The article mentions two global water funds, PHO and CGW, but fails to mention FIW, which has clocked the former two ETFs. It is not a global fund, but I don't think you need such a fund to profit from world-wide water needs. Domestic companies in the sector should be positively affected by world-wide need. The stocks mentioned by Mr. Tan have done fine recently, but Itron (ITRN) has a more sobering long-term record. I also have GLFOX, Global Infrastructure, which holds some foreign companies related to the water theme.
I wish I been the person who realized bottled water would become a commodity. When I was young the only people a thing who drank such a thing were Existentialists in cafés.

I had serious interest in the offering from before and after inception; however, my enthusiasm has since cooled : I don't see much, if any, inflation pass-through benefit from infrastructure bonds as opposed to owning infrastructure stocks directly or a fund like GLFOX (which I don't own but which does buy infrastructure companies directly and not those which only invest) in them. See the difference?)
OTOH, I do own MIC, which itself is not an infrastructure stock but has the TR I'm seeking and is a suitable infrastructure proxy with its portfolio of assets IMO.

I wonder if you guys could give some advice about this preliminary portfolio. I'm trying to draw one up for retirement.....it's still some time off......but I could use some more perspective and ideas on this. I would like to keep the number of funds down to a dozen or less, if I could:
VWINX - 40%
GLRBX - 20%
PONDX - 5%
DLTNX - 5%
FUSVX - 10%
PRBLX - 5%
FSCRX - 5%
GLFOX - 5%
FMIJX - 5%
What would you change? Funds? Percentages? Or both???
God bless
the Pudd

I endorse suggestions re: DSENX and GLFOX.

Take a look at the world infrastructure fund GLFOX with 7.8% yield. With negative interest rate around the world high yielding stocks can be attractive not only in the US.
http://www.morningstar.com/funds/XNAS/GLFOX/quote.html

My fund selection logic includes --
Do I need it? Why?
Does it invest in sectors / companies I believe in and/or are opportune times to do so? Or are they just following the herd and buying the hottest things and latest fads?
Are their sector/subsector weightings, whatever they are, appropriate in my view of things? (IE, I an grossly underweight financials & consumer discresionary -- among others -- and would not consider any fund with a sizable weighting in them. Nor would I want a health care fund that's 60% invested in biotech. etc.)
How much turnover takes place? I look for 20% or less turnover where possible.
Are the fees viable? Under 1% ER for active funds, and absolutely no load or 12(b)-1 fees.[1]
How were the managers positioned going into periods of major market turbulence? IE, 2008 recession or the various taper tantrums? How much they lost vs competitors during bad times is a good indicator of my abiity to be comfortable trusting them with some of my money.
Do I see any concerns or conflicts of interest with the fund, its benchmarking, or the fund company?
Do I feel this is a viable long-term holding? (I don't trade mutual funds.)
That's for starters..
[1] I have one exception, becaue it's a good fund - GLFOX has a 12(b)-1 fee and is slightly more expensive than I'd like, but it is in-line with other actively managed global funds.

Hey, thanks openice and heezsafe, good info. I hope the fund does mirror the separate account strategy. It might fit pretty well w/ a position in GLFOX. --- Best, AJ

Thx, heezsafe for the useful info and your work on this. And your spot on re difference between this DL product vs. GLFOX, which I happen to own, as do others here. The N class BTW is BILTX.
Concerning the fund macro, here is how the separate account strategy was constituted at the end of the 4th qtr. 2015 based on the pitch book and portfolio strategy I was able to obtain. It may offer some idea of how the OEF might be invested --FWIW.
Portfolio Strategy
36% project bonds
28% structured products
23% corp. bonds
8% loans
5% cash.
Portfolio Sectors
Electric Utilities & Power 29%
Transportation Equipment 22%
Renewables 14%
Transportation 9%
Energy 8% (E&P - Upstream Assets 23%; Pipelines - Midstream Assets 77%)
Hospitals 7%
Water Utilities 4%
Telecommunications 4%
Credit Quality
Investment Grade 84%
High Yield 11 %
Cash 5%
Geographic Region
North America 73%
Latin America 18%
Western Europe 2%
Middle East & Africa 2%
Cash 5%
(The geographic allocations are significantly different than that of GLFOX.)
Keep us posted with any info you come across.

GLFOX and TOLSX might be a good funds to compare in this space.

65% giant and large-cap, with 55% of assets in top 10 holdings. Certainly not SMID and the concentration may give some pause. It has worked as a global holding for me as for @puddnhead during a period when JOHAX, IWIRX and Grandeur Peak holdings in my accounts stank up the joint. I'm adding to GLFOX.

Hi Mark!
I have owned GLFOX for about 2 years. I use it as a global fund. It is core, and I only add on weakness. I think it is a very well run fund and would recommend it to anyone. Also, in that space, I use FMIJX and MAPIX.
God bless
the Pudd

GLFOX has a low beta, high alpha historical record. Not that it will continue this way but in comparison to TOLSX it has weathered this last storm quite well.
Here it is charted with TOLSX and your IDE:

@Mark I'm still pooling money for an initial investment, and waiting for a good spot. Remember, you can use the MFO search function to find prior discussion and/or anecdotal comments (which can be every bit as useful).
http://www.mutualfundobserver.com/discuss/search?Search=GLFOX

How do you use this fund or how do you think about it in your portfolio? Is it a:
- source of income primarily for you
- Foreign Small/Mid Blend slot component as categorized by M*
- Large Blend slot component as categorized by M* in terms of investment style
Or just what led you to it? I've been looking for something in the infrastructure space and had honed in on IDE (Voya Infrastructure Fund) which is a CEF. The Lazard offering caught my eye and so now I'm curious. Thank you for any response.

On absolute terms, PQTDX, and on relative terms, GLFOX, VDIGX for me.
RNDLX is also OK considering how far stock funds have fallen.

Hey, I gave y'all notice--- 1 down, 13 to go?
http://www.mutualfundobserver.com/discuss/discussion/24300/doubleline-funds-planning-expansion-in-rather-dicey-times#latest
You might want to do a little research before reaching any conclusions. While bee's suggestions are fine, esp. GLFOX (I'm building cash for that one), this fund will have a distinct income orientation and could be a good diversifier in that realm if the strategy works. What other fixed income sector would correlate closely? Can't think of one. Perusing the filing, as one would expect from an unusual fund, there are some unusual risk factors listed, however.
Here are the 3 PMs, who will be dedicated solely to this strategy via this fund and separate accounts, with their schtick:
http://www.doubleline.com/global-infrastructure-management-media.php
(aside: the "wandering camera technique" notes that Luz Padilla appears to like colorizing her nails to match her wardrobe--- who knew? :) nice touch....)

TOLSX and GLFOX might be where to turn for infrastructure funds.

GLFOX, SFREX, and some physical gold in the safe deposit box.

When I researched infrastructure funds, it seemed that most of them were growth (and energy) oriented. Lazard (coming from a value shop) focuses much more heavily on transportation infrastructure (airports, railroads, etc.). Very different focus (and value oriented).
If you like TOLLX and GLFOX, you can split the difference in a single, cheaper fund, NMFIX. Managed by Lazard and Brookfield. Though I'm stunned that Northern does not disclose the members of Lazard or Brookfield who are responsible for the day-to-day management. (The last time they listed the managers in the prospectus, they were the same as the TOLLX and GLFOX managers.)

Thanks, catch22. I just noticed that myself. Also, GLFOX is not as heavily invested in energy per se. I see about 8.5 % whereas TOLLX is about 25%. I'm sure that's part of the difference as well.

That's probably the core difference - pipeline companies and other such energy infrastructure names have done terribly this year.