This is one of my longest held positions. I don't even think I have a proper cost basis on it anymore (original investment was ~15 years ago in a 401k and it's moved to a rollover IRA since.)
I have a few bucks in cash in my rollover account, and this has performed pretty well over the long term, but I believe there were some recent management changes due to retirement. So - would you place more money here?

Reply to @AndyJ:
AndyJ, Hiyield007, BobC, et al.
I have made a few moves that I would like to mention, but there might be another one or two more to go. Again, one of the problems is I have multiple retirement accounts that cannot be consolidated. This makes reducing the number of funds somewhat difficult, while trying to achieve some degree of balance between the different type of bonds.
1. I sold my positions in PEBIX and TEGIX.
2. I purchased PDIIX.
2. I sold VFIDX.
3. I added to PIMIX.
If I put this in units of 1, this is where I now stand.
I have 1 unit of investment grade bonds. A little comes from PIMIX, more from PDIIX, and the most from PIGIX.
I have 1 unit of emerging markets bonds. This is coming from PIMIX, more from PIGIX, and the most from PDIIX.
I have 1.5 units of high yield. 1/2 unit from PIGIX, PIMIX, and PDIIX. 1 unit from OSTIX.
I have 1/2 unit of non-US developed coming from the three Pimco funds.
I have 2.5 units of mortgages primarily between DBLTX, TGLMX, and PIMIX.
My flexibility lies in "account 1" where I hold DBLTX and TGLMX (clearly TGLMX has been a better performer for me). While I wanted to reduce the number of funds and in fact did by selling 3, I now may need to add one to obtain a better balance. I could sell DBLTX or TGLMX (some or all of one) and I still will be overweight in mortgages and on par with my high yield.
The question becomes, which of the two should I sell and what should I purchase. One alternative is as I interpreted what AndyJ said, I could sell all of TGLMX and put some of the proceeds in my existing position of DBLTX and some in a new position of PIMIX (or keep TGLMX and sell DBLTX). However, with DBLTX about 80% in mortgages the remainder cash and PIMIX 64% mortgages, I will still be considerably overweight in mortgages. Possibly that's fine and I take one fund away and add one.
While 1 out of the 1.5 units of high yield is coming from OSTIX, and I'm glad it is, if I add any one of the Pimco funds I own in other accounts, I will be adding to high yield, which does not thrill me. However, I do need to recognize that OSTIX is a lower risk high yield fund.
Since I only have a 1/2 unit in non-US developed, possibly for diversification, it might make sense to sell some or all DBLTX or TGLMX (if some then combine the remaining proceeds into the other) and purchase a 1/2 unit of a world bond fund such as MAINX.
I do agree with Hiyield that I am over thinking this, but I am pleased that I have made strides in reducing the number of funds, while seemingly losing nothing.
Your thoughts as to how best to handle "account 1" would be appreciated.
Mona

Of my 35% slug of fixed income are OSTIX, PTRAX, LSBRX, PONDX, OIBYX, TGINX, BERIX, and MAINX.
Now, if you are familiar with the bucketing model, I also have a separate sleeve of funds for which I am accumulating 5 years worth of expense dollars in advance of a hopeful near-term retirement (currently I have 3). In theory, these should be as safe as cash. As you can see, I push that envelope a bit.
The funds in this sleeve are PIFZX, SUBFX, VWITX, and PAUDX.
My accomodation to "this current environment" is that I have been steering dollars to funds which give the managers additional flexibility in their allocations, and specifically ones shortening up on duration.

Reply to @hank: I recall a conversation I had with my sister-in-law several years ago when she was visiting from Europe. I was looking over a correlation matrix I had generated in an effort to optimize fund choice for my Roth account. She asked what I was doing. I explained in great detail my research, Monte Carlo simulations, and so forth. She (who is covered by a pension via her employer) then asked "but what do people who don't have your skills do?". I had no answer. I have no answer now. Certainly the PBS documentary brought to my attention for the first time the forces which brought about the great shift from pensions to 401k's. It angers me almost as much as the bonuses paid out at big banks following the Great Recession.
I understand that studying financial investments is not everyone's cup of tea. I undoubtedly would get fleeced buying a new car. Still, I would hope that for something that is so important as retirement, and which consumes so much of one's earnings, is at the forefront of more people's radar screens. And the NYT economy columnist who dramatically over-extended himself, or the think-tank guy featured in the PBS documentary really have to take a good hard look at themselves. Older people probably still came of age in an era where there was more fundamental trust of institutions; I see this in my parents at times and it saddens me that it cannot be so.
The financial services industry has by no means made it easy for the casual investor (and even Jack Bogle and Vanguard have their own interests to serve), and so I approach them with skepticism. And we in the US live a culture where we're bombarded 24/7 with messages stressing quantity of life over quality of life; everything is a product, we think only for the moment, common sense and financial education are often at a very low level. Circumstances in my life early on caused me to question such messages, but I still struggle to maintain a proper perspective at times. My only answer has been to remain vigilant and empirical and to fight (with mixed success) what I'm sure are very common tendencies. My wife, who I am blessed to have, has also provides an anchor of financial conservatism and common sense when I am otherwise lacking.

Reply to @Shostakovich: Who can forget the Robert Powell (Marketwatch financial writer)-Madoff fiasco:
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/how-madoff-cost-my-family-a-job-a-401k-and-a-worthy-cause
While there's for sure a huge need for better financial knowledge out there in the general population, I think that shouldn't be the only focus: the corruption, self-dealing, and conflicts of interest that are rife in the financial industry have to be addressed if there's going to be any hope of a non-catfood retirement for the average citizen.

A PBS Frontline presentation;
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/retirement-gamble/
While I don't think that it offers anything new to the majority of regular readers here, maybe.

Reply to @AndyJ:
AndyJ, Hiyiels007, BobC, et al.
I am looking for some thoughts as to how best to reduce some funds, keep quality funds in their respective space, and maintain short to intermediate duration. As you look at this, keep in mind that I hold about the same amount of EM as I do investment grade corporates and HY (mainly short term duration in OSTIX)
Right now I have my EM debt mainly in TGEIX with some in PEBIX. I felt that TGEIX had the juice and PEBIX the conservative arm. I also have PIGIX and PIMIX which add about 27% and 19% respectively.
To eliminate one fund, one alternative would be to sell TGEIX and and PEBIX and buy PDIIX. Do you feel the 55% EM position in PDIIX is managed as well as TGEIX and PEBIX?
As a follow-up, I also have about a 1/3rd position in non-US developed, but I am concerned that I hold about 2 x as much in mortgages (DBLTX, TGLMX, PIMIX) as I do in EM, HY, and IG (VFIDX and PIGIX).
Another solution might be to sell DBLTX and TGLMX and distribute those proceeds between PIMIX, PIGIX, and PDIIX. This would reduce my mortgages, keep me in EM mainly with PDIIX (also PIMIX and PIGIX) and increase my in non-US developed with PDIIX, PIMIX and some with PIGIX. I would keep VFIDX and OSTIX as they are different animals. The bottom line is I would go from 8 funds to 5 funds.
I ended up with 8 funds because I have multiple retirement accounts that cannot be consolidated, but I did not intend to have as many funds, nor being so heavy in mortgages. But again, I did want good funds in their respective space. Also, I now have the ability to purchase institutional class Pimco funds at Vanguard Brokerage with lower minimums, that I did not have before, which will give me more versatility with changes/consolidation. In other words, with the lower minimums I now can put the same fund in two accounts.
That said, I would appreciate your thoughts and please include how you would allocate between mortgages, IG, EM, HY, and non-US developed in today's environment.
Mona

Bee...I use a similar strategy, though with the same objectives in mind.
A few key differences. I take more than a 10% haircut, I take 20%. My portfolio metrics make this rather easy as I set an arbitrary ceiling...$50K in my case...and I trim to 40. I knowingly violate the rule of "let your winners run", but this is a good forced rebalancing ritual and that 20% window allows for some runup.
I do violate this rule in the case of my individual stocks, as I focus on divi payors and am letting the shares pile up until retirement.
This metric also allows for parsing the "trimmings" into my current targets....SUBFX and OSTIX, currently both with transaction fees at Schwab. I don't mind the fees, as long as I plow sufficient dollars into the transaction. And MAINX (NTF). I tend not to take equity fund profits into other equity funds, but have recently violated that as I am filling out a position on YAFFX.
Generally, the profits are used for filling in around the edges...and PEDTX looks like a good candidate....thanks.

msf,
How does Bridgeway's execution leave something to be desired? Their trade executions are excellent which is why they were commissioned by an outside firm to make their "omni" index funds (though I am not a fan of these nor am I of Buckingham Asset Management who commissioned them).
-Do you mean because they got pummeled in 2008 without ever really rebounding? In my opinion that's the risk that deters others from bidding away the normally outsized returns of their strategies...but I'm not buying past performance I'm buying future performance which has thus far profited me handsomely.
-Do you mean because their funds are extremely volatile for the level of performance (ie low sharp ratio)? Sharpe ratio is meaningless because without access to leverage (such as in an IRA) sharpe ratios can't be converted into more money and for those who simply cannot accept -X% drawdown for emotional reasons I say never sell at -X% and, bingo, you don't have to worry about -X% drawdown (not like a margin call which cannot be eliminated without reducing volatility). Besides, part of the reason I hold these funds is to diversify other holdings and the more volatile they are the more ying they provide to my yang.
As far as the SEC action, my understanding is that Bridgeway correctly calculated their performance fees exactly as detailed in the prospectus, but since the formula specified in the prospectus did not align with SEC rules it was illegal. I don't believe the SEC or Montgomery ever said it was a "miscalculation", but only that it was an illegal calculation because the SEC rules for performance based fees are very limiting.
Finally, I don't think performance based fees are needed to incentivize human managers because that's already accomplished by fixed percentage fees (which rise in dollar amount when AUM rises due to either outperformance or endorsement from new investors). What is needed are incentives to benefit existing shareholders (such as by limiting AUM among other things) and to encourage management to target investment patterns above and beyond the index and although performance based fees are no silver bullet they are one sign to look for in finding funds that do this, IMO.
P.S. And, for me, Bridgeway's charitable efforts are much more my style than mere donations. They encourage and congratulate their employees efforts to exhibit good-will towards mankind in their personal interactions and, if I had to guess, this is the only reason Montgomery still hasn't retired...because Bridgeway provides a way to finance his charitable visions whereas retirement is inherently selfish. Since my goals are similar, I'd rather lose my shirt at Bridgeway than hit the jackpot somewhere else just to donate my winnings to some lazy non-profit who cares more about job security then actually benefitting their nominal cause. So, to me, investing at Bridgeway is like investing in one of those "socially responsible" funds except it's much more profitable and also much more effective because, IMO, doing socially responsible things with profits is more effective then simply bidding up the shares of socially responsible companies.

https://www.oakmark.com/Oakmark/web/me.get?WEB.websections.show&OAKMARK_1047
I'm wondering if this is possibly a prelude (read: training period) to Mr. McGregor's retirement. I'm guessing that he's around 60 and his former co-manager retired in 2012. Might bear watching.

I am back to a question that I still have not been able to answer comfortably.
I am a Flagship member with Vanguard and also invest with Schwab. In a retirement account with Schwab I currently hold SGOVX. In a different retirement account at Schwab I hold MAPIX and MACSX. In my taxable account with Schwab I hold ARTKX. I currently do not hold an international fund at Vanguard.
My plan within the six months to a year is to increase my international exposure. I am not looking to make any changes with MAPIX or MACSX.
I hold SGOVX in a retirement account because it is fairly tax inefficient. The problem is, I am out of room in that account and also want more mid cap value exposure, which I can satisfy by selling SGOVX and adding to my ARTQX position in that same account. Of course, when I do this, not only am I not increasing my international exposure, I am decreasing it.
One potential solution is to add to ARTKX, which historically seems to have been fairly tax efficient. The two issues with doing this is besides MAPIX and MACSX, I would be putting over 60% of my international exposure in one fund. Also, per M* ARTKX has about a 25% potential capital gains exposure.
A second way I could go is to purchase UMBWX at either Schwab or Vanguard. It's long term performance has been good, its expense ratio seems reasonable (18 basis points below ARTKX), it's been fairly tax efficient, and it seems like it would be a complement to ARTKX because it has an average market cap about three times the size of ARTKX. However, UMBWX has a potential capital gains exposure of about 19%.
A third way to go is to purchase VGSTX at Vanguard and call it quits ;-). It's tax efficient, it has a low expense ratio at 16 basis points, a low capital gains exposure at about 5%, and a an average market cap about twice ARTKX. However, while about 50% of my domestic exposure is in index funds, I have not been a big fan of indexing international.
With the above in mind, I certainly would appreciate some thoughts.
Mona

Curious if anyone uses BUFBX as a conservative/moderate allocation choice. It has outperformed the moderate benchmark by 2% over 1,3, and 5 year timeframes. Seems to hold a mix of dividend-paying stocks and high-yield bonds.
From related article:
"To limit risks, consider adding a cautious fund to your portfolio. Top choices include Buffalo Flexible Income (BUFBX), Sierra Core Retirement (SIRAX), and Weitz Balanced (WBALX). The funds hold mixes of stocks and bonds, seeking to protect shareholders in downturns. Most often the cautious approaches have worked. All three funds shined during the turmoil of 2008, and they have outdone the S&P 500 by a wide margin during the past five years. "
safe-funds-that-delivered-winning-returns

Link to SEC filing:
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/915802/000091580213000011/gp4970408.htm
FINANCIAL INVESTORS TRUST
Grandeur Peak Global Opportunities Fund
Grandeur Peak International Opportunities Fund (the “Funds”)
SUPPLEMENT DATED APRIL 8, 2013 TO THE PROSPECTUS
FOR THE INSTITUTIONAL CLASS SHARES OF THE FUNDS DATED AUGUST 31, 2012
This Supplement updates certain information contained in the Prospectus for the Institutional Class Shares of the Funds dated August 31, 2012. You should retain this Supplement and the Prospectus for future reference. Additional copies of the Prospectus may be obtained free of charge by visiting our web site at www.grandeurpeakglobal.com or calling us at 1.855.377.PEAK (7325).
Effective as of the close of business on May 1, 2013, the Funds will close to new investors, except as described below. This change will affect new investors seeking to purchase shares of a Fund either directly or through third party intermediaries. Existing shareholders of a Fund may continue to purchase additional shares of that Fund.
A financial advisor whose clients have established accounts in a Fund as of May 1, 2013 may continue to open new accounts in that Fund for any of its existing or new clients.
Existing or new participants in a qualified retirement plan, such as a 401(k) plan, profit sharing plan, 403(b) plan or 457 plan, which has an existing position in a Fund as of May 1, 2013, may continue to open new accounts in that Fund. In addition, if such qualified retirement plans have a related retirement plan formed in the future, this plan may also open new accounts in the Fund.
As described in the Prospectus, the Funds’ investment adviser, Grandeur Peak Global Advisors, LLC, retains the right to make exceptions to any action taken to close a Fund or limit inflows into a Fund.
INVESTORS SHOULD RETAIN THIS SUPPLEMENT FOR FUTURE REFERENCE
FINANCIAL INVESTORS TRUST
Grandeur Peak Global Opportunities Fund
Grandeur Peak International Opportunities Fund (the “Funds”)
SUPPLEMENT DATED APRIL 8, 2013 TO THE PROSPECTUS
FOR THE INVESTOR CLASS SHARES OF THE FUNDS DATED AUGUST 31, 2012

Howdy,
Thought I responded last night but . . .
You all knew that this was coming and you really need to plan for it. Of course they're going to try to raise revenue any and all ways possible. They have no choice. Note, that they will also have to cut benefits and break promises in any and all ways possible. Again, they have no choice. They have over $100T in unfunded liabilities and not even a combination of maximum politically viable tax increases and benefit reductions can cover the tab. That means that in addition to raising taxes and cutting benefits, the remainder will have to be monetized. There is no other option. That's what QE . . . nth is all about.
Now with all this said, they historically have pimped us from long range and I don't see this time being any different. By this I mean that they will grandfather everything so that no one is immediately impacted. This limits the howls of outrage because when you're 40 and they change the SS retirement ages to 67-73 - it doesn't register quite as hideously as it would if you were 55.
So, I really don't see them changing the rules for exisiting retirement accounts - only for new accounts down the road.
Oh, they'll raise taxes in any possible way - fees, surcharges, tweaks here and there, etc. Alas and alack, they won't fix anything, at least not until things break down completely and they have no choice.
I'm still with us staying in a depression until some time around 2023 or so. Planning remains the same - diversify your accounts and your wealth. Give yourself various options for funding your retirement.
peace,
rono

http://washpost.bloomberg.com/Story?docId=1376-MJPY8K6TTDSJ01-0URS1QECD2LCN69MJ8519507S0
cut back on muni?
http://www.advisorone.com/2013/04/04/dont-panic-sell-your-bonds-just-yet-vanguard-talks
trow email reads
http://individual.troweprice.com/public/Retail/Planning-&-Research/T.-Rowe-Price-Insights/Personal-Finance/Make-Smart-Choices-for-Your-Retirement-Savings
schwab email reads
http://investing.schwab.com/public/schwab/resource_center/expert_insight/schwab_investing_brief/fed_and_bonds/times_not_yet_right_for_floating_rate_bonds.html
http://investing.schwab.com/public/schwab/resource_center/expert_insight/todays_market/recent_commentary/schwab_market_perspective.html
http://wealthmanagement.com/mutual-funds/highmark-dumps-funds-shift-away-retail
5 active MF managers making a difference
http://investorplace.com/2013/04/5-active-fund-managers-making-a-difference/
buying canadian?
http://www.mfwire.com/article.asp?template=article&storyID=43504&wire=MFWire&wireID=2
tim buckley read
www.washingtonpost.com/business/a-look-at-tim-buckley-chief-investment-officer-of-top-mutual-fund-company-vanguard/2013/04/04/d9eb8a20-9d6d-11e2-9219-51eb8387e8f1_story.html
stockton cram down would serverely test muni market
http://www.investmentnews.com/article/20130407/REG/304079972

Here's the full Whitehouse "statement" - apparently a verbal "statement" to Politico:
http://www.politico.com/playbook/0413/playbook10370.html
It looks like Australia is proposing something similar. I'm not familiar with Australian newspapers, so I don't know how "balanced" the link (to an opinion column) below is, but it seems to give a reasonable description of their proposal.
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/super-changes-to-hit-rich-retirees-20130405-2haim.html
As near as I can tell from a brief bit of searching, Australia's "superannuation" system is a mix of public pensions (a la SS) and voluntary contributions (a la IRA/401K), though perhaps more investment oriented than our SS. The proposal appears to be to start taxing (at a still reduced rate of 15%) earnings in excess of $100K (AU$) per year on their plans. This seems somewhat analogous to the WH proposal to cap accounts at an amount sufficient to generate an annuity of $205K/year; that is, both are based not on size of account, but size of retirement income generated.
This AU proposal might be somewhat like taxing Roths (rather than imposing a strict cap), except that the money going into our Roths is fully taxed, while contributions to AU accounts get a tax break. (Top Australian ordinary income tax rate appears to be 45%, so contributions, though taxed, are taxed at much reduced rates).
There's there's also a proposal mentioned to tax the contributions at 30% - for those earning over $300K (AU$) - which would still be below the normal tax rate (but above the current 15% for contributions for all earners).
----
Still need to know a lot more about the WH proposal. For example, is the cap on generated income based on nominal or after-tax amounts? If the former, then one can push the after-tax amount higher by doing Roth conversions. By paying the conversion taxes from money in the IRA (not normally recommended), the nominal size of the account would be reduced, but the after-tax value would remain the same (since the money's now post-tax).
Lots of games possible. Need more info.

http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/932471/000093247113006039/ps111a042013nc.htm
Vanguard Capital Opportunity Fund
Supplement to the Prospectus and the Summary Prospectus
Important Changes to Vanguard Capital Opportunity Fund
Vanguard Capital Opportunity Fund is now open to new accounts for personal investors, and shareholders are no longer subject to a $25,000 annual investment limit. Participants in certain qualified retirement plans may continue to invest in accordance with the terms of their plans. Certain qualifying asset allocation programs may continue to operate in accordance with the program terms.
The Fund will remain closed to all prospective financial advisory, institutional, and intermediary clients (other than clients who invest through a Vanguard brokerage account) until further notice, and there is no specific time frame for when the Fund will reopen for new account registrations by these clients.
During the Fund’s closed period, current institutional shareholders may continue to purchase, exchange, or redeem shares of the Fund online, by telephone, or by mail. Current financial advisory and intermediary clients may not contribute to existing Fund accounts.
The Fund may modify these transaction policies at any time and without prior notice to shareholders. You may call Vanguard for more detailed information about the Fund’s transaction policies. Participants in employer-sponsored plans may call Vanguard Participant Services at 800-523-1188. Investors in nonretirement accounts and IRAs may call Vanguard’s Investor Information Department at 800-662-7447.
© 2013 The Vanguard Group, Inc. All rights reserved.
Vanguard Marketing Corporation, Distributor. PS 111A 042013

Reply to @PRESSmUP:
You may not need to rollover your 401k after retirement if you like the choices. Many employers allow you to leave your assets behind. However, IRA is likely to give you more choices unless your 401k plan has a self directed brokerage option.
The retail equivalent of PCVAX is PNVDX. PSVIX is institutional shares. The fund is currently closed to new investors. I used to own PNVDX some time ago.
I recently added VVPSX in this area.

Reply to @Art:
Art...as with you, PCVAX is a 401K choice, which I've held for about 7 years. Planning retirement and a shift of 401K to an IRA, I find that the PCVAX performance is not to be sneezed at....frankly, I am flummoxed as to what to replace it with. Of course, that is a future thread.