Reinvest, or you can move 5k to Fido and then add 50k?

@Sven, I got into PCI/PDI after reading Sam Lee's work at the Morningstar's ETF newsletter. On his blog Sam once noted PIMIX was PIMCO's best fund. That is when I added PIMIX/PONDX to my Mom's account. A little PCI for Mom as well since is was at a wider discount. It occupies part of the risk version of her account. Actually Sam Lee noted PIMIX behaved like a bond fund with a 10-15% stock sleeve so adjust accordingly. Will take a look at FSICX especially std dev.

I am posting to see if there is enough interest in asking for a delayed broadcast of the Webinars or another time (not during working hours) for those of us who have 9 to 5 jobs and whose bosses look disparagingly at using work internet for personal financial work
David please reschedule for working stiffs!

Oaktree's HY fund has 2 share classes: Institutional (.95 ER / $1 mil. minimum) and Advisor (1.20 ER / $25,000 minimum). The .25 12 (b-1) fee (mentioned by rforno) applies only to the Advisor class and accounts for all of its higher ER. Neither class appears to be front loaded.
Not something I'd be interested in at this juncture. Agree with rforno the ER is high - but not extraordinarily so for some of these specialty funds. For comparison, Price charges a .75 ER for its (now closed) PRHYX.

If you're interested, you might look into RiverNorth/Oaktree High Income (RNOTX), which has a $5000 minimum and 1.7% expenses. It's the traditional RiverNorth model: a sub-adviser does their thing and RiverNorth supplements it with the CEF arbitrage strategy in the same asset class. It's been a mediocre performer so far, likely because the RiverNorth sleeve is expensive and only adds real value when markets are volatile, which hasn't been the case lately.
For what interest that holds,
David

M* has the minimum for their high yield fund at 25K. Not exactly chump change, and might even be lower at various brokers, but it's probably doable for many folks here. But the 1.20 ER and 12(b)-1 fee on the investor class turns me off.

His Oaktree Capital seems to specialize in distressed debt. I sense that they cater to very large and institutional investors. They have a high yield mutual fund - however I believe the minimum is quite high.

Well ... If everyone buys, than the market won't go down. Will it?
---
Edit: The above was a quick shoot from the hip reaction to the thread. No intent to disparage anyone.
Truth is, you really don't know what you'll do until it happens. In '08 the picture was bleak. Hank Paulson, Treasury Secretary, was on TV trying to reassure a panicked public. Lehman Brothers - a giant financial institution - had crumpled in days. Money market funds, previously considered safe, were on the ropes and might well have collapsed without emergency government backing. As bad as it was here, international markets plummeted even more. I saw people who were retired and thought they were smart investors literally in tears after watching their retirement nest egg disintegrate 50% in a year's time.
There are options other than simple buy or sell. If you think the sell-off is overdone consider rotating out of conservative funds and into more aggressive ones at a slow and steady pace. Also, if your money is in Traditional IRAs, consider converting to a Roth while markets are depressed. Personally, I'm mostly buy and hold, but do adjust cash position upward or downward a bit as markets evolve (risk on/risk off). Generally, cash stays between 10% and 25% - so there's not a lot of leeway there to buy equities.
Just some rambling thoughts.

ok thx! will look at morgan stanley. bought morgan stanley ladder bond few yrs ago, still has them still yield ~ 5-6% annually until last yr, unfortunately they called. thx Ted

@johnN: Sorry, but you've hit on a sore spot with me. Unlike stock, where it it easy to get a quote the vast majority of bonds sell on the over the counter market at whatever price bond traders can get for them. A lot depends on how many individual bonds you want to buy, generally in $1,000 denomination, and their grade from junk to investment grade. When I buy bonds I make a bid and it is either excepted or rejected by the the bond house. I use Morgan Stanley who has the largest bond trading desk among the various brokerage houses, and since I'm a client I usually get a cheaper price if the bonds I want to buy a held in-house. If MS has to go on the street for what i want the price will generally be higher. The mark-up in bonds can be as high as 4%. Example, a bond a trader paid $960 might try sell at par, $1,000. Today I bought 18 HTZ 1/21 7.375% coupon 10 for $979.97 and 8 at $980.04
Regards,
Ted

PCI is still retains a discount although. Narrower than in the past.
Separate question: Do folks regard PONDX/PIMX/PONAX as a core holding or a high yieldly satellite? Just curious what folks like @junkster, @davidsnowball, @mikem, @oldskeet think?
Regards,Mike

Mike I can't help you because of the short term nature of my methodology. I was in PONDX in 2012 and a few months in early 2013 but not again until this year. Its returns from 2013 through 2016 were not inspiring. Much of this year's returns are from its exposure to rmbs primarily non agency. I read somewhere PIMCO and Ivascyn are buying all the legacy non agency rmbs from before the crash they can get their hands on. I am 55% IOFIX and 45% DPFNX now which is primarily all non agency but with a heck of a lot less AUM. How long this ultra steady rise in that market can continue there I have not a clue. But the strong housing market has helped immensely.

I never know how to define 'core holding', but I guess PONDX is a fund I have faith in (faith in the manager). I'm in it and I tend to stay in it because it is to me the best multisector fund available. I like the adjustments the manager makes, like moving more globally in recent history and shortening duration substantially. And the secret derivative sauce seems to work. I actually might think of a core bond fund as one that stays fairly consistent in it's investments, like MWTRX or DODIX. I don't think PONDX can be classified as such. But if the definition of core becomes a fund you will stick with through thick and thin then, well, in that sense is core for me.
I have 4 classified bond funds which I own because I'm hoping they are the place to be moving forward through rate hikes and an often talked about shift to global fixed income having better returns in the next 5 to whatever years.
I own:
PONDX because of the great management track record and it's flexibility
PFIDX also has Ivascyn on the team, classified as a low duration floating income fund
MAINX and PGMSX for the Asia and global sector
All 4 funds are at about equal percentages. Also have a lot of bond exposure which I can't control within my 2 balanced funds, PRWCX and ICMBX... FWIW

To understand how speculative stock investing really is, I always find it instructive to look at the par value of a company when it's issuing shares of stock. This is for Facebook in 2014 when it was going to list some shares:
https://sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1326801/000132680114000059/prospectussupplementwhatsa.htm
Class A Common Stock, $0.000006 par value
Amount to be Registered
162,698,114
Maximum
Offering Price
Per Share
$75.19
The par value of a stock is basically nil because unlike a bond it has no par value. Nothing whatsoever is legally promised to investors. The whole stock market is built on a hope and a prayer, and on relative valuations to bonds that can disappear like vapor the moment a company misses an earnings estimate. To me bond investing is far more rational. You know exactly what you're legally promised via covenants before you invest. You just have to analyze the balance sheet and think about where interest rates are heading. That's it.
Stocks by contrast are mysterious. "Mysterious" could be a euphemism for much more malevolent terms to describe how the market functions. How did the issuers of Facebook come up with a $75 maximum offering price when the par value is nil? I imagine they got together and plugged in various models and projections and price-per-click calculations to speculate that it should top off at $75. Is that what it was worth then? Is this what the stock market is worth in total today? Anyone who says they have a definitive answer is lying.

It sounds simple to buy during a bear market, but the facts are that people buy during the bull market, and will sell during and after a decline. I heard that a guy by the name of Robert Prechter has an amazing history, so he says, of predicting the stock market collapses.

A June 2015 profile of Robert Prechter, the world’s foremost proponent of Elliott Wave technical analysis, turned out to be the most popular investing story on MarketWatch for the week in which it was published.
One of the reasons is that, at the time, Prechter said the bull market in U.S. stocks was in a “precarious position” as a “mania” gripped investors, who pushed stocks to sky-high levels of overvaluation. The market has only risen since then, and it even got a bump from the November 2016 election of businessman Donald Trump as president.

The Depression is just around the corner

Prechter has the distinction of being bearish since late 1987. His fame came from some prescient bullish calls in the mid 80s. Since then he has been among the most vociferous bears on the planet.
True story and I am NOT referencing Prechter here. I once spoke at a seminar. One of the other speakers was a well known perennial bear. He told me in private that he actually was never as bearish as his public persona just that doom and gloom sold more subscriptions.

Not at all --- sorry, yes, 70, ~25% of total retirement (if you leave out SS as bond equivalent). Actually some of that is cash, so a little less than a quarter.

Apparently Barron's (the source of the scorecard table) is offering its article free, via google:
https://www.google.com/search?q=Barrons+rating+robo+advisors&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8
The article with the table is "Rating the Robo Advisors" (first non-ad link in search).
There's a companion piece as well: Which Robo is Best for Your Portfolio?
Unfortunately the table (with only 1 year and YTD data) is undated, so we don't know what timeframes the data represent. The Barron's article does cite the ultimate source of the data - Backend Benchmarking. You can get the full report there for free, but you have to register (I haven't done this, at least yet):
https://theroboreport.com/
There's an informative graphic in the Barron's article that shows the asset allocations of three of the test portfolios (Vanguard, Betterment, and Schwab). That image seems not to be firewalled:
http://si.wsj.net/public/resources/images/ON-CF390_Cov3Po_16U_20170728221049.jpg
The companion piece points out that there's more to deciding among systems than raw performance. It notes, for example, that Schwab is achieving its performance by relying on EM bonds ("not exactly a risk-free strategy"). More generally, it observes a "general bias toward value investing and a significant exposure to international markets."
Finally, from the table I see that TradeKing was acquired by Ally. I missed that completely when it happened last year:
https://media.ally.com/2016-04-05-Ally-Financial-Announces-Acquisition-of-TradeKing-Group

FYI: Growth investing has been great for American shareholders over the past three years.
While the best-performing U.S. equity mutual funds between 2014 and 2017 fall into several different market capitalization categories, almost all of them are tilted towards or were designed to capture growth stocks.
The S&P 500 returned about 10 percent annually over the past three years, posting a year-to-date total return of 11.67 percent. All of the funds on our list beat that benchmark.
According to Morningstar data, these mutual funds had the best three-year performance as of Monday were:
Regards,
Ted
http://www.fa-mag.com/news/these-11-mutual-funds-have-had-the-best-3-year-returns-33946.html?print

@Tony No doubt about it Tony, at some point the bull market will end. From today's Josh Brown article, that I will link later, nobody knows when. However, as indicated by the linked chart Blue line below – that’s the whole world ex-US breaking out into new ground. What else do you need to see to understand that a global breakout has occurred? It’s happening right before your eyes, month after month. Even Tyler sees it: “The MSCI World index had its 8th monthly rise in a row, its best run since 2003 and the fourth-longest monthly winning run on record”
Regards,
Ted
MSCI World Index & S&P 500 Chart:
http://ep60qmdjq8-flywheel.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/acwi.png

As a side note, the various classes are also affected:
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/354046/000035404617000011/agbl_sup.htm

Various Fidelity funds have been closed from time to time. I don't have a good way to find them, but if you've got a guess, you can go to the "Composition" tab on Fidelity's web site and look near the bottom of the page for "Historical Fund Information".
For example, Low Priced (FLPSX) has been closed five times:
3/6/92 - 5/29/92
2/9/93 - 9/19/93
4/3/98 - 3/16/99
5/18/02 - 11/18/02
12/31/03 - 12/15/08
Obviously the last one was the most significant, and it took the great recession to get Fidelity to reopen it.
I also recall New Millennium (FMILX) closing. Fidelity confirms: closed 5/15/96 - 5/1/07

Open 24 years with less than 500 million AUM and mediocre performance. Maybe Fidelity is getting ready to merge this fund into another global or international fund.