My pick is Matthews Asia. When Andrew Foster left, he took a lot of investment expertise with him. They have had some tough moments since. In Q4 of 2014, they did not pay a dividend on their Asia Dividend Fund (MAPIX). I started to sense things were not going well and pulled my money to go elsewhere.

I'm gone from Matthews too, but not due to performance.

I thought it might be worthwhile to link to a couple of objective family rankings. Use them as you will - as evidence that families are worse (or better) than their reputations, or as a source for those reputations.
MFO: "How Good Is Your Fund Family" 2016 Edition
WSJ/Barron's: One, Five, and Ten Year Rankings, through end of 2015, plus methodology (Lipper)
              Best Fund Families of 2015 (adds category rankings, e.g. domestic equity, taxable bond)
I agree with hank that bigger is not always better. But it does increase the odds of finding a good fund among the also rans in a family. Hence Fidelity winds up well represented on many "best funds" lists by sheer size. Such lists are not family rankings and don't address family reputation.

Points taken about Templeton - I don't necessarily disagree w/the counter-arguments there, although I was referring to the firm and not just a specific fund.

No disagreement on my part with anything you said. And I'm aware they've had their share of losers - not just a single fund.
However, if you were investing in funds in the 70s-80s (as I was) when someone said "Templeton", Templeton World lept to mind. It was their flagship fund, run by Sir John himself for many years. Don't know how many other funds they had back than, but it would be only a fraction of all the funds now under the Franklin Templeton umbrella. Sometimes bigger isn't better.
Ahh - Yes the loads too. I think loads were less of an issue for many of us in workplace plans in the 70s and 80s. First, we received group discounts. Second, we didn't have the plethora of no-load funds to choose from that are available today. And third, there wasn't nearly the amount of fund information which we now take for granted (this site being a prime example). Many of us new inexperienced investors were operating in the dark and relied on the advice of an experienced commission-based advisor, even if it did cost us a few pennies on the dollar.
PS - I'm not aware of a single Internet site devoted to mutual funds in the 1970s when I bought my first shares of TEMWX. :)

Calamos - great selection. A boutique firm that built its reputation on a niche product (convertibles).
TEMWX - NTF at Fidelity (to address a concern with FT loads).
Another overrated family - Dimensional (DFA). Excellent for small cap value (domestic or international), less so outside of its wheelhouse. Its major advantage there (low cost) is impaired by its general requirement to invest through advisers. (Though there are more and more ways to circumvent this now, including 529 plans and VAs.)

Intriguing Question.
My experience only encompasses about 10 families. Can give only give a very limited perspective.
My nomination for most overrated: is Calamos. 15 years ago when I decided to invest with them, reviews from many reputable sites suggested they were top-notch. Could damn near walk on water - especially during tough markets. That was not my experience after a decade and I abandoned them.
My nomination for underrated: Oakmark: While overall reviews of OAKBX have been good, it's taken considerable flack, including here, for lagging benchmarks and peers. I've always felt this was a tough fund to benchmark. These are deep value long-term focused investors who try to avoid currently hot stocks and sectors. They'll buy things that are unpopular with the crowd and slowly build a position. They'd rather sell early than eat a big loss. So they abandoned long term bonds a few years too early which hurt them relative to peers. I don't fully understand their hedging strategy designed to protect against big losses. But it seems to depend on certain components like smaller energy producers, big defense contractors, financials, beaten down large caps, and, when appropriate, government bonds.
Re: Franklin Templeton (nominated by rforno): My first and only fund for the first 20 years was TEMWX. During the 70s, 80s and most of the 90s these guys seemed to have a license to print money. I and several coworkers did very well by them. So it's with sadness that I observe that fund's lackluster performance over the past decade or more. I don't know what happened to a once very fine company.
Clip from Wikepedia (the Free Encyclopedia) on their rapid expansion through acquisition and merger beginning in '92. Might have contributed to their problems:
"In October 1992, Franklin acquired Templeton, Galbraith & Hansberger Ltd. for a reported cost of $913 million, leading to the common name Franklin Templeton. Mutual fund pioneer Sir John Templeton was the owner of Templeton, Galbraith & Hansberger Ltd together with his son Dr. John Templeton and John Galbraith who together owned 70% of the firm. In November 1996, Heine Securities Corporation, known for the Mutual Series of funds, merged into the Franklin Templeton complex. In October 2000, Franklin acquired Bissett Funds to increase its Canadian presence, and Bissett remains a key brand from Franklin in the Canadian market. The Fiduciary Trust Company was acquired by Franklin Templeton in April 2001."

ISTM that these "overratings" come from people's high expectations of new funds (sometimes that works out, like Seafarer) or looking in the rear view mirror over selected periods. I suspect people will come up largely with boutique families, both because they pin such high hopes on them and because, having few funds, these families' average performance can be much more volatile.
In thinking about naming a family, what came to mind was one that I've been underrating. Fidelity. My mind is still stuck in the 90s, when it pandered to mediocrity (pension funds), and most of its offerings struggled to meet that low bar. These days, their fund managers hang around longer, and they've put together some very respectable funds.
Following JohnChism's thinking, a family that comes to mind is FPA. FPACX has always been a fine fund, but always overpriced (with costs out of line with the rest of its family). As Rodriguez moved out of active management, his charges (FPPTX, FPNIX) lagged, and funds seemed to shift categories. I suspect few people here followed this family since it was until recently a load family, but it seems to be clinging to its former reputation.
I disagree with rforno about FT. First, because it is much, much bigger than Templeton (the question was about fund families, e.g. VF mentioned Janus, not its Perkins subbrand). Second, because performance of funds in his rear view mirror may appear smaller than they are :-) TGBAX ranks top 1/8 over the past year, top 1/4 over the past three, top 1/9 over the past five.
That said, its Mutual Series funds are not the funds they were under Michael Price, any more than its Templeton funds are the same ones managed by Sir John. But that doesn't automatically make them overrated.

My pick is Matthews Asia. When Andrew Foster left, he took a lot of investment expertise with him. They have had some tough moments since. In Q4 of 2014, they did not pay a dividend on their Asia Dividend Fund (MAPIX). I started to sense things were not going well and pulled my money to go elsewhere.

Those allocations seem to be the standard for income now. One fund I have has 62% corporates. Bank loans are 19%. The fixed income holdings are weighted more to B and BB. The managers play an important role here in how the fund will perform, more so than usual.

High Yield Continues Near Ytd Highs
Artisan ARTFX Nov 30 Commentary
In an environment characterized most notably by extraordinarily low yields, it has been our view that the non-investment grade market offers a better risk/reward proposition than most areas of fixed income. This month exemplified the substantial interest rate risk that resides in some of the lowest-yielding parts of the market.
Portfolio Composition (% of total portfolio)
Corporate Bonds 75.2
Bank Loans 19.7
Equities 0.6
Cash and Equivalents 4.5
https://www.artisanpartners.com/content/dam/documents/monthly-commentary/vr/2016/nov/ARTFX-APDFX-MCommentary-1116-vR.p
Henderson High Yield Opps HYOAX
November 30th
Corporate Bonds 87.8 %
Bank Loans 6.2 %
Cash 4.9 %
Low Global Gov'nt Bond Yields continue to drive strong demand for HY and leveraged loans.Effort to add risk to portfolio but liquidity challenges and fewer new issues in the lower quality space has been a hindrance.
https://az768132.vo.msecnd.net/documents/22438_2016_12_21_08_33_38_483.gzip.pdf
As of November 30, 2016 Barings U.S. High Yield Fund BXHAXCorporate fundamentals outside of commodities have remained stable recently making high yield returns attractive relative to other income producing investments http://www.barings.com/assets/user/media/Barings-US-High-Yield-Fund-Factsheet.pdf
M* High Yield Returns
http://news.morningstar.com/fund-category-returns/high-yield-bond/$FOCA$HY.aspx
Related
Bank loan funds back in favor
Dec. 23, 2016 2:24 PM ET|By: Stephen Alpher, SeekingAlpha News Editor
Bank loan funds (also known as senior loans or leveraged loans) have seen $5.6B of net inflows this year, with a nice chunk of that coming in the weeks since the election, writes Chris Dieterich at the WSJ.
It's no secret why: First, investors view bank loans as lower risk than junk bonds as they're ahead in the corporate structure in the event of a default. Maybe more importantly given the current environment, these loans are floating rate, making them popular in times of rising interest rates.
http://seekingalpha.com/news/3232452-bank-loan-funds-back-favor

Hi Zoneblitz!
Your lineup looks really good. Now, what are the percentages going to be, I wonder? Just like football, it's all in the odds regarding what it is you do and why you do it. In other words, the game plan (Blitz or Play Zone or maybe Man). It's what your strengths are and what areas of the field you own.
God bless
the Pudd
p.s. What are you going to do? Just curious.....

I actually help coach youth football :) We run all types of blitz and coverage packages. It's a lot of fun.
Anyhow, I'm content with the portfolio for now. May include a floating rate fund and change allocations.
VWINX - 30%
PONDX - 10%
GIBLX - 10%
PTIAX - 10%
OSTIX - 10%
DGRO/HDV - 10%
Cash - 20%
I'm going to use the cash position to dial up/down my equity exposure - buy preferred stocks, etc. I do believe that we will have a pullback in equites after the new year. Everyone I know is buying stocks and that scares me.

David: "(Edmond), do you have wisdom on PDI?
REPLY: Wisdom? No. I've traded in/out of it over the years. It seems to often generate a special year-end divd. It goes ex-divd on 12/22 (if I recall) a rather substantial special divd. So NAV and price will likely drop then accordingly. Its trading at a premium currently. Buy/sell points are not UN-important when trading CEFs -- just as they are not UNimportant in buying ANY security. The OP's initial inquiry indicated his objective was income. Several of the PIMCO CEFs especially seem extraordinarily good at maintaining their disty --- and (just as importantly) EARNING that disty.
As a general rule, with bond CEFs, besides evaluating current/historical premiums/discounts, I always like to review the most recent AR/SAR, and determine if the disty/share is covered by NII/share. If there is a substantial UNDER-earning of the disty, that is a big red-flag for me -- as it may portend a future disty cut (which is not fun for current shareholders. PIMCO publishes a monthy UNII/NII earnigs update on their website. PDI, PCI, PKO and a couple others look 'OK' to me -- but as always, choose buy points CAREFULLY, and consider easing into any position, rather than going 'all in' on one date.
=====================================
ZB: "..keep 20% on the sidelines for other opportunities"
REPLY: As a general comment, I think NOT being fully invested (holding cash) works well for a lot of people (this writer included!). Though I believe that position is a minority one. Most of the financial industry has a financial interest in keeping all retail investors fully invested all the time. And of course with the stock market at all time highs (as presently) those folks can point to the opportunity cost of holding cash. Of course we won't always be trading at all-time highs. Cash IS -- as it has been since 2009-- the most unloved of asset classes. But cash provides reliable "ballast" to a portfolio (bonds do too, but not always). Perhaps most importantly, as you note, cash provides optionality -- one cannot "buy low" if one is always 100% invested. And there is a "sleep easy" factor (speaking for myself) in holding cash. These are not quantitave benefits, they are qualitative. But that doesn't make them unimportant.
Good luck.

I am sorry to hear about your health. There are lots of good suggestions already. My 2 cents. I think it is possible to put together a 4% yielding portfolio without stretching. An early retiree usually needs to have more equities to get a little growth to make sure you don't outlive your money and to provide inflation protection. Think definitely more than 50%. If you can offer up how many years we should plan for it will be easier to offer an allocation suggestion as some early retirees will want 75% stocks. If you have an interest in managing it yourself, I'd recommend some individual issues to complement some funds. Here's an example that is 50/50 stock bonds that will yield about 4.2%:
Individual stocks (with 4% in each):
SO
WEC
JNJ
PG
MMM
UL
REIT's (with 4% in each)::
WPC
O
HCN
Utility ETF (with 4% allocation):
XLU
Baby Bonds (held to maturity; with 4% in each):
CCV
GEH
Preferred Stocks (with 4% in each):
PSA.T
NNN-E
Open Ended Mutual Funds:
TILDX (with a 4% allocation)
AVEDX (with a 4% allocation)
FFRHX (with a 14% allocation)
Vanguard intermediate term bond ETF BIV with a 14% allocation
CEF's (with a 4% allocation to each):
ETB
NSL
(Note, I am long many of these.)

TSP_Transfer :

Day after your post of 12/04 bought a cef loan fund TSLF.

Tight channel (the junkster way) it is not. Careful with this one.

Hi Crash. This is a stimulating topic which I find very interesting. But rarely if ever do I attempt to forecast where markets will go. I've been surprised too many times in the past to trust my instincts in that regard. What I do try to do (sometimes successfully) is add or remove risk in the portfolio by raising or lowering my cash and short duration bond position. On that score, I'm not bullish now - but not bearish either. Have been pretty much sitting on my hands with a slightly elevated cash/short bond position for several months. (It wouldn't take much more of this market rally to convince me to raise that a bit higher).
Re: RPIHX - Like you I'm locked out of PRHYX. But I'm not eager to own high yield now anyway. Mark Vaselkiv who has run the very successful RPHYX for many years is co-manager of RPIHX. So that's good. If I wanted a substitute for PRHYX, I'd probably buy it trusting in Vaselkiv and T. Rowe's management in general. But I think everyone looking at high yield now needs to realize that these securities tend to have risk characteristics typical of both bonds and equities. In the case of very low grade junk bonds, the risks are even more closely aligned with equities. Be very worried about these if the stock market takes a deep dive. They're not imune to carnage.
Re RPSIX (which you don't like): I like it as a stabilizing influence in my portfolio. You are correct that it's not a bond fund. It's multi-sector Income, even holding 12% + - in their Equity Income stock fund.
"Do I need a U.S. domestic core-plus bond fund, after all?" - Heavens no. I've never felt that need. That's been especially true the past 5 or 10 years with 10-year Treasuries yielding under 5%. That's not to say bonds can't serve a purpose in many portfolios. But it depends on your other holdings and your style. Does everyone need a dedicated bond fund? No.

You yourself stated ""sure thing" trades always make me leery", you reduced your allocation from 100% to 80%. Of course, this does not mean your bearish, I presume just concerned.
This was merely to get some exposure to corporate junk. I am very bullish on Bl funds but I know enough that when I get "very" bullish and run with the herd on anything to have a tight exit strategy in place. BL are overbought but have been so much of 2016.
You have a nice bond fund in PONDX. A rare groupthink fund that just keeps on chugging along year after year.

Junkster,
I am referring to many, not all, various forum participants who seem to feel BL's are somewhat over-bought and maybe even dead money. I've read that rate increases are baked-in, LIBOR isn't going to move much more, etc.
You yourself stated ""sure thing" trades always make me leery", you reduced your allocation from 100% to 80%. Of course, this does not mean your bearish, I presume just concerned.
Maybe the term i should have used is "concerned"???
As I previously stated, I posted this question on M* in response to many forum participants who feel this way. I don't at this point and until I something changes my mind, I think BL's are a good place to be for the foreseeable future; maybe not for the long-term, but why not for the near-term?
I have no plans on exiting LFRAX at this time; it is not a huge percentage of my overall portfolio, but it is my second largest taxable bond holding, next to PONDX.
Matt

Thanks, guys. The portf. is spread out like this: 44% US equities, 8% foreign equities. 39% bonds, and 2% "other", probably convertibles and shorts.
> Yes, there's a big amount in my two balanced funds: 35.48% in PRWCX and 16.02% in MAPOX, which I'm deliberately growing.
>Among equities: 14% small-cap. 23% mid-cap. 62% large-cap.
>PREMX is 14.14% of portfolio. The monthly dividend is over $100.00, now. Being re-invested.
PRSNX: 10.54% of portf. Divs are re-invested.
DLFNX = 2.51%, as mentioned above. Divs reinvested, but it's just $8.00/month or so. And the share price is up against a wall.
I'm already at my own personal limit in terms of the number of funds owned. I must shed one if I'm going to add one. Here are the others: MSCFX SFGIX TRGRX PRIDX and PRDSX. My wife's 403b fund is in the overall mix, too: VSCIX. Still just 1.94% of the Big Picture. I do not like to make frequent TACTICAL movements. I want to keep it stodgy, but PRODUCTIVE. ...@Ted mentioned that 5% is his lower limit. I could simply add to DLFNX to get to 5%, and that's not a radical decision.
But bonds will only be paying me to "wait for the next time it comes around on the guitar." (Arlo Guthrie.) We are in for a protracted cold-spell for bonds.
@JohnChisum: yes, I've crossed a threshold with TRP and can use PREMIUM tools at Morningstar. They also tell me I can use a dedicated phone line for those who hold more than X dollars with them.
@MikeM: If I grow DLFNX for stability, then 5% of portf. would be more stable, I suppose, than 2.51%, eh? Glad for the replies. But why would EM bonds be advantageous, right now, JohnChisum? I won't be adding any more to my current EM stake. And PRSNX has not been bad to me. It's "global" bonds, but does not include EM.

Thanks @Junkster
Day after your post of 12/04 bought a cef loan fund TSLF.
http://fwcapitaladvisors.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/TSLF_Brochure_2016_Q3.pdf
Also own RIMOX Mix of Hi-Yield/Bank Loans /Alts in EM/Euro/Domestic http://www.citynationalrochdalefunds.com/Content/pdfs/2016/8427/FIOF Portfolio Holdings by Sub-Adviser Nov 30 v1 12-07-16.pdf
I would sure like to know the whos that are so down on bank loans.
Gundlach's webby If you must own fixed inc.-floating rates
Note to @Crash Gundlach's Dec webby: Trump not good for Bond prices.DBLTX always a lower duration than AGG makes the fund a good choice in a rising interest environment.
Bond Market Fascinations: An Interview
Acropolis Investment Management LLCPosted on December 19, 2016 by David Ott
I..don’t think that the shift in rates is entirely explained by the election. The other factors include a reversal of the ‘fear trade,’ which has been going on for years where investors flock to safer assets such as US Treasury bonds to avoid uncertainty. This, along with central bank policies, took yields around the world into negative territory and it came to a paramount this summer with the uncertainty surrounding the Brexit vote.
Over the summer, you can see that everything was locked up and that there was a lot of sideways movement. Once the election hit, yields just broke free. And, of course, the Fed reducing monetary stimulus is a part of it too.
In the short-term, you could see spikes, but I’m not sure that the economy can take substantially higher interest rates. There’s research now that shows that if the yield on the 10-year Treasury gets up to 2.65 or 2.75 percent that it would negatively affect the economy.
I wrote an article for ALM Insights about the debt level in our country (that you can read by clicking here: the article starts on page six). The last time the Fed was raising short-term interest rates in 2004, the total-debt-to-GDP was 180 percent.
When you look at public and private balance sheets today, we’re almost at 260 percent, meaning that our total debt, both public and private, are much higher relative to the size of our economy. Small changes in interest rates will be magnified today because the economy is more tied to borrowing costs. It’s like anything with leverage.The Fed’s forecast for next year that just came out last week calls for three hikes to the overnight rate. They’re the most aggressive forecaster in the market right now – the market only thinks that there is one or two more coming.
The Fed has consistently had much greater expectations than the market. This time last year, they projected four increases and we got one. The year before that, they said four and we got zero. Their track record is not very good.
I like (the) old argument that moving bond duration around is akin to trying to time the stock market since duration is essentially the main beta for bonds. Forecasting changes in interest rates is an impossible task.(we try )not to gamble on the direction that rates will move next.
http://acrinv.com/bond-market-fascinations-interview/

A good suggestion. Since I've been pointing out risks, some of the risks in individual bonds include:
- issue selection - lack of diversification. The most aggressive rules of thumb I've read are that one should have at least $50K (muni) or $100K (corporate), so that one can own bonds from at least 10 different issuers. Here's Fidelity's page recommending a $100K-$200K min, depending on type of bonds.
- inflation risk - locking in a fixed rate of return for many years, even if inflation rises. (WF - CUSIP 94974BFY1 - is 10 year, noncallable)
Nominal interest rate is not a risk, because by hypothesis one is accepting a 4% total return (holding to maturity), regardless of how high market rates go.
Note that the ARES bond (CUSIP 04010LAR4) is a discount bond, so while its total return is about 4.4%, its current yield is about 3.75%, based on a coupon of 3.625 and a current price of about 96.5. The rest of the yield come from the price rising to par (similar to a zero coupon bond, with similar tax treatment).
Nice sampling of bonds with different attributes.
I like the idea of a build-your-own portfolio. It does take a substantial commitment to make it work.