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.

Crash, the 5y figures I see on M* for annualized total return are 4.16% for DBLEX and 3.42% for PREMX, which makes some difference (top 7% vs. top 24%, five stars vs. four stars), and DBLEX is "low" on the risk rating vs. "average" for PREMX.
Padilla and Gundlach said at the outset, and have repeated frequently, that the objective of the fund is market return with lower risk, and looks like they've delivered.
Both are good funds, but DBLEX has been a little ahead on return: risk since inception.
Cheers, AJ

M* stewardship grades supposedly take manager ownership of fund shares into account. From their (PDF) explanation of stewardship grades:
"Manager Ownership of Fund Shares
Fund managers who invest in the funds they run demonstrate conviction in their investment process and align their own financial interests with fund shareholders'. Morningstar analyzes fund-share ownership trends to determine whether a firm's managers meet the industry's highest standards. For non-U.S. fund firms, Morningstar surveys fund companies to determine the extent to which their fund managers' ownership illustrates industry best practices.
For U.S. fund firms, where funds report their managers' ownership annually to the SEC in the Statement of Additional Information, Morningstar will consider the percentage of the firm's fund assets where at least one of the fund's managers invests in fund shares more than $1 million, the highest ownership level reported to the SEC.
In all analyses of fund-ownership trends, Morningstar excludes types of funds where manager ownership would be difficult or impossible, including funds used only in insurance products, wrap accounts, or retirement plans. Morningstar also excludes fund of funds from the analysis."
If memory serves per what the stewardship pages used to include (text and figures for each component of the grade), they've stopped putting much effort into them; a few funds I looked at had only a summary for the fund family, not the fund itself, showing only an A, B, C etc. for each component of the grade, but no rationale besides the sketchy info in the summary.
The newer version of fund analyst reports, though, does show management ownership (at least for some funds, and of course for only the limited number of funds they do reports on) under the "People" rating rationale.
The reports and stewardship grades are 'premium' products. Otherwise, it's off to the SAI for each fund you're interested in for the info (which are usually linked on M* under the Filings tab).

@VintageFreak, yes, they are FDIC insured ($250K limit per account). That was the first thing I checked. We did perfectly fine during 2000-2002 and 2008.
Money market funds work just like saving accounts, and pay very little. Nothing fancy. I prefer Vanguard short term investment grade bond, Admiral share, VFSUX, with SEC yield 1.97% and ER 0.10%.

Less than $100 so that we maintain a checking account at our local credit union. Everything else are at brokerages.

I hope your cash at brokerages is FDIC insured (assuming it will do a world of good if s*** happens). If all your assets at brokerages are invested, then I will shut up.

our annual runrate is above 110k with new prop tax (to ~19k a year now).

For that amount of property tax, I hope your trash is collected 3x/day ! ;)

x savings/checkings for a few months of bills, x cash in brokerage and ST bond, sounds okay except everything else is invested (chiefly equity funds, some bond and REIT funds) and sure would be better to let sit, also our annual runrate is above x with new prop tax (to ~19k a year now).

Less than $100 so that we maintain a checking account at our local credit union. Everything else are at brokerages.

Vanguard is the perfect place to compare ETF and OEF, because they invest in the same underlying portfolio and their shares, say VIG and VDADX, and have identical ERs. This removes portfolio differences and ER differences, allowing one to see clearly the differences due strictly to the sales structure. It also demonstrates that with Vanguard, cost advantage is indeed illusory (#1).
With VDADX, you get exactly what you pay for (NAV). With the VIG ETF you may get more or less, and that difference varies from moment to moment and day to day (#5). Vanguard shows that as of now (market close, Oct 6) the ETF was trading at a $0.04 discount, so selling near day end would have netted you a few cents under NAV.
Actually, you likely would have lost another penny, because Vanguard (like most providers) gives the closing price of the ETF as the midpoint between bid and ask. VIG typically has a 2c spread, and depending on the Vanguard ETF, the typical spread can be as high as 0.20%. (#4).
Hidden expenses, Vanguard? Trading expenses - these are the same for VIG and its open end siblings, because they share the same underlying portfolio. Likewise any volatility due to skittish investors (again one must ask, Vanguard?) would impact the NAV of the ETF share the same as it would affect the open end class' NAVs.
This is why I feel Vanguard provides the perfect way to compare the two ways of buying/selling shares of a portfolio - ETFs and open end funds. Take the portfolio itself out of the equation and all that's left are the intrinsic differences in sales mechanisms. One always gives you a buck for a buck (NAV), the other often doesn't quite get there, for various reasons.

Here's a good thread on M* from someone asking a similar question - new investor, a bit younger (age 25, not 30), lots of the same funds (or similar funds, or funds from the same families).
http://discuss.morningstar.com/NewSocialize/forums/t/341193.aspx
It's worth reading because no one who responded suggested "pick this fund and this one". Rather, they ask additional questions of the investor, discuss IRAs, matching, costs, etc. Easier for me to point you there than repeat a lot of good feedback.
Unlike the funds there (which were 'A' shares, apparently load-waived), you are being offered 'R' shares, which are load shares, period. Those funds add an extra 0.50% annually to the fees they take out of your investment.
Often (especially for small employers) this is a way for the employer to offer the plan without paying any fees to the administrator for running it. It is the employees who pay for the plan out of their investments (the 0.50% being assessed). That's a good reason to invest in the plan only up to the matching amount (if any), then an IRA, then maybe looking at more in the plan.
Of the funds I recognize, there are some decent ones, but few that jump out at me.

I have less then $5,000. That is what I would have said if asked.
The rest of my $ is in mutual fund ect. or my home.
How do companies spend $ on such poor surveys.
http://www.gobankingrates.com/savings-account/62-percent-americans-under-1000-savings-survey-finds/

I suspect that huge, highly liquid and extremely cheap ETFs like most of Vanguard's or even some of Schwab's proprietary ones (say, SCHD) do not suffer from disadvantages 1,2, 4, and 5 listed above.
Indeed, if you compare the ETF and OEM versions of Vanguard funds (say VIG vs. VDAIX) the ETF generally outperforms slightly.
#3, poor market timing, is a danger for all investments.
And mutual funds have plenty of disadvantages too, including hidden fees, trading expenses, taxes, and being forced by skittish investors to buy and sell at exactly the wrong time.
But I'd stay far away from any ETFs that aren't very liquid and cheap.

A RISKIER APPROACH
Templeton Betting on `Multi-Decade' Emerging-Market Opportunity
October 5, 2015 — 5:37 PM CDT
Updated on October 6, 2015 — 4:36 PM CDT
The recent selloff in emerging-market assets, including Mexico and Malaysia’s currencies, has opened up investment opportunities not seen for decades, according to Franklin Templeton’s Michael Hasenstab, who’s well known for making contrarian bets.
“On a valuation basis, this is not a once-a-decade, this is a multi-decade opportunity to be buying very cheap assets,” Hasenstab, who oversees 30 funds with $143 billion in assets, said in an interview posted on YouTube Monday. “We are not buying everything,” but “there are a handful that have been caught up in the turmoil that we think are diamonds in the rough,” he said.
His reputation, however, was tarnished lately after an investment in Ukraine turned sour as the conflict-torn country defaulted on its bonds. A Templeton-led creditor committee holding about half of the country’s $18 billion Eurobonds reached a restructuring deal with the Ukraine government in August.
Hasenstab’s Templeton Global Bond Fund, which manages $61 billion, has lost 6.1 percent this year, trailing 85 percent of its competitors, as some of its wagers on emerging markets flopped, according to Morningstar Inc. It returned 7.1 percent annually over the past decade, beating 99 percent of its peers.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-10-05/templeton-betting-on-multi-decade-emerging-market-opportunity
Fact Sheet 6/30/2015
https://www.franklintempleton.com/forms-literature/download/406-FF

Hi All,
I am new to the investing world and am hoping for some advice on funds to invest in for my 401K portfolio. I am currently invested in one fund ( American Century Strategic Allocation: Aggressive ). This fund doesn't seem to perform as well as our advisor assumed. I would appreciate any advice anyone may have oh what I can do with these funds:
Percent
Invesco Stable Asset Fund
Putnam American Government Income Fund - Class R
PIMCO Total Return Fund - Class R
Oppenheimer Global Strategic Income Fund - Class R
Ivy High Income Fund - Class R
PIMCO Real Return Fund - Class R
AB Global Bond Fund - Class R
American Century One Choice In Retirement Portfolio - Class R
American Century One Choice 2020 Portfolio - Class R
American Century One Choice 2025 Portfolio - Class R
American Century One Choice 2030 Portfolio - Class R
American Century One Choice 2035 Portfolio - Class R
American Century One Choice 2040 Portfolio - Class R
American Century One Choice 2045 Portfolio - Class R
American Century One Choice 2050 Portfolio - Class R
American Century One Choice 2055 Portfolio - Class R
American Century Strategic Allocation: Conservative Fund - Class R
American Century Strategic Allocation: Moderate Fund - Class R
BlackRock Global Allocation Fund, Inc. - Class R
AB Equity Income Fund - Class R
BlackRock Equity Dividend Fund - Class R
Franklin Rising Dividends Fund - Class R
SSgA S&P 500 Index Securities Lending Series Fund - Class IX
BlackRock Capital Appreciation Fund, Inc. - Class R
Neuberger Berman Socially Responsive Fund - Class R3
T. Rowe Price Growth Stock Fund - Class R
BlackRock Mid Cap Value Opportunities Fund - Class R
Oppenheimer Main Street Mid Cap Fund - Class R
SSgA S&P MidCap Index Non-Lending Series Fund - Class J
Eagle Mid Cap Growth Fund - Class R3
Nuveen Mid Cap Growth Opportunities Fund - Class R3
Delaware Small Cap Value Fund - Class R
JPMorgan US Small Company Fund - Class R2
SSgA Russell Small Cap Index Securities Lending Series Fund - Class VIII
Lord Abbett Alpha Strategy Fund - Class R3
Nuveen Small Cap Select Fund - Class R3
MFS International Value Fund - Class R2
MFS Research International Fund - Class R2
Neuberger Berman International Select Fund - Class R3
SSgA International Index Securities Lending Series Fund - Class VIII
Oppenheimer International Diversified Fund - Class R
MFS International New Discovery Fund - Class R2
Oppenheimer Global Fund - Class R
RS Emerging Markets Fund - Class K
The Hartford Healthcare Fund - Class R3
Oppenheimer Gold & Special Minerals Fund - Class R
Deutsche Real Estate Securities Fund - Class R
Columbia Seligman Communications and Information Fund - Class R
I am 30 and just starting to invest so I need to catch up and willing to go aggressive for now. Any help or advice would be very much appreciated. I was planning on reallocating at least 90% of my current funds.
Thank you in advance

Artisan's manager ownership stats are consolidated in a single Statement of Additional Information. The link is http://hosted.rightprospectus.com/Artisan/Fund.aspx?ProsID=5816&DocType=S. The manager ownership stats are on pages 57 and 58.
At a quick glance, one of Yockey's assistant PMs has no investment in two of his four funds and another has fairly modest investments. One interesting question would be to ask whether Charles-Henri Hamker can easily invest in his funds. If he's not a U.S. citizen (he seems to be French), it'll be quite complicated.
Admittedly, though, I haven't yet had time to assemble the totals by fund since the SAI reports them by individual.
As ever,
David

From Morningstar's "parent pillar" of ARTGX 1/29/15:
"On a more positive note, all but two of the Artisan funds have at least one manager with more than $1 million invested in fund shares and eight have at least two managers who invest that heavily in their funds. That's the highest level of manager investment disclosed to the SEC and an industry best practice."
It does not name the two funds, but a call to the fund family might help identify them. especially if you send an email to the manager of the fund you are are interested in. You also might check in the Edgar database since it is publicly held.

@catch22 correct, one may purchase 1 share, but personally, I purchase in lots of 100. Schwab offers some NTF ETFs and if I bought those incrementally, that would be acceptable, but to pay $8.95/1 share of XYZ x 100, in order to scale in??? No, thanks.

Hi @little5bee
You noted: "The main reason I don't like ETFs is that they require a sizable investment all at once"
Which etf requires a sizable investment beyond the price of the etf "share" at the time of purchase? In effect, one may purchase 1 share, yes?
Thanks.
Catch

Thank you for clearly enumerating some of the issues with ETFs. (Though the hidden cost of NTF platforms is orthogonal - that's a problem with the platform regardless of the vehicle, ETF or OEF - and one that doesn't plague most ETFs.)
A couple of smaller downsides of ETFs:
4. Non-commission trading costs - the bid/ask spread and the (petty) SEC Section 31 fee (currently 0.184 basis points, usually passed through to investors by brokerages).
5. Tracking error - this is the "mini" version of your #2 - structural pricing issues. Even when the market isn't in free fall, there is a divergence between NAV and trading price, due in part to liquidity costs (and I guess also due to the fees that authorized participants pay to the sponsor to buy and sell creation units). This is different from the tracking error of the fund with respect to its benchmark index, which is inherent in all index funds.
On the plus side, ETFs may be more tax-efficient than their OEF counterparts. Only "maybe" for a couple of reasons. One is that well run cap weighted index funds rarely distribute capital gains, regardless of the funds' structure. The other is that Vanguard OEFs share the same advantage as their sibling ETFs, because they are merely different share classes of the same portfolios, not clones.
I completely agree with you regarding S&P indexes (not so for Russell, Wilshire, FTSE). This has been obvious since 2000, when S&P methodically swapped out "old economy" stocks for "new economy" stocks, just in time to see its index (supposedly a measure of market performance) underperform the market by several percent.
http://www.thestreet.com/story/10029393/1/the-sp-500-is-a-mutual-fund--and-a-bad-one-at-that.html
Finally, a note on the CNBC link - Usually, when an article is written saying how wonderfully cheap ETFs are, it gives an "average" equity OEF ER of somewhere around 1.3%. That's an unweighted average and a rather silly figure. Since the purpose of this article is to show how expensive (some) ETFs are, it did the opposite, and gave the dollar weighted average ER of 0.70%. A much better figure IMHO, but without labeling, it seems chosen more to support the thesis than to be objective. (Since no one really cares what numbers mean, let's just pick the "best" one for our point.)

It's widely known that having managers deeply invested in their own funds is good for their shareholders. There's nothing that focuses a manager's mind like the prospect of losing vast chunks of his or her own money. Also demonstrable, but less widely recognized, is the fact that having a fund's independent trustees deeply invested in the fund also substantially improves a fund's risk-return profile. It turns out that trustees don't like losing money or paying taxes, so they become particularly aggressive when their fund managers engage in behaviors that lead to such outcomes.
A relatively new study puts two interesting twists on the old story. Martin and Sonnenburg find (1) that a substantial increase in the amount that a manager has invested correlates with about 1.6% higher alpha in the succeeding year. So far as I know, no public source releases information on changes in a manager's level of investment. And (2) the increased alpha occurs even when the investment just reflects a fund company's mandate. That is, finding #1 isn't necessarily about market timing or confidence. If a fund company requires substantial and ongoing investment by their managers, performance improves.
My preference, of course, is that every single employee of the adviser and every trustee have substantial skin in the game. As one manager put it, "it's one thing to be invested in your own fund. It's another to have your mother invested. And it's an entirely different level once your mother-in-law is investing with you."
David