Compare it with CAPE and you can see that the global-bond sauce augments it quite differently from (to a worrisome degree, some might suggest) a balanced fund. Thus far.

All good --- SSHFX was bruited by Consumer Reports some years ago --- but having today closely reviewed 3y+ outperformance and risks via MFO, M*, and Lipper, I predict beating them all of them in that LV space via DSENX / DSEEX / CAPE, and am moving even more moneys into DSEEX as we speak.

I have been a DL investor. I noted the buzz here on this board when this fund opened. It's certainly doing spectacularly. I read the short version of what this fund is about on the DL page. I understand the description, but not all the implications. Is this a fund that a rank amateur should be considering? DSEEX Cape-Schiller.

The Shiller Barclays CAPE US Core Sector Index -- underlying index for the CAPE ETN --has had attractive backtested returns during periods of both growth dominant and value dominant markets. So I am adequately confident to hold DSEEX in varying market conditions. In fact, last week I increased my DSEEX position from 15 to 18%. And like @davidmoran, I am confident that Gundlach will enable his mutual fund to have a higher upside/downside ratio relative to the CAPE ETN. But of course, the future is unknown.
Growth vs. Value
Backtested Returns of CAPE Index

CAPE vs. DSEEX
Kevin

Yeah, you mentioned that concern before. All I care about is that it continues to seriously outperform SP500, whose value components surely will dip at some point, yes, and all its div etfs.
With considerably less risk and downside movement (as analyzed for Sharpe / Sortino / Martin ratios and Ulcer Index per MFO, plus M* and Lipper's quintile rankings), CAPE alone has outperformed SP500 significantly, if I am reading the M* data right, by:
15% in '14
331% in '15
51% in '16
DSENX / DSEEX has improved on the above by another percent or so, amazingly, owing to Gundlach's secret global-bond sauces.
We have not had real testing dips, of course, but it does less badly whenever we have had the little ones the last 3+ years.
I learned about this consistent engine from Snowball / MFO writeup. (So hopefully sometime this year I should be able to do more in return than just the Amz thing.)

All good --- SSHFX was bruited by Consumer Reports some years ago --- but having today closely reviewed 3y+ outperformance and risks via MFO, M*, and Lipper, I predict beating them all of them in that LV space via DSENX / DSEEX / CAPE, and am moving even more moneys into DSEEX as we speak.

A striking spread between VIG and DVY, 12% vs <22%, the other usual suspects mostly in between. CAPE >18%.

Hi @VintageFreak
@JoJo26 noted: "Most overrated, BY FAR = Fidelity", @sma3 noted: "Fidelity Most too big too identical" and your notation of ditching your RiverPark and moving the monies to Eaton; I will note.....
>>>One must consider what might be found at a "fund house", sort what you find of value for your investing needs, quality of timely and accurate data processing and ease of use of the existing structure.
Fidelity has had a long list of mutual fund choices for a number of years, including what were first of a kind choices for the "common folk" investors with the introduction of the "select" funds. Fidelity also helped beat down the cost of investing from the full "load" fees charged by the big retail houses of the earlier period for mutual fund investing.
We use Fidelity (since late 1970's) as a portal for investments. There is nothing written stating that one's brokerage account is restricted to Fidelity offerings.
The portal is as flexible as needed by this house.
Over the years, from the point of Fidelity fund choices; we have traveled into these choices (may be a few that escape memory at this time):
FCNTX FDGRX FLPSX FAGIX FSPHX FLBIX SPHIX FRIFX FNMIX FINPX and several of the select funds.
The majority of our holdings today are not Fidelity funds; with the brokerage portal allowing travel to........well, everything, to which, we desire access.
If one can't find an investment path(s) within this fund house; I can't offer another solution.
Our 2 cents worth.
Catch

Sorry --- forget DSE_X, since that introduces bonds; I shoulda just asked about CAPE.
FT's lexicon defines quant as 'using computer-based models to inform their decisions on whether to buy or sell securities.'
>> ... the more discretion there is held by humans, the less quantitative the fund is [@msf].
Why I asked. Since there is no discretion for CAPE, seems to me it's as quant as can be. Hence in answer to your 'overrated' query, since for the last 4y it matches or outperforms (depending on timeframe) about all other SP500 constructions, it seemed to me that maybe it was the opposite of overrated. - ?
@MikeM ---
>> what 4 of the 10 sectors of the S&P the fund is invested in at any given time?
No. This is as recent as I have uncovered:
http://www.etnplus.com/US/7/en/details.app?instrumentId=174066

Wow. rforno alludes to a spectrum of quant funds ("quant-lite") and you ask me whether these funds fit the definition of quant funds. Especially since there doesn't appear to be a clear definition.
Okay, FWIW. First let's deal with a technical item. Even assuming that CAPE is a quant fund, IMHO DSEEX would not be because its objective and technique is to beat the model by using leverage and bonds. It does this in a manner similar to an equity-linked note that provides index exposure by buying index options and downside protection by using the remaining assets to purchase debt. DSEEX uses the latter to provide upside potential as opposed to downside protection. (It also amplifies exposure with leverage.) Besides, where's the model for the bonds?
My take on what a quant fund is includes two axes, a major one and a minor one. The major one is how static the model or models are. If they never change, what you've got is a fundamental index. The models may be updated often, in which case you've got a quant fund. What I care about is how good the team is in continually improving the models, recognizing that markets don't literally repeat. (For example, the "January effect" is thought to have gradually diminished over the years.)
The other axis is human intervention in security selection, as opposed to model design. ISTM that the more discretion there is held by humans, the less quantitative the fund is.
The CAPE ETN seems to operate the same way as any other fundamental index fund or note. It has a fixed set of rules that it uses to select securities and periodically "resets" its portfolio. Fundamental indexes may use a set of rules as simple as equal weighting or as complex as those in any fund. Call them quant funds if you wish, but then borrowing from rforno's sense of lite-ness I'd call them consomme, clear and nearly colorless.

@msf,
Are not CAPE / DSEEX / DSENX quant?

Hi Guys,
This Adam Robinson, the subject of the article, seems like one strange guy with a philosophy and an occupation that appear to conflict with each other.
These days he earns his living as a financial advisor to a number of International hedge funds. Yet he thinks the world is so complex that it is impossible to logically understand or explain. The explaining only comes after the fact. The understanding may escape us forever.
He said: " explanation is impossible. The world is simply too complex to understand, so I don’t bother trying." But he likely draws a heavy salary for recommending investments to take advantage of perceived economic and market trends. How honest is that?
My simple interpretation of his complexity perspective is that an investor would be wise to invest in broad Index products. If an understanding is impossible, covering the waterfront seems like a prudent strategy.
Pete Seeger said: “Any darn fool can make something complex; it takes a genius to make something simple.” I'm not that genius with respect to investing so I do the default Index option.
Best Holiday Wishes.

DLFNX is my only core (core-plus) dedicated US bond fund. It's just 2.51% of portfolio. But I think I can make better use of the $3,700.00 that's in there, particularly after the seismic shift following the election. I make few changes to my portfolio along the way because I do a lot of digging before choosing a fund. Originally, I wanted Gundlach's know-how at the helm, and I also did not yet have a domestic bond position at all. But such a fund as DLFNX, though respectable and reliable, will not help to get me where I want to go, in this changed landscape in 2017 and beyond.
Three-quarters of my stuff is with TRP, and if any change resulted in consolidating (and ergo simplifying) by putting more $$$ into TRP, that suits me. PRHYX is closed to new investors. What about RPIHX? I also see a very new fund: PTTFX which charges investors $20.00 above and beyond the ER if the balance is below $10,000.00--- but I could manage to initiate a starting position with $10K. ..... Seems to me that PTTFX is ostensibly the same sort of fund as MWTRX. "Total Return." But I can't even find a portfolio within that fund anywhere, even at the TRP website. ... I don't like RPSIX because it's a fund of funds.
.......Or, shall I just liquidate DLFNX? It's one of just 2 funds I own that are in a regular, taxable, investment account, rather than IRA. I could use the proceeds to step-up the size of my stake in PNM, an electric utility. PNM is in a transition, shedding nuclear and coal-fired plants but everything I look at tells me I should definitely commit more money to it. (It's less than 1% of portf. right now.)
Do I NEED a US domestic core-plus bond fund, after all? I am otherwise very well diversified. No question about THAT. Thanks for your responses. They are always helpful.

Inflation protection has been a recent topic on the board. I have linked below an article from M* and what they have to say on the subject.
"Surveying the fund & ETF landscape, from direct hedges like TIPS to indirect inflation-fighting plays such as floating rate loans and commodities" are covered in the article.
http://news.morningstar.com/articlenet/article.aspx?id=783695
In addition, I have linked the M* fund report on PRDAX as it is one of the more diversified inflation fighting funds that M* writes about in the article.
http://www.morningstar.com/funds/XNAS/PRDAX/quote.html
After reading the article and study of the above fund along with my review of a recent Xray report of my portfolio I have discovered that about a good third of my portfolio in some way offers inflation protection.
Perhaps, you will find the article of benefit as I did.
I wish all ... "Good Investing."
Old_Skeet

Hi Guys,
It would certainly improve the health of any portfolio if some pattern recognition would emerge from the countless historical investment studies that have been made. These studies have basically failed to yield lasting investment rules. Investment category returns are not persistent on an annual,basis. Here is one of many Links that visually demonstrate the commonplace marketplace vicissitudes:
https://www.mfs.com/wps/FileServerServlet?articleId=templatedata/internet/file/data/sales_tools/mfsvp_20yrsb_fly&servletCommand=default
If a pattern exists in these data, it surely escapes me. What is illustrated is that a rapid elevator is in operation. What is up will certainly go down, and in an unpredictable manner. Good luck on trying to time these events. I suppose that this is the data that supports the standard advice to broadly diversify and to be a patient investor by staying the course.
That conventional advice tilts the odds just a little. I am reminded of a famous saying by Damon Runyon: "The race is not always to the swift or the battle to the strong, but that is the way to bet". Going against market momentum is a tough way to consistently earn a decent return. The failures far outdistance the few success stories. The trend is your friend.
But getting down to the individual fund level, some winners do exist and persist. Good luck at identifying them early in their success cycle. Also, these outliers don't persist forever. Warren Buffett is a recent example of falling from grace. And that too is changing today as Buffett seems to be benefitting from Trump's election. Unlikely events do happen.
Best Wishes.

I suppose it is possible that Gund's secret bond sauce may suffer and the fund may just track CAPE. Not sure.
But while it did slump last Jan, like everything else (still less than SP500), it was flat prior, through the last rate mini-hike, from mid-Oct '15 onward until last early Jan slump.
Still outperformed SP500 at every interval.
So it may be largely unreactive.
I am wondering how PONDX will do. But then I trust that smarties like Gundlach and Ivascyn know what they are doing and that this next hike is baked in or planned for....

I can tell you that when an American Fund rep visited us when the F-class shares were introduced, he said they wanted to penetrate what they saw as a growing RIA landscape, access fee-based accounts (that term is such a crock), with lower-expense options. Unfortunately the expenses for many F-class shares are higher now than they were ten years ago.

Yup, it's currency effects and some bad carry trades being unwound, far beyond my pay grade to fully understand:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-11-11/carry-trades-collapse-as-emerging-market-yield-advantage-shrinks
The duration effect remains rather striking (to me). If dollar-denominated with a short portfolio duration (as many MFs were not), there has been limited damage. e.g. DLENX. Of course, the longer a big shift plays out, the less likely it is that any fund will escape; it will reach the most sheltered, as well as their little dog, too.

I misspoke in using the word 'star'; Lipper does a 1-5 rating, no star graphic. If you go to www.lipperleaders.com now, you indeed find results for the two DoubleLine Cape Enhanced, so their ranking start point must be 3y, same as M*. Don't know why it did not turn up on Marketwatch, should doublecheck. Ah, today they do show up. So 3y is there answer to my query, and never mind :) .

@Old_Skeet
If this down draft continues,you might have to revive these threads.Your observations and insights were appreciated and well recieved by many of us.
From January 2016...............
Day Six & Day Seven ... Recent Selling Stampede Might Soon Be Ending
It's Day Eight /// Surprise ... Surprise ... Surprise!!
It's Day Nine ... Selling Stampede Continues ... Perhaps Plunge Protection Team Will Step In
Market Day Eleven ... It's Off to the Races
http://www.mutualfundobserver.com/discuss/profile/discussions/472/Old_Skeet
ARBITRAGE CREDIT OPPORTUNITIES ACFIX
Q3 2016 COMMENTARY
With several quarters of positive market performance
behind us, the fourth quarter could introduce new
volatility and opportunities given the upcoming US
elections, increased news flow detailing the UK’s plan
to exit from the EU, and the specter of December
interest rate hikes. As we saw during 2014 and 2015,
market gains can quickly reverse as investor
sentiment and direction rapidly change. While we may
not be able to predict political or economic outcomes
with certainty, we are aware of the risks and
outcomes that can result from changing events
https://arbitragefunds.com/restricted/get/Credit_Opportunities_Commentary.pdf
The death of retail isn't a problem for Starbucks
Nov. 4, 2016 3:50 PM ET By: Clark Schultz, Seeking Alpha News Editor
Starbucks (NASDAQ:SBUX) CEO Howard Schultz delved into some interesting large-scale retail issues during the company's earnings call yesterday.Schultz first noted that FedEx CEO Fred Smith shared some research with him confirming the significant drop in store traffic globally amid the 'Amazon Effect" across industries -- before he really turned up the retail bear rhetoric.
Q and A from SBUX conference call. Earnings Call Transcript (page 14-15)
John William Ivankoe - JPMorgan Securities LLC
Hi. Thank you. Howard, I was going to ask you to maybe apply the current environment in terms of what we're seeing both in the U.S. and around the world in the consumer environment,
Howard S. Schultz - Starbucks Corp.3rd Q
I was talking to Fred Smith just a couple of weeks ago about his situation at FedEx and he shared with me a piece of research which showed a significant drop in foot traffic on Main Street and in malls, not only domestically and around the world, as a result of e-commerce, the Web, and what I'll loosely describe as the Amazon effect. As a result of that, you're certainly seeing large companies and small companies not only not open new stores, but announce closures.
And let me just speak to that. I know this is a little long-winded but I think it's important. There's no doubt that over the next five years or so, we are going to see a dramatic level of retailers not be able to sustain their level of core business as a traditional bricks-and-mortar retailer, and their omni-channel approach is not going to be sustainable to maintain their cost of their infrastructure. And as a result of that, there's going to be tremendous amount of changes with regard to the retail landscape.
We believe, as we look down that pipe and look at the future, that our ability to maintain our growth in terms of new stores domestically and internationally, coupled with the fact that Starbucks still maintains a very special place in terms of a sense of community, the third place environment, and people looking for and seeking out human contact and a place to go, that as these store closures occur, and they will, that we are going to be in a very unique position five years, 10 years down the road because there's going to be a lot less people competing for those customers. I'm not talking about the coffee category; I'm talking overall.
But we are in the very, very early stages of a tremendous change in the bricks-and-mortar footprint of retailers domestically and internationally as a result of the sea change in how
people are buying things, and that's going to have, I think, a negative effect on all of retail.
http://seekingalpha.com/article/4019416-starbucks-sbux-q4-2016-results-earnings-call-transcript?page=15
Highlights of the Week:© 2016 Payden & Rygel
Equities Investors have been risk averse in light of the macro uncertainties, ignoring the first positive quarterly earnings growth in seven quarters.
Corporates: Corporate fund flows had a $2 billion out flow from mutual funds and ETFs
Securitized highlight of the week’s deal flow was the
$1 billion refinance of the Cosmopolitan Hotel in Las Vegas by Blackstone Real Estate
High Yield despite short-term volatility, the economic fundamentals that drive capital markets’ performance remain solid.
Municipals: Municipal issuance in October totaled approximately $53 billion, the largest total in 30 years and up 57% year-over-year...demand remained robust and municipal funds received approximately $1.7 billion of inflows during the month
.https://www.payden.com/weekly/wir110416.pdf

I disagree, fwiw. And not only w/ Edmond's #3 and the likelihood of an adviser "sniffing around for business." You could go to Vanguard and everyone here would cheer yay for you and not impugn --- and you might well get identical advice.
It all depends on her wishes and goals, such as she has them, and presumably in part on yours for her. If she is truly well-covered cashflow-wise by the current situation, and one goal might be to grow the nut, and if at 76 and reasonable health the horizon seems distant enough, then there is no reason ("logical") whatsoever not to increase the equity portion, depending on sleep-at-night. If unanxiety is paramount, leave as is. If not paramount, and all is well-met for now as static, then sure, increase equities, prudently, in low-vol etfs or value-oriented etfs, perhaps all-US, and perhaps algorithmically churned, like CAPE. Lots of options.
But I disagree with the advice above and the presumptions about the adviser, I think. Is derisking an actual goal?