ACMVX is open to new investors. From the summary prospectus:
"As of November 1, 2013, the fund is generally closed to new investors other than those who (i) invest directly with American Century (where American Century is listed as the dealer of record); (ii) invest through certain financial intermediaries selected by American Century; or (iii) otherwise qualify for an exemption under American Century’s closed fund policy."
If you don't already have an account with AC, you can open one here.

Assets in a Roth are all taxed the same (i.e. usually not taxed). Nothing special about collectibles.
I'm not sure what the question means. Contributing to a Roth always beats not contributing to any IRA, regardless of the investment, so long as the distributions are qualified (non-taxed), and the investment makes money. (If your investment loses money, you'd be better off having it in a taxable account where you could take the loss.)
Say you have $1K in income and you're in the 33% bracket. After taxes, you've got $670. The choice between contributing that $670 to a Roth or keeping it in a taxable account is obvious.
In the Roth, all growth is tax free. In the taxable account, the growth will be taxed. Doesn't matter whether it's a collectible (taxed at 28%), a savings bond (taxed at 33%), or a non-dividend-paying stock (taxed at 15%). The Roth saves you the tax, whatever the rate.
(The examples above were chosen because they spin off no income while owned. Savings are greater on investments that spin off income, like dividend paying stocks/funds, treasuries, REITs, etc.)
Unless you expect to be above the 28% bracket when you sell/retire/withdraw, the tax rate on collectibles is just the ordinary tax rate. The easiest thing to do in that case is just to think of the gold as a savings bond. If you expect to be above the 28% bracket, then think of gold as a non-dividend-paying stock that is taxed at 28% (instead of 20%) when sold. Still lower than your ordinary tax rate.
The cited article gives more detailed examples.

Edmond , I don't see the robo portfolios as being a robo "adviser". They are set up to look fairly generally to your "long term" goals. They are set up to have decent relative returns over a market cycle with less volatility due to diversification. They questionnaire use general questions on risk, age and time horizon and output a general portfolio allocation. You don't have to use that suggested allocation though. I didn't. I used personal 1 on 1 advice that looked at all assets of savings, social security and pensions. The portfolio was adjusted based on that input.
I worked with a local Schwab adviser to look at longer term retirement needs. The 60% equity portfolio I chose fit my long term goals considering other assets not in that retirement account. The portfolio ETF selections were robo, but it is still important to get advice that looks at the whole.

Interesting choice. It looks like you've highlighted the key difference between the two funds. Though I might add that as a consequence, DBLFX's broad allocations (government, corporate, securitized) hew much more closely to that of the typical fund.
It may come down to what you think of Treasuries. Bogle is not a lover of Treasuries, having stated that the index is too heavily weighted that way. On the other hand, Buffett has suggested that his heir divide investments between an S&P 500 index fund and short term Treasuries.
Personally, I prefer underweighting. Long term treasuries are IMHO only good for speculating on interest rates (1/6 of DBLTX's mature in over 25 years). Short term, and currently intermediate, Treasuries yield so little that they're effectively cash. (They yield as little or less than an individual investor could get insured in a bank account.)
Also, when I buy an actively managed fund, I look for a fund where the managers take positions that deviate significantly from the herd. Maybe Gundlach has with this fund; all I'm looking at is the current snapshot in time. He certainly does go his own way with some of his funds.
Disclaimer: I think that he is very sharp, though not as sharp as he thinks himself. So I expect this fund to be well managed and worth owning. Beyond that I can't say.

msf,
Thanks for your thoughts.
I am thinking of pairing DBLTX with BCOIX. One heavily mortgage oriented, the other corporate. One with higher rated bonds, the other with lower. Both unfortunately sport yields on the lower side, but BCOIX TR has been quite good in 2016. Can't say the same for DBLTX and hopefully the cause has been the type of mortgages, which can be adjusted, and not the large AUM (which may speak to more difficulty in adjusting).
TSP_Transfer, I own PTIAX and am pleased with the yield, TR, and stable NAV. While heavily mortgage based like DBLTX, obviously a different animal.
Mona

This issue came up about 10 years ago, when an academic study looked into this. See http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/09/business/mutfund/09stra.html?_r=0. I wonder what is different this time.
Alban

A little Oranges and Tangerines ,but...
Performance Trust Strategic Bond Fund PTIAX 1
$5,000/$500 N/L No Transaction Fee @ Fidelity
Multisector Bond
Inception Date 08/31/2010 Multiple Managers 6 years Assets $590.06
Ex Ratio 0.89%
1. No Transaction Fee funds are available without paying a transaction fee. No Transaction Fee funds will also be offered without a load or on a load waived basis. However, the fund may charge a short term trading fee or a redemption fee
$5,000/$500 N/L No Transaction Fee @ Fidelity
https://fundresearch.fidelity.com/mutual-funds/summary/89833W394
Performance Trust Strategic Bond Fund (PTIAX)
FUND INSIGHTS
What Sets Us Apart:
JUNE 30, 2016
http://ptiafunds.com/documents/ptam-difference_ptiax_final.pdf

DSEEX is up >14% ytd, of which 14% is Gundlach's doing, so yeah.

Bob, for any one who has decided to invest -- not trade -- AU, I'd recommend they consider purchasing/holding physical AU.
The primary reason I suggest this, is that unlike owning mining stocks, bullion ETFs, or OEFs, buying/holding the physical bullion means that at least part of one's portfolio is private, and beyond the knowledge of any Wall Street custodian, govt bureaucrats, or even one's spouse (unless one chooses to volunteer the information).

See CNBC: Owning Gold Is One Thing, Storing It Quite Another
Whether you hold the gold yourself or have another party hold it, there's always the risk of loss by theft, unless you insure the gold. That creates a paper trail.
The article goes into other problems with physical ownership, but I'm addressing the matter of secrecy. It's relatively easy to keep information secret. It's more difficult to eliminate all the breadcrumbs that could be followed by a sufficiently determined actor.
There's also a tax matter - gold is taxed as a collectible (28%), not a capital asset (0% - 20%). That's true for physical gold and physical gold ETFs, but not for mining stocks or foreign based gold CEFs like CEF. Futures-based ETFs/ETNs get yet a different treatment.
Tax-efficient investing in gold (Journal of Accountancy) gives a solid analysis of the tax implications of various gold-based investments held in various ways: non-sheltered, pre-tax sheltered (e.g. traditional IRA) , post-tax sheltered (e.g. Roth IRA).

Interesting choice. It looks like you've highlighted the key difference between the two funds. Though I might add that as a consequence, DBLFX's broad allocations (government, corporate, securitized) hew much more closely to that of the typical fund.
It may come down to what you think of Treasuries. Bogle is not a lover of Treasuries, having stated that the index is too heavily weighted that way. On the other hand, Buffett has suggested that his heir divide investments between an S&P 500 index fund and short term Treasuries.
Personally, I prefer underweighting. Long term treasuries are IMHO only good for speculating on interest rates (1/6 of DBLTX's mature in over 25 years). Short term, and currently intermediate, Treasuries yield so little that they're effectively cash. (They yield as little or less than an individual investor could get insured in a bank account.)
Also, when I buy an actively managed fund, I look for a fund where the managers take positions that deviate significantly from the herd. Maybe Gundlach has with this fund; all I'm looking at is the current snapshot in time. He certainly does go his own way with some of his funds.
Disclaimer: I think that he is very sharp, though not as sharp as he thinks himself. So I expect this fund to be well managed and worth owning. Beyond that I can't say.

no more than 0.35%

Fidelity got to be more competitive in light of many robo advisors who much less. What are their unique advantages compared to say Betterment and Wealhfront who charge 0.25% at the asset level above $10K?

Thanks, but I'll take BCOIX over this fund.
Nearly identical in most metrics (duration, credit quality, credit breakdown, number of bonds/bonds in top 10%, country breakdown). TIORX is long and short in cash, but with same net cash as BCOIX (no shorts).
Differences that pop out include:
- TIORX has more securitized bonds and less corporate (as discussed in article)
- TIORX has high turnover (308%, mentioned in article) vs. 34%
- TIORX costs twice as much (0.62% vs. 0.30%)
- TIORX has lower SEC yield (2.31% vs. 2.61%)
With the notable exception of 2008, BCOIX generally outperforms. In 2008 it underperformed by 4.64%, but made that up and more with its 2009 9.08% outperformance. In all other recent years, performance figures were much closer.
It is fair to look back this far, as BCOIX's management started in 2000. Though the article implies that Higgins (starting in 2011) is the only manager of TIORX, the prospectus says: "The following persons manage the Fund on a day-to-day basis: ...Higgins ... since 2011 [and] ... Cerra ... since 2003." Both are listed as "Managing Directors". Neither the prospectus nor M* says anything about 13 managers.

msf,
BCOIX over DBLFX (less Corportate Bond and more US Treasury)?
Mona

Exactly.
Yet Vanguard asserts: “We will seek appropriate disclosure on ESG issues by the entities in which we invest.” (From the 2014 article I cited above.) Apparently Vanguard feels absolutely no environmental disclosures are "appropriate".
Watch what I do, not what I say.

Below is intermediate term bond funds listing link. TIORX is down on the list a bit for YTD return of 6.12%.
For reference for a few in this area that I monitor and YTD:
LQD = 9.5%
FBND = 7.5%
FTBFX = 7.2%
FBNDX = 7.1%
NOTE: the corp. bond area has been one of the stronger bond sectors, YTD; for investment grade bonds.
http://news.morningstar.com/fund-category-returns/intermediate-term-bond/$FOCA$CI.aspx

To paraphrase: Vanguard knows better than its shareholders what is in their best interest.
How patronizing.
When Vanguard says that it must maximize returns, is that returns over the next quarter, or over the next decade? Penny wise and pound foolish comes to mind.
Vanguard seems to be saying that it is required to vote this way to meet its fiduciary duties. It is thus tacitly accusing Allianz, Wells Fargo, DWS, Schroeder (which submanages VINEX and VWIGX), and others of breach of fiduciary duty.
http://www.ecowatch.com/is-your-mutual-fund-a-climate-change-denier-or-climate-champion-1882190571.html
(The figures in the article linked to above show that exact voting percentages depend on how you count. Nevertheless, the split among fund companies is clear. Thanks to Lewis for the info on Blackrock's change of heart, since its 2015 voting performance was 0%.)
It gets worse. From a 2014 article (writing about 2014 and earlier votes):
"Industry giant Vanguard remains sole mutual fund to ignore climate-related resolutions for 11th-straight year. ... Vanguard ... has failed to cast a single vote in support of a climate-related resolution in 11 years."

Thanks, but I'll take BCOIX over this fund.
Nearly identical in most metrics (duration, credit quality, credit breakdown, number of bonds/bonds in top 10%, country breakdown). TIORX is long and short in cash, but with same net cash as BCOIX (no shorts).
Differences that pop out include:
- TIORX has more securitized bonds and less corporate (as discussed in article)
- TIORX has high turnover (308%, mentioned in article) vs. 34%
- TIORX costs twice as much (0.62% vs. 0.30%)
- TIORX has lower SEC yield (2.31% vs. 2.61%)
With the notable exception of 2008, BCOIX generally outperforms. In 2008 it underperformed by 4.64%, but made that up and more with its 2009 9.08% outperformance. In all other recent years, performance figures were much closer.
It is fair to look back this far, as BCOIX's management started in 2000. Though the article implies that Higgins (starting in 2011) is the only manager of TIORX, the prospectus says: "The following persons manage the Fund on a day-to-day basis: ...Higgins ... since 2011 [and] ... Cerra ... since 2003." Both are listed as "Managing Directors". Neither the prospectus nor M* says anything about 13 managers.

FYI: (Click On Article At Top Of Google Search)
Quietly, without fanfare, the Vanguard Group has become one of the most powerful forces in Corporate America. The mutual fund company has $3.6 trillion in its mutual and exchange-traded funds—greater than the national net worth of India or Brazil. Look at the top owners of any blue-chip company, and chances are Vanguard is No. 1 or No. 2. That gives it tremendous influence. When Vanguard talks, CEOs listen.
The money manager especially can flex its muscles during proxy season, when shareholders of companies vote on proposals to change corporate policies. But when it comes to proposals related to climate change, Vanguard has chosen the sidelines.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.google.com/#q=Vanguard’s+Climate-Change+Dismissal

Thanks for the post.
My employer's 401k added that Marvin Straus-managed fund to our 401k ~ 18 months ago. Never understood why. It made huge overweight bets in certain sectors (energy, at exactly the wrong time). And there is no real-time info on the fund. A website that provided quarterly updates disappeared. Expenses were high. And, pardon this "ageist" statement, an investment professional who started in the biz in 1961.. should he be a lead portfolio manager in 2016?
I assumed that Marvin Schwartz was a friend/relative of someone who sits on my employer's 401k committee (or the CEO's wife), or that 'consideration' was provided under the table to add the fund to our menu of choices.
My 401k has better choices Vanguard equity and PIMCO bond funds, so I've not forced to contribute to good-ole Marvin's estate, but found it annoying that with so many decent, even superior choices which could have been added to our plan, my employer's investment committee, presumably acting in a fiduciary capacity, chose Marvin.

MSCFX +13.19 YTD. I always trim and consolidate just after the New Year. This one has been a good one for me. I bought it first in 2012 at $12.59. (Edit: Friday, 05 Aug: up +14.78%.)

Updated MFO ratings and fund risk/performance metrics through July 2016 have just been posted on our Premium site.

Hi @MikeW,
Thanks for the question.
For me, I am thinking of again rebalancing my portfolio and trimming back my allocation in equities. According to last Friday edition (July ending) of the WSJ the S&P 500 Index is selling at a TTM P/E Ratio of 25.0. For me, most equities are too richly priced for me to even think of adding to current positions (much less opening new positions) as I am in the trim mode keeping equities at about 45% of my asset allocation.
Now, if we should get a good pullback (10% range) in the near term I most likely will become a buyer in equities and add to some current positions; and, then perhaps after the rebound lighten up in some other positions. With this, a rebalance within my equity allocation itself.
Thus far, PMDAX has been a great fund for me; and, one that I have owned for about five years. It makes up about 60% of my small/mid cap sleeve found in the growth area of my portfolio. The other two small/mid cap funds that I own in this sleeve are ABSAX and PCVAX.