Interesting choice. It looks like you've highlighted the key difference between the two funds. Though I might add that as a consequence, DBLFX's broad allocations (government, corporate, securitized) hew much more closely to that of the typical fund.
It may come down to what you think of Treasuries. Bogle is not a lover of Treasuries, having stated that the index is too heavily weighted that way. On the other hand, Buffett has suggested that his heir divide investments between an S&P 500 index fund and short term Treasuries.
Personally, I prefer underweighting. Long term treasuries are IMHO only good for speculating on interest rates (1/6 of DBLTX's mature in over 25 years). Short term, and currently intermediate, Treasuries yield so little that they're effectively cash. (They yield as little or less than an individual investor could get insured in a bank account.)
Also, when I buy an actively managed fund, I look for a fund where the managers take positions that deviate significantly from the herd. Maybe Gundlach has with this fund; all I'm looking at is the current snapshot in time. He certainly does go his own way with some of his funds.
Disclaimer: I think that he is very sharp, though not as sharp as he thinks himself. So I expect this fund to be well managed and worth owning. Beyond that I can't say.

no more than 0.35%

Fidelity got to be more competitive in light of many robo advisors who much less. What are their unique advantages compared to say Betterment and Wealhfront who charge 0.25% at the asset level above $10K?

Thanks, but I'll take BCOIX over this fund.
Nearly identical in most metrics (duration, credit quality, credit breakdown, number of bonds/bonds in top 10%, country breakdown). TIORX is long and short in cash, but with same net cash as BCOIX (no shorts).
Differences that pop out include:
- TIORX has more securitized bonds and less corporate (as discussed in article)
- TIORX has high turnover (308%, mentioned in article) vs. 34%
- TIORX costs twice as much (0.62% vs. 0.30%)
- TIORX has lower SEC yield (2.31% vs. 2.61%)
With the notable exception of 2008, BCOIX generally outperforms. In 2008 it underperformed by 4.64%, but made that up and more with its 2009 9.08% outperformance. In all other recent years, performance figures were much closer.
It is fair to look back this far, as BCOIX's management started in 2000. Though the article implies that Higgins (starting in 2011) is the only manager of TIORX, the prospectus says: "The following persons manage the Fund on a day-to-day basis: ...Higgins ... since 2011 [and] ... Cerra ... since 2003." Both are listed as "Managing Directors". Neither the prospectus nor M* says anything about 13 managers.

msf,
BCOIX over DBLFX (less Corportate Bond and more US Treasury)?
Mona

Exactly.
Yet Vanguard asserts: “We will seek appropriate disclosure on ESG issues by the entities in which we invest.” (From the 2014 article I cited above.) Apparently Vanguard feels absolutely no environmental disclosures are "appropriate".
Watch what I do, not what I say.

Below is intermediate term bond funds listing link. TIORX is down on the list a bit for YTD return of 6.12%.
For reference for a few in this area that I monitor and YTD:
LQD = 9.5%
FBND = 7.5%
FTBFX = 7.2%
FBNDX = 7.1%
NOTE: the corp. bond area has been one of the stronger bond sectors, YTD; for investment grade bonds.
http://news.morningstar.com/fund-category-returns/intermediate-term-bond/$FOCA$CI.aspx

To paraphrase: Vanguard knows better than its shareholders what is in their best interest.
How patronizing.
When Vanguard says that it must maximize returns, is that returns over the next quarter, or over the next decade? Penny wise and pound foolish comes to mind.
Vanguard seems to be saying that it is required to vote this way to meet its fiduciary duties. It is thus tacitly accusing Allianz, Wells Fargo, DWS, Schroeder (which submanages VINEX and VWIGX), and others of breach of fiduciary duty.
http://www.ecowatch.com/is-your-mutual-fund-a-climate-change-denier-or-climate-champion-1882190571.html
(The figures in the article linked to above show that exact voting percentages depend on how you count. Nevertheless, the split among fund companies is clear. Thanks to Lewis for the info on Blackrock's change of heart, since its 2015 voting performance was 0%.)
It gets worse. From a 2014 article (writing about 2014 and earlier votes):
"Industry giant Vanguard remains sole mutual fund to ignore climate-related resolutions for 11th-straight year. ... Vanguard ... has failed to cast a single vote in support of a climate-related resolution in 11 years."

Thanks, but I'll take BCOIX over this fund.
Nearly identical in most metrics (duration, credit quality, credit breakdown, number of bonds/bonds in top 10%, country breakdown). TIORX is long and short in cash, but with same net cash as BCOIX (no shorts).
Differences that pop out include:
- TIORX has more securitized bonds and less corporate (as discussed in article)
- TIORX has high turnover (308%, mentioned in article) vs. 34%
- TIORX costs twice as much (0.62% vs. 0.30%)
- TIORX has lower SEC yield (2.31% vs. 2.61%)
With the notable exception of 2008, BCOIX generally outperforms. In 2008 it underperformed by 4.64%, but made that up and more with its 2009 9.08% outperformance. In all other recent years, performance figures were much closer.
It is fair to look back this far, as BCOIX's management started in 2000. Though the article implies that Higgins (starting in 2011) is the only manager of TIORX, the prospectus says: "The following persons manage the Fund on a day-to-day basis: ...Higgins ... since 2011 [and] ... Cerra ... since 2003." Both are listed as "Managing Directors". Neither the prospectus nor M* says anything about 13 managers.

FYI: (Click On Article At Top Of Google Search)
Quietly, without fanfare, the Vanguard Group has become one of the most powerful forces in Corporate America. The mutual fund company has $3.6 trillion in its mutual and exchange-traded funds—greater than the national net worth of India or Brazil. Look at the top owners of any blue-chip company, and chances are Vanguard is No. 1 or No. 2. That gives it tremendous influence. When Vanguard talks, CEOs listen.
The money manager especially can flex its muscles during proxy season, when shareholders of companies vote on proposals to change corporate policies. But when it comes to proposals related to climate change, Vanguard has chosen the sidelines.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.google.com/#q=Vanguard’s+Climate-Change+Dismissal

Thanks for the post.
My employer's 401k added that Marvin Straus-managed fund to our 401k ~ 18 months ago. Never understood why. It made huge overweight bets in certain sectors (energy, at exactly the wrong time). And there is no real-time info on the fund. A website that provided quarterly updates disappeared. Expenses were high. And, pardon this "ageist" statement, an investment professional who started in the biz in 1961.. should he be a lead portfolio manager in 2016?
I assumed that Marvin Schwartz was a friend/relative of someone who sits on my employer's 401k committee (or the CEO's wife), or that 'consideration' was provided under the table to add the fund to our menu of choices.
My 401k has better choices Vanguard equity and PIMCO bond funds, so I've not forced to contribute to good-ole Marvin's estate, but found it annoying that with so many decent, even superior choices which could have been added to our plan, my employer's investment committee, presumably acting in a fiduciary capacity, chose Marvin.

MSCFX +13.19 YTD. I always trim and consolidate just after the New Year. This one has been a good one for me. I bought it first in 2012 at $12.59. (Edit: Friday, 05 Aug: up +14.78%.)

Updated MFO ratings and fund risk/performance metrics through July 2016 have just been posted on our Premium site.

Hi @MikeW,
Thanks for the question.
For me, I am thinking of again rebalancing my portfolio and trimming back my allocation in equities. According to last Friday edition (July ending) of the WSJ the S&P 500 Index is selling at a TTM P/E Ratio of 25.0. For me, most equities are too richly priced for me to even think of adding to current positions (much less opening new positions) as I am in the trim mode keeping equities at about 45% of my asset allocation.
Now, if we should get a good pullback (10% range) in the near term I most likely will become a buyer in equities and add to some current positions; and, then perhaps after the rebound lighten up in some other positions. With this, a rebalance within my equity allocation itself.
Thus far, PMDAX has been a great fund for me; and, one that I have owned for about five years. It makes up about 60% of my small/mid cap sleeve found in the growth area of my portfolio. The other two small/mid cap funds that I own in this sleeve are ABSAX and PCVAX.

@Ted,That would be 2333 @ a 7% rise from 1:00 PM C D T SP 500. Your Cubs have you dreaming of a once every 100 year event !! That would approximate 3 deviations in Jeremy Grantham's view of reversion to the mean. Mr Grantham agrees with you on your optimism towards a continued rise in U S market.
Last World Series title.108 long years ago.
1908 Chicago Cubs Won World Series (4-1)over Detroit Tigers
Cubs Franchise History
http://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/CHC/

Immigration and Brexit
Jeremy GranthamJuly 2016
[On the investment front the equation remains the same: pushing stock prices higher are the twin forces of the Fed’s policy and corporate buybacks. Trying to push prices down is an impressive array of everything else: disappointing productivity, growth, and profit margins together with all
our domestic and international political uncertainties. And now Brexit! It is a testimonial to the strength of those two bullish forces that they can steady the US market near its high, regardless, apparently, of what is thrown at it. I therefore remain, on the basis of those two remarkable pillars of support, for at least one more quarter where I have been for the last two years; despite brutal and
widespread asset overpricing, there are still no signs of an equity bubble about to break, indeed
cash reserves and other signs of bearishness are weirdly high. In my opinion, the economy still has
some spare capacity to grow moderately for a while. All the great market declines of modern times
– 1972, 2000, and 2007 – that went down at least 50% were preceded by great optimism as well as
high prices. We can have an ordinary bear market of 10% or 20% but a serious decline still seems unlikely in my opinion. Now if we could just have a breakout rally to over 2300 on the S&P 500 and a bit of towel throwing by the bears, things could change. (2300 is our statistical definition of a bubble
threshold.) But for now I believe the best bet is still that the US market will hang in or better, at least through the election.
P.S.: Having admitted my error in commodities, I would like to clock in the
seventh anniversary of my “7 Lean Years” prediction for the economy back in 2009. The speed of the
recovery, and particularly productivity gains, has been very lean indeed.]
https://www.gmo.com/docs/default-source/research-and-commentary/strategies/asset-allocation/immigration-and-brexit.pdf?sfvrsn=11

Old_Skeet
11:33AM edited 11:35AM Flag
One of my small/mid cap funds, PMDAX, is indeed on a year-to-date roll ... up 16.6% ... plus, it sports a nice dividend!

MikeW
11:44AM Flag
thanks for the heads up Ted and Skeet. Is there a way to get the load waived on PMDAX? Any thoughts on Wasatch Core Growth? curious if you are adding funds to this asset class...

PMDAX.lw NTF at Schwab: $100 basic, same for IRA. But PMDIX with .86 ER at Scottrade for same amounts but $17 TF. Haven't looked at other third parties.

@MFO Members: In afternoon trading the S&P SmallCap 600 is up 1.40% , and the Russell 2000 1.50%. The trend is your friend !
Regards,
Ted

One of my small/mid cap funds, PMDAX, is indeed on a year-to-date roll ... up 16.6% ... plus, it sports a nice dividend!

FYI: If the direction of asset flows out of stock funds and into bond funds this year is any kind of guide, investors are seeking shelter and yield in fixed income. But they could be getting neither.
Through the end of June, U.S. equity mutual funds experienced $56.2 billion worth of net outflows, while U.S. bond funds added $73.5 billion in net inflows.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.investmentnews.com/article/20160804/FREE/160809953?template=printart

FYI: Risk has been in style recently. And that’s been good for companies with small market values.
Regards,
Ted
http://blogs.wsj.com/moneybeat/2016/08/04/small-cap-stocks-are-on-a-roll/
The S&P 600 is up 4.01% YTD
Counterpoint: "Stop Carrying The Torch For Small Caps — No Matter What Payrolls Tell Us":
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/stop-carrying-the-torch-for-small-caps-no-matter-what-payrolls-tell-us-2016-08-05/print

Based on my initial investment of 7000 shares at $7/sh = $49k I would be getting $9800 each year in dividends. My cost basis would never change and my dividends would never change. The interest earned is not reinvested in shares. All income is held in cash in money market yielding zero.
I think the area we are ignoring that would have the biggest impact is that if I sold at $17, I would be able to buy more shares (deriving more income) from the new fund purchased although at lower yields, but all of that would be at risk of loss if the share price dropped below my newly established cost basis. The chance of a capital loss at cost basis of $7 is near zero so from a portfolio management standpoint risk is greatly reduced and makes the decision not to sell my $7 investment much more attractive regardless of any compounding calculation. Theoretically, my portfolio value always goes higher although risks always abound.

Yes, but it's built on a dubious assumption - that returns continue at 20%/year.
The 20% yield was based on a price of $7/share and a dividend of $1.40/year (20%). As stated above, the price now never drops below $10/share, and the dividends (dollar amount) remains fixed "for the foreseeable future".
That means that the best yield one can achieve on the earnings is 14% (reinvesting dividends at a min of $10/share, getting $1.40/share). So while the initial shares continue to yield 20% (based on initial purchase price, disregarding appreciation), compounding occurs at a much lower (blended) rate.
Rule of 72 assumes that returns can be reinvested at the same rate of return. By hypothesis that's not the case here.