Hi rjb112,
I rarely, if ever, post on Bond and fixed income issues because I consider myself rather naïve on these matters. I plead an embarrassing level of ignorance. Many MFO members are far better informed on this subject than I am, so I suggest you address your income questions to these fine folks.
Since you asked, and since I have been investing in various forms of the fixed income universe for decades, I will submit a few incomplete thoughts on bond/fixed income investing. As usual, I will document my thoughts with a couple of references.
Using a ship as an analogy, equities are the power-plant that drive the ship towards a target safe harbor. Fixed income and bond components serve as a rudder to more closely align the ship on the desired compass heading. The rudder does slow the ship a little.
Volatility is very acceptable when you are young and accumulating wealth, but losses its attractiveness when approaching retirement. Hence, I morphed from a heavily weighted equity portfolio a few years ago to a more neutral portfolio (50/50 mix) today.
When wisely assembled, a balanced portfolio can almost maintain the annual returns of an all equity portfolio while reducing volatility (standard deviation) by half. Volatility always functions to attenuate compound returns below annual return levels.
Bond diversification helps to reduce overall portfolio volatility just like equity category diversification does. The bond market offers about as many subcategories as does the equity marketplace. Just like equities, these bond subcategories deliver a random checkerboard of annual returns; so the bond segment of my portfolio has many components to smooth the journey. Here is a Link to a Vanguard Bond Table of Periodic Returns:
http://www.vanguard.com/jumppage/international/web/pdfs/INTLCCRD.pdf
Just like the famous Callan Periodic Table of Investment Returns, the annual fixed income rewards bounce all over the space. Predicting future winners is an impossible task, so diversification is a reasonable strategy.
Likewise, forecasting future inflation rates and interest rates is also hazardous business. History suggests that the best guess for interest rates 10 years from now is what the current value is.
I do believe that just like market professionals have improved their skill sets, so has the Federal Reserve. I don’t expect wild inflation rate changes like those recorded in the late 1970s. The Fed actions can not guarantee a “soft” landing, but I do believe that they have sufficient control and data to pilot the economy to a “softer” landing.
However, I do not fully trust my projection of a more stable interest rate environment. Therefore, the bond portion of my portfolio emphasizes short duration elements as well as TIP components. Once again, uncertainty pushes me in diversification’s direction.
Costs always matter. That’s especially the case when investing in bonds. Very, very few actively managed bond funds outdistance their passive rivals. Given today’s low interest rate environment, costs are extraordinarily critical. I control costs by doing most of my bond business with passive Vanguard products (exceptions included later). They have served me well.
Even given the present low interest rate levels, bonds are still an important segment of an individual’s portfolio. Vanguard has a nice recent report that illustrates this point. Here is its Link:
https://personal.vanguard.com/pdf/s704.pdf
When my portfolio was rather thin, I decided to diversify into the bond market by using Balanced mutual funds. I was lucky and selected some winners. After decades, I still own these funds. They are the exceptions I noted earlier. These are Dodge and Cox, Wellington, and Wellesley mutual funds. I report these merely for the record, and do not necessarily recommend them for anyone.
I hope this is a little helpful. Sorry for this unorganized post; it is a series of random, real-time thoughts on your question. I’m lazy and commit little time to the bond marketplace. Please consult with better informed MFOers on this topic.
Best Wishes.

FYI: If you are searching for reliable retirement income you might find yourself in a tough situation these days. Bank CD’s pay close to nothing. Bonds are expensive and aren’t paying very much interest either. What’s an investor to do?
Regards,
Ted
http://www.forbes.com/sites/greatspeculations/2014/10/01/use-mutual-funds-to-create-retirement-income/print/

FYI: Successful investors know that mutual fund distribution season is approaching, and 2014 is shaping up as the fifth year in a row of increased largesse by mutual funds.
The potential downside would be higher taxes for shareholders in accounts held outside of tax-deferred retirement accounts like IRAs or 401(k)s.
Regards,
Ted
http://license.icopyright.net/user/viewFreeUse.act?fuid=MTg1NTM3OTg=
Enlarged Graphic: http://news.investors.com/photopopup.aspx?path=WEBMFfund101314.gif&docId=721282&xmpSource=&width=1000&height=603&caption=&id=721283

The link seems to work for me.
No different from OAKIX (except the timing): "Effective October 4, 2013 the Fund closed to new investors at most third-party intermediaries. The Fund remains open to retirement plans, most investment advisors with existing positions, and any new and existing investors who purchase shares directly from Oakmark."
The funds will remain open to all new investors, just not through all channels (supermarkets). Nevertheless, expect M* to report the funds as "Closed to New Investors", as it does now for OAKIX.

Raw figure (with DODIX included) = 23.5%, slightly above normal. That's a bit deceptive, since it doesn't include cash held by managers of allocation type funds. Without doing a M* X-Ray, I'll guess the true cash component at about 30%, a bit higher if you include the short term bonds those funds hold.
Of course this discussion only makes sense in context. (conservative old **** many years into retirement.)

The Bucket Approach to Retirement Allocation
http://news.morningstar.com/articlenet/article.aspx?id=667224

What percentage of a bond portfolio could be allocated to strategic/Unconstrained bond funds? This is a personal question as I consider my allocation going forward in retirement.

IMHO, target date funds are one of the most misunderstood/misused categories of funds around. Their fundamental conceit is that they manage the bulk of your portfolio for you, based on "typical" progression through time. Though one would likely set aside funds for specific future purchases (e.g. that "trip around the world" you've always wanted to take), most of one's holdings should be in the target fund.
Doing otherwise defeats the purpose of the fund - to deal with asset allocation as "time marches on". If you don't like a fund's flight path, don't mix and match to get your own - you'll only have to monitor and tweak it as each fund adjusts at a different rate. Rather than simplifying the task of managing your portfolio, you can wind up complicating it.
TRP recognizes that not all glide paths, or people's needs, are created equal. So it offers two separate families of target date funds, Retirement Funds (with a higher percentage in equity), and Target Retirement Funds.
CB is asking for target date tax-managed funds, not asset allocation tax-managed funds (of which VTMFX - Vanguard Tax Managed Balanced Fund is another example). With respect to USBLX, it appears to have a unique approach to fixing its stock/bond ratio. While it happens to be 50/50 now, I expect it to tilt toward stock as interest rates rise. This is because it is supposed to generate at least half its income as tax-free income. As the income generated from tax-free bonds increases (due to rate increases) it will have the flexibility to allocate a greater percentage of the portfolio to equity.
Since I don't use target date funds (I feel I can deal with my own asset allocation), I'm not really looking for a target date tax-managed fund. The suggestion that holds the most appeal for me is the managed payout fund. That's an attempt by fund companies to offer something between an annuity (where you pay up front for a guaranteed stream of income) and funds where you're on your own in managing your income stream. I'd like to see a lot more experience with these funds before buying one, but I think it's an interesting approach.

CB mentioned tax managed funds. USBLX holds both tax free munis and the S&P Index both allocated at about 50% each. What I don't like about the fund is the 1% fee it charges. If I were to create a tax managed portfolio myself I would own these two sectors separately and attempt to learn the tax management techniques myself.
Also, I would like to see more "target death funds". Retiring today with 100% of my portfolio in a heavily laden bond allocation (in say a 2015 target retirement fund) might not get you into the grave as the last check bounces.
Investors and especially retirees in target date funds should ladder these out to their expected "date of death". I would own these in 5 year increments.
In this way, there is always a portion of a retirees portfolio available for income as they reach each of these 5 year milestones while at the same time a portion is still dedicated to continued potential growth out to the gravestone.

Mandatory retirement age of 60? What's up with that?

According to NY Times Dealbook he's reached the mandatory retirement age of 60, or will next year.

Has anyone taken the Dimensional Funds plunge? I find myself wondering if I should go that route? The data for passive funds continues to mount but i am pretty happy with the cheap, superior funds that are out there now. Any thoughts?
mike

How would you do that?
These funds are primarily available to people who pay advisors to manage their accounts. And maybe some employer retirement plans. Most people on MFO don't have access.

Let’s face it; 401(k) sponsors are thieves.
Company executives and their HR people are accomplices.
None of these people make it a point to emphasize
or explain in detail what plan participants are paying.
If the HR department or the investment committee sent
a letter or e-mail to each plan participant at the end of the year
stating, “This is the amount of dollars you’ve paid this year”,
people would see how the thieves are robbing
their retirement savings.
Of course, the letter/e-mail would actually be more helpful
if it said something like, “And here’s how you could
reduce these costs”.
But that would be the suppression of the heterodoxy.

FYI: (Follow-Up Article)
You’re probably paying more than you realize.
A recent study by the Federal Reserve, the Survey of Consumer Finances, found that Americans’ retirement savings in IRA and 401(k) plans are not quite as solid as they should be. If you're going to be successful with your retirement savings, it is critical that you understand the fees and expenses you are incurring.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/what-youre-really-paying-in-401k-and-ira-fees-2014-09-29/print

... Unconstrained Bond Fund ... Share Classes are A, B, C, D, I, N, T, R, S. Classes I (institutional) and N (not sure what it stands for) have the least expensive ratio. ... I am thinking of placing some money in the fund (assuming I can get in Classes I or N) and there is no transaction fee. I checked Vanguard and Schwab and they do not offer the classes I am interested in .

As rjb112 listed in another thread the fund has "only" seven share classes - no B shares, no R shares. (Almost no fund sells B shares anymore, and likely no new fund is going to create that share class.) You can find my summary of who the seven share classes are for in my followup to rjb112's post.
I tried to paraphrase and summarize Janus' descriptions of its share classes. If you'd like Janus' official descriptions, you can find them (except for D, but including R) in the prospectus for Janus Flexible Bond Fund, Shareholder Guide Section here.
The D class shares are grandfathered for investors who already have investments directly through Janus (not through a broker/retirement plan). If that's not you, you don't need to think about them, you can't get in.
It's really very simple - if you're a new retail investor, and you don't want to pay a load, you'll buy T shares. End of story. Janus is not like PIMCO, where you might be able to get Institutional Share class shares if you go through the right broker, or you might buy D shares, or ???

What? No B shares?
This is what happens when you have fund families that try to sell funds through all channels - traditional (load-based) advisors, wrap accounts, direct retail, supermarket, retirement plan, and institutional. Three families come to mind - Janus, PIMCO, and American Century. I'm sure there are others.
Anyway, though Janus uses a couple of unconventional letters for some of their share classes, the classes you listed follow these basic channels:
traditional load - A, C (front load, level load)
D - direct retail sale (no 12b-1 fee, but 0.12% admin fee, for bookkeeping)
I - institutional (no admin/12b-1 fees)
N - retirement (no admin/12b-1 fees)
T - supermarket (0.25% admin fee)
S - wrap accounts (0.25% admin fee, plus 0.25% 12b-1 fee)
Some more common designations are Inv(estor) for directly sold noload shares, Adv(isor) for wrap or supermarket shares.
Many families use R to denote retirement class shares (or just use I shares w/o creating a different share class).
Usually, fund families use the same share class for more than one channel, which is why you don't often see as many as seven (or eight, with B shares) different classes.
(I'm not going into families that charge different fees depending on how big the account is - notably American Funds; but also Vanguard with Investor/Admiral, Institutional/Institutional Plus, Signal, ETF. These are just a couple of the more obvious families.)
For all this confusion, one nice thing about Janus is that if you're buying on your own, you only have to worry about T class (unless you're one of the grandfathered investors buying directly from Janus, in which case you just look at D shares). You don't have to think about multiple share classes.

JUCAX the Class A version of the Janus Unconstrained Bond Fund (Inception: May 2014) carries a 4.75% front load. Can't imagine a typical small investor paying such a load today for any bond fund. There are however several other share classes (likely for institutions, large investors, and retirement plans) that do not carry a load.

As discussed previously for GPROX, exceptions include (direct shareholders only):
1. Retirement accounts
2. Education savings accounts
3. Minor accounts (UTMA, UGMA)
4. Accounts with AIP established prior to closing
Statement from fund:
http://www.grandeurpeakglobal.com/documents/pdfs/grandeurpeakglobal-pr-20140905.pdf