@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.

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