DSEEX is the institutional share class, which you can get for $5,000 only in retirement accounts. But you could also buy DBLFX, which has a 0.48% expense ratio, put 10% to 20% of what would have been your DSEEX allocation in that bond fund, then put the remaining 80% to 90% in four stock ETFs like XLK, which has a 0.14% expense ratio, and bring your average expense ratio down to about 0.20%. Since many of those ETFs trade transaction free at brokers, there'd be no cost there and you could also harvest losses on individual ETFs for tax purposes if need be instead of having them all lumped together in one fund. Periodically you could review what DSEEX is buying and try to get the ETFs it owns at a lower share price. I just don't see the great advantage of paying active management fees for a formula.
By contrast, I do see an advantage to paying active management fees for SFGIX, an active manager with a long successful track record at another fund shop--Matthews--and now his own shop. The manager of that fund doesn't follow a formula but does intensive fundamental research of the securities he owns, and has the results to prove it. Now you could call that just luck--a classic active versus passive debate--but at the very least you know Andrew Foster is definitely active. You're not paying for a formula. The only really active side in DSEEX is on the bond side, which is not the primary driver of its returns.

@bee: Thanks for reminding the board about Puddhead's head's-up on auto loans. Just as an aside I own ALLY-A GMAC Capital Trust I, 8.125% Fixed Rate/Floating Rate Trust for it's excellent yield.
Regards,
Ted

Mentioned almost 2 weeks ago here at MFO by @Puddnhead with this link:

U.S. subprime auto lenders are losing money
on car loans at the highest rate since the aftermath of the 2008
financial crisis as more borrowers fall behind on payments,
according to S&P Global Ratings.
Losses for the loans, annualized, were 9.1 percent in
January from 8.5 percent in December and 7.9 percent a year ago,
S&P data released on Thursday show, based on car loans bundled
into bonds. The rate is the worst since January 2010 and is
largely driven by worsening recoveries after borrowers default,
S&P said.
Those losses are rising in part because when lenders
repossess cars from defaulted borrowers and sell them, they are
getting back less money. A flood of used cars has hit the market
after manufacturers offered generous lease terms. Recoveries on
subprime loans fell to 34.8 percent in January, the worst since
early 2010, S&P data show.

Link:
acrossthecurve.com/?p=28283

FYI:
Regards,
Ted
http://www.cnbc.com/2017/03/22/markets-may-rejoice-if-gop-get-things-moving-on-health-bill-art-cashin-says.html

FYI: Holders of Puerto Rico's bonds are getting a harsh lesson in being careful what they wish for.
Investors cheered last year after U.S. lawmakers created a fiscal oversight board for Puerto Rico, with the goal of putting the island's finances in order. Traders pushed up Puerto Rico debt values by more than 5 percent in the four months after June. This new oversight committee was going to be great for bondholders.
High Hopes:
But a funny thing happened on the way to the payday:
On March 13, the federal oversight board approved a budget that devoted much less money to debt investors than markets had anticipated, and traders' sentiment shifted rapidly. Bond prices plunged toward record lows. Values still have much further to fall if this budget is anything close to a final version.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.bloomberg.com/gadfly/articles/2017-03-22/puerto-rico-bondholders-put-their-trust-in-wrong-ally

Prospectus:
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1016073/000119312517091628/d281232d497.htm

Recent Article (3/21/2017)
Big Oil muscling in on Shale:
From Article:

If the big boys are successful, they’ll scramble the U.S. energy business, boost American oil production, keep prices low, and steal influence from big producers, such as Saudi Arabia. And even with their enviable balance sheets, the majors have been as relentless in transforming shale drilling into a more economical operation as the pioneering wildcatters before them.
and,
At Bongo 76-43, Shell is drilling five wells in a single pad for the first time, each about 20 feet apart. That saves money otherwise spent moving rigs from site to site. Shell said it’s now able to drill 16 wells with a single rig every year, up from six in 2013.
With multiple wells on the same pad, a single fracking crew can work several weeks consecutively without having to travel from one pad to other. At Bongo 76-43, Shell is using three times more sand and fluids to break up the shale, a process called fracking, than it did four years ago. The company said it spends about $5.5 million per well today in the Permian, down nearly 60 percent from 2013.

Article Link:
https://bloomberg.com/news/features/2017-03-21/big-oil-s-plan-to-buy-into-the-shale-boom

FYI: Volatility has declined very sharply, so quite naturally, pundits suggest that investors are complacent and conditions are ripe for a nasty surprise. Such warnings deserve harsh criticism.
First, volatility should be down, given the performance of the economy and markets. Second, focusing on volatility encourages short-term thinking, which is extremely harmful to investors trying to achieve their long term goals. Third, it is entirely useless to warn against a potential market decline when the warning is provided without any kind of time framework.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-03-21/there-s-always-a-bull-market-in-fearmongering

FYI: On March 17, Vanguard filed comments urging the Department of Labor to delay the implementation date of the Fiduciary Rule by at least 12 to 18 months.
Regards,
Ted
https://pressroom.vanguard.com/nonindexed/Proposed-Delay-Comment-Letter.pdf

I'm not agreeing that these funds are creating a conflict of interest. M* has been selling advice for years. If that didn't bother you, neither should this.
M* is foremost a data collection service. You want to know how a fund performed today, or how much it costs, or what's in its filings, M* has that data. It aggregates that data within fund and across fund.
Within fund - what's its YTD, 1 year, 3 year performance. How does that look graphically. Across funds - show me the same data side by side for two funds, for three funds.
Then it takes this data and applies a small amount of judgment, by creating categories and classifying the funds. This is a thankless task; it's virtually impossible to build a classification system for anything without avoiding corner cases. Here, some funds that don't fit neatly into on category or another.
But they do a decent job, and they are not without a competitor. If you don't like the way M* has classified a fund, you can cross check with Lipper. Now S&P (the last time I looked) takes an entirely different approach. It doesn't try to describe what a fund holds, it tries to describe how a fund behaves. So you could have a large cap value fund being classified as small cap blend, simply because it's been moving that way. Different approach, one I'm not fond of, but certainly a form of competition as well.
The star ratings are purely mechanical based on these classifications. As far as subjective ratings are concerned, M* has competition. Go read Zacks. Then you can take another look at M* and consider who is really looking into funds diligently.
These are not funds of funds. Reread what I wrote - M* is hiring the managers, not buying the funds.

Schwab isn't selling advice on which funds to buy. To have a conflict of interest, there have to be two conflicting interests.
Morningstar rates funds, but also sells recommended portfolios of funds. It's motivated to rate the recommended funds highly to make its advisory service look intelligent and valuable. There's your conflict of interest. Fair ratings vs. advisory services.
All M* is doing now is repackaging what they're already selling. You don't have to go out and "hire" their recommended managers (by investing in those funds); M* has done the hiring for you, cheaper than you could do yourself. Whatever conflict of interest exists didn't come from the repackaging.
These are real funds in the same way that many funds for internal use are real funds. Not sold to individuals, but 1940 Act funds, with registrations, disclosures, prospectuses, annual reports. At least that's my understanding. They won't get analyst ratings (that would be a new conflict of interest).

See older thread on same subject:
http://www.mutualfundobserver.com/discuss/discussion/31799/m-makes-bid-to-offer-mutual-funds-for-exclusive-use-of-advisers
The key, not discussed in the MFWire feed, is that M* is taking a portfolio recommendation that it's already selling to advisers and packaging the whole thing as a single fund. Normally, you'd expect that to be a fund of funds. Instead, M* is hiring the managers of the recommended funds and having them run the combined fund directly.
Currently, advisers interested in offering the M*-recommended portfolio to clients have to go out and buy the funds themselves. With the new prepackaged fund, they get essentially the same portfolio. They just don't have to assemble it themselves.

I'm looking for a good emerging market fund that would be considered on the "conservative" end of the EM equity spectrum...any unique funds out there that have a lower volatility tilt?

I vote for SFGIX, too. The other share-class is SIGIX.
I checked-out my own holding, PRIDX, after reading your question. But it holds only 19.46% in EM. And it's a fund devoted to only small-caps, but worldwide. I like the fund.

FYI: At least 10 U.S. fundsters, plus several fundster­adjacent folks, are
among the world's billionaires this year, as identified by Forbes.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.mfwire.com/common/artprint2007.asp?storyID=55944&wireid=2

In last month's Elevator Talk, Paul allows that he'll pursue for SFVLX some investments that are riskier than what would be appropriate in SFGIX.
If you want to limit downside, consider a fund that hedges its equity exposure. There are three possible hedges: a hybrid fund that holds bonds (often flagged "Total" or "Multi-asset"), a fund that's willing to hold a lot of cash, or a fund with a formal hedging policy. I screened for open, retail funds with the lowest downside deviation over the past five years. Here are 14 of the 15 "best" (the other was an institutional fund). Ten of the 14 have peer-beating returns over that period. Remember: these aren't recommendations, these are just a set of funds that meets one of your criteria that you might want to learn a bit more about.
David
GuideMark Emerging Markets GMLVX - 98% equity exposure
Capital Group Emerging Markets Total Opportunities ETOPX - 45% equity
Deutsche X-trackers MSCI Emerging Markets Hedged Equity ETF DBEM - hedged equity
Harding Loevner Frontier Emerging Markets HLFMX -95%
ICON Emerging Markets Fund ICARX - 88%
New World Fund NEWFX - 84%
Amana Developing World AMDWX - 87%
AB Emerging Markets Multi-Asset ABYEX - 47%
Fidelity Total Emerging Markets FTEMX - 63%, a Great Owl
Lazard Emerging Markets Multi Asset EMMIX -47%
Baron Emerging Markets BEXIX - 92%
Calamos Evolving World Growth CNWIX -80%
Seafarer Overseas Growth and Income Fund SIGIX - 90%, a Great Owl
iShares Edge MSCI Min Vol Emerging Markets ETF EEMV - hedged equity

A few more to throw in (some attributable to Bernard Baruch):
1. Don't try to buy at the bottom and sell at the top. It can't be done except by liars.
2. I made my money by selling too soon.
3. Every man has a right to be wrong in his opinions. But no man has a right to be wrong about his facts.
4. I never lost money by turning a profit.
5. The main purpose of the stock market is to make fools of as many men as possible.
6. When good news about the market hits the front page of the New York Times, sell.
7. If a speculator is correct half of the time, he is hitting a good average. Even being right 3 or 4 times out of 10 should yield a person a fortune if he has the sense to cut his losses quickly on the ventures where he is wrong.
8. A speculator is a man who observes the future, and acts before it occurs.
9. Don't be afraid of income taxes when deciding whether to turn a profit. (my own)
10. Sooner or later economics always takes over. (my own)

FYI: Measures of stock valuation have been flashing caution for months. Humans are finally starting to take notice.
Fund managers now say stocks are the most overvalued they have been in nearly 20 years, according to a survey done last week by Bank of America Merrill Lynch.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-03-21/record-number-of-fund-managers-say-u-s-equities-are-overvalued

@MFO Members: It's been about 20 years since I first linked Max Gunther's Zurich Axioms to the FundAlarm Discussion Board. One of the major problems I see on the MFO Discuaaion Board is that many members don't take enough risk. Here's what Max Gunther had to say about risk. " Put your money at risk. Don’t be afraid of getting hurt a little. The degree of risk you will usually be dealing with is not hair-raisingly high. By being willing to face it, you give yourself the only realistic chance you have of rising above the great unrich."

The biggest risk is not taking risk. I agree. The problem is easy to convince someone who started investing in 1990, not 1999. Blaming the investor is the easiest thing to do.
Trading is not always speculation. And it is not "market timing". Ask those who got out of the market the last 2 times it went down 50%. Don't just say they never got back in soon again. They slept well and someone has to produce proof they are worse off today. And until the next 50% correction.
"If you had invested $X in year Y...." is all available in hindsight. In the real world things work differently. When I'm 80 (nah, I don't think I'll live that long, I couldn't afford it, but dream with me a bit...) and I don't have responsibilities, sure I'll go to Vegas.
PS - by the way I've never been to Vegas. I know, I suck.

I like your approach @Ted and I believe you are correct in your assessment of risk-averse MFOers. Your three top fund holdings revealed in a recent thread show that you walk the walk. For my part, I put a slice of my active portfolio into PTIAX for diversity's sake, but you won't see me agonizing over or discussing bond durations or other arcane metrics fixed income investors revel in. According to my age, I should have 25% equity exposure, but it's closer to 75% because I believe I'll be around for 20 more years, a long-term target. I realize what the risk is.
A few years ago my TIAA advisor showed me a graph depicting a line going straight up from 2000 to 2014. It represented the performance of TIAA's fixed income portfolio returning 5% per annum. Stocks came nowhere near that level of performance. I felt kind of dumb until I realized that no one could have told me in 2000 to put everything into bonds and I now doubt many TIAA investors achieved that extraordinary performance. I've done fine in equities despite periods of lagging performance and I've enjoyed the ride. 2008 was a sickening time, but it didn't last forever and it provided a great time to put more money into stocks.

Hi Crash,
Nice recall! The Zurich Axioms are indeed an excellent set of investment rules. Your reference Links to the book. Here is another Link that summarizes the 12 rules:
http://www.financialsense.com/contributors/joseph-dancy/2012/01/26/the-twelve-axioms-of-investing
The Zurich set violates the research recommended 4 to 7 limits so immediate recall might prove difficult. The author of the referenced article summarized the 12 Zurich set to a more manageable set of 7. Here they are:
1. Run a concentrated portfolio
2. Keep the odds are in your favor
3. Cut your losses short
4. Let winners run, but sell when they reach fair market value
5. Do your own analysis
6. Beware of excess optimism or pessimism and of expert options
7. Remain flexible and adapt to the investment environment
Note how these rules differ from those that I listed. Simple rules are personal to each individual. You choose those that allow you to sleep well. I just might be doing something right since I sleep very well indeed.. Then again, I might just be innocent or perhaps even lucky
Thanks again.
Best Wishes