Where is this years global growth occurring?

A lot can happen in 15 years, but how long ago does the year 2000 feel to you? Projected Global growth by GDP (2030):
"Get ready for a new economic order. In the world 15 years from now, the U.S. will be far less dominant, several emerging markets will catapult into prominence, and some of the largest European economies will be slipping behind."

referenced article:
the-world-s-20-largest-economies-in-2030
My Take:
Matthews Funds do a nice job in the Asia markets (MAPIX, MACSX, MSMLX, MCDFX, MAKOX, MAPTX, MINDX and others)
T Rowe Price Funds do a nice job in other EM markets (TREMX, TRAMX, PRLAX, PRMSX, PREMX)

Hank, I agree with you about the past 15 years don't have anything to do with the coming 15 years. But let's not attribute that only to the James fund. That statement covers ALL funds. Assuming Vanguard has a better research department than James for arguments sake, that in itself doesn't mean that the Vanguard fund will get a better return with less risk. There are plenty of Vanguard actively managed funds that aren't great, notwithstanding their deeper bench. (more researchers means better research?)
I just don't see anybody being right or wrong in this discussion. Each investor has his (or her) reasons for preferring a specific fund. Then what ends up happening in the future is anybody's guess. I own both VWINX and GLRBX, plus other allocation funds, just because I prefer to use different funds because they don't invest in the exact same way.

Yes, the Balanced fund has done very well. M* likes it. But, you're not buying the performance of the past 10-15 years. You're buying the performance of the NEXT 10-15 years. Big difference. Do as you will. And you will. Were it me, I'd stick with a larger company with a deeper management team, better research capabilities and more competitive fees. There's so many I won't start to name them. Or, as I think Mona and others would suggest, go with an index fund or other offering from low cost leader Vanguard.

Yup, Wellington Management certainly fits your description. And if I were looking for a Conservative Allocation fund for my taxable account, I would in fact go with VTMFX over GLRBX.
Mona

Umm ... Mona's correct of course. I've never quite gotten the obsession with James Funds. This is a family run outfit. I doubt they have the deep research staff and capabilities of some of the big players. Dad runs the outfit, along with a couple sons who manage funds if my memory serves me correctly. Dad was an Air Force officer and fighter pilot.
They have some top performers like Golden Rainbow. But, in keeping with the flying motif tonight, they also flew their market neutral fund (JAMNX) into the ground a decade ago. Crashed and burned. Now they've come out with a new version of that prior disaster, a long-short fund (JAZZX). Like its predecessor, it's off to a hot start and money is flowing in. But keep your seat-belt buckled. And with a 2.6% ER, we all know who the real winner is on that one.
Yes, the Balanced fund has done very well. M* likes it. But, you're not buying the performance of the past 10-15 years. You're buying the performance of the NEXT 10-15 years. Big difference. Do as you will. And you will. Were it me, I'd stick with a larger company with a deeper management team, better research capabilities and more competitive fees. There's so many I won't start to name them. Or, as I think Mona and others would suggest, go with an index fund or other offering from low cost leader Vanguard.
Just a thought - The Lipper Scorecard (at Marketwatch) does a great job rating tax efficiency of funds. If you haven't already, try to locate a better alternative using that resource.
Regards

Re "Underspending"
I love the old pilots' saying about two things in flying that can do you no good: (1) the runway behind you and (2) the sky above you.
I think that's applicable to a lot of things in life including saving and investing. We live comfortably and take what we need from our savings. We're probably guilty of "underspending".
Like the pilot who doesn't need to use up all the available runway to get airborn, we feel more secure than we might otherwise by having some extra savings. We won't feel we've "wasted" our money should we fail to use it all up before we die. There's an old joke about wanting to die completely broke. But, for peace of mind ... I hope we don't.

Comparing GLRBX and VWIAX is not quite comparing apples and oranges, but perhaps oranges and tangerines. One is a 50/50 stock/bond fund. The other is a 40/60.
That VWIAX has performed as well is a testament to the 83 basis point ER advantage it enjoys. You can see this by looking at the average 10 year performance for moderate allocation funds (typically 60/40) and conservative allocation funds (typically 40/60). The former returned an average 6.41%, the latter 5.15%.
So an allocation fund with 10% less in stocks than GLRBX might have been expected to underperform by about 0.63% (half the difference between the two averages). But VWIAX performed about the same, despite this allocation headwind. The 0.83% ER advantage pretty much explains this.
VWIAX has 10% more in bonds than does GLRBX. Of course it's expected to be less tax efficient. But it's also going to be less volatile.
Its 10 year standard deviation (you're looking back to 2008) is 6.13, while GLRBX's is 6.93. That's likely part of why M* rates the former as below average risk, while it rates the latter as average to above average, depending on time frame.
Losing money in the 2008-09 bear market: For both funds, their worst quarter was the first quarter of 2009. GLRBX lost 7.09% (from its 2010 prospectus). VWIAX did better, losing less than 6.69% (that's how much the Investor class shares lost, per 2010 prospectus).
If you want an orange (50/50 allocation) instead of a tangerine (40/60 allocation) you might try equal parts of Wellesley and Wellington. Just a thought, I haven't crunched the numbers.

The "big deal with it" is the 3, 5, 10 and 15 year Standard Deviation.
Regarding the the tax cost ratio as being "big drag on performance", I hold VWIAX in a non-taxable account, so there is no tax drag.
As I said, "the ER is just about the only metric you can be certain will be the same the next day. And, 83 basis points does not come for free. It's a significant drag, that if overcome, will be through increased risk"
Mona

If you check my original post, I am talking about my taxable account, so the TCR means something to me -- especially considering the 10 year pre-tax returns are essentially the same on the two funds.
Did you note my other reasons for switching?
P.S.: I am -- and was -- well aware of their slightly different allocations.

Leroy,
I tried my best to get you to understand the "obsession" with low expenses.
Mona

So what is the big deal with it? The tax cost ratio is also a big drag on performance.
Anybody?

The "big deal with it" is the 3, 5, 10 and 15 year Standard Deviation.
Regarding the the tax cost ratio as being "big drag on performance", I hold VWIAX in a non-taxable account, so there is no tax drag.
As I said, "the ER is just about the only metric you can be certain will be the same the next day. And, 83 basis points does not come for free. It's a significant drag, that if overcome, will be through increased risk"
Mona

Leroy,
Because, as the sun rises from the east, the ER is just about the only metric you can be certain will be the same the next day. And, 83 basis points does not come for free. It's a significant drag, that if overcome, will be through increased risk.
Mona

Schwab and Morningstar both show the 10 year returns as:
VWIAX: 7.40%
GLRBX: 7.42% (Ted's link above shows GLRBX as being even a bit farther ahead)
Call it a wash.
However, the (M*) after-tax 10-year returns are:
VWIAX: 5.84%
GLRBX: 6.56%
That, along with GLRBX's better bear performance, and the ability to buy more shares with no fee, leaned me in its direction. Will it be the better choice in ten year's time? Who knows, and who knows if I'll even be alive then.

Assuming it takes 16 years to break even if you take SS at age 62 then everyone who dies between 62 and 78 will come out ahead by taking it early. Also, as Dee points out above, getting the money when you're more capable of enjoying it should be weighted somehow. Do you really care if you're getting paid more in social security if it's only going to a nursing home? This doesn't seem to me to be a rationally solvable problem (if there's a spouse to consider or various taxable issues it may be different). There's also the old adage that a bird in the hand is worth two in a bush. I don't care how confident about the future of Social Security you may be, you can't foretell the future with any exactitude. I'm 60 and my inclination is to begin taking it at 62, but I don't think I'd argue the point either way for anyone else.

Here's a very good article from the American Association of Individual Investors explaining the old classification system (growth, growth & income, etc.) that Ramsey is using. Not surprisingly, it dates from 1999.
The only nit I have to pick with it is that I've seen a distinction drawn between "growth and income" funds and "equity income" funds. G&I funds are often defined as equity funds that invest for growth (i.e. that the stocks will rise in price), but are also interested in dividends as a bonus (a "secondary objective").
In contrast, traditional equity income funds buy stocks primarily for their dividends. Any growth (increase in stock price) is just a pleasant extra. Historically, these invested in heavily regulated industries (back when there were heavily regulated industries), such as utilities. The government more or less guaranteed a given profit to utilities in exchange for their serving the public good (under regulation). So almost all the value was in the "guaranteed" dividends. The securities bought by these funds were stocks, but behaved more like bonds.
When I first started investing, I read all these words, and they made sense, but it took a long time for them to sink in to the point that I really appreciated the distinctions. So get what you can out of it (and anything else you read) - after some time it will get clearer.

I've never quite gotten the obsession with low expenses, despite having read several books about it. All else being equal, sure, I'll take the lower expenses. But rarely are "all things equal."
I am in the process (will do over a 2 year time span) of transferring my taxable account in VWIAX (Vanguard Wellesley) to James Balanced Golden Rainbow (GLRBX) for various reasons, even though it has a 1.01% ER vs. Vanguard's .18%.
Leroy,
Because, as the sun rises from the east, the ER is just about the only metric you can be certain will be the same the next day. And, 83 basis points does not come for free. It's a significant drag, that if overcome, will be through increased risk.
Mona

A few random comments (by someone who otherwise is intrigued by the shop)
1. Only downside I can see to OSTFX is that it tracks very much the Vanguard all-cap index, with slightly less volatility (and Osterweis benchmarks the fund against the S&P500, in spite of the fact that its an all-cap fund; a fact that their investor relations department has been unable to explain to my satisfaction). So, unless I'm misreading the charts, I don't see much value-add there.
2. OSTIX is a wonderful fund. Will be interesting to see how it weathers the impending turns in the bond market in the years ahead. I think the fund has extended beyond what Osterweis cited as their intended capacity for the strategy.
3. OSTVX tracks, remarkably, TRRCX.
4. Osterweis says, across their strategies, they intend to limit downside risk. Admirable enough. On paper, however, their funds look to be more volatile than their respective benchmarks.

I've listened to Ramsey on radio - but not in many years. He generally makes good sense. Big on self discipline in curbing debt, spending less and investing for the future: "Live like no one else today, so that you can live like no one else tomorrow." Having said that, he was a fan of Janus funds a few years before they imploded.
Per your question: The recommended portfolio, if I understand it correctly, is a very aggressive one, nearly 100% equity weighted (A "value" fund is generally another variety of equity fund. The G&I fund would probably hold some fixed income investments).
The four categories of equity funds you list comprise a great long-term plan to dollar cost average into over decades through systematic workplace contributions. However, it's not something I'd suggest jumping into all at once, unless you are already similarity invested.
Lots of very wise advice from msf and the others above.

Always wonder about the Big concern with Costs, Performance is based on NET figures, (that is minus all costs), for your easy comparison, If you NEED to Worry.....
be concerned with Performance! 10 yr. returns would be a good place to start

I've never quite gotten the obsession with low expenses, despite having read several books about it. All else being equal, sure, I'll take the lower expenses. But rarely are "all things equal."
I am in the process (will do over a 2 year time span) of transferring my taxable account in VWIAX (Vanguard Wellesley) to James Balanced Golden Rainbow (GLRBX) for various reasons, even though it has a 1.01% ER vs. Vanguard's .18%.
The ten-year return for both funds is essentially the same, but James has a much better tax efficiency so its after-tax return handily beats VWIAX.
My accounts are at Schwab, so to buy any Vanguard fund (including additional shares) costs me a $76 fee. Not a huge deal, but it does dampen the idea of adding a thousand or two dollars on a whim. There is no fee for buying or adding to James.
Although James has a beta of .81 vs. .54 for VWIAX, it only dropped (roughly) 5% in 2008 vs. VWIAX's 10% loss. Of course, that doesn't mean it will also happen like that in the next bear.
FWIW: Aside from other mutual funds I do have two stock and one REIT ETFs, so I am not opposed to them when they suit my purpose.

Here's SSA's life expectancy table At age 62, a male is expected to live to just short of 82 years of age, on average. Females to age 84.6.

Msf - another good way at looking at the question.
I think as time goes on the number of people who have the option to ponder when to take SS will decline.
Another variable to ponder is he value of SS$ to a younger more active person vs later in life. Let's call it the age deflator. If taking SS$ earlier allows you to spend more on your enjoyment of life, taking SS$ should have a higher value then later in life. That could mean you have more money, so you do more. Or you are less worried about your investments so you feel better spending more so you do more.
I'd look at the deflator this way:
Take SS at:
62-65 100%
66 - 90%
and subtract 3% per year.
70 - 78%
75 - 63%
Summing up, the evaluation can be by the numbers only. Or it can be a evaluated on the emotional, quality of life, and needs in life. So far, my spending over the 8.5 years I've been retired have been fairly constant. I'm guessing as we age spending on travel/etc will decline and other expenses will increase.
I'm still leaning to earlier is better - If you can afford to do it.

Let me offer a different analysis that I think is simpler, yet equivalent to Kitces. It leaves until the end assumptions about inflation rate, tax rate, and rate of return on investment, so that one can decide for oneself whether the risk/reward is worth it.

Really long post. If you don't care at all about the reasoning or calculations, skip to the final three paragraphs, following the clearly marked break (====)
Everything that follows is in constant (inflation-adjusted dollars). This removes inflation as a factor (until the end), it removes complex adjustments on SS payments (which remain fixed if measured in constant dollars).
Rather than discuss break even point, I'm going to use average life expectancy. If taking money early and investing comes out better for an average life span (i.e. average for a person reaching age 62), then that's the better path on average. If deferring the money comes out better for an average life span, then that's the better path.
Finally, what does it mean to come out better? If you take money at age 62, you invest it for four years. Then starting at age 66 (assuming that's FRA, and you are comparing with starting SS at that age), you use some of the invested money to make up the shortfall on your SS checks (you'd be getting larger ones by waiting until age 66). The remainder of the money you keep invested, to grow and to keep making up monthly shortfalls. If you come out with investment money left over when you reach the average life expectancy, you win. Otherwise, deferring (at least until age 66 wins).
The amount of money you have invested each month =
last month's balance * (1 + montly real rate of return) * (1 - monthly tax rate).
Let's call this multiplier net real rate of return (NRRoR).
Before age 66, you also add in the amount of the check you get from SS (age 62 monthly check).
After age 66, you subtract the shortfall (age 66 check amount minus age 62 check amount).
I put all this in a spreadsheet. I used $1000 as the FRA, $750 for the age 62 amount, and $1320 for the age 70 amount. All after tax values.
The tax rate on SS doesn't matter, so long as it remains constant. You can divide by (1 - tax rate) to get the SS check amounts.
Here's SSA's life expectancy table At age 62, a male is expected to live to just short of 82 years of age, on average. Females to age 84.6.
Comparing taking money at age 62 vs. 66, and investing to break even just before age 82, we need to achieve a net real rate of return of 3.0%. (One runs out of investment money about age 81 years, 10 months). For females, we need to have that investment last until age 84.6, and that requires a net real rate of return of 4.2%.
Here's where you get to say how good an investor you are. I look at that 3% real rate, and think that one might target a 3% inflation rate, a 7% nominal rate of return (4% real), a 15% annual tax (not completely tax efficient, but taxed on capital gains).
That gets us to 3% net real rate of return. 15% tax on a nominal 7% rate of return bleeds about 1% off of the return. So we have a 4% real return less 1% in taxes, or 3%. To get that 4.2% real return with 3% inflation would require about a 8.5% nominal return (bleeding 1.3% in taxes, leaving 7.2% nominal, or 4.2% real).
That's an admirable target. Now factor in risk, since we're comparing a sure rate of return with SS (i.e. like an interest rate) with a volatile and uncertain market return.
It's a bit better if one compares age 62 with deferring until age 70. Then, you have more years to invest the money before having to make up shortfalls, and fewer shortfall years (only a dozen years until the men die - on average - at age 82).
Now, one needs only a 2% net real rate of return for the average male to come out ahead (money left over after age 81, 10 months), and 3% for the women to come out ahead. In other words (assuming 3% inflation, 15% tax annually), 5.75% nominal return for males, 7% nominal for females.
===========================================
The bottom line here is that if you've got an average life expectancy, then it looks like you need to be able to invest for around a 7% nominal rate of return with zero risk to do as well as by deferring SS. The more uncertainty there is in achieving this rate of return, the higher that rate needs to be to beat SS on a risk adjusted basis.
It's interesting that people who advocate taking SS early often state that they're taking the "bird in the hand". But when it comes to comparing the certainty of a fixed (real) income stream with the vagaries of the marketplace, they'll go for the uncertain "two in the bush".
That may be a matter of perception - people may feel they don't have control over how long they'll live, but they have control over their investments. I respectfully submit that if anything, the reverse is true. Live a healthy lifestyle, and you can increase your odds of a longer life. But you have no control over the market, which seems to be what has the most effect on how investments perform in general.

sorry, found this:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2013/feb/01/medicare-and-social-security-what-you-paid-what-yo/
Fascinating, and generally quite contradictory of your assertion.
See also
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/01/02/AR2011010203213.html
Where did you get your information?

Always wonder about the Big concern with Loads, Performance of Level Load is based on NET figures, (that is minus the 0.75% load paid every year) for your easy comparison.
10 yr. return of class-C (level load) OSMCX blows its competition away (#1 over ten years by more than 1%/year).
On a serious note, if one would consider owning the Great Owl Fund WAIOX (now closed), that was the second best performing fund in the category over the past decade, then why exclude the better performing and cheaper (including embedded load) Oppenheimer fund OSCMX simply because it has a load?
Though now one can purchase the much cheaper A share class OSMAX load-waived, which offers even better performance (how could it not - same fund at lower cost) at a low (for the category) ER.

Similar story on my intl small cap OSMYX, its up 12% ytd, not quite as good as yours, but will take it :) I consider this category part of my aggressive sleeve, strictly for my roth which likely won't get tapped for at least 10 more years.