Not to keep beating the same drum but since January of 2014 (13 months ago) it's been junk muni bond funds. But for some unfathomable reason, and much to my delight, investors have always (like forever) seemed to have had a problem embracing anything termed junk - be it junk munis or junk corporates. By the way, it has been something like 9 or 10 consecutive trading days that junk corporates as measured by the Merrill Lynch High Yield Master II Index have risen, albeit at a snail's pace. Could that be the next big thing in Yieldland?
A bear market in equities won't be good for corporate junk bonds. A rebound in stocks and they could really be off to the races. A bit vague maybe but you put your money down but be ready to take it off the table real quick if proven wrong. Unfortunately that is a mindset foreign to most investors. Like my friend here who bet on SUBFX early last year as a bet AGAINST lower yields. For all I know he still holds that fund and it may indeed work out someday. But in the meantime, what a waste of time and capital sitting on such a loser while he could have been making money in something that was working instead (kind of like the MFLDX aficionados) Hold for the long run has been the conventional pablum shoved down investors throats since the beginning of time. I don't know about you, but in the long run I am dead.

The yield on the 10-year Treasury has fallen to 1.639%. IIRC, in the first week of January 2014 it was approximately 3%.
What are your favorite fixed income investments?

With the German Bund yielding 30 basis points, I could definitely see dropping below the 1% threshold.
It would probably mean things have deteriorated here in the US.

I'm still of the mind that the US 10 year will hit 1%. We'll see if it might go lower when it gets there.
The closer we get to 1.0% the less likely the FED will raise rates - the US$ would rise hurting exports, and decreasing import prices - hurting domestic producers.
What do you think?
U.S. 10yr1.64-0.000.26%
German 10y0.27-0.0516.56%
Italy 10yr1.58-0.010.51%
Spain 10yr1.45+0.000.08%
U.K. 10yr1.34+0.000.29%
Japan 10yr0.28-0.013.38%
Euro1.13-0.000.18%
Yen117.53-0.750.64%
Pound1.51+0.000.22%
Australia$0.78+0.000.48%

Hi @ron
Just my opinion at this time. We have held active managed TlPs funds, including LTPZ.
These funds have their periods of in and out of favor, not unlike equity funds. I have not performed a chart study recently, but one will likely discover more swings with the TIPs funds area than with corporate bond holdings. Obviously, these two bond types are supposed to provide somewhat different functions.
I have noted here several times in the past years that the greatest impact in pricing for TIPs that remains in place is the yield of other gov't. issues and that these bonds also become a flight to safety device when folks are not happy with other market sectors.
This is only my opinion, of course.
We have not invested in TIPs for any relation to receiving income from the investment; but to obtain capital appreciation from pricing. We have not used this area as a long term holding; and from my recall, we have not held TIPs for more than a year, during the last 5 or 6 years.
EDV ,TLT ,LTPZ follow the long term gov't. bond pricing. TIP and other TIPs active managed funds tend to follow the middle dated yield/pricing of gov't issues.
All of these had a bad 2013 period, as they followed the gov't longer dated issues.
EDV is the hot dog in this area for both the up and the down, slightly followed by TLT and LTPZ. EDV would be my choice, next would be LTPZ in the TIPs area.
As to active managed TIPs funds, they are pretty much in line with TIP for the longer term, but vary on a shorter term as the managers move around the duration ranges and in many cases also hold corp. bonds as well.
Ron, you noted LTPZ in particular; so I presume you have access to EDV as well.
For our house, we do our best to either purchase a 5% position on day one or at least obtain this percentage within a month's time with an average in once a week. Otherwise, we don't feel the holding has enough effect upon a portfolio.
Lastly, is how long is this down trend going to stay in place relative to bond yield? A real head scratcher. And that the etf's discussed above can and do move as much as a speciality equity sector. One should watch them for price movements, IMO. These will not neccessarily behave like a smoother, well managed corp. bond fund.
I probably forget something........will add later if needed; as I have to be away for a few hours tonight.
Don't forget, lest I get dragged across the carpet. These are only my views/opinions.
Take care,
Catch

I've been in TRP Africa/Middle East TRAMX for 2 and a half years, very pleased. It sank last year through the latter months, but still gave me good profit. Right now, it's less than 3% of my portfolio. I use its (so far) outsized returns to feed money into my core fund: PRWCX. LONG-term bet, for sure, and I'd not let it even get to be 5% of portfolio. The ER is not horrible, at 1.42%. Morningstar puts the fund in a crazy "non-category" category.

From FPACX 4Q Commentary
Conclusion
Not only is the stock market at a new high but so is the dollar and that’s despite continued low interest rates. It does beg the question: Are stocks in developed economies only as good as their respective central banks allow them to be?
At some point, the market intervention will end, hopefully plying us with
opportunity, but we are careful for what we wish for.
We are investors who have had the good fortune of like-minded people like you placing their hard-earned
money alongside ours....
we don’t particularly worry about what happens over the near
-term. Right now, we continue to feel like it is summer in the Rockies and we’re looking at the slopes hoping for snow.
Respectfully submitted,
Steven Romick
President
January 26, 2015
(Hopefully the approaching snow/winter Mr Romick is looking for, will not culminate in a far reaching avalanche)

Sorry for the FT post. I think they allow you to read one article (first click rule), so if you clear your cache you may be able to read it. But it is a short article and you shouldn't have to pay for it.
Here is one other older interview with similar thoughts though:
http://www.pwmnet.com/Wealth-Management/Profiles/Northill-brings-a-little-focus-to-asset-management-world?ct=true
NorthHill likes to buy small firms that focus on investing and aren't just trying to increase AUM. a few blerbs from the two articles:
This ones for you Scott:
Likewise, Mr Little argues Affiliated Managers Group, a big US-listed multi-boutique with assets of $617bn, is stuck on a hamster wheel of relentless expansion.
High quality global journalism requires investment. Please share this article with others using the link below, do not cut & paste the article. See our Ts&Cs and Copyright Policy for more detail. Email [email protected] to buy additional rights. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/a18d69ee-9b1a-11e4-b651-00144feabdc0.html#ixzz3QR6lNq7w
“AMG has 30 managers in its portfolio. They have to do that. They have a premium [stock market] rating because they are a growth stock. When they stop doing that, they go to a [price-to-earnings ratio] of 13-14 rather than 18-19, so the managers can’t stop. They will lose their premium rating and lose their jobs.”
"We would rather invest in people that are consistently closing to new business,” he says.
Speaking about one of the firms they own:
“But they are also incredibly profitable. They don’t have marketing people or advertising or a corporate strategy department. Everyone in the firm is focused on asset management.”
Speaking about the types of firms they want to own:
“They are the unsung heroes of asset management. They don’t advertise, they don’t want money, they are not launching new products, so you very rarely see them in the press.”
To summarize, they are looking for some of the same things that I am in a MF company.
good performance
Focused
willing to close to new investors
low profile / doesn't advertise
small size company
doesn't want to own more than 10 and serves one the board of each that they own ( i broke this rule, but i have dropped a couple this past year)

I think you'll find a lot of different opinions about the "ideal" number of funds and I think the real answer depends largely on your style. For instance, if one is mostly a passive investor, then I would think that person wouldn't need more than 5 funds/etfs. On the other hand, there can be good reasons for having more funds, such as not putting all your eggs in one basket, or because you want both growth and value within your global funds, for instance. Of course you have to worry about becoming a closet indexer at higher cost.
I have 6 large cap funds to cover the world right now (1 of which is in the process of being eliminated so I won't discuss it). Three of those funds are very focused and have a total of 80 positions among them so I'm in no danger of becoming an indexer. These are mostly a 'not all my eggs in one basket' approach. Two others are specific bets that Europe and Japan will experience significant gains thanks to their central bank's QE program and they are hedged etfs. The last one would most likely be eliminated too because it is largely duplicated by one of the etfs (except without leverage), but its closed to new investors. Because of that I've reduced it to a very small position but I don't want to totally exit and at some point, maybe years from now, I'd expect I'll get out of the hedged etf and rotate back into the fund. Do I really need all of those? Maybe not, but I'm comfortable with my approach and I think everything has a clear purpose.
Finally, there are some other cases where I have multiple funds doing essentially the same thing, but for example Grandeur Peak International Opportunities is hard closed, so I have another small-cap international fund that I like as well and use to balance my allocation when its needed. Again, maybe not totally necessary but I'm happy with the approach.

a. You should be aware of the tax treatment of TIPS - which makes them better in an IRA or 401k. Suppose a TIPS is bought when it is issued (say, at 100) and it has a 1% coupon. In the first year suppose that there is 2% inflation. You will receive the 1% coupon, and in the following year the Treasury will pay 1% on the inflated principal (of $100 + $2 in inflation = $102.) So, in the second year your interest payment is 1% of $102 or $1.02. This is all terrific --- EXCEPT that the 2% increase in the principal value is taxable as income in the year you receive it.
In other words, in the first year you get $1.00 in income and pay taxes of income of $2.00 ----- so owning TIPS in a tax sheltered account is preferred.
b. That said, the theory says that
income of plain vanilla Treasury =
income on TIPS of that maturity
+ expectation of inflation for that period.
The problem is that you can be caught/rewarded between inflation and Treasury rates going up at different rates (or on the market not doing what the theory says it will.)

Geez ...
---

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-01-29/janet-yellen-now-advises-democrats-what-feds-monetary-policy-plans-are
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-01-29/yellen-tells-senators-no-immediate-rate-rise-amid-concern-abroad
This was literally two days ago.
I'm not upset you posted what you posted or are my comments against what you posted or that you posted them or anything of that nature.
I'm simply tired of the endless back-and-forth of - Bullard said what he said and the market drops and I'm sure another Fed member (probably Kocherlakota?) will probably talk it back on Monday.
Again, nothing against what you posted, simply a rant over the endless Fedspeak that never seems to be united. It's either denied a day later (no no no, market didn't like it so we didn't mean it) OR the goalposts are moved or whatever isn't going their way is "transitory."
I'm sure that Bullard's comments were a core reason as to why the market did what it did on Friday. And I'm sure it will be walked back - but there's going to be a point where the "he said, she said" is going to result in credibility eroding entirely.
"Significance of all this? Some if you are a market timer or short-term focused. None if you are a longer term investor."
I don't disagree with you on that, but there is a point where, with the Fed at the zero bound and things looking as if they're slowing down, things will get interesting and possibly for a long while. What do you do if there's a recession and you're already at ZIRP? I guess we'll probably find out sooner than later.
Lastly, I couldn't agree more with this:
"...In other words, their job is not to analyze actual economic conditions, but to condition economic thought toward the end goal. If they convince you that they believe the economy is on track they further believe you will act accordingly (“you” being both investor and economic agent). The more the economy diverges from the “preferred” projection, the more emphatic the cries of “recovery” become. At some point, desperation becomes palpable."
It's a MOPE (Management of Perspective Economy.)
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-01-31/market-calls-feds-bluff-desperation-becomes-palpable
That's all.

@mcmarasco, I get where you're coming from. Any thoughts on an ideal number of equity funds? I personally have 7 and I'm pretty comfortable with them (2 Global, 1 EM, 1 FM, 1 Int'l SC, 1 Int'l and 1 Domestic L/S). I don't want to be a victim of over-diversifying while paying active management fees. I'll admit, it is hard to refrain from purchasing new funds, especially some newer funds that are launched, but the team has a nice track record at a previous firm (i.e. Grandeur Peak).

UC, I know it seems a bit much in one space, but it is an unknown arena and there really isn't much overlap in them. They are in varied areas and have a mix of LC, MC and SC. I may at some point eliminate one, but I'm not yet comfortable enough with this space.
To answer your question, I have a total of 12 equity funds. I have to admit, I have been thinking about reducing that number.

I too am a believer in FM. Many believe that they are traditional EM of 20 years ago, so the growth potential has a huge upside. I have been moving some monies from my traditional EM funds into FM funds.
I currently own MFMPX.lw, WAFMX and MEASX. I like the breadth and depth this combo gives me. Although they are relatively struggling in 2015, this is a LONG-TERM investment and high volatility is to be expected. Furthermore, high ER is the going rate, it cannot be avoided in this arena with mutual funds.
I have not looked into the Dreihaus fund at this point, so I do not have any thoughts on it.

PIMCO 15+ Year U.S. TIPS ETF LTPZ.

I'd say Marc Faber is doubling down. Sure he's been a little wrong - since the dawn of time - but he makes up for it in confidence. Same for Peter Schiff and John Mauldin.

Faber: If I could find a way to short central banks, that is what I would do. This is the year that people will lose confidence in central banks, mostly because of the failure of Abenomics in Japan. [Abenomics, the economic policies advocated by Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe to reignite Japan’s economy, encompass monetary easing, fiscal stimulus, and structural reforms.] One way to short central banks is to go long gold. I recommend buying physical gold, silver, and platinum. If you are looking for bigger gains, I suggest either mining-company stocks or the Market Vectors Junior Gold Miners [GDXJ] exchange-traded fund. In last year’s first half, when gold rebounded by 15%, the Junior Gold Miners ETF rallied by more than 40%.

@scott
Yup. We've hashed this marketing stuff before, eh?
I wonder at times if these "Fed" moments are a pissing contest among members, ego or something else. But, these statements are not generally productive, IMO.
Rants are okay, scott. A form of investment therapy for me.
Take care of yourself,
Catch

Thanks.
Some have said that 90% of Fed meetings are discussion of communication and 10% are discussions of policy. Wouldn't surprise me.

I'm a believer in frontier markets because I believe we will see better growth rates and I think there's a lot of room for businesses to grow, especially ones with more and more access to foreign capital, as the middle class grows substantially.
MFMPX and HLMOX were historically very focused on the banks/financial institutions in the MIddle East and they did very well as UAE and Qatar ultimately moved from frontier to emerging market status with MSCI. I get the impression HLMOX has moved geographically since then but both are still heavily weighted towards financials.
WAFMX is far more focused on consumer defensive based on what they say is a bet on the rising middle class and the local economies rather than being tied to the global financial markets and its done well since its inception also.
According to Driehaus' registration statement and if I understand correctly, the fund should be available around February 14th. It carries a very large minimum investment so I'm not sure how accessible it will be for retail investors, but when I asked a few months ago I guess they weren't really able to answer and they just said more information would be on their website when the fund is available.
MEASX also has a pretty big focus on frontier markets in Asia and they are also far more focused on consumer defensive and consumer cyclicals and sports a similarly high but slightly lower expense ratio than the others.
I own both WAFMX and MEASX now and will be paying close attention to the Driehaus fund to see if their approach is one I like as well as whether there are any opportunities to invest much smaller amounts of money.

FYI: (Click On Article Title At Top Of Google Search)
Final 2015 Roundtable issue with Marc Faber, David Herro, Oscar Schafer, and Mario Gabelli discussing their approach to investing.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.google.com/search?newwindow=1&site=&source=hp&q=stratgies+for+a+new+age+barron's&oq=stratgies+for+a+new+age+barron's&gs_l=hp.3...1830.15777.0.16068.32.32.0.0.0.0.72.1755.32.32.0.msedr...0...1c.1.61.hp..6.26.1392.fKBBMGhIiI0

Think this (linked) Friday morning interview with St. Louis Fed Pesident James Bullard on Bloomberg TV may have played a part in the day's markets.
I caught snippets of it over early coffee. Thought it odd at the time that he seemed to imply there's some underlying inflation building (not yet reflected in the official numbers). Certainly, he seemed hell-bent that rates are going up, sooner rather than later.

1. This "good cop, bad cop" routine is getting to be such a tiresome load of garbage. Cue another Fed member going, "Oh no no no we didn't mean it" after a 250 point drop in the market. At some point (and I can't believe it hasn't been already), the credibility goes into the toilet after one too many times of this BS. Yellen the other day meeting with democrats going "No no no, no rate hikes anytime soon" and telling them that the economy is okay (and some of them are going, "Yellen told us the economy was okay" as if they have no bleeping clue what's going on outside of DC beyond what Yellen just told them.)
Now you have Bullard going "rate hike coming up?" Ridiculous.
2. If you're going to raise rates, do it. I don't believe they can and the market may very well call that bluff. They've painted themselves into a corner.
3. OR they are going to attempt to raise rates (and if so, do it. Hike the rate tomorrow and stop with the b***s*** already) so that when the next downturn starts they'll have some room to bring it back down again, but that still looks terrible if that's their grand plan. Additionally, Yellen doesn't seem to have anything against NIRP.
4. At some point in this ZIRP cycle, do pensions and other investment vehicles (social security fund, etc) get in trouble from the standpoint of already low selection of safe yield and current treasury holdings at higher yields begin to mature?
5. The dollar skyrocketing is clearly not a good thing for many companies, nor would it SEEM to be a positive for the Fed. However, there's also the fact that they never admit when anything isn't going right, because if it's not going the way that they planned, then it's.... (drumroll) transitory. As for prices going up, the memo from the cafe at the Fed saying that they were going to have to raise prices because of food inflation is still hilarious.
The whole thing is - to some degree - the Eddie Lampert-ing of America. People love the financial engineering story (QE), but you haven't really done anything to broadly improve the underlying "business" (because we have politicians who can't agree on a street sign and who use that excuse to sit on their hands.) Eventually, the underlying business starts to show some cracks because more effort was put into financial engineering than actually building a solid, sustainable foundation for the business. After that, more aggressive moves have to be taken and the shine comes off the financial engineering story.
And now things are starting to look rocky and the Fed is at ZIRP while other major nations are cutting rates (some to NIRP.) The fact that you have some major nations cutting rates or going into NIRP should give some people pause about the state of the global economy, but no, of course not - especially the financial media. I can't wait for those who go, "The WORLD NEEDS MORE QE, STAT!"
I would not be surprised if we get a "next stage" of the QE era where even more significant and surprising actions are taken. The Fed has continually tried to stop economic Winter from happening. If Winter pushes its way in to a more noticeable degree and the Fed is still at ZIRP, things get interesting in a hurry. NIRP or other new measures wouldn't surprise me. To me, the concern is that QE and ZIRP are not the end of this era, but the beginning.
Rant over.