Most likely other members own less discussed and know funds, like GIBIX or GIBLX, retail version. Perhaps because the retail version has only been around one year it does not make most cuts when members are looking for established bond funds. I bought DBLTX as many did in 2015, but have not liked its extremely high concentration in securitized bonds. I traded it for GIBIX a year ago ( I have a ML account) and then bought its retail version for my ira at Fidelity. Solid returns, better downside capture than its index, Great Owl Fund, 5* at Morningstar and in top 10% of category since inception in 2012. Any others have undermentioned funds they like?

Who in the world writes these things? Do they do any actual research?
"As stock pickers, they’re generalists, surveying all parts of the market." 100% false. The Hood River managers each have sectors that they cover and make decisions for.

Thanks for pointing that out msf - and all the additional information.
Here's the part near the end of the NYT article I may have overlooked (along with several links embedded in the article).
"The 64 million workers with 401(k) accounts are covered by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, overseen by the Labor Department. The law outlines minimum guidelines and protections for workers and requires employers or plan overseers to act in the best interests of participants....But most assets in 403(b) accounts are invested in the murkier side of the market, which is not covered by the federal law, known as Erisa. Many hospitals and private colleges tend to hew more closely to Erisa standards, but a series of recent lawsuits against prominent universities argue there is still room for improvement."
A highly emotionally charged piece of writing - similar to how 60 Minutes manages to hype emotionally charged anecedotes while at the same time constructing the overall fact-based presentation. Not a knock on the style. Just a recognition of how the story is being presented.

The history is generally accurate, except for minor details. 403(b)s began in 1958, as noted in the accompanying NYTimes article (link is at end of article, or here).
It's true that Section 401(k) of the IRC wasn't enacted until 1978 (and didn't become effective until 1980), but 401(k)s are just "Cash Or Deferred Arrangement" (CODA) plans. According to ICI, these go back to the 1950s (with IRS rulings in 1956 to regulate them). The profit sharing (employer contribution) portion of these plans goes all the way back to the beginning of the modern income tax (1913), i.e. not counting the income tax that Lincoln instituted.
Similarly, there were annuity plans for educators predating Section 403(b) of the IRC, going all the way back to the founding of the Teachers Insurance and Annuity Association (TIAA) in 1918.
The NYTimes article cited above confirms that mutual funds were added to 403(b)s in 1974. But that's for "real" 1940 Act mutual funds. Remembering that 403(b)s were created as annuities, we can also consider variable annuities (i.e. similar to mutual funds, but contained inside annuity wrappers). The first variable annuity was the College Retirement Equities Fund (CREF), created in 1952.
IMHO, if one wants to talk about the full history, one goes all the way back to the 1910s. If one wants to talk about the modern regulatory era, one starts in 1974 with ERISA.

Good article. I'm sure the situation and plans vary greatly by employer and state. I believe that in Michigan there are some good 403B plans available in some public school districts, but they are highly dependent on what the employer and bargaining unit come up with. Dang - I've been searching for something about the original 403B, the year it began and why it began. Dry Hole!
What I think I know:
403Bs began in the 60s. They preceded the 401K by a decade or more. As Ted's linked article states, the 403B is for public employees like hospital workers and teachers. I suppose there are many reasons why they were first to have such plans. I suspect they may have been better organized and more politically active back than. Also, public DB (defined benefit) plans probably didn't measure up to those offered in the private sector in those days.
403Bs were originally synonymous with Tax Sheltered Annuity. My understanding is that initially they were by law limited to only annuities. Either thru law, jurisprudence or practice they broadened in the 70s to allow participant ownership of mutual funds and other investments. However, options had to be approved by the employer and were usually very limited (i.e. a single fund company).
A loophole well into the 90s allowed still working participants to transfer their funds from the employer's designated custodian to another plan custodian of their own choosing. (The plan retained the same employer/name - but another custodian agreed to manage the participant's assets). This, however was not widely known or understood. Further, in order to do this, the participant may well have had to pay high fees or loads on his initial in-plan contributions. Eventually the loophole was plugged either by legislation or regulatory fiat.
The 403B paved the way for the 401K that eventually followed. So in a sense, public sector workers did private sector workers a favor by paving the way. From Ted's linked NYT article it sounds as if the 401K is now much better designed and regulated.
Catch made a good point in another thread about participants not being savvy about money or motivated to invest and learn. Agree. But isn't this largely true of most employee contribution plans and most younger workers as well?

Citi's William Katz had a piece in Barron's Friday saying how the deal would make sense.
Now the Bloomberg story.
I spoke with my local Scottrade broker on Thursday about this issue and then in an email Friday. The response was that these "reports" are only rumors. I'm unconvinced.

FYI: Many stock-picking styles have sizzled lately, with growth and value and domestic and international investing all toting up gains. Three of the better-performing mutual funds of recent months found their winners among small- and large-cap growth stocks and Chinese shares.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/16/business/mutfund/how-three-strong-performing-funds-pick-stocks.html?ref=your-money

Certainly, a good step. But the management of Capital Group/American Funds, are, obsessed with "segmentation". A recent visit to their site indicated the following fund classes already extant:
A
B
C
F-1
F-2
529-A
529-B
529-C
529-E
529-F-1
R1
R2
R2-E
R3
R4
R5
R5-E
R6
Their canned solution to any new development seems to be "a new share class should fix THAT". The infrastructure to develop &market these ever-expanding class structures isn't free.
Similarly, their solution to "better management" seems to require shareholders to pay for a half dozen, or more, managers, when other equally good funds "make do" with one or 2.
Sure seems like Vanguard and Blackrock understand the value of 'simplicity'.

Yes, it's a load fund, but it's available load-waived lots of places.
Better yet, it looks like one can buy the Advisor share class ANAYX at Scottrade, albeit with a transaction fee. That's $17 per purchase (or $2/purchase on an automatic investment plan).
This saves you 0.30%/year in fund costs (0.60% ER vs. 0.90% ER). On a $5K investment, you'll recover the transaction fee in under a year.

FYI: Schoolteachers and others who pursue careers of service in exchange for modest
paychecks get lightly regulated retirement plans that often charge excessive fees.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/23/your-money/403-b-retirement-plans-fees-teachers.html?_r=0

From the looks of it, Jaffe was just reading a line off the Natixis PR, which is a summary of what Hank observed was not a rigorous study.
Hank also caught onto the fact that both the survey Jaffe was referencing and the earlier survey that MJG linked to had polled advisors, not investors. However, upon reading the PR, one discovers that the investor expectations figure reported (8.5% above inflation) did not even come from that recent advisor survey data but from an older data set. So Jaffe was sloppy in his reading or his reporting in saying that a recent study reported this. (The info was in the PR for the survey, but not from the survey itself.)
Here are the PR pages for the current reports :
Natixis 2016 Individual Investor Survey (data collected Feb/Mar 2016, report May 24, 2016. full paper here)
Natixis 2016 Financial Advisor Survey (US data collected July 2016; PR dated September 28, 2016.)

FYI: Whoa, give us back our money. We wanted something boring.
That's what a growing number of investors are saying after joining the wave earlier this year into so-called "low-volatility" funds. These types of funds try to offer nervous investors a smoother ride, by buying stocks with a history of milder price swings than the rest of the market. Think power utilities, phone companies and other traditionally staid industries.
Regards,
Ted
http://bigstory.ap.org/article/43d60efdfb2f495c94cc34c1ade88f3c/not-boring-enough-investors-leave-low-volatility-funds

FYI: (This is a follow-up article)
In the latest example of the impact of the Department of Labor's fiduciary rule, American Funds has filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission to create a stripped-down mutual fund share class.
The new F3 shares will be free of commission, 12b-1 fees, as well as the sub transfer agency fees that typically go to brokerage platforms.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.investmentnews.com/article/20161021/FREE/161029969?template=printart

Curious listing of share classes. What caught my eye was #4, AEPGX. Class A.
According to its SAI, the largest share class is R-6, RERGX, with $41B, vs. $26 for AEPGX. As this is an R-class, we know that virtually all of this money is in retirement plans.
The R-6 class is the largest, the cheapest, the most used in employer-sponsored retirement accounts. So why list a smaller, more expensive share class? It may be older, but the title of the article is most popular.
I agree that there's not much here.

@MJG
1. Here is the Natixis link from Ted's May 2014 post to which you refer. https://ngam.natixis.com/docs/352/754/562014_FINAL_Individual Investor Survey Full Report _4292014.pdf Unfortunately, it no longer functions. If you can provide a working link to the document on which I commented in that 2014 thread I'll be happy to take another look at it.
2. In reading my comments of May 2014 I can't see where anything in them contradicts what I've written here. The issue I addressed back than appears to have been an entirely different one.
3. As you note, I've commented more than once. My initial reaction was based on reading Jaffe's article which Ted linked. From that it appeared a study by Natixis had been conducted for the benefit of (and and directed towards) retail investors. I reacted to Jaffe's assertions from the standpoint of an individual investor. Later, after looking at the document you linked (which Jaffe cites) I addressed the document itself trying to better understand its origin, purpose, methodology and why some had found it troubling. I'm afraid Mr. Jaffe did not do a very good job relating some pertinent details to his readers.
Heated? Not me. If anyone else has been heated, I'm confident you'll deal with them in an appropriate manner.
I strongly agree that birthdays beginning with 7 or higher need to be vigorously celebrated.
Regards

Hi. Hank,
I certainly do agree with much of what has been posted on this exchange, especially your last posting. On this topic, with the same prime time players (Jaffe, Natixis), this is the second time around the horn for you. I'll provide a Link a little later.
Just like no financial advisor is created equal, no financial writers are created equal either. And separate columns composed by each writer are not equal. Brilliance is hard to maintain on any timescale.
This Jaffe column might not belong on the brilliant side of the scoring, but it is not a dud either. Jaffe has been using the Natixis work for a long time. For example, you commented on a similar column about two years ago. Here is the internal Link to the column and your comments:
http://www.mutualfundobserver.com/discuss/discussion/13442/chuck-jaffe-proof-most-investors-are-clueless-david-giunta-pres-natixis-global-asset-management
It is not surprising that Natixis uses a hired firm to conduct their surveys. That's a common practice. We do the same when we hire mutual fund managers to fill our portfolios with companies of their choosing. Nothing unusual about interpreting results generated by an outfit that you hired. Natixis uses Core Data to do their survey legwork. Here is a Link that describes the Core Data organization and some of their talent:
http://www.coredataresearch.com/about/our-approach/
Core Data seems to have the capabilities to do worldwide surveys. It doesn't disturb me one whit that Natixis does its own interpretation of the data collected.
I certainly agree with you that the summary conclusions you listed are mundane if they were the only conclusions or stats presented. But they were not. Just about each page of the white paper provided some detailed statistics associated with both advisors and their clients.
I also agree that the referenced white paper was designed for financial advisors, and not for private investors. That does not diminish the value of the surveys. These surveys still identify shortfalls in both advisor and individual investor thinking and planning.
This takes us back to the Jaffe article that prompted this hot exchange: investors "are Probably Way Too Optimistic About Your Investment Returns". Most of the postings don't argue this assertion. In any final analyses, that's what it is all about. A casual charge that Jaffe and Natixis are BSers is far too extreme. Certainly any analysis or article has shortfalls. Exceptions simply do not exist.
Sorry for the delay in my response. My wife and I are celebrating her 77th birthday. It's been a grand day.
Best Wishes.

Dear S. Disturber, (aka, @Old_Joe )
Could be either or both, depending upon how well the advisors surveyed actually performed for their customer base; as the Natixis whitepaper is apparently directed at a captive crowd of company connected advisors.
I did read that "alternative investments" seem to be on the "next or current" hot plate of places for money to travel; if the client is in the $1-4 million dollar portfolio arena.
If and when an investment advisor can provide a true document to me of how they performed for portfolio type "x", over the past 10, 5 and 1year time frames, that would have been or is suitable for me today, I'll listen.
The most simple baseline would be to compare against the inexpensive VWINX.
Below in bold, from the 2015 whitepaper linked prior:
Investment Pragmatist: More than three-quarters of advisors believe that a
traditional stock and bond portfolio is no longer enough to effectively manage
risk and pursue returns. Fortunately, continual innovation has provided access
to new asset classes, new pricing structure and new portfolio tools, allowing
advisors to make practical decisions about which tool will best fit client goals
and investment objectives.
I wish these folks (advisors and clients) well with the alternative path.
The below fund link at about 40/60, equity/bond over the long term. Pick your own equity/bond mix, a built your own, eh? My own caution note for such a mix is that some bond types may blow up at any time, and I would always advise to be observant. 'Course, folks here are always paying attention, yes? And don't forget that the death of the 30+ year bond market bull continues to be issued by someone, somewhere; one would suspect. I recall its imminent death announcement here several years ago (the thread exists somewhere, eh?), but I don't have time for search; although I recall Mr. Snowball was involved in the discussion).
VWINX performance
VWINX composition
Lastly, I have had several pre-Halloween treats today; in order to sample the quality of what we will distribute to the young ones. Hopefully, this has not affected, greatly, my ability to think or write. 'Course, in reading this before posting; I sound a bit arrogant, eh?
Well, I know I am as smart and do as well as some financial advisors on this planet.
Sincerely and respectfully,
Mr. Catch

Yup. Swallowed up.
http://www.mfwire.com/article.asp?template=article&wireid=2&storyID=55022&bhcp=1

Some qualification perhaps:
http://blogs.wsj.com/moneybeat/2016/10/21/the-incredible-shrinking-fund-managers/