@msf- math is certainly not my strong point, so this is probably a really stupid question: with respect to "below B" in that table, is it the assumption that 100% of the bonds in that category will default? That seems quite extreme, so it likely doesn't mean that. What is the implication of "relative" here? Does it perhaps mean that this category is 100 times more likely to default than "AAA"? If that's so, how would they come by that particular judgement?

I noticed the quality numbers, too. Still, if 47% is AAA rated, then why is the average quality only BB for the fund? He must own some real junk in there.

It's a default-rate-weighted average, so that the average quality represents the average or expected default rate of the portfolio as a whole. Here's M*'s methodology; note the default weight values in the table at the bottom of p. 2.
https://prnedelivery.morningstar.com/Average_credit_Quality_Methodology_Change_2010.pdf

Very interesting. I never realized that they use this method for calculation. It does seem skewed since the range for default rates is so narrow for higher rated bonds compared to low quality. Maybe I'm wrong but having just a few lower rated bonds can drive down the overall quality in a hurry. At least according to *M.

I noticed the quality numbers, too. Still, if 47% is AAA rated, then why is the average quality only BB for the fund? He must own some real junk in there.

It's a default-rate-weighted average, so that the average quality represents the average or expected default rate of the portfolio as a whole. Here's M*'s methodology; note the default weight values in the table at the bottom of p. 2.
https://prnedelivery.morningstar.com/Average_credit_Quality_Methodology_Change_2010.pdf

Is DoubleLine's Jeffrey Gundlach The New Bond King?
JF talks about differences among TOTL, DBLTX, Core (DBLFX), and Flexible.
FWIW, I own DBLTX which is the best antidote for equity risk.

OK, I can out-wimp willmat any old day: Cash 43% / Bond Funds 12% / Equities & Equity Funds 26% / Real Estate (other than SF home) 19%.

@ msf,
Wow - Just when I thought fund fees were becoming more reasonable.
At work years ago we first had Templeton Class A in our 403-B plan (4.17% front load) and than later they added T. Rowe Price no-load, which I switched to.
Guess I was "spoiled" by that experience.
I hope the OP is able to identify some options that won't gouge him on cost. If not, the Roth idea someone suggested might be a better alternative.

I doubt R shares would ever convert. They are more like C shares that never convert than like B shares (with high but declining deferred sales charges).
The purpose of the higher fees is to pay servicing expenses, not sales expenses, so you would expect them to persist. A 401k plan administrator has to service all its investors (just like a third party brokerage selling funds), but also has additional regulatory filings and procedures to follow. An administrator will charge to cover its costs (and make some profit).
In my mind, the two questions are: what's a reasonable charge, and who should pay it (employer or employee)?
Consider that brokerages like Fidelity and Schwab charge funds 40 basis points for shelf space (NTF funds). By that measure (given the additional work required of 401k plans), the 50 basis points doesn't seem out of line. But I would argue that the brokerage NTF fees are themselves excessive, and that most of the regulatory stuff done by plan administrators is boilerplate/automated. By that measure, the 50 basis points is too high, and that is what I think.
Who should pay is not as obvious as: well, of course the employer should pay.
Employers, especially small companies, have limited budgets, and allocate so many dollars per employee. Those dollars can go toward salary, toward vacation time, toward desk space, toward benefits. Demand that they pay for the plan and perhaps you'll get a smaller match (if any).
Small plans cost more per employee (fixed costs amortized over fewer people). That's why large companies almost always pay for the plans, while small companies shift costs. They may use annuities (where the administrator gets paid out of the annuity fees) or R class shares as here, or ...
IMHO this isn't "evil", but it should be clearly disclosed and should be a reasonable amount.

@soaring, where/how do you buy it? M* lists $5M min. Appears unable to be bought at Fido and ML.

Bought QSPIX earlier this year (as recent as end of August) in 401k/403b accounts at Fidelity via their BrokerageLink. It was available for $500 minimum ($2,500 minimum in IRA), but the institutional class is no longer available for retail investors. QSPIX is now an advisor fund. I noticed this when my monthly contribution failed in September. They let me hold onto QSPIX, but I can't add to it. Class N QSPNX (1.75% ER - 0.25% higher than I) is still available at Fidelity $2,500 minimum NTF in tax deferred accounts. The stated minimum is enforced in a taxable account which is not suitable for this fund.

I have about 12-15% in cash, which amounts to about $140,000. Call me a wimp, but I don't feel comfortable investing it. I already have quite a lot of money in the market.

@willmatt72
I'd call you very smart, not a wimp.

I have about 12-15% in cash, which amounts to about $140,000. Call me a wimp, but I don't feel comfortable investing it. I already have quite a lot of money in the market.

The one (more aggressive) choice that leaps to mind is T.Rowe Price's Growth Stock Fund (PRGFX) ... R-Class would allow you to own Class A equivalent at Oppenheimer without paying the customary (near 5%) load.

I'll try again to describe loads.
Would you be as comfortable suggesting the RRGSX share class of TRP's Growth Stock Fund? That's what is being offered. These are R shares, with an ER nearly double that of PRGFX (an extra 0.50%, to be precise). Oppenheimer R shares likewise add 0.50% and cost more than their load-waived A shares found in some other 401k plans (and also NTF at several discount brokerages).
This extra 0.50% is taken out year after year, even if one switches funds within the 401k, since the all funds assess this fee (or something close to it).
That's a load. It goes into the pocket of the plan administrator. The SEC calls it a load, FINRA calls it a load. Over a decade, it's going to cost as much as a front end load.
That S&P Mid cap index fund? Here's its financial statement and its M* profile. J class management fee is just 0.07%. But oh, those administrative fees (think 12b-1), they add 0.63%, bringing the total ER up to 0.70. That gravy goes to the plan administrator.
Briefly on the investment options - if you don't like the actively managed options, the index funds cover the major areas, large cap (S&P 500 index), mid cap (S&P Mid Cap index), small cap (Russell Small Cap index), foreign (International index). They're cheaper than the other offerings (even at 0.7% or so ER), and should beat lackluster funds.
If you want to add some bond exposure and actively managed allocations, several people here have written positively about Blackrock Global Allocation (MRLOX), notably BobC, but also Bee, VintageFreak, myself, and others.
Yes folks, posts on the internet live forever :-)

So to keep with the historical custom you cite, a better question would have been What percent of your total nut do you have in cash?
I was not expressing any opinion about privacy. It's not that I don't understand the issues. I was just surprised few were willing to answer a plain direct question but responded anyway.
Opinion weighting is an interesting notion. Not sure it applies so much in a situation where anyone could've said "I have 50k (or 25k, or 100k), about a year's worth for me." Whatever.

Hi proman. The 3 main drivers to winning the retirement savings game are to start saving early in your career, save as much as you can (10% of your income minimum) and have a diversified portfolio according to risk tolerance. I wouldn't agonize over fund choice too much. Fund choice IMO is a very distant contributor to the end-game compared to these other factors.
It would be my opinion that one of those Target Date funds would give you the allocation base you need. Use the retirement year as a guide, but make your decision based more on the funds stock/bond allocation. Take a look at how much these funds lost in 2008. Are you comfortable with short term loss knowing you don't need this money for another 30+ years? For example I see that the 2045 retirement fund, AOOIX, is about 78% stocks. It had a 1 year, 2008 loss of 33%. At 30 years old that might be a good choice for you, but you have to decide. If the fund is riskier then you can handle (based on 1 year loss potential) you may pull out at the very wrong time. If it doesn't have enough stock or risk at your age then you may be leaving a lot of money on the table 30 years from now.
Anyway, start with your allocation and then pick a few funds that get you to that allocation. And don't overlook the index funds when allotting, especially in the large cap area. And remember one fund like a Target Date fund might be all you need or at least be the core of your portfolio.
Save as much as you can and as soon as you can. That's the big deal. Good luck to you.
edit: oops, in my original post I used data from AAARX, the strategic fund. I changed the ticker to be AOOIX, the 2045 target date fund.

@LLJB
I agree with you. My reasons for subscribing were:
1. There is only one other Global Micro Cap Fund (with a load) besides GP's fund;
2. This is going to be a growth oriented micro cap fund; there are not many established micro cap funds with consistent performance records for growth oriented micro cap funds open to retail investors ( I like Lord Abbett Micro Cap Growth Fund but it is closed and not available to retail investors);
3. Robert Gardiner's past micro cap experience which I hope he brings to this fund; and
4. Not sure how many micro cap funds invest in nano cap stocks; but, there are some hedge funds that invest in nano caps (which I can't afford).

David- it's been customary both on MFO and it's FundAlarm predecessor site to express financial affairs in terms of percentages, rather than dollar amounts. There are good reasons for that practice: privacy of course, and equalization of "opinion weight" being but two. By that I mean that a contributor's opinion on any given matter is not enhanced or diminished merely because that person may have ten times as much, or maybe only one-tenth as much wealth as someone else.
In fact the issue seldom rises, and probably arose here only because of the nature of the underlying linked article, which does quote dollar amounts. By the way, I found that article to be misleading, simplistic and useless; in fact, really nothing more than a thinly disguised banking puff piece. Compare the article title: 62% of Americans Have Under $1,000 in Savings, Survey Finds with the actual "information": GOBankingRates conducted a survey that posed the question, “How much money do you have saved in your savings account?”
Since when do we evaluate someone's "savings" solely by the amount they may have in a bank account?

QSPIX - 8% of portfolio
TIAA Real Estate Account - Direct ownership interests in commercial real estate - 13% of portfolio

Interesting that almost nobody else answers the question and gives figures.

@ davidmoran: We didn't just fall off the turnip truck. :)
David - If you want people to state their total net worth, go ahead and ask the question directly. Obviously inferences can be easily drawn if one publishes their dollar amounts in a particular asset as well as the % of portfolio that represents. I did not take Dex's question in the same vein you apparently did.
Furthermore ... What value do you see in publishing a single number completely out of context? ... If I had $1,000 or $20,000 or $100,000 sitting in a savings account at our local Credit Union would it have any meaning for other investors?

Hello, Andy. Slight, maybe infinitesimal, difference between DBLEX Institutional shares and the DL retail shares, eh? (DLENX.) Hypothetical $10,000 in DLENX has grown to $12,113.00 . PREMX = $11,828.00. DL yield = 4.81% and yield in PREMX = 6.71%.
Hmmmmm. Higher yield has made less money in PREMX vs. DLENX. Curious.

Hi proman:
Not familiar with AC's current lineup - though I did once invest with them and found them OK. Keep in mind that funds like the one you own (Aggressive is the tip-off here) are typically very volatile. Losses of 15-25% in a year followed by similarily large gains are not uncommon. Comes with the territory.
My sense is you'd be more at ease in some type of moderate allocation fund or a target date fund based on anticipated retirement year. And shucks ... There's nothing on your list along that line that I recognize or could recommend.
The one (more aggressive) choice that leaps to mind is T.Rowe Price's Growth Stock Fund (PRGFX). They're a great client-friendly house. And Lipper gives the fund its highest ratings. Another I've owned and liked is Oppenheimer's Global Growth (OPPAX). It also scores well at Lipper. R-Class would allow you to own Class A equivalent at Oppenheimer without paying the customary (near 5%) load. But be wary of many of Oppenheimer's other funds. You can lose a lot of money fast in some of them. And their allocation funds actually tack-on an extra "allocation fee", making them overly costly to own.
Please keep in mind that the two I mentioned specifically (at Price and Oppenheimer) are aggressive funds designed for long-term investors able to tolerate large swings in NAV.

Virtually nothing. Our current 10% portfolio allocation to cash includes DODIX, TRBUX, a money market fund, and whatever sums we keep for convenience in a couple local checking accounts. (No savings account). Whether inside or outside the IRA, cash is considered part of our invested assets. All is included in allocation decisions (which tends to drag down annual return a bit).
We move 4-7% of our investments annually into our household budget (i.e. a checking account) to cover anticipated expenses throughout the year. During rare years, emergency expenses may require a bit more. Obviously, we pull money from the sectors that have performed the best.
Our investments are very conservatively positioned and broadly diversified. A loss greater than 10% in any given year is possible, but highly unlikely. With over half in Roths, tax issues are not much of a consideration either.
*The 10% allocation to cash does not include additional cash/short-term bonds held thru multi-asset allocation funds.