Mr. Gross' ramblings aren't even numerically correct. I stopped reading after the first paragraph, so much was wrong with his hyperventilating prose.
Governor Brown's executive order does not say that "all of us simple folk should cut back water usage by a minimum of 25%". It says that restrictions shall be imposed "to achieve a statewide 25% reduction in potable urban water usage."
More importantly, it does not impose this requirement uniformly, as Mr. Gross states. Rather, if you've been good about limiting water usage, you don't have to cut as much. For example, San Diego residents have to cut usage by 16%.
Mr. Gross even gets basic dollars and cents figures wrong. He writes about water and rails, saying that the high speed rail project will cost at least $25B. Wrong. It's an overhaul of the state's water system that will cost $25B. The rail project will cost $68B. Even when it was originally on the ballot, the projected cost of $43B was above Mr. Gross' stated $25B.
I expect better accuracy from someone handling my money. With "research" like this, I sure don't want him buying any muni bonds or transportation bonds for me.

Why invest money with the 40th to 50th best manager that you have found when you could give more $ to #1,#2#3...just wondering...
"My Cash has to work because I don't"......copyright TB

He is the Justin Beiber of bonds, after all
http://www.forbes.com/sites/steveschaefer/2014/06/19/pimcos-bill-gross-in-his-own-words-im-a-70-year-old-justin-bieber/
Funny how he's rarely on CNBC after leaving Pimco.

FYI: At Pimco, Bill Gross built a reputation as the world’s best bond trader. Now, at Janus Capital, he’s managing a much smaller fund—all while being measured against his younger self.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-06-29/gross-gets-personal-i-just-wanted-to-run-money-and-be-famous-

1998 WSJ article: Mutual Funds Take Steps to Ready for Redemptions (link is google search)

"Currently [1998] only four fund firms have permission from the US SEC to make such "interfund" loans. But several other fund companies [are moving in that direction] in light of the global economic turmoil.
"The first firm ... was Fidelity ... in 1990. Two other fund companies, Stein Roe .. and Janus also received interfund-loan authority in 1996 and late 1997 respectively.
"Vanguard ... applied ... two years ago .... T. Rowe Price has an application [pending]. Franklin Resources ... say[s] they are considering [applying].
"Earlier this month ... Fidelity made an interfund loan after one of its funds had an unexpectedly large withdrawal of cash."

Of course! There's always something up. The two of Doc Hussman's that I watch were both up. HSGFX gained 1.4% and HSTRX gained .64%.
Most of the funds in domestic high quality bonds gained, including DODIX, which I own. Looks like junk took a hit however.
Well ... I just noticed you said "good" funds. Hussman may not make that high a bar. But good to see it shine today.

I know I'm coming out of left field (or is it right field :-) ) on this, but I don't think that multiple share classes is that big a deal. Sure they're there to be deceptive, but that doesn't mean the information isn't out there, in plain sight, to make the best share class decision. (The writers don't object to loads, just to multiple share classes.)
All you need, if you're working with a broker, is someone who has a fiduciary duty to act in your best interests, as opposed to finding suitable (but not best) share classes. The writers started by dismissing this obvious solution ("eventually we will all recognize the appropriate choice").
FXAIX is given as an example of a rock bottom-priced index fund. There are no administrative costs for this fund because it is only available in employer plans where "Fidelity provides recordkeeping services". (From prospectus, the reading of which they poo-poo.) Once you add back those (profit making) administrative fees, you realize that total cost of this fund is not so cheap after all.
They make Rydex and Invesco funds sound worse than they are by omitting details for these funds also.
IMHO, they're fighting the last war. Most fund families have already closed B shares. The new front is wrap accounts. With these accounts, brokers charge 1%/year (i.e. at least as high as they got from commissions/trailing fees) and use fund supermarkets (where the funds are paying undisclosed fees to the supermarkets for shelf space, and passing these costs onto the investor).
Here's my earlier post on that (updated to link to Schwab's 2015 fee disclosure).
http://www.mutualfundobserver.com/discuss/discussion/comment/46916/#Comment_46916

The broader REIT index is down 4.8% YTD, while S&P is up 3.1%. This year they are trailing other asset classes including equity and bonds.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-06-27/blackrock-seeks-sec-clearance-for-internal-fund-lending
"BlackRock Inc. is seeking government clearance to set up an internal program in which mutual funds that get hit with client redemptions could temporarily borrow money from sister funds that are flush with cash."
Hmmm.... so what's Blackrock expecting?
Additionally, I would not be thrilled if I owned an equity fund or a l/s fund and the fund was forced to lend to a bond fund facing significant redemptions.

What about next time ? Will it act the same. Probably not !
Derf

Thanks for baiting me. Lets look at this fund (YACKX) over the last two bubble drops:
Allow me to "cherry pick" a moment in time that would have been unfavorable for YACKX if mentioned at a cocktail party held back in March of 2008.
March 1998:
"So Bee, What the "buzz" on your hot tech stocks these days?"
"Buy Value, not growth"
Two years later the same acquaintance at a much swankier cocktail party asks in
March 2000:
"So Bee, how's that YACKX working out for you?"

Fast forward to 2015:
(If I hadn't fallen off the cocktail party list for this spring's soiree) I'd say,
"Pretty good"
My Take:
Value often falls out of favor because it's not considered "hot" or "flashy".
Value really fell out of favor in (March 1998) as (Tech Growth) continued to elevate for another two years (May 2000). Even with that under performance, value has held up better than growth long term.
YACKX has had a value matrix that has worked,
"But what about next time?"
I'll fall asleep thinking,
"Probably."

FYI: Although not as cheap as it was, the stock market's valuation today isn't much different than long-term historical averages and is more attractive than competing investments like bonds and cash, says Oakmark's Bill Nygren.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.morningstar.com/Cover/videoCenter.aspx?id=701923

FYI: Many share classes exist only to hide fees paid by mutual funds to brokers in exchange for feeding them business.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.investmentnews.com/article/20150628/REG/306289996?template=printart

Bee, you have been an advocate for recovery time after big down turns. Can I ask what funds you own that have performed well at that aspect?

Advocating is one thing. Pulling off this feat is a work in progress. All I can muster is that my motivation for identifying these kinds of fund is based on the fact that a 50% decline in any investment requires it to produce an 100% profit just to break even.
Which funds bounce back quicker than the next in their category?
My "wholly grail" is incomplete, but it includes my personal experience with:
The 2007-2009 MaxDD & recovery time for this fund was comforting:
YACKX - LC Value

Other funds that lose less therefore need to make up less:
PRWCX & BRUFX _ Moderate Allocation
VWINX - Conservative Allocation
POAGX - MC Growth
PONDX - Multisector Bond
GASFX - Utilities
PRMTX - Tech
PRHSX - Health Care
MAPIX - Asian Income
Definitely could use some help if you or others are offering. ;)

Total AUM $1.7 trillion according to both of the referenced articles. Can you imagine the fee income?
Charles, does your $410 billion figure for publicly traded mutual funds include CEF's?

Accurate article on what the PIMCO folks said on stage. But fact is PIMCO still seems a bit defensive about the fiasco of the past year or so ... as it should be ... gonna take much more time to truly adapt, especially given anticipated interest rate environment. Hard to see them regaining the Camelot aura.
As for AUM, I "only" see $410B in publicly traded mutual funds so rest must be SMAs ... which means OE funds and ETFs account for only about 25% of AUM.

Here are her numbers since inception ...

@LLJB and @LewisBraham...Wonder if any research has been done with regard to funds that quickly recover from MaxDD? Its the recover time that causes prolonged sleeplessness for most investors.
A market meltdown causes one form of insomnia, but funds with prolonged slow recovery time from MaxDD turns patient investors into financial zombies. Talking from experience here.
I now look for managers and funds that have shorter recovery time from MaxDD.
MFO's @Charles discusses/explains Recovery Time here:
Thanks Charles
Research paper on Subject:
Risk Management : Using SAS to Model Portfolio Drawdown,
Recovery, and Value at Risk

FYI: Monday's Wall Street Journal hauls out a hardy perennial of stock market reporting: a warning that a widely followed market analysis tool is flashing a "sell" signal. .
Regards,
Ted
http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-mh-a-stock-market-crash-20150608-column.html#page=1