This is especially true in a very slow, careful increase in rates as we are likely to have. I hope you are right as bank loan funds may be the place to be. And would love to see a corresponding rise in CD yields. Albeit I have been hearing this rising rate scenario since the beginning of 2014.

Hi Guys,
I’m a little amazed by how often referenced articles and posts interact with one another.
Just today, this article on Marc Faber and the 10 Laws of Wealth piece have that interconnected character. Here is the internal Link to the 10 laws article:
http://www.mutualfundobserver.com/discuss/discussion/28733/these-10-laws-of-wealth-can-help-you-hold-on-to-investment-gains
There really are no unexpected recommendations in this listing. Rule 4, “Forecasting is for weathermen”, is relevant for the Faber reference. Forecasters do hazardous duty and are challenged to score a 50% accuracy. Actually, weathermen have a much better record than financial wizards. Faber falls into that lower success ratio cohort. Here is the CXO Advisory Group Guru grade ratings:
https://www.cxoadvisory.com/gurus/
Based on a large number of predictions over an extended timeframe, Faber’s record is rather unimpressive. He scored at the 45% correct level. CXO asked the following: “Marc Faber: Nabob of Negativism?” My answer is a firm yes to that question.
Faber seems to always recommend a rather large portfolio asset allocation to Gold holdings, sometimes as high as 25%.
If that allocation is scraped from the fixed income portion of the portfolio (equities sort of held constant), overall portfolio returns should not suffer too much, and the portfolio’s standard deviation should be greatly reduced.
I loosely checked the numbers over several timeframes with Gold ranging from the 10% to the 25% portfolio weightings to verify my speculation. The few numbers I made confirmed my perspective. Please note that I do not do Gold in my portfolio.
Best Regards.

ETNMX has a really interesting mix of assets. Thanks for the tip, TSP, gonna look into that one. It's slightly outdone NWQAX.LW, which is pretty good.

No short term redemption fee and NTF at Scottrade. Looks good! But then 2016 is turning out to be a dart thrower's dream where just about anything has looked good.

SO FAR SO GOOD @ 1 year.16 % Cash and a "true" mix of multi-assets.
Eventide Multi-Asset Income Fund ETNMX
http://eventidefunds.com/wp-content/uploads/MAI-portfolio-composition-2016Q2.png
ETNMX Fact Sheet
http://eventidefunds.com/wp-content/uploads/Eventide-Multi-Asset-Income-Fund-Fact-Sheet-06-30-2016.pdf

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/831114/000110465916134137/a16-15296_1497.htm
497 1 a16-15296_1497.htm 497
THE RBB FUND, INC.
Schneider Value Fund
Ticker Symbol: SCMLX
Supplement dated July 25, 2016 to the Schneider Value Fund’s Prospectus
and Statement of Additional Information, each dated December 31, 2015
THIS SUPPLEMENT CONTAINS NEW AND ADDITIONAL INFORMATION BEYOND THAT CONTAINED IN THE PROSPECTUS AND STATEMENT OF ADDITIONAL INFORMATION AND SHOULD BE READ IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE PROSPECTUS AND STATEMENT OF ADDITIONAL INFORMATION.
On July 21, 2016, the Board of Directors of The RBB Fund, Inc. (the “Board”) approved a plan of liquidation and termination for the Schneider Value Fund (the “Fund”). Effective July 29, 2016, purchases into the Fund will no longer be permissible, and all redemption fees will be waived.
On or about August 30, 2016 (the “Liquidation Date”), the Fund will redeem all investors’ shares at net asset value, and the Fund will terminate. Investors holding shares of the Fund on the Liquidation Date will receive cash representing proceeds from the redemption. Absent other instructions, the cash proceeds will be distributed by mailing a check to each investor of record at such investor’s address of record. The Fund is in the process of liquidating securities and the Fund may invest all or part of the proceeds from the liquidation of portfolio securities in cash equivalent instruments or hold the proceeds in cash. As disclosed in the Prospectus, the Fund is permitted to depart from its principal investment strategy by taking temporary defensive positions (up to 100% of its assets) in cash and eligible U.S. dollar-denominated of money market instruments. During this time, the Fund may not achieve its investment objective.
Until the Liquidation Date, investors may redeem their shares in the manner set forth in the Fund’s current Prospectus. The redemption of your shares will generally be considered a taxable event.
For federal income tax purposes, the tax treatment to investors of the receipt of the liquidating distribution on the Liquidation Date will be the same as would be the tax treatment of a redemption of shares on that date. You may also be subject to state, local or foreign taxes on redemptions or liquidations of Fund shares. The foregoing is only a summary of certain tax considerations under current law, which may change in the future. You should consult your tax adviser for information regarding all tax consequences applicable to your investment in the Fund.
Please retain this Supplement for future reference.

Right now I have had the money out 138 days. There is probably little hope to get it back in from what I have researched.
Thanks
Gary

I remember when the Peak Oil Theory was being propagated and everybody said "This time it is different" and "We will never see oil below $100 again". There is still a glut of oil and oil reserves are high. I jumped off the oil train, but I am waiting for another opportunity.

If you are looking for diversification, I would not use a fund that owns REITs and stocks of companies that have a lot of real estate. An example of this is Baron Real Estate. It is much more tied to the stock markets than just plain REITs. We have used Cohen & Steers for a very long time. CSRSX has been around since 1991 and has had management changes over the years but has been very consistent. Marty Cohen and Robert Steers retired in 2013. Vanguard VGSLX has minimal expenses and is an index fund. Also take a look at ICF which is the ETF version of Cohen & Steers. While international real estate may have some merits, it add another layer of volatility and risk that may not be worth it. Any of the above give you a quality, alternative investment. One thing to keep in mind, REITS are less subject to interest rate risk than you might think, since they can pass the added expense on through their leases to their renters. This is especially true in a very slow, careful increase in rates as we are likely to have.

As I commented above, you can get PSLDX for just $100 at Scottrade. But then the transaction fee ($17) would constitute 14.5% of the total committed ($117). And people say 5.75% front end loads are expensive!
Regarding Schwab - I tried a test trade for $100K and asked for the $76 transaction fee to be deducted from this. It wouldn't let the trade go through, because the net amount to invest didn't meet the $100K min. A test trade for $100K plus $76 transaction fee was allowed to go through. Well, except for the fact that Schwab recognized I didn't have that kind of cash in the account :-(

FYI: Multi-alternative-strategy mutual funds have been quietly fading into the background, reflecting the challenges facing alternative strategy mutual funds.
Of the 31 funds shut down this year across eight liquid alt fund categories tracked by Morningstar, 19 were cut from the multi-alternative category.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.investmentnews.com/article/20160725/FREE/160729962?template=printart

PSLDX is $100,000 min at Schwab, but you could have the transaction fee deducted from that already low entry point! I don't travel in those circles. Glad to go with DSENX.

I'm in TRGRX, which is TRP GLOBAL Real Estate. Comparing the domestic TRP fund, I see that the USA version is doing better... I'm not going to bail, just on this one, single observation, and I'm happy in TRGRX. I wonder if what is in TRREX is represented in my TRGRX? Anyway, I'd say add in increments, if you want to... Dollar-cost-averaging....I'm already 12.9% in RE, without even trying--- NOT all in TRGRX, which is just 6.11% of my portfolio. Interest rates may rise in the USA, but only a token blip upwards. Elsewhere, there is easing, accommodation, and more easing. And let's not forget the prospect of "helicopter money" falling from the sky. I think these policies are ruinous, but you can't fight city hall. As for individual stocks, I'm waiting for LXP to pull-back before starting a position there.

FYI: Marc Faber, the economist behind the "Doom, Boom & Gloom Report," sees gold as protection from a dangerous combination of tremendous government debt and massive bond-buying by central banks.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/columnists/ct-marksjarvis-column-marc-faber-money-doom-0724-biz-20160722-column.html

On taxes, the unique "feature" of REITs is that almost all dividends are taxable as ordinary income (whichever bracket you are in). In contrast, most other stocks pay "qualified dividends" which are taxed at much lower rates (0% or 15% for most folks). So it is very possible that your REIT fund will have a higher tax cost than a stock dividend fund with two or three times the yield.
Your other questions are much more complicated, so I'm just taking the easy one here and leaving the rest to smarter people to answer.

TIBIX - $2.5M minimum (prospectus), $2.5K in a Fidelity IRA. Not quite the 10,000:1 ratio (prospectus vs. brokerage min) that one finds with PIMCO, but 1,000:1 is still pretty darned flexible.
One of the weaker aspects of Merrill Edge is that if it offers a share class NTF, it usually doesn't make the cheaper institutional shares available (with TF).
An exception is MWTIX. That share class carries a min of $3M. It used to be available at many brokerages for a min of $50K. Not small, but potentially reachable for some investors, especially as it can serve as a core fund. Now, Merrill is the only place I've found that still has this "low" min.

@msf:
>>The PIMCO prospectus gives the min as $1M. Brokerages generally have some flexibility in setting their own minimums.
Correct. Never seen this degree of flexibility.
Listed but unavail (to my accounts anyway) at ML.
Exact tracking w DSENX with remarkable performance.

The PIMCO prospectus gives the min as $1M. Brokerages generally have some flexibility in setting their own minimums. Fidelity may require $100K, but Scottrade requires just $100.

Re: "Savings to the underlying funds are expected to result primarily from the elimination of numerous separate shareholder accounts which are or would have been invested directly in the underlying funds and the resulting reduction in shareholder servicing costs. Although such cost savings are not certain, the estimated savings to the underlying funds generated by the operation of the Retirement Funds are expected to be sufficient to offset most, if not all, of the expenses incurred by the Retirement Funds."
MSF: Wow. Nice find! Apparently that's what I remember seeing. Not what I had long assumed. Still helps explain why their allocation funds are a better deal for investors than many others which do level allocation or administration fees.
As for TRRIX not being invested in any institutional class shares, don't be too sure. It does have a 20.3% weighting in PRCIX, Price's New Income Fund. PRCIX in turn holds institutional class shares in two other T. Rowe Price funds: Floating Rate and High Yield. In addition, both TRRIX and PRICX have the ability to invest in Summit Cash Reserves (not institutional - but having a $25,000 minimum) although they appear to have only trace exposure to that fund at present.
Thanks for your input. Interesting.
-
PS: Re TRPTX - I like that one better. .47% ER and invested in institutional shares. But can't quite afford the $1 mil minimum. :)

From a TRP early (October 1, 2004) prospectus:

Savings to the underlying funds are expected to result primarily from the elimination of numerous separate shareholder accounts which are or would have been invested directly in the underlying funds and the resulting reduction in shareholder servicing costs. Although such cost savings are not certain, the estimated savings to the underlying funds generated by the operation of the Retirement Funds are expected to be sufficient to offset most, if not all, of the expenses incurred by the Retirement Funds.

In other words, the savings in the underlying funds (best case) would bring the ER of the Retirement Funds down to zero (not below). The fee table in the prospectus shows each fund as having fees that are exactly offset by the savings, so that the net ER is exactly equal to the cost of owning the underlying funds. Not cheaper - these savings just explain how TRP offers funds of funds with no additional costs.
@Edmond: " Consequently, its my bull-headed belief that we investors should very much care how richly/cheaply priced the assets we are buying/holding are. ... So many investors are proudly 'cost-conscious', but then intentionally invest in a manner which is not 'price-conscious'. Tgt-funds seem to assiduously cling to that latter behavior. "
Perhaps this is just a matter of watch what I do, not what I say, but FWIW, what TRP says:

The allocations shown in the glide path are referred to as "neutral" allocations because they do not reflect any tactical decisions made by T. Rowe Price to overweight or underweight a particular asset class or sector based on its market outlook. The target allocations assigned to the broad asset classes (Stocks and Bonds), which reflect these tactical decisions resulting from market outlook, are not expected to vary from the neutral allocations set forth in the glide path by more than plus (+) or minus (-) five percentage (5%) points.

Generally speaking, this flexibility is the differentiating attribute between asset allocation funds and static balanced funds (whatever their selected balance is).