+1

Crushes its peers? From the current manger's start date through July 2015, it barely beat the category average. It's had one good year.

FYI: (Click On Article title At Top Of Google Search)
This week could be a momentous one for index geeks. A ruling on how China’s mainland stocks are classified would affect $1.5 trillion tied to emerging-market indexes operated by MSCI—and, ultimately, the exchange-traded funds based on those benchmarks.
At issue is whether MSCI deems China’s A-shares—stocks listed on exchanges in Shanghai or Shenzhen—as “emerging” instead of their current status as unaffiliated “stand-alone” players. MSCI has formally insisted since 2013 that improvements in China related to market accessibility could lead to a change in the designation.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.google.com/#q=China’s+A-Shares+Prepare+to+Flood+Your+ETFs+Barron's

FYI: (Click On Article Title At Top Of Google Search)
For many investors, a meeting with company management is a final step in due diligence, and often skipped altogether. For Ralph Bassett and his co-managers at Aberdeen U.S. Small Cap Equity, these conversations are never an afterthought.
“We won’t look at a company seriously until we talk to management,” says Bassett, who has managed the fund (ticker: GSXAX) since 2008, when Aberdeen purchased it from Nationwide Funds. “We’re trying to get at how they think, whether they are overly optimistic or too short-term focused—all the things you won’t find on a 10-K.”
FYI:
Regards,
Ted
https://www.google.com/#q=How+Aberdeen+Small+Cap+Fund+Crushes+Its+Peers+Barron's
M* Snapshot GSXAX:
http://www.morningstar.com/funds/XNAS/GSXAX/quote.html
Lippewr Snapshot:
http://www.marketwatch.com/investing/Fund/GSXAX
GSXAX Is Ranked #10 In The (SCG) Fund Category By U.S. Nes & World Report:
http://money.usnews.com/funds/mutual-funds/small-growth/aberdeen-u.s-small-cap-equity-fund/gsxax

One's TTM, one's SEC. See M* for both yield figures side by side.
See also MFO discussion: Difference between TTM Yield and 30 day SEC yield:
http://www.mutualfundobserver.com/discuss/discussion/18413/difference-between-ttm-yield-and-30-day-sec-yield

Thanks - I think I like using the SEC 30 day yield, not the TTM.

One's TTM, one's SEC. See M* for both yield figures side by side.
See also MFO discussion: Difference between TTM Yield and 30 day SEC yield:
http://www.mutualfundobserver.com/discuss/discussion/18413/difference-between-ttm-yield-and-30-day-sec-yield

Hey, Hawking says light can get ultimately shine through even a black hole, and you're nowhere near that dense :-)
Nothing to fret over.

I recently added PFORX (D shares PFODX available ntf at Fidelity), my first foray into world bonds.

Why does the yield on Yahoo say 6.92% and Fidelity 1.76%
http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=PFORX
My computation is closer to Fidelity.

One of the things that rubbed me the wrong way 'on principle' was the way the May 2016 TGBAX dividend cut seems to have been 'announced'. Not that I need the income (I'm 43, still working) but the fact I only learned about an approx 30% reduction was from a big banner at the top of the fund's home page @ Templeton bothered me -- ie, no email'd shareholder notice, no hard-copy letter, nothing. Had I not casually surfed the fund's site last month, I wouldn't have known about it....and since I tend to let bond funds do their thing and reinvest income, it might've been several months -- or even my annual year-end review of everything -- before I noticed the reduction on my statement.

I don't know anything about Dunham but I suspect Domini markets their "social awareness"
As for Hussman, I can speak from personal experience. He called the 2008-2009 meltdown right on and had ( and continues to write) attractive and extensive discussions on his web page about his investment philosophy and economic outlook, making HSGFX an attractive candidate for bear markets.
However, Hussman failed to anticipate the bull market from the 2009 low, obviously. He reminds me of Henry G. Van der Eb who runs the Mathers fund. He had wonderful intellectual defenses of why he was in cash throughout the 1990s and 2000s while he lost more and more money.

M* site has all sorts of problems with data, interface, and more. Not surprising to see more complaints. Frankly the premium side has gone downhill over the past 18 months or so in many ways ... and their IT dept is slower than mollasses in addressing even the 'big' problems. :(

@msf- thanks again for your help on this stuff. I did miss the "little balloon", but in going back to take another look they both seem to have the same balloon note, so all things being equal, something still doesn't add up.

PGBOX has (unless waived) a front-end load of up to 3.75%.
So $100 invested Jan 1 would have left you with $100 x (1 - 3.75%) x (1 + 3.09%) = $99.22, a loss of 0.78%.
But WOBDX shares have no load, so $100 would have gotten you $100 x 1 x 3.16% = $103.16.

The last few nights, I've noticed the performance numbers bear the previous day's date. Many people depend on those numbers, even if they are only making use of the offered free membership. Some of us are premium members. Day-old numbers, at 11:49 p.m. of the FOLLOWING day, just doesn't cut the mustard.

@msf: Schwab says YTD (as of 5/31) return for WOBDX is 3.16% vs -0.78% for PGBOX yet the only difference between the two seems to be an ER of 0.59% for WOBDX vs 0.76% for PGBOX.
Can that be right? The historic ratings summary for WOBDX is also significantly better than that of PGBOX. How to account for such a difference between two funds with essentially the same makeup?

It's just one fund - simply two different share classes (like Vanguard Investor and Admiral shares). I found the retail class by looking at the M* "purchase" page for WOBDX and picking another share class. So even before looking at the Schwab site, the answer must be "no, that cannot be right" assuming both figures are from 5/31, and the figures reported are purely fund performance.
But they're not. If you look at the Schwab performance page for the A shares, you'll see a little "balloon" to the right of "YTD Return". Mouse over that. It reads:

YTD Return is adjusted for possible sales charges, and assumes reinvestment of dividends and capital gains

This points to something I think Schwab (and other brokers) do wrong. They incorporate the impact of loads into funds that they sell load-waived. It makes the funds look worse than they are. You're seeing this in performance figures that are lower than what you'd get with the load waived.
This problem also shows up in the M* star ratings on their pages. Schwab reports PGBOX's 3 year and 5 year ratings as two-star. But the 3 and 5 year ratings of PGBOX.lw are three-star.

re. JPM Core Bond and @Ace concern:

Swanson’s announcement in September that he was taking a leave was the first public sign of tension in the Columbus operations. It followed the departure of three members of his team for outside opportunities or other areas within the bank. [...] Then, two months ago, senior money managers, Henry Song and Mark Jackson, quit. Chris Nauseda, who was part of the Core Bond fund and was with the firm for 35 years, plans to retire by July 1

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-06-03/jpmorgan-exits-mount-from-a-star-bond-team-said-to-feel-slighted
@BobC With due respect to our newest BD member, can you really say what you have with WOBDX/PGBOX anymore? Frankly, if Doug Swanson and top team managers were to walk on me, my money would leave the fund on the following day. I certainly wouldn't be putting money into it. Just as if Dan Fuss announced his retirement (effective immediately), and Elaine Stokes went on leave the month following ("to spend more time with her family"), and Matt Egan resigned (for a professional opportunity at another firm), leaving money in LSBDX would seem to be uninformed by history.

@msf: Schwab says YTD (as of 5/31) return for WOBDX is 3.16% vs -0.78% for PGBOX yet the only difference between the two seems to be an ER of 0.59% for WOBDX vs 0.76% for PGBOX.
Can that be right? The historic ratings summary for WOBDX is also significantly better than that of PGBOX. How to account for such a difference between two funds with essentially the same makeup?

You'll find that PGBOX is open through Schwab OneSource™.
Unless you were planning on investing $2M, it doesn't really matter whether Schwab offers the select class shares (WOBDX) to new investors. All the brokers seem to require that, even in IRAs, unless you invest through an adviser.
IMHO what's more valuable with BobC's posts is the "why", not the "what". He wrote that he was looking for an investment grade bond fund with less emphasis on credit and more on agency.
WOBDX is about 27% MBS agency (and another 2.6% US agency), along with a tad under 18% corporate (credit). Another good bond fund, available to retail investors with a similar profile is PRCIX. Also about 27% MBS agency (though just 1/2% US agency), with a bit more corporate - around 26%. It's got a std dev at or below category average, though not as low as WOBDX's, and volatility was another concern given.
The two funds seem to track pretty closely, and PRCIX's ER of 0.58% is just one basis point above WOBDX's, and well below that of PBGOX.

FYI:
Regards,
Ted
http://video.cnbc.com/gallery/?video=3000524361&play=1

@ron: I recently added GIBIX (GIBLX is the retail version) as 1/2 of my muni bonds got called and wanted to find a suitable fund with similar income stream. I also like MWTRX, it is generally all higher quality, and I found GIBIX a bit more diversified as 60% are BBB and above, and there are some high yielders. I did also add a bit of DBLTX, but its almost all mortgage bonds, so I put more into the Guggenheim fund for diversity sake. I still have 2 muni bonds that will mature in 4 and 8 years, glad they did not get called, they yield 4% + since they were issued in mid 2000s :)