@JC, is it not that their principles are more or less 'go anywhere' / opportunistic?

On first glance these funds look very similar. I went to the prospectus of each fund.
There are a few details like the allocation percentages that are different. The issue with comparing these funds is that they are like oil on water. RSIVX is currently holding a lot of corporate instruments. https://fundresearch.fidelity.com/mutual-funds/composition/76882K751?type=o-NavBar
PONDX is spread out over the spectrum. https://fundresearch.fidelity.com/mutual-funds/composition/72201F458?type=o-NavBar
Pimco is well known for buying derivative instruments which would increase volatility.
The category "Multisector Bond" is general. But, I am splitting hairs here. Yes it could be said that these funds are similar. The background heritage and investing style of the fund companies themselves might be the biggest difference here and one that should be noted as I did with the derivatives issue.

http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/811030/000089418915000617/hodges_497e.htm
Filed Pursuant to Rule 497(e)
1933 Act File No. 033-12213
1940 Act File No. 811-05037
HODGES FUND
Retail Class – Ticker: HDPMX
Institutional Class – Ticker: HDPIX
HODGES SMALL CAP FUND
Retail Class – Ticker: HDPSX
Institutional Class – Ticker: HDSIX
HODGES SMALL INTRINSIC VALUE FUND
Retail Class – Ticker: HDSVX
HODGES SMALL-MID CAP FUND
Retail Class – Ticker: HDSMX
HODGES PURE CONTRARIAN FUND
Retail Class – Ticker: HDPCX
HODGES BLUE CHIP 25 FUND
Retail Class – Ticker: HDPBX
HODGES EQUITY INCOME FUND
Retail Class – Ticker: HDPEX
Supplement dated February 3, 2015 to the
Prospectus and Statement of Additional Information dated July 29, 2014
The Hodges Funds regret to inform its shareholders that Don Hodges has passed away at the age of 80, and therefore, no longer serves on the team of portfolio managers for its series: Hodges Fund; Hodges Small Cap Fund; Small-Mid Cap Fund; Pure Contrarian; Blue Chip; and Equity Income Fund.
Eric Marshall will join Craig Hodges as co-portfolio manager to the Hodges Fund.
Please retain this Supplement with the Prospectus and Statement of Additional Information.

In other news, one of Cramer's picks Chipotle is off 5% after hours as they missed on their earnings.
http://www.cnbc.com/id/102389870

Hi, Mo.
No problem. As I say in the recap of our conversation with Bernie Horn, a lot comes down to how you weigh 2008 and how you assess their response to it. It's a strategy that's worked exceptionally well in 15 of 17 years and really poorly in two. How important those two are (is worrying about 2008 the equivalent of fighting the last war? are we building Maginot-like portfolios) and how intelligently you think they've handled it strike me as major drivers of whether the Polaris products make it in.
In general, I'm agnostic on the first question and pretty pleased with the answers to the second but that's not necessarily definitive.
As ever,
David

FYI:
Regards,
Ted
WSJ Slant:
http://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-stock-futures-edge-higher-1422969398
Bloomberg Slant:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-02-03/u-s-index-futures-advance-office-depot-soars-on-staples-talks
Reuters Slant:
http://www.reuters.com/assets/print?aid=USKBN0L718Z20150203
MarketWatch Slant:
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/us-stocks-futures-pull-back-as-caution-sets-in-ahead-of-factory-orders-2015-02-03/print
WSJ Markets At A Glance: http://markets.wsj.com/us
Sector Tracker: http://www.sectorspdr.com/sectorspdr/tools/sector-tracker
Current Futures: http://finviz.com/futures.ashx

The best number for RiverPark is 212-484-2100 in NYC. If you are fortunate as I have been, you will be able to discuss RSVIX with Morty Schaja. He is the CEO and Managing Partner.
The performance and statistics team at PIMCO can be reached at 949-720-4706. They are located in Newport Beach California, but assuming you are on EST, don't be overly concerned the time you call. I normally speak with them between 9:00 - 9:30 AM EST (6:00 - 6:30 AM PST) and they are already on their second pot of coffee.
Hope this helps.

Ukraine only about 6% of holdings. Over 95% of portfolio are investment grade. Might hurt a bit but far from a catastrophe. Hasenstab will come through just fine.

I just looked at the portfolio on Morningstar and it looks like only a little more than 81% is in investment grade bonds. I looked at TPINX, Templeton Global Bond A. The Global Total Return Fund is only a little more than 65% investment grade. Please correct me if I've got this wrong. I view investment grade as BBB and above.

I use TGBAX

ron, my comment was with respect to yours which said "Over 95% of portfolio are investment grade"
That doesn't coincide with the info I looked up in M*. Don't know where you are getting the info that over 95% of the portfolio is investment grade. Looks to me like about 81% and 65% for the two funds, per above. Perhaps you were referring to something
different

I simply added all that was BBB and above.

This thread was worrisome enough from a contrarian point of view and now today's action. Up to 19% in corp junk and looking to go 25% by the close depending on the rest of the day.

FYI: After a decade fraught with manager turnover and miscues, it appears that, in at least one respect, Vanguard Capital Value Fund (MUTF:VCVLX[1]) is on a steady course.
Regards,
Ted
http://investorplace.com/2015/02/buy-worst-sell-best/print

FYI: The American Funds family of mutual funds is home to some of the most widely held funds in the world. They can be found in 401(k) plans, IRAs, brokerage accounts and even 529 plans. But some of their most recognized names are not performing as well as their lofty assets under management might suggest
Regards,
Ted
http://investorplace.com/2015/02/american-funds-underperforming/print

Ukraine only about 6% of holdings. Over 95% of portfolio are investment grade. Might hurt a bit but far from a catastrophe. Hasenstab will come through just fine.

I just looked at the portfolio on Morningstar and it looks like only a little more than 81% is in investment grade bonds. I looked at TPINX, Templeton Global Bond A. The Global Total Return Fund is only a little more than 65% investment grade. Please correct me if I've got this wrong. I view investment grade as BBB and above.

I use TGBAX

ron, my comment was with respect to yours which said "Over 95% of portfolio are investment grade"
That doesn't coincide with the info I looked up in M*. Don't know where you are getting the info that over 95% of the portfolio is investment grade. Looks to me like about 81% and 65% for the two funds, per above. Perhaps you were referring to something different

Sorry that I didn't highlight this earlier. One of the questions you had for the guys is "why is there an ETF atop your portfolio?" The answer appears to be "it was an experiment that we don't intend to repeat." Here's their exact explanation:

Pear Tree does not hold the ETF anymore. Before year end, the Fund had +12% in cash and decided to pare it down to under 10% by using ETF to gain some market exposure. The Fund management team had built up cash while working on some buy ideas and did not want to put the cash to work and then sell again to buy the new companies. Henceforth if the Fund builds up +10% cash, we will not buy ETFs but try to put it to work in the most liquid companies until such time we have buy ideas.

So they had excess cash, wanted to put it somewhere but didn't want to create a short-term equity position that they'd just have to unwind so they tried using a sector ETF. Apparently didn't like the experience and don't plan to repeat it.
David

We’d be delighted if you’d join us on Monday, February 9th, from noon to 1:00 p.m. Eastern, for a conversation with Matthew Page and Ian Mortimer, managers of Guinness Atkinson Global Innovators (IWIRX) and Guinness Atkinson Dividend Builder (GAINX).
Register
These are both small, concentrated, distinctive, disciplined funds with top-tier performance. Guinness reports:

Guinness Atkinson Global Innovators is the #1 Global Multi-Cap Growth Fund across all time periods (1,3,5,& 10 years) this quarter ending 12/31/14 based on fund total returns. They are ranked 1 of 500 for 1 year, 1 of 466 for 3 years, 1 of 399 for 5 years and 1 of 278 for 10 years in the Lipper category Global Multi-Cap Growth.

Why? Good academic research, stretching back more than a decade, shows that firms with a strong commitment to ongoing innovation outperform the market. Firms with a minimal commitment to innovation trail the market, at least over longer periods.
The challenge is finding such firms and resisting the temptation to overpay for them. The fund initially (1998-2003) tracked an index of 40 stocks chosen by the editors of Wired magazine “to mirror the arc of the new economy as it emerges from the heart of the late industrial age.” In 2003, Guinness concluded that a more focused portfolio and more active selection process would do better, and they were right. In 2010, the new team inherited the fund. They maintained its historic philosophy and construction but broadened its investable universe. Ten years ago there were only about 80 stocks that qualified for consideration; today it’s closer to 350 than their “slightly more robust identification process” has them track.
This is not a collection of “story stocks.” The managers note that whenever they travel to meet potential US investors, the first thing they hear is “Oh, you’re going to buy Facebook and Twitter.” (That would be “no” to both.) They look for firms that are continually reinventing themselves and looking for better ways to address the opportunities and challenges in their industry.
Matt volunteered the following plan for their slice of the call:

I think we would like to address some of the following points in our soliloquy.

• Why are innovative companies an interesting investment opportunity?
  
• How do we define an innovative company?
  
• Aren’t innovative companies just expensive?
  
• Are the most innovative companies the best investments?

I suppose you could sum all this up in the phrase: Why Innovation Matters.

In deference to the fact that Matt and Ian are based in London, we have moved our call to noon Eastern. While they were willing to hang around the office until midnight, asking them to do it struck me as both rude and unproductive (how much would you really get from talking to two severely sleep-deprived Brits?).
HOW CAN YOU JOIN IN?
Register
If you can't join but have questions for the guys, share them here. In general, either the managers will read them or folks from the adviser follow these discussions then brief them.
Hope you're all safe and warm,
David

I have built up a nice nest egg over time and not because I am smart or skilled (actually probably the opposite) But by concentrating solely on trend persistency combined with LOW Volatility. That has enabled me to go 100% all in whatever and abstain from the diversification game. A game that while it may work, nonetheless leads to lower returns than a concentrated portfolio.

Uhhh ... Chuck asked me about these funds as he was writing the column. His email suggested that he'd already concluded that they were the wrong solution to a non-problem. In response I wrote:

The research is pretty consistent that low-vol stocks outperform (a) the broad market and especially (b) the market darlings by wide margins over time; that outperformance is very consistent in falling markets but does also occur in some bull markets as well. It looks like 100-200 bps of gain with about 25% lower standard deviation.
Why do they win? I don't know and I have rather more respect for the researchers who say "it's complicated" than for those with the smooth, neatly packaged explanations. There are two possible paths:
1. a low-vol stock portfolio is good because it invests in low-vol stocks. High dividend yield investing works because high dividend yields suggest something about the underlying business model, and something similar might be true here.
2. a low-vol stock portfolio is good because it does not invest in high-vol stocks. I like this explanation more. High volatility stocks tend to be "story stocks," drawing lots of attention and lots of eager investors. They soar and swoop. And, in general, disappoint investors either by crashing entirely or by posting miserable returns because investors paid for the story rather than for the earnings. Their mere exclusion from the portfolio solves much.
Curiously, that's the same argument made by Andrew Foster at Searfarer and the team at Guinness Atkinson: a large fraction of firms are structurally impaired, simply keeping those out of your portfolio leads to above average returns.

Apparently that wasn't compelling.
David

@TSP_Transfer : Ah, yes, the Dreyfus/Standish Global Fixed Income Fund. Sometimes it pays to be less than fastidious in cleaning up the old Ideas folder (and what a shameful mess mine is). I found a 2010 prospectus. Rhao, it is not (though he is an internatl. fund mgr.). The name of the portfolio mgr I was trying to remember is: David C. Leduc. FWIW

Ukraine only about 6% of holdings. Over 95% of portfolio are investment grade. Might hurt a bit but far from a catastrophe. Hasenstab will come through just fine.

I just looked at the portfolio on Morningstar and it looks like only a little more than 81% is in investment grade bonds. I looked at TPINX, Templeton Global Bond A. The Global Total Return Fund is only a little more than 65% investment grade. Please correct me if I've got this wrong. I view investment grade as BBB and above.

I use TGBAX

FYI:
Regards,
Ted
WSJ Slant:
http://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-stock-futures-trade-higher-1422883658
Bloomberg Slant:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-02-02/u-s-stock-index-futures-are-little-changed-paring-earlier-gain
Reuters Slant:
http://www.reuters.com/assets/print?aid=USKBN0L615120150202
MarketWatch Slant:
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/us-stocks-futures-higher-ahead-of-consumer-spending-ism-data-2015-02-02/print
WSJ Market At A Glance: http://markets.wsj.com/us
Sector Tracker: http://www.sectorspdr.com/sectorspdr/tools/sector-tracker
Current Futures: http://finviz.com/futures.ashx

FYI: Show me a guy wearing a belt and suspenders, and I will show you someone who a) is a pessimist and b) fell for a sales pitch that made him look both silly and redundant.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/why-low-volatility-funds-arent-worth-it-for-long-term-investors-2015-02-02/print

Pick one...see if they can chart 2015....