FYI: Their recent woes don’t raise concerns.
Regards,
Ted
http://news.morningstar.com/articlenet/article.aspx?id=799153

DSENX has certainly performed since its inception. As LouisBraham stated each bear market has different winners and losers. TWEIX did very well during 2000-2003 bear market +37% (3/1/2000-3/31/2003) versus -35% for FUSEX (FIDO S&P500 index fund). It had an edge during the 10/7/2007 -3/9/2009 bear market. It declined 39% versus 55% for FUSEX.
More recent, during the latest correction ( I'm using 6/1/2015 thru 2/11/2016)
DSENX declined 9.1%, TWEIX declined -4.3% and FUSEX declined 11.9%. From 6/1/2015 thru 3/22/2017 DSENX HAS returned 27.5%, TWEIX 23.2% and FUSEX 15.7%. DSENX exhibited less downside and much more upside than the S&P500 during this time frame during the same market conditions.
So what could go wrong with DSENX strategy? At present credit markets are robust and the trend of the S%P 500 is still up. What if one or the other or both change direction? The same question can be asked about TWEIX but at least there is some history with TWEIX in good/not so good markets and less questions to seek answers. DSENX is an intriguing fund with relative out performance. For me I'm gonna keep it simple and stay with stock funds and bond funds.

Hi Guys,
Perma-Bears and Perma-Bulls have always existed especially if minor exceptions are allowed in the definition of these groups.
Even historic Perma-Bears such as Joe Granville and Howard Ruff occasionally admitted a short positive market perspective. Today, Nourial Roubini, Doctor Doom, practices that discipline. Over any timeframe that extends beyond 10 years, their negative perspectives haven't survived the real world test. That's why we invest in the stock market.
VintageFreak asked if we could identify any Perma-Bulls. Again, using a loosened definition of Perma-Bulls that permits infrequent exceptions, I suggest the buy-and.-hold advocates might be included in that grouping. Guys like John Bogle would be good candidates for that sobriquet. The buy-and-hold it clan have a host of advocates in the academic community.
Paul Merriman summarizes much of their buy and forget it investment strategy. Here is a Link to one of his many papers that address this simple strategy:
http://paulmerriman.com/ultimate-buy-hold-strategy-2016/
Some very illuminating comments have been contributed to this topic. Thank you all.
Best Wishes

What's your advice when it comes to selecting mutual funds that are managed using sub-advisor?
A recent article from FA (Financial Advisor) mentions,

...many institutions and financial advisors favor sub-advised funds because they can hire the best managers and not rely on in-house staff. Currently 13% of mutual funds are managed by outside advisors. And assets in sub-advised funds have increase 25% to $755 billion since 2004. By contrast, assets of all mutual funds are up about 15%, or $453 billion, over the same period.
-(The) largest players in the sub-advisory marketplace include Wellington Asset Management, Alliance Bernstein, PIMCO and Prime Cap. But there are a number of smaller shops with strong track records.
-There often is turnover with investment company sub-advisors.
- The Masters' Mutual Funds group of four funds has outperformed the category average every year from 2002 through July 2006. Each fund has several highly regarded sub-advisors from other mutual fund shops. The Masters' Select Equity Fund, a large-cap blend fund, invests in the best picks of stellar managers, such as Bill Miller of Legg Mason, Chris Davis of Davis Select Advisors and Mason Hawkins of Southeastern Asset Management. The fund has outperformed the S&P 500 over the five years ending in July 2006.

Article:
fa-mag.com/news/sub-advisors-are-in-the-house-1503.html

Columbia Strategic Income is one of these funds that has a share class for every possible selling opportunity, 10 classes that I count. I put NO store in where it ranks in the Non-Traditional Bond category, since that is a garbage bin created to stick funds that don't fit some company's box. It has actually raised its expense ratio over the years (COSIX was 0.95% in 2008, now at 1.02%, which is very odd). And turnover went from 41% to 168% now. It is really a multi-sector fund, similar to TSIIX, PONDX, and even LSBDX). And it looks pretty weak compared to PONDX.
We would advocate a broad mix of bonds, with an emphasis on short durations and maturities, and concentrate on downside risk. As most of you know, I really like OSTIX and would consider it a core holding for almost every client. Also like PONDX, THIIX, and TGBAX. Perhaps a bit of FFRHX and maybe a pinch of KIFYX, and you have a very diversified mix of fixed-income offerings.

Never said it was good or bad, my point was concentrated funds tend to closer sooner to preserve flexibility. Personally, I like them and own a few of them.

Sure. 35 stock IMO is not that concentrated. There are studies that show beyond 20 holdings it matters less. However, let's not get into statistical mumbo jumbo. It matters more if there is MUCH concentration in top 5-10 holdings. FAIRX as example.
I doubt you will ever see wild swings in FMIJX, and that's not just because managers are more competent or they invest in "value" stocks. Their top holding could be carved in half and it would go down 2%. Par for the course. And FMIJX is more diversified across sectors which is the real diversification we seek. We all know too well how diversified Large Cap Growth was (NOT!) in the early 2000s.
My point was - and I quoted some numbers already - FMIJX has more than 35 "holdings". Can't simply go by number of disclosed holdings to determine concentration.
As an aside, I didn't know Mutual Funds are not required to divulge ALL their holdings. Recently reading annual report for FPIVX, I read "the fund does not disclose all its holdings". So I went checking. I wouldn't be surprised if the 18 (other) and 11 (short) holdings of FMIJX are undisclosed. Need to go do some digging. Right now I'm trusting M* (what have I done!)
PS - Your logic on owning concentrated funds, i.e. best ideas I like. I own a few myself, but not what you might like :-)
COBYX, FAIRX, APPLX, PROVX, CGMFX, FVALX, INTLX,...not sure I got all of them.

Several differences between OAKIX and FMIJX.
1. OAKIX has suffered outflows and may have reopened in order not to sell stocks to cover.
2. FMI management seems to close funds much sooner that Oakmark. FMI large cap closed years ago with only a few billion. They've since reopened but they appear to close down funds with a lot less AUM.
Just my opinion

You are of course correct. But that's difference between the fund management and stewardship and not the portfolio :-)

Disappointing, to say the least. There has been PLENTY of time to digest the rule and get ready for its implementation. A number of companies already implemented on January 1. There is NO non-political or fair reason for delay. It simply allows the annuity and other commission folks more time to bilk investors.

FWIW saying I like the 'concentrated' nature of the fund and in particular this one. It's been on my watchlist for ages as part of my foreign stock exposure, and I just opened a 1/3-sized starter position the other day to get in before it closes ... planning to average into any major drops if/when/as they occur to get up to my target position size.

Interesting this fund is brought up, since we used it back in the early 1990s when Bill Wilby ran it. We sold it when he retired and really have not looked at it since. Still some impressive long-term and short-term rankings. M* comments are typically obtuse. If you are going to own an actively-manged fund, the things you want are precisely what M* considers risky: concentrated portfolio that owns a smallish number of holdings of the manager's best-convictions, a strong, experienced manager (who cares if he works alone, and the fund has fared well under ALL managers), and a unique management philosophy that is not tied to a standard benchmark. Amazing they admit the fund's approach has done very well, but they give it a neutral rating for process and people. Typical M*.

FMIJX is a concentrated fund, that's the diff.

First, I don't think FMIJX is that concentrated. Second top 5 holdings of both funds have 18-19%. I seriously don't think this should be used as a decision point on which fund to chose. JMHO.

Don't take my word for it, take it directly from FMIJX's summary prospectus:
"As a non-diversified fund, the FMI International Fund tends to concentrate its investment on fewer companies than a diversified mutual fund. The Fund holds approximately 25-40 stocks, with most major industry groups represented."
Never said it was good or bad, my point was concentrated funds tend to closer sooner to preserve flexibility. Personally, I like them and own a few of them.

Just bought $100 worth in my Schwab solo 401K. Thanks for the heads up, @TheShadow and the tip @VintageFreak

@VintageFreak said,

If interest rates go up, which means dollar should go down

I believe the US dollar strengthens as rates rise.
Article on the topic:
https://forbes.com/sites/moneybuilder/2011/12/01/what-determines-the-strength-of-a-currency/#72d4bae816c6

Several differences between OAKIX and FMIJX.
1. OAKIX has suffered outflows and may have reopened in order not to sell stocks to cover.
2. FMI management seems to close funds much sooner that Oakmark. FMI large cap closed years ago with only a few billion. They've since reopened but they appear to close down funds with a lot less AUM.
Just my opinion

FMIJX is a concentrated fund, that's the diff.

First, I don't think FMIJX is that concentrated. Second top 5 holdings of both funds have 18-19%. I seriously don't think this should be used as a decision point on which fund to chose. JMHO.
Count the total number of holdings FMIJX = 35+18+11 vs OAKIX = 59+11. What is interesting is that 11 holdings for FMIJX are "Short". I'm guessing these are the holdings for hedging currency.
Anyways, I'm going to watch for divergence as indicator to switch.

I think Gundlach's bond portfolio can add the 1.3%, but it's on a short leash for me -- it could crater even more severely than most in the right circumstances.

I thought I remember seeing a Doubleline video of the fund manager (Jeffrey Sherman), who talked about the fund's strategies and said that the bond component used absolute return bond strategies. So the bond component would not be like DBLTX.

@LewisBraham all good points. So Gundlach's bond portfolio has gotta add closer to 1.3%, and yes, if there's a return of the GFC, the fund will probably have counterparty problems. I think Gundlach's bond portfolio can add the 1.3%, but it's on a short leash for me -- it could crater even more severely than most in the right circumstances.

What I like about DSENX is that its stock selection is based on mathematical model instead of human selection subject to emotions and other drawbacks. The model for CAPE index was back tested for at least 15 years and it shows very good results comparing to SP500.
If I could find another mutual fund or ETF based on math. model with similar consistency and outperformance of benchmark for at least 10 years I would be happy to jump in.

OK, so what you're saying is the portfolio is both leveraged, adding to volatility, and has counterparty risk via the swaps. Look at the holdings here: https://sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1480207/000119312517055343/d321548dnq.htm
So the counterparties responsible for the swaps tied to the CAPE index are Barclays Capital, BNP Paribas, and Bank of America. Anything goes wrong with them and there's a problem. Additionally the swaps cost between 0.43% to 0.47% of the swap's value to put on, adding to fees. So there is added risk and cost and I still don't think this would be that hard to replicate with a small options position to add a little bit of leverage. Now you could say the leverage isn't bad in the fund as it is bonds on top of stocks and those two asset classes aren't highly correlated normally. The only problem is there are circumstances when those asset classes are correlated such as in a rising interest rate or highly inflationary environment causing both bonds and stocks to fall. I would say that environment or a credit crisis where Barclays, BNP or Bank of America get into trouble could expose the added risks here.

@LLJB +1. Which means that if Gundlach can invest those bonds well enough to generate a greater than 0.89% return, and if the equity side at least breaks even with the S&P, the fund ought to beat the S&P, before taxes, so long as its counterparties always pay up.