\\\ ... pointing to the fact that using CAPE as an investment strategy has shown lower volatility and a higher rate of return over time
>> I don't know what he was looking at.
Well, he's speaking after CAPE has been in operation only 54 weeks, right?

Sure, but he wasn't talking about literally buying the CAPE ETN as an investment strategy. (CAPE doesn't appear in the DoubleLine fund, to state the obvious). The index on which both DSENX and CAPE are based was launched by Barclays in 2012. However, Barclays calculated the index values at least as far back as 2012. (See CAPE prospectus, p. PS-33, pdf p. 36).
Take your pick: Gundlach was not aware of the available data as he promoted his fund, representing volatility figures of those 54 weeks as being "over time"; he was aware of the available data going back a decade but chose to disregard it in representing the investment strategy as having low volatility; or he did consider that data, it confirmed his claim of lower relative volatility, and that volatility has changed significantly between the 2002-2013 period and the 2012-2019 (present) period.
Any better alternatives that might make one more comfortable?
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/barclays-shiller-cape-sector-rotation-123731560.html

\\\ ... pointing to the fact that using CAPE as an investment strategy has shown lower volatility and a higher rate of return over time
>> I don't know what he was looking at.
Well, he's speaking after CAPE has been in operation only 54 weeks, right?
Outperforming VFINX 2.4% in that year-plus, with both up >30%.
It does look like the peaks and dips are very slightly greater than SP500 in that timeframe, hard to tell from the graphs, but I think so.

Seeing as DSENX invests in those sectors that are the cheapest, I would it expect it to be less volatile than the market and that it would resist downdrafts better. Why don't the numbers play out this way? The downside capture ratios are all slightly greater than 100%.

Apparently Gundlach also thinks so:

“We think [DSENX/DSEEX is] a better mousetrap,” he said, pointing to the fact that using CAPE as an investment strategy has shown lower volatility and a higher rate of return over time. Hopefully, the fixed-income expert says, it will result in “a tastes great, less filling type of investment experience.”

https://www.thinkadvisor.com/2013/11/22/gundlach-on-shiller-cape-fund-a-better-mousetrap/
I don't know what he was looking at. According to Porfolio Visualizer, over the lifetime of CAPE, VVIAX and VFINX have been similarly volatile (std. dev about 11) based on monthly returns, while CAPE's std dev was nearly 12.
There's greater separation in maximum drawdowns: about 11% for the value index, 13½% for the 500 index, and 15¼% for CAPE.

@BenWP,
What brokerage do you use for CAPE?
Bid-ask of 16 cents on $134 (if I am reading the Fidelity listing right) does not sound so wide, and it tracks its NAV pretty closely. Am I missing something?

The Barclay's article linked by @msf helped me a lot in grasping how the CAPE sector rotation works. It's illuminating to see what sectors never made it in at all and that energy was in for only one month. If CAPE had a "value" tilt, sectors such as utilities, real estate, financials, and materials might be selected, but they were not. Sherman's comment as cited above by @davidmoran, makes it clear why investors should not expect the fund to act like a bulwark against market downturns.
I am happy with my holdings in DSENX because the strategy and implementation are way beyond what I could replicate on my own. Over my investing years I've read explanations by several smart-seeming managers (anyone remember Ryan Caldwell?) whose funds never produced anything worthwhile. The CAPE and DoubleLine people strike me as being really smart and they are producing returns for me and others on this board.
I have also owned the CAPE ETN at times because I like to trade certain CEFs or ETFs when I see a possible market inefficiency. As I have said before, CAPE is a tough fund to trade because the spreads are so wide. Only occasionally is there an advantage to exploit.

... managers ... look at 11 US stock sectors and select 5 undervalued sectors, then take 4 sectors out of 5 with the best momentum.

A couple of clarifications:
The five candidate sectors are the most undervalued not relative to the market, but to themselves. This allows for the inclusion of traditionally overvalued sectors that may still be overvalued relative to the market, albeit somewhat less so than historically. People seem to think that the methodology is designed to select sectors that are undervalued relative to the market. That is not the case.
Edit: @LLJB - I composed this before seeing your better post on relative valuations. One sometimes sees 20 year lookback periods (as you described for the CAPE values used) and sometimes 10 year periods. Each of the CAPE values itself is computed with a 10 year lookback, so the raw data that feeds into this index could extend as far back as 30 years!
Here's a paper that shows for the 11 sectors, in which months during 2018 they were included in the Shiller Barclays CAPE® US Sector RC 10% USD TR Index. That index picks the same four sectors as the Shiller Barclays CAPE® US Core Sector Index. The only difference is that the former adjusts its market exposure up or down to temper volatility.
https://indices.barclays/IM/33/en/efsdocument.app?documentId=374&filename=Shiller10PerformancAnalysis.pdf
Two sectors were included in all twelve months: technology and healthcare. IMHO, a fund that maintains a steady 50% exposure to technology and healthcare (combined) is no value fund. The sectors may have had low valuations relative to their historical norms, but they were not low relative to the market. See, e.g. US News, The Most Overvalued and Undervalued Stock Market Sectors of 2019, Jan 11, 2019.
Based on forward looking P/Es (I believe Shiller uses retrospective figures), technology and healthcare were smack in the middle of the pack. Compared to their historical P/Es, they're undervalued (as are several sectors according to the article).
Regarding momentum, that's based on a one year look back, as opposed to the ten year look back for Relative CAPE® Indicator (historical valuation).

>> That's as clear as mud. It says that there's a fee to "buy into" DSEEX, but doesn't say whether converting shares counts as "buying into" the fund.
I find it clear, but that may be because I have executed it so often; also, I've known for years that our reading comprehension differs.

If it was even possible that your experience influenced your read, regardless of whether it actually did, then the text was not without objective ambiguity. Either that, or you sometimes read things differently than the plain text on the page. As might I.

Sometimes the custodian will issue a trade confirmation on the swap, which makes it look like we sold one share class and bought into another. Though technically that is true, it is essentially a non-taxable swap into a different share class of the same mutual fund, albeit one with a lower expense ratio.

Emphasis added . ParsecFinancial, What is a Mutual Fund Share Class Exchange

Where does DSENX FUND fall in your buckets? Large Value, Allocation, or ?

Seeing as DSENX invests in those sectors that are the cheapest, I would it expect it to be less volatile than the market and that it would resist downdrafts better. Why don't the numbers play out this way? The downside capture ratios are all slightly greater than 100%.

As for buckets its not a simple answer and it can change every month. According to M*'s definition of the "buckets" the equity exposure is currently 39% large cap growth, 22% large cap blend and 30% large cap value plus 8% mid cap spread across the buckets.
The fund's definition of "value" is very different than M*'s. The fund buys 4 of the 5 "cheapest" sectors based on Shiller's CAPE ratio RELATIVE TO THAT SECTOR's 20 year history. That means Technology can have the highest current sector P/E ratio AND the highest CAPE ratio out there but if its CAPE ratio is relatively lower than other sectors compared to what its been over the last 20 years then its in the fund. This is why you can't "expect" the fund to be less volatile. It is not just a "value" fund according to M*'s definitions.
As @Carefree alluded to, the effective exposure of the fund is 50% equity and 50% bonds so suggesting its an Allocation fund with 50-70% equity makes some sense too.
When I want to "X-ray" the buckets my portfolio falls into I use the SPDR Select Sector etfs to represent the value of my holding because M* isn't able to do that. I forget about the bonds because my reason for holding DSEEX isn't for the bonds, its just an added bonus.
The derivatives, the swaps they use to get exposure to the sectors they want, have two main benefits as far as I can figure out.
The fund currently has $6.7 billion in AUM. That means if one of the sectors in the portfolio changes they would need to sell roughly $1.7 billion of one sector and invest it in the new sector at month-end. The SPDR Select Technology etf trades a little over $1 billion daily. They wouldn't be able to do that without impacting the market or spreading out their trades over a week or more, I don't think. AND, most of the calculations behind the choices are public information, so their moves could and likely would be arbitraged.
The swaps allow them to get all the exposure they want at the month-end price in a private transaction, quite frequently with Barclay's the last I checked. You'd have to assume Barclay's doesn't want to be short those sectors but they have the flexibility to hedge their "bet" with futures, options or actual share purchases over a more flexible time frame and that makes arbitraging the transactions more complicated.
The second benefit is that there's no cash outflow to "bet" using a swap. Six months from now, or whenever the swap expires, one party or the other will have to "pay" the other. In the meantime, though, they can use all that cash to buy bonds, which in my view helps to pay the "cost" of the swaps, reduces the expense ratio and can also increase the return of the fund if things go well.

@CareFree,
From a year and a half ago:
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/doubleline-fund-doubles-the-returns-of-rivals-by-uncovering-a-curious-strategy-2017-11-30
The fund is not specifically defensive in nature, [Jeffrey] Sherman explained, because it is not designed to outperform during a market pullback. Instead, it seeks to outperform the S&P 500 over the long term through the sector rotation of the Shiller Barclays CAPE US Sector Index, augmented by the returns on the fixed-income portfolio. ...
... the fund’s management style mitigates the danger of chasing performance, because the index it invests in can change its sector focus each month.
It’s also interesting to note that during 2015, when large-value strategies fared poorly against the S&P 500, the fund outperformed both. And when the large-value category beat the S&P 500 in 2016, the fund again outperformed both.
@msf,
>> That's as clear as mud. It says that there's a fee to "buy into" DSEEX, but doesn't say whether converting shares counts as "buying into" the fund.
I find it clear, but that may be because I have executed it so often; also, I've known for years that our reading comprehension differs.

Whaddaya mean what's it doing there? How do you think the web works? It assumes you might want to know more ....
Looking at the last 4y of performance (and parsing sub-periods) it's hard to see exactly why you would take SCHD over OUSA, NOBL, VIG, DVY (maybe the consistent laggard), SDY, even QUAL; and the sim-equity CAPE trounces them all longterm, but not shorter always.

@Old_Skeet,
>> I'm thinking you are taking on more risk than you realise ...
may be
>> and, for what? Inorder to beat the 500 Index.
sure
The last 5y, if I had been 50-50 (or whatever) in IVV and FTBFX instead of DSEEX and PONAX (also a bit of a derivatives black box, arguably), I would be behind >10% of where we now are, which to us is a significant difference. Would be 10% behind having been in JABAX all that time.
Seemed worth it.
>> So what! If it is beating the Index then is it not taking on more risk? Yes, for it is indeed levered up.
Perhaps, you are short of assets and need to be aggressive? Or, are you just being cavalier? What is your underline reason for owning this high risk fund? If it blows up will you still be around?
There is no little negative press about it and CAPE. This from 10/13:
https://www.etf.com/sections/blog/20177-inside-professor-shillers-cape-etn.html
and this from just last fall, CAPE, Seeking Alpha:
ETNs do not own any of the underlying assets, instead, it's merely an IOU from the bank or issuer saying "we agree to pay you the starting value of this note + any changes in the index tracked". An ETN is considered an unsecured debt obligation, meaning that if the issuer ends up bankrupt, you could lose your investment.
The issuer of the CAPE ETN is Barclays Bank PLC (BCSPRD), who have had their credit rating cut this year from Baa2 (equivalent to BBB) to Baa3 (equivalent to BBB-) by Moody's, which is the lowest investment grade rating, ...
Lipper otoh gives CAPE a 5 on everything, but no holdings info. Their info listed on DSEEX is as layman-unhelpful as M*, style G&I, category LCV, holdings 93% bonds+cash, so you would have to delve to comprehend, and read msf's excellent analyses.
@msf
>> Preferably without appealing to alternate facts, like saying that the fund owns equity.
It is not I but the non-misleading, non-confusing, non-unclear M* which indicates this alternate fact, in the AA and Details sections on the page I linked, DSENX going reportedly from 30% equity 3y ago to just under half equity today, while passing through SCV style last year.

It is interesting to compare DGRO, DGRW, OUSA, QUAL, NOBL, SCHD, and VIG over the last 3, 2, and 1 years and see which ones move ahead of the others. (All outperforming CAPE for the 1- and 2y periods but not longer.)

I buy DSENX and then convert asap to DSEEX, which Fidelity now does promptly (always done for free). A reclassification worth knowing about there. Merrill does not offer.

In order to provide the service of a tax-free, fee-free exchange of shares, a brokerage would have to offer two different share classes of the same fund. Obviously Merrill can't do this with the Doubleline Shiller Enhanced CAPE Fund, as Merrill sells only one share class of the fund to retail DIY investors.
Are you saying that Merrill won't exchange share classes for funds where it does offer multiple classes, or just that it won't exchange DSENX with DSEEX (which it doesn't sell)? Have you tried asking them to exchange between two share classes that they do carry?
For example, will Merrill do a free exchange from $50K worth of MWHYX shares to MWHIX shares (which it sells so long as you meet a $50K min)?

FYI: Following another year of strong flows from investors, assets in target-date mutual funds and target-date collective investment trusts totaled more than $1.7 trillion at the end of 2018. The persistent growth and massive amount of assets mean that target-date funds play a key role in helping more and more investors meet their retirement goals.
Here's a few highlights on the competitive landscape from Morningstar's recently released 2019 Target-Date Fund Landscape report.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.morningstar.com/articles/929906/price-continues-to-rule-the-targetdate-fund-landsc.html

Some history, courtesy Edward Luce, Financial Times:
In 1832, the British aristocracy saved itself by agreeing to loosen its grip on power. … The [passed] bill widened Britain’s electorate and diluted the political stranglehold of its landed elites. This was a key reason why Britain escaped Europe’s wave of 1848 revolutions. …
Much the same thing happened again in 1911 …. Once again, the Lords … opted for compromise over the threat of extinction … [voting] in favour of the Parliament act, which deprived the aristocracy ever again of the power to block fiscal legislation. This was how British welfare state was born. Meanwhile, the country’s peers continued to enjoy their status at the top of the ladder. It seemed like a reasonable trade-off. The working classes received social insurance; their social betters got to complain ad nauseam about “Le weekend”.
I was reminded of these key turning points — and indeed of the New Deal … — a few days ago when Ray Dalio, the hedge fund billionaire, wrote a plea to reform American capitalism…. few people have benefited more from today’s capitalism …. The system will never change unless more people like Dalio come round to his way of thinking. One or two others, including JPMorgan’s Jamie Dimon, are also making similar noises, which is good news. But too many still belong in the camp of Steve Schwarzman, the private equity billionaire, and Howard Schultz, the former Starbucks chief executive, both of whom have likened the idea of a wealth tax to Venezuela. A few years ago, Schwarzman compared the proposed — but still unenacted — closure of the “carried interest” loophole to Hitler’s invasion of Poland. I wish I were making that up. Alas, he really did.
As long as the bulk of America’s superwealthy continue to equate progressive taxation with fascism, or communism, they will hasten into being what they most fear. History tells us that elites who do not share power are ultimately doomed (see French revolution). Those with the wisdom and foresight to bend find they are far less likely to eventually break. The question America’s financial and tech elites must ask is “what price social peace?” I would say social peace is worth several carried interest loopholes.

Hi Guys,
I just returned home from a lecture that was purportedly given by an equity investment expert. He made some interesting and valid market observations, but also claimed an investment selection accuracy that I believe compromised his credibility. He claimed and showed a few charts that documented a positive selection accuracy in excess of 80%. If that is an accurate scorecard, he is exceptional and has powers that exceed a host of famous market experts.
Here is a Link that summarizes the performance of a huge number of famous gurus:
https://www.cxoadvisory.com/gurus/
Even the best of these gurus failed to have a 70% accuracy score. The average success ratio for this elite group failed to reach a 50% score. Investing is a challenging task. Success over a reasonably large number of decisions escapes the experts and likely escapes most of us. We do need to be somewhat lucky. Good luck to all of us. We need it.
Best Regards

@catch22: that’s a great chart! In addition to demonstrating the CAPE strategy’s long term dominance, it also shows how much DSENX declined when the market went south. Several members wondered aloud here about the prospects of the fund in a down market; maybe this chart has the answer.

Yeah, the last couple years many value-ish ETFs have outperformed (hardly clocked) DSE_X and CAPE; I have posted about this a couple of times as I have been seeking alternatives to CAPE, although not specifically mentioning MOAT.

Recent discussion here decried the absence of online Category Kings on the WSJ site. Today the compilations appeared in the "Investing in Funds" monthly section, albeit with only 5 entries per category. Hiding at #2 in Multicap Core we find the Van Eck Morningstar Wide-Moat OEF, MWMZX. Don't rush out to buy it unless you have $1M or can avoid the restricted status. I wonder why it exists and why the WSJ can't do a better job of bringing us funds we can actually buy. The leading performing fund this month is a Fidelity fund almost no one can access. The Van Eck OEF appears to be a clone of the very successful MOAT ETF that I have mentioned here before. MOAT has outperformed the SPY over 3 and 5 year periods and it has also clocked the favorites of a couple of board members, DSEEX and DSENX over almost any time period.
I have not researched this comparison, but my conclusions are that the M* wide-moat strategy is by far the most successful of those affiliated with an investment publication. I looked at Barron's BFOR, the MotleyFool funds, the ValueLine funds, and Eddy Effenbien's Crossing Wall Street. There must be others I don't know of. The MOAT ETF strategy has spawned MOTI, DURA, and GOAT, although the latter three have not attracted many investors. I'd suggest the global GOAT to any member who is reeling from poor NCAA bracket choices. BTW, am I indeed the only MFO discussant to own MOAT? For the record, I also hold DSENX and CAPE.

Hi davidrmoran,
Well, I seemed to have hit a nerve. That was never my goal. In my closing remarks I did attempt to praise you: quote “I believe you are an experienced, knowledgeable investor.” I meant it. I hope that you didn’t consider that I was a “windy dimwit” when I made that observation.
It’s good to know that I’m only sometimes a windy dimwit. By your analysis, I sometimes manage to escape that classification. I hope to improve and extend those non-dimwit periods. I’ll keep working the problem, and with help from the MFOers perhaps I will succeed.
Regardless, your post gave me (and probably a host of other MFOers) some insights into your thinking and evaluation process. Name calling is a Loser’s game.
I still wish you success in your investing and other decisions. Differences in analyses and decisions indeed make the marketplace work better.
Best Wishes

My thinking is that if you can't manage what you have then you've got to many funds. Being a prior corporate credit manager for a regional distribution company I had to have a receivable system in place to manage a fairly large customer base. This skill set lead to my development of my sleeve management system to better manage my family's investments. Through the years it has worked fairly well. You can read more about this below.
Sleeve Management System ... Last Revised on 03/01/2019
Now being in retirement here is a brief description of my sleeve management system which I organized to better manage the investments held within mine and my wife's portfolios. The consolidated master portfolio is comprised of two taxable investment accounts, two self directed retirement accounts, a health savings account plus two bank savings accounts. With this, I came up with four investment areas. They are a cash area which consist of two sleeves ... an investment cash sleeve and a demand cash sleeve. The next area is the income area which consist of two sleeves ... a fixed income sleeve and a hybrid income sleeve. Then there is the growth & income area which has more risk associated with it than the income area and it consist of four sleeves ... a global equity sleeve, a global hybrid sleeve, a domestic equity sleeve and a domestic hybrid sleeve. And, then there is the growth area where the most risk in the portfolio is found and it consist of five sleeves ... a global growth sleeve, a large/mid cap sleeve, a small/mid cap sleeve, a specialty/theme sleeve plus a special investment (spiff) sleeve. Each sleeve (in most cases) consist of three to nine funds with the size and weight of each sleeve can easily be adjusted, from time-to-time, by adjusting the number of funds held along with their amounts. By using the sleeve system I can get a better picture of my overall investment landscape. I have found it beneficial to Xray each fund, each sleeve, each investment area, and the portfolio as a whole quarterly for analysis. My positions and sleeves can be adjusted from time-to-time as to how I might be reading the markets through using my market barometer and equity weighting matrix system. The matrix system is driven by the barometer. All my funds with the exception of those in my health savings account pay their distributions to the cash area of the portfolio. This automatically builds cash in the cash area to meet the portfolio's disbursements (when necessary) with the residual being left for new investment opportunity. Generally, in any one year, I take no more than a sum equal to one half of my portfolio's five year average return. In this way principal builds over time. In addition, most buy/sell transactions settle from, or to, the cash area with some net asset exchanges between funds taking place. In addition, my rebalance threshold is + (or -) 2% from my target allocation for both my income, growth & income and growth areas while I generally let cash float.
Consolidated Master Portfolio
Here is how I have my asset allocation broken out in percent ranges, by area. My neutral allocation weightings follow. They are cash area 15%, income area 35%, growth & income area 35% and growth & other asset area 15%. I do an Instant Xray analysis of the portfolio quarterly and make asset weighting adjustments as I feel warranted based upon my assessment of the market, my risk tolerance, cash needs, etc. I have the portfolio set up in Morningstar's portfolio manager by sleeve, by area and the portfolio as a whole for easy monitoring plus I use brokerage account statements, Morningstar fund reports, fund fact sheets along with their annual reports to follow my investments. I also maintain a list of positions to add (A) to, to buy (B), to reduce (R) or to sell (S). Generally, funds are assigned to a sleeve based upon a best fit basis.
Currently, my INVESTMENT FOCUS is to increase my portfolio's income stream through positioning new money into income generating assets while letting equities run on the high side to their upper threshold limit.
Target Asset Allocation (Balanced Towards Income): Cash 20%, Income 40%, G&I 30% & Growth 10%
Consolidated Master Portfolio Asset Allocation: Cash 16%, Income 39%, G&I 32% & Growth 13%
Rebalance Action Needed: Decrease Growth Area 1% and Increase Income Area 1%
CASH AREA: (Weighting Range 10% to 20%)
Demand Cash Sleeve ... Cash Distribution Accrual & Future Investment Accrual
Investment Cash Sleeve ... Money Market Funds: AMAXX, GBAXX, DTGXX, PCOXX, CD Ladder(A) &
Cash Savings(A)
INCOME AREA: (Weighting Range 30% to 40%)
Fixed Income Sleeve: CTFAX(A), GIFAX, LBNDX(A), NEFZX, PONAX(A) & TSIAX
Hybrid Income Sleeve: APIUX, AZNAX, BAICX, DIFAX(A), FISCX(A), FKINX, ISFAX(A), JNBAX, PGBAX & PMAIX
GROWTH & INCOME AREA: (Weighting Range 30% to 40%)
Global Equity Sleeve: CWGIX, DEQAX, DWGAX & EADIX(A)
Global Hybrid Sleeve: CAIBX, TEQIX & TIBAX
Domestic Equity Sleeve: ANCFX, FDSAX, INUTX(A) & SVAAX
Domestic Hybrid Sleeve: ABALX, AMECX, FBLAX, FRINX(A), HWIAX & LABFX
GROWTH & OTHER ASSET AREA: (Weighting Range 10% to 20%)
Large/Mid Cap Sleeve: AGTHX, AMCPX & SPECX
Small/Mid Cap Sleeve: AOFAX, NDVAX & PMDAX
Global Growth Sleeve: ANWPX, NEWFX & SMCWX
Miscellaneous, Specialty & Theme Sleeve: LPEFX, PCLAX & PGUAX
Ballast & Spiff Sleeve: No position held at this time.
A credit manager's belief is that there are safety in numbers so spread the risk and limit how much any one account class can have on open credit. And, for those with a bad debt write off history ... it's CIA (cash in advance).