follow that that the only investment calculation required is to put four years of retirement expenses ( or college expenses or emergency money etc ) into safe assets and the rest into small cap (micro would be preferable he insists ) stocks and don't worry. He has interesting data to prove that as long as you didn't sell at the bottom in 2008-2009 you made out fine, even if you retired that year,
The question is will the next correction be equal to 1929, or will the general market take a decade to recover like the Nasdaq did?
I wonder how the market can keep climbing with job growth anemic, hourly average wages flat, declining stock earnings and the huge public debt.
If he is right we should be close to 80% invested... but what if he is wrong and the SEC has a good reason for requiring a statement "that past performance does not guarantee future results"?

I would say DSENX is a mix of a quant system on the equity side and human managed on the fixed income part, which by M*'s numbers is around 40%. Which confuses the heck out of me why it is in the equity large value category with a bench mark of S&P 500. Maybe I'm thinking incorrectly, but I see this fund as an allocation value style fund.
Whatever it is, it's method is working well right now. It is 10% of my self managed portfolio.
Question for @davidrmoran, do you know how to find out what 4 of the 10 sectors of the S&P the fund is invested in at any given time?

Hi Guys,
I couldn't agree more with you that the referenced article is extremely weak and confusing. That's especially disappointing given the credentials and professional positions of the authors. The article could and should have been more informative and far more explicit.
There is little doubt that we grossly under-save for retirement. By how much? The shortfall is huge. Here is a Link that provides nice summary graphs that highlight the shortfall:
http://www.businessinsider.com/how-much-average-family-saved-for-retirement-2016-3
The referenced piece quotes Paul Samuelon. He's one smart economist. He famously remarked that " I hate to be wrong. But I hate more to stay wrong". So do I. Constant investment learning is crucial to success.
Having a diversified portfolio is necessary for that success. When young, a portfolio top-heavy in equities and other high return, perhaps volatile holdings, is very acceptable. Later, bond products could be added to,attenuate that volatility if so desired.
However, I personally recommend and practice retaining equity-like positions in my portfolio. Like most folks, I under-saved a little preparing for my retirement. Playing catchup is risky but sometimes necessary business.
Best Wishes.

FYI: There's no denying the importance and popularity of 401(k)s for retirement savers. Americans have $4.8 trillion invested in these tax-deferred savings accounts, according to the Investment Company Institute, and there are 52 million active 401(k) participants. BrightScope, a financial-information company that rates retirement-savings plans, compiled this list for Kiplinger of the most popular mutual funds in 401(k) plans based on funds' 401(k) assets under management.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.kiplinger.com/article/investing/T047-C009-S003-105-most-popular-funds-for-your-retirement-savings.html

Hi @Ted and others,
Good information as I feel a good sector allocation is very important for good returns.
Something I feel has helped me and something that I strive to do is to maintain at least a 5% exposure in the minority sectors of materials, real estate, telecom and utilities and a minimum exposure of 9% in the majority sectors of consumer cyclicals, financial services, energy, industrials, technology, consumber defensive and health care. When the mimimun holdings amounts are added up this totals 83% and leaves 17% that can be moved around to increase the weightings in my sectors of choice.
Currently, my four most heavly overweighted sectors from their minimum base allocations are energy, financials, industrials and technology. Thus far this year as reflected in Dr. Carson's chart all four have been strong performers.
And, so it goes ...
Old_Skeet

FYI: Being the “investment guy” in the family means I’m often approached during the holidays or at parties with questions about the markets. My most recent question was about a sector fund investment and its prospects going forward.
I’m sure you could come up with any number of intelligent-sounding narratives to describe which sectors will perform best or worst in the future, but no one really knows the answer to this question.
When asked about the potential for the sector in question I was reminded of this chart I created a couple years ago, which I have updated through last Friday:
Regards,
Ted
http://awealthofcommonsense.com/2016/12/the-hierarchy-of-investment-difficulty/

Was Bridgeway overrated? It may be the best of the bunch (quants), so perhaps the question might be rephrased as "are quant funds overrated?"

I think they are, generally speaking. IMHO the "less quant" a quant fund can be, the better it probably will do. IE, Vanguard's VMVFX is what I call quant-lite in terms of its construction, mixed w/a touch of active management/currency hedging....I own it, and like its construction, allocation, and investment process. Bridgeway's equal-wt BRLIX is all quant in its construction, but it's a simple system that is described and easily replicated if you didn't want to pay the .15 ER to the company. (I think BRLIX is one of their better-performing funds over time but haven't compared them recently.) If I need to park money into something that's a (thankfully) non-index LC fund, that's my go-to place.
Compare that to, say Arnott's PAUIX which has (last check) like 20 different slices represented by PIMCO funds -- with a ton of overlap if memory serves -- and percentages that are, imho, totally useless in terms of generating meaningful investment performance or diversity (ie, ABCDE position is 2%, etc.). Heck, some of these robo-advisors do that too ... frankly I think anything less than 10% isn't really much of a 'diversifier' anyway.

American Beacon has two different LCV funds. I believe you mean American Beacon Bridgeway Large Cap Value (BRLVX) and not American Beacon Lg Cap Value (AAGPX).
As appears to be common with quant funds, Bridgeway's rule based systems (or model based, if you prefer) worked until they didn't. Between about 2007 and 2011 Montgomery worked on developing new models. You can see the change in performance of several funds around then. Sometimes the changes worked for a longer period of time, sometimes they only worked for a couple of years (BRUSX).
When Quant Funds Fail, M*, August 2010.
Was Bridgeway overrated? It may be the best of the bunch (quants), so perhaps the question might be rephrased as "are quant funds overrated?"

"The change has been so seismic that investors poured a net $20.7 billion into U.S. stock funds last month. That's the biggest month for stock funds since 2014 and a stark turnaround from the nearly $76 billion that left those same funds in the 10 earlier months, according to Morningstar."
That's great news for some of us. Although valuations have been stretched for some time (to say the least) there hasn't been the kind of euphoria among the Mom & Pop crowd that would lead me to move to a highly defensive position. My sense is markets don't die so much from high valuation as from investor euphoria. (Were the cause simply valuation ... we wouldn't witness drops in the magnate of 25-50% as sometimes occur.) Might a nice bubble now be in the formative stage? How many months or years will it persist before the inevitable pop?
At some future point (months or years out) fixed income will again look attractive and the smarter money will move out of their equity positions in favor of fixed. One fly in the ointment, alluded to by the writer, is we don't really know if Trump's stimulative agenda will get through Congress. Conceivably, he could hit a roadblock that would drastically alter current market perceptions.

FYI: For years, many refused to buy into the hype even as the stock market climbed to record after record. Wounds from the 2008 financial crisis were still too raw, and investors couldn't stomach the risk of watching their nest eggs drop by more than half for a second time. Instead, they favored bonds, which have pumped out relatively steady and healthy returns for decades.
Enter Donald Trump.
Since his surprise victory in last month's presidential election, stock prices have soared even higher, and bond prices have sunk on expectations that faster economic growth and inflation may be on the way. The change has been so seismic that investors poured a net $20.7 billion into U.S. stock funds last month. That's the biggest month for stock funds since 2014 and a stark turnaround from the nearly $76 billion that left those same funds in the 10 earlier months, according to Morningstar.
Regards,
Ted
http://bigstory.ap.org/article/eccce9265a14436696911e70363398df/greed-trumping-fear-investors-give-stocks-another-chance