I set my stop loss .10c or so above my cost basis.

Thanks - it was a simple question, and you answered it.

Hi Andy J, my approach is to spend 95% of my time determining which CEF manager to choose or sector?, when is the appropriate time to buy?, why am I buying?, strategy on averaging down and what increments and price?, total return potential derived from the investment?, historical valuations of that CEF comparable to my proposed purchase price(s), institutional seasonal timing etc. If I am lucky and get most of that right, the CEF will bounce higher. There are probably others on this board more qualified to provide a stop loss strategy. I set my stop loss .10c or so above my cost basis. Sorry I do not have a more scholarly answer. I just feel the stop loss strategy doesn't matter as much to me if I can get my cost basis right. If I do not get the cost basis right, then I have other problems.

Besides Lipper, what vehicle do you use to screen for your funds? Do you use a search engine?
How do you determine if a fund is "diversified income" or "between income and balanced", etcetera when searching?? In other words, what do you search on to determine those type of details/characteristics?

@mcmarasco: Good questions. Let me premise by saying that I think allocation, appropriate diversification and an ability to stick with a plan over time influence long term results more than does selecting the very best fund in every category. That may seem a bit sacrilegous, as MFO is highly successful at evaluating funds to the unteenth degree. But I haven't the time or temperament to research continuously and would probably view any performance record under 10 years as suspect anyway.
Most funds I've held 10 years or longer, and some for more than 20. ("Likeable enough" is a phrase that leaps to mind.) Some I first learned of at Fund Alarm or MFO. Some were featured in Barrons. As a long time investor with T. Rowe and Oppenheimer, I uncovered some reading their web sites. An important second step was looking up funds (after they came to my attention) at Lipper, M*, MaxFunds, FundMojo and similar sites to garner their overall impressions. Finally, I studied the Prospectus and recent fund reports to learn how the manager invests (particularily the current holdings). The Prospectus details performance records over the last 10 successive years, helpful in assessing risk.
Re: different categories (balanced, diversified income, etc.), there's a lot of discretion involved. In some cases it was a matter of plugging existing funds into the plan as it evolved. DODBX has been my balanced fund for a long time. RPSIX, a fund of funds, works well for diversified income. I'll occasionally make small tactical changes within the buy and hold area. Added a precious metals fund last September to the inflation sensitive portion but sold it a few weeks ago after it rose 40+% in 7 months (substituting PRAFX in its place). 35% of the international bond segment is now in a Local Currency/EM bond fund - but that's considered semi-speculative and will be vacated at some point.
Thanks for the chance to follow up. I've read your posts before @mcmarasco and know you not to be a novice (far from it). So I suspect there may be a degree of devil's advocacy in the question you pose. :)
Regards

There are criteria, and then there are the application of those criteria.
For example, though it's not a major factor for me, like Hank I do look at fund size. But unlike Hank, I don't have a preference for larger funds; mine is for anything not extreme (not itsy bitsy unless new, and not humongous).
In addition to criteria already mentioned, I look at manager age, experience, and track record. Keep in mind none of this may help. Bob Stansky had a great record at Fidelity Growth Company, but floundered taking over Magellan. That was especially true once the fund doubled in size from the $50B when he took it over. By the time Stansky left, it had fallen back to the $50B size it was when he took it over.
A good example of how the factors I care about interrelate is BTMIX - a fund I asked about several months ago. Baird brought over a team from BMO who had done a fine job there. So even though the fund was (and is) tiny and has no track record, it's in a good family for bonds with very low costs and a proven management team.
Part of looking at a fund family is how they handle management transitions. (IMHO T. Rowe Price is superb at this, taking months or years to do a handoff and with full transparency.) In the past, I might have looked at LSBDX, as it appeared to have a transition plan in place (Gaffney taking over for Fuss, now about 83). That's gone, or rather she's gone. Eagan and Stokes started along with Gaffney, but they hadn't been groomed as Fuss' successor. I'd like a bit more clarity about a transition plan before considering this fund again.

Hold on there Ted. Hate to be the one defending fpacx ( even though I happen to own the fund), but lets compare the 20 year returns, available at marketwatch. Fpacx: $43,123 since 1997. Vwelx: $28,589 since 1997

'cut & paste' from Vang. site compare feature. vwelx 'beats in all time frames shown, except from'inception date !!
Average annual performance—quarter end
FPA Crescent Fund Vanguard Wellington Fund Inv
YTD -0.19% 1.91% — — —
YTD as-of date 03/31/2016 03/31/2016 — — —
1-year -2.39% 1.11% — — —
3-year 5.84% 7.77% — — —
5-year 6.71% 8.51% — — —
10-year 6.55% 7.15% — — —
1-, 3-, 5-, 10-year as-of date 03/31/2016 03/31/2016 — — —
Since inception 10.26% 8.22% — — —
Inception date 06/02/1993 07/01/1929 — — —
SEC yield — 2.53% B — — —
SEC yield as-of date — 04/22/2016
so why should anyone ;hold' fpacx, especially with an ER almost 500% that of vwelx ??
comments appreciated THANKS
RALPH

My fund selection logic includes --
Do I need it? Why?
Does it invest in sectors / companies I believe in and/or are opportune times to do so? Or are they just following the herd and buying the hottest things and latest fads?
Are their sector/subsector weightings, whatever they are, appropriate in my view of things? (IE, I an grossly underweight financials & consumer discresionary -- among others -- and would not consider any fund with a sizable weighting in them. Nor would I want a health care fund that's 60% invested in biotech. etc.)
How much turnover takes place? I look for 20% or less turnover where possible.
Are the fees viable? Under 1% ER for active funds, and absolutely no load or 12(b)-1 fees.[1]
How were the managers positioned going into periods of major market turbulence? IE, 2008 recession or the various taper tantrums? How much they lost vs competitors during bad times is a good indicator of my abiity to be comfortable trusting them with some of my money.
Do I see any concerns or conflicts of interest with the fund, its benchmarking, or the fund company?
Do I feel this is a viable long-term holding? (I don't trade mutual funds.)
That's for starters..
[1] I have one exception, becaue it's a good fund - GLFOX has a 12(b)-1 fee and is slightly more expensive than I'd like, but it is in-line with other actively managed global funds.

Wow! You're likely to get a plethora of widely different reactions. Sorry for the redundancy that follows. (I also require 20 minutes to change a light bulb.)
Premise: First, you need some sense of your goals, investing philosophy and the degree of risk you're willing to take.
Than you need a plan.*
Than you select funds that fit the plan.
-
To the heart of the question, here's what I look for:
- Below average fees
- Reputation of the house for integrity, consistency and client service
- A fund's long term performance with a proven track record extending back well over a decade. (I tend to focus on Lipper's category ratings.)
- I like larger funds. They've grown large for a reason. There should be some economics of scale. And the detrimental effects of hot money chasing short term performance and than leaving in droves is likely to be less.
- I also favor larger longer established houses thinking they can afford deeper research staffs.
* For what interest it may hold, here's one plan that might be suitable for a moderate-risk investor 20 years into retirement (like myself).
80% Buy and Hold: (1) 22-25% diversified income, (2) 22-25% balanced, (3) 30-35% hybrids (three uniquely different funds positioned somewhere between income and balanced on the risk spectrum), (4) 7-10% international bond funds, (5) 7-10% inflation-sensitive funds (like real estate and commodities).
20% Flexible Portfolio: Nominally, 50% cash / 50% equity. Since this portion is by definition flexible, the cash could range anywhere from 0% to 100%. Currently, I'm a bit overweight equities and tilted slightly towards an energy/NR fund where I still perceive some value.
I too have trouble limiting the number of funds. Goal is 12. Currently 14. :)

A 5.5% load, 1.58% expenses, and steady underperformance versus the s&p500, definitely not the fund for me.

Energy's seasonal idiosyncracies ( summer driving demand, refinery maintenance, supply flows ) have produced a decent returns when used within a simple, tactical 3 sector switching framework. 2016 has been exceptional. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1NrMJ1hs2zhLrXc-WgjdbA_0uf0KUPzvKdgKUJZvyFCM/edit?usp=sharing

@Kevin - there are many different types of MLP's:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/advisor/2014/09/30/what-you-need-to-know-about-mlps-and-investing-in-energy/#65d10d5fc4ee
but I think that you will find that most of the funds/ETF's built around them tend to be heavily populated with midstream energy companies. See: GLPAX
I guess that one has to decide what it is they actually want to hold before any specific fund can be either suggested or chosen. Personally I have found them lacking - high er's, low distributions, poor construction/composition and have therefore just invested in certain individual companies.

"The nearly 19-year-old Defined Risk Strategy" - not fund, i.e. private money
Also from the article:
"The $1.5 billion Swan Defined Risk mutual fund (ticker: SDRAX), launched in 2012, hasn’t performed as well, which is largely a function of time and the market cycle. It’s up an average of 4% a year over the past three years, versus 12.9% for the S&P 500. "
Makes one wonder what is "All Seasons" about this fund.

One area I have often pondered (for those who bought those CEF near 15-20% yields) is why so many advisors recommend selling for cap gains (once rebounded) rather than simply holding for the 15-20% yields they provide as long as tolerable? Inference is they will outperform the S&P going forward. You run the risk of reinvesting the proceeds in some form of losing alternative investment.

Closed end funds provided a rare opportunity in Feb during the oil scare. Discounts went to almost 15% on select funds. I got them at 10.5% yield on average and they are up 10% on NAV from where I got them.

Ted,
Something is off here; the M* graphs show no such thing, quite the opposite, and no 19y history either. Hmm.

An update ... @Junkster
Through April 22 according to Morningstar Portfolio Manager my three best performing funds year-to-date are FDSAX (+8.9%) ... PGUAX (+8.9%) & PMDAX (+7.8%). My three worst performers ytd are SPECX (-3.3%) ... THOAX (-2.1%) and ANWPX (-0.4%). Overall the investment return on the portfolio as a whole is +3.5% and the ytd return factoring in cash held and profits taken computes to 3.1%. In comparison the Lipper Balanced Index is shown to have a ytd return of 2.8% according to the WSJ.
In addition, my income sleeve is shown to be up ytd @ 2.87% and the hybrid income sleeve is up 3.55% ytd. Last week they were reported at 2.75% and 3.25% respectively.
In review, while the income sleeves were up this past week other parts of the portfolio were down a little from last week reporting where my overall investment return was 4.1% (according to portfolio manager) and when factoring in cash held plus profits put me at 3.4% overall. Last week the Lipper Balanced Index had a ytd return of 3.1% according to the WSJ.

Steve Romick managing a second fund along with FPACX. Maybe another reason that FPACX has not done well of late.
One promising example is Source Capital (SOR), which has historically traded at nearly a 10% discount. Its new manager, Steve Romick of FPA Crescent (FPACX), widely regarded as a top investor, will retain some level of the fund’s historical 4.5% distribution to keep the discount manageable.

FYI: (Click On Article Title At Top Of Google Search)
IInvestors who bought master limited partnerships years ago, thinking they had found a high-yielding bond substitute with tax advantages, have been sorely tried. Those who held on through the 18-month downturn have gotten some welcome relief these past 10 weeks as the sector rebounded from its staggering 60% plunge from 2014 highs.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.google.com/#q=MLPs+Are+Rallying—but+They’re+Still+Risky+Barron's

@hank Ummm, multi-polar? :)
@rforno I really hope that isn't the future, but no tellin' --- new Chief, so maybe many more new "visions" coming:
http://blogs.barrons.com/focusonfunds/2016/04/22/t-rowe-expands-quant-fund-offerings/?mod=BOL_hp_blog_fof

FYI: (Click On Article Title At Top Of Google Searcg)
The nearly 19-year-old Defined Risk Strategy, based on the Standard & Poor’s 500 index, has returned an average of 8.5% a year since its inception through the end of March, versus 6.6% for the S&P itself—and with considerably less volatility.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.google.com/#q=a+Fund+For+All+Seasons+Barron's
M* Snapshot SDRAX:
http://www.morningstar.com/funds/xnas/sdrax/quote.html
LIpper Snapshot SDRAX:
http://www.marketwatch.com/investing/Fund/SDRAX
SDRAX Is Unranked In The (L/S E) Fund Category By U.S. News & World Report:
http://money.usnews.com/funds/mutual-funds/long-short-equity/swan-defined-risk-fund/sdrax