Another lens is to look at them as far as credit and rate sensitivity go (and what you think might happen to those categories of reward:risk over your holding period). They're pretty different on those metrics.
OSTIX is almost entirely credit sensitive; It's basically a low duration high yield fund, with not a lot of surprises -- a good play on high yield, usually slightly on the junkier side.
PONDX plays on both sides of the street, and the Ivascyn crew has been really adept, especially lately, figuring out how to do that successfully. And they do it with a yield that's plenty generous for the risks.
PTIAX is mildly rate sensitive overall, and the only one of the three that, given its current and historical construction, would be a reliable, if partial, offset to an equity downturn. The credit risk is entirely in non-agency mortgages, mostly legacy mortgages as I understand. The barbell pairing of munis and non-agency mortgages has been a pretty decent balance for reward: risk; a mild equity hedge with a yield over 5% is unique as far as I'm aware.
All said & done, just IMHO, looking at a 2y horizon, I'd go 50-50 PONDX-PTIAX.
P.S. What Catch said about Pimco's use of tools most other bond managers don't use (e.g., swaps, options) ... I think that's a reason to be somewhat less concerned than you might normally be about AUM.

@Carefree
The below total return graphic is a busy chart with the funds you noted, but may help provide a perspective. I started the reference at about Halloween, 2007; as this was the beginning of the end of the high point for many equity sectors before the market melt of 2008. I also included VTI (a blended cap U.S. equity etf). I will also note that the growth and value side of U.S. equity has seen rotations in the past few years. Being that growth is hot one year and then it has been value's turn. I place these rotations into the big money moving around to discover overbought and oversold indicators to obtain maximum profits, regardless of other criteria, except technical indicators.
http://stockcharts.com/freecharts/perf.php?PARWX,FOCPX,NASDX,FBGRX,MSEQX,VTI&n=2424&O=011000
This graphic for the same funds is for the past 2 years:
http://stockcharts.com/freecharts/perf.php?PARWX,FOCPX,NASDX,FBGRX,MSEQX,VTI&n=505&O=011000
Regards,
Catch

Hi @expatsp
Well, they are different bond types, eh?
I recall that OSTIX evolved away from a more common multi-sector bond fund into a high yield bond fund about 3 or 4 years ago. The most current report indicates 67% high yield corporate and about 22% cash or equivalents.
PONDX , since its inception was more targeted towards mortgage related holdings, but continues to evolve into areas found more desirable by management. This fund continues to use the "magic sauce" of whatever derivative tools deemed appropriate to hedge their bets. I'm personally comfortable with the apparent skills of management, at this time.
I'm not familiar with PTIAX and its past holdings or history, but find current reported majority holdings to be mortgage related, as well as taxable and non-taxable muni bonds.
http://stockcharts.com/freecharts/perf.php?PONDX,OSTIX,PTIAX&n=1708&O=011000
A 3 year view of the above 3 funds:

http://stockcharts.com/freecharts/perf.php?PONDX,OSTIX,PTIAX&n=755&O=011000
High yield compare: OSTIX and ARTFX
http://stockcharts.com/freecharts/perf.php?OSTIX,ARTFX&n=816&O=011000
If I stepped into this bond world of these 3 choices without prior knowledge, I would have to rely, in part; to the above graphic of total returns for the time period.
My money would go to PONDX .
'Course, one could also do an even split among the three.
My 2 cents worth.....
Regards,
Catch

Still leading the pack +9% ytd, while sitting on 15% cash. That's some kinda neat trick! PRWCX.

There's no magic number, but if there were it would be 4 passive and 5 active ;)

ETFs.... I hold none. I'd just as soon invest in a single stock. And I own just one: PNM. It was bought via dollar-cost-averaging, starting in Sept. of 2015. I've taken a bit of a hiatus just since April or May of this year. The stock continues to do very well, for such a stodgy, traditionally conservative sector: regulated electric utilities. Its affiliate, TNMP, just floated a big buncha bonds, too. I dunno if I should be too happy about that. The stock continues to make me happy, surprising to the up-side, plowing through technical "resistance."

Article looks like a terrific waste of words. That's because is no "right" answer. Over the past 20 years, 5 just like PRWCX would have suited me just fine. Whereas only 1 like HSGFX would have sickened me. If you can foresee the future, than stick with the one that you know will appreciate the most over time-frame you're looking at. Most of us can't see the future. It's likely some of our holdings will do well and others lag. Nature of the beast.
I try to employ GWB's quotable "strategery" in assembling various funds. :) At more than about 15, my mind starts to go blank and the various elements begin to lose meaning. Also, above that number individual holdings cease to have a serious impact on performance. So I'm comfortable with around 15 - plus maybe a couple cash-like holdings. To each his own.
One thing to think about - if you tend to trade often, having a good GNMA (or Blue Chip or EM) fund at a couple different houses may help keep you from running afoul of one or the other's frequent trading regs.

Hi Guys,
According to the millionaire teacher, Andrew Hallam, the proper number for a diversified portfolio is a mere 3.
His simplistic 3 includes all low cost index funds: a US equity index position, an international index product, and a short term bond index holding. These are consistent with Hallam's 9 rules for wealth. Here is a summary of those 9 rules that I lifted from one of his book reviewer's assessment:
Hallam’s 9 Rules of Wealth
Rule 1 is to spend like you want to grow rich, which means cultivating frugality whether buying homes, cars or daily items.
Rule 2 is to take advantage of compound interest by starting investing as early in life as possible — but only after high-interest debt is eliminated. (I agree!)
Rule 3 recaps the negative impact of high fees and thus the case for indexing: “Small percentages pack big punches.” Here he takes a skeptical view of the motivations of the financial services industry generally.
Rule 4 is to “Conquer the enemy in the mirror.” It looks at the problems of stock-picking and market timing, fear, greed and other emotions that can sabotage investing.
Rule 5 is to build a “responsible portfolio” that includes both stocks and bonds. Here Hallam introduces what he terms the Couch Potato Portfolio.
Rule 6 looks at indexing in the U.S, Canada, Australia and Singapore.
Rule 7 is entitled “Peek inside a pilferer’s playbook.” It looks at common sales practices of financial advisors and brokers. He starts by suggesting that those planning to own their own indexed account at a discount brokerage may want to find a fee-only adviser who can set it up for you.
Rule 8 is “Avoid Seduction,” and looks at the various distractions that some term “financial pornography” — investment newsletters and magazines, junk bonds, gold and hedge funds, which Hallam describes as “the rich stealing from the rich.”
Rule 9 is for those who love to pick their own stocks if “they can’t help themselves.” Hallam’s solution is to stay 90% indexed but to allocate 10% to individual stocks if you find it enjoyable.
He wisely allows a 10% deviation from his most efficient portfolio to allow for individual flexibility and initiative. We are not robots. I wish you all good luck, successful investing, and a long prosperous life for you and your family.
Best Regards

@MikeM, banks don't write them, 40y rates are higher, and my current 3.75% 30y rate is really low regardless.

Hi Guys,
Note the huge differences in estimated percentage saving requirements from even the experts quoted in the Forbes reference that Davidrmoran provided. Those estimates reflect the uncertainties embedded in any and all such projections. Making any projection is extremely hazardous duty.
That's precisely why Monte Carlo codes are so useful. Thousands and thousands of individual scenarios can be quickly examined for any number of alternate assumptions. Since these assumptions are somewhat arbitrary, no definitive answer is ever really possible. What is generated is a feeling for the retirement survival sensitivity to the various postulates. Some will greatly impact survival rates; others will only weakly influence outcomes. That's good to know.
A flexible Monte Carlo code allows a user to explore uncertainties easily and quickly. The Monte Carlo code that I referenced earlier offers much flexibility with its numerous input options in terms of drawdown schedules and potential income returns based on a portfolio's asset allocations. All these are easily changed.
No simple rule of thumb reliably exists for drawdowns. The problem has far too many variables and return uncertainties that are timeframe and user specific.
I again encourage those interested in exploring retirement withdrawal rates and survival odds to consider using a Monte Carlo tool. You'll know much more after that experience.
In my case, I decided that a 95 % portfolio survival probability would be acceptable for a slightly conservative returns likelihood based on historical market records. I achieved my target goal after a few simulation what-ifs. Further Monte Carlo simulations provided me even more comfort when I discovered that rather modest reductions in my drawdowns after two negative return years would greatly improve my portfolio survival odds. It's always good to be flexible.
Best Wishes

"we started at 25, and have obviously benefited from perhaps the greatest bull market we will see in our lifetimes."
Might well be. It's already the second longest (in case you measure greatness by age), and as of March is closing in on the second highest gain. Likely even greater in real terms since we've had low inflation for many years (though I haven't computed real gains).
Graphic: Post WWII bull markets, duration and gain
http://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/7HDT2/2/
You'll find other sources that state the bull markets ran longer (see graphic below), but they tend to ignore "minor" intervening blips like the 19.90% S&P 500 drop from July to October 1990, or the Aug 1956 to Nov 1957 22% drop.

Using Monte Carlo, at least the tools that you've been referred to, would seem to ignore this not insignificant fact that we're in nearly uncharted territory. In addition to disregarding the run up in equities, they would also seem to discount the the 35 year bull market in bonds. A multi-decade bond run is not a singular event, but unique when one considers how fast/far bond prices have risen, or alternatively how much rates have fallen:
The tools don't address your question because they don't seem to allow for the setting of preconditions; verily they are built on the premise that performance in one time period is independent of what came before.
Even if they did incorporate preconditions, there doesn't seem to be sufficient historical data to provide meaningful input for current conditions. The preceding eight years have been part of the same bull market. That's only happened twice before: 1998 when the 1990-2000 bull also hit the eight year mark, and 1999 when it hit its 9th birthday.
Monte Carlo tools strike me as better suited to playing with hypothetical long range outcomes than ascertaining real world (context sensitive) possibilities.
As to the question at hand, your guess is as good as mine. If you're looking long term, the rule of thumb is that there's no better time than now to invest, though in bonds I'd be more conservative. Best case for principal protection is that rates don't rise (currently 2.16% 10 year), and the risk isn't worth the 80 basis points over cash. Worst case, rates rise and you lose principal.
Personally, I've never been fond of real estate as an investment. Historic returns have been lower than for US equities, though real estate could help meet your objective of diversification.

12-24x salary, depending, and this after factoring in SS or equivalent.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/andrewbiggs/2016/07/21/how-much-retirement/#7500aa4a4d28
I am a big believer in cheap debt in retirement, but that is a minority take to many, and in any case we have been over this umpteen times. It's chiefly a sleep-at-night variable. If I at 70 could refi again at low rate for 40y, I would.

FYI: Yesterday, Precidian ETFs Trustsubmitted a filing to the Securities & Exchange Commission, unveiling plans to roll out 19 currency-hedged, single-stock funds.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.barrons.com/articles/do-you-want-a-currency-hedged-fund-just-holding-bud-1497547268

Curious if others, who are in the accumulation stage, would share their savings strategy. My wife and I are both 30 and we contribute 15% of pretax income to our work 401k's--we started at 25, and have obviously benefited from perhaps the greatest bull market we will see in our lifetimes. We could probably kick it up a little more, but going higher than that feels like putting your eggs in one basket. I'd rather take any excess and build up a bigger cash cushion so that we can pay off our mortgage faster and look into buying rental properties down the road.

@PRESSmUP:How many of each, one two or maybe three ?
Regards,
Ted
Emerging-Markets Local-Currency Bond 1.79 10.10 6.05 9.78 -2.73 -0.01
Emerging Markets Bond 0.73 6.80 3.87 9.99 2.77 4.12
Preferred Stock 0.81 6.22 3.69 8.69 5.92 7.59
Long-Term Bond 2.15 5.42 6.18 0.66 5.59 4.93
Long Government 2.50 5.11 7.10 -5.13 5.59 2.17
World Bond 1.31 4.60 3.68 2.77 0.44 1.92
High Yield Bond 0.74 4.32 2.96 11.34 3.21 6.11
Multisector Bond 0.76 3.87 2.71 6.75 2.71 4.39
Corporate Bond 1.00 3.55 3.59 3.69 3.36 4.02
Nontraditional Bond 0.44 2.72 1.61 5.92 1.93 2.78
Intermediate-Term Bond 0.75 2.65 2.81 1.68 2.44 2.55
Bank Loan 0.22 1.73 0.68 6.47 2.74 4.05
Intermediate Government 0.48 1.45 2.13 -0.44 1.58 1.09
Short-Term Bond 0.18 1.22 1.01 1.53 1.15 1.36
Inflation-Protected Bond 0.29 1.19 1.35 1.25 0.49 -0.12
Ultrashort Bond 0.10 0.69 0.39 1.43 0.79 0.89
Short Government 0.10 0.55 0.66 -0.09 0.57 0.39
Municipal Bond Funds
High Yield Muni 1.22 4.85 3.48 0.97 4.86 4.60
Muni California Long 1.39 4.15 3.66 -0.04 4.18 4.07
Muni California Intermediate 1.16 3.72 3.18 -0.10 2.96 2.91
Muni New York Long 1.23 3.68 3.30 0.51 3.75 3.16
Muni National Long 1.21 3.62 3.29 -0.10 3.57 3.33
Muni National Interm 1.06 3.41 3.04 0.26 2.79 2.66
Muni Pennsylvania 1.11 3.36 2.98 0.41 3.48 2.98
Muni New York Intermediate 1.08 3.32 2.97 0.02 2.96 2.61
Muni Massachusetts 1.11 3.19 2.94 -0.04 2.99 2.48
Muni New Jersey 1.17 3.10 2.83 -0.06 3.06 2.68
Muni Minnesota 1.12 3.09 2.99 0.12 2.95 2.72
Muni Ohio 1.06 2.98 2.76 -0.01 2.98 2.63
Muni Single State Interm 0.99 2.87 2.79 -0.07 2.50 2.21
Muni Single State Long 1.03 2.76 2.53 0.12 3.06 2.51
Muni Single State Short 0.53 1.95 1.37 0.27 1.25 1.20
Muni National Short 0.34 1.66 1.10 0.52 0.90 0.97

My reaction was similar, though not as harsh.
This is just a repackaging of Fidelity's managed payout funds, though you can't tell the players without a scorecard. Fidelity's original managed payout funds were designed as "pseudo annuities" that would exhaust their assets on their target dates. In contrast, some other managed payout funds, like VPGDX, are designed to provide a constant income stream indefinitely.
Some of the Fidelity managed payout funds were rebranded and closed, e.g. Fidelity Managed Retirement 2020, FIRVX, was originally Fidelity Income Replacement 2038. I believe the difference in dates is because the former is about the time you turn 70.5 (but I'm not quite sure); the latter the date the fund is exhausted.
Other Fidelity managed payout funds were rebranded as Simplicity RMD funds, e.g. Fidelity Simplicity RMD 2020, FIRWX, Fund was originally Fidelity Income Replacement 2040. These are the "new" funds that are now open.
"They have an optional feature that automatically calculates and distributes an investor's RMD from the account."
Bzzzt. Wong reporting (what else is new?). Here's Fidelity's PR page, saying (like the prospectus) that "The fund's investment objective is intended to support a payment strategy designed to be implemented through a shareholder's voluntary participation in a complementary systematic withdrawal plan" - not a feature of the fund itself. That is, just what BobC described that's available for any other fund.
Though Fidelity offers such services (i.e. RMD calculations and automatic withdrawals), (a) they don't always get the calculations correct, and (b) other IRA custodians may not provide this service at all. Suffice to say, this comes from actual experience (helping a relative).
The lesson: you're the one responsible for RMDs, regardless of the service you expect the custodian to provide. All that these Simplicity RMD funds do is provide glide paths that may or may not suit your RMD needs.

The falling inflation figures out this a.m. are apparently one of the main reasons for the big drop in Treasury yields today. Muni CEFs are catching a bid, multi-sectors not so much.
According to a source quoted by CNBC this morning, the Fed fund futures odds on a third rate hike this year have fallen well below 50-50, into the 30s at press time.

The Fed is expected to raise short term rates and discuss the disposal/unwind of their bond holdings. Well, at least the short terms traders have their viewpoints as expressed in the percentage gains shown below. Tis still early in the day, and I will remain interested in price/yield movement in the coming days and weeks. NOTE: Retail sales have biggest drop in 16 months. The Fed folks have much to consider, eh?
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-economy-idUSKBN1951Q8?il=0
IG bonds just below at 11:30am
LQD +0.83%
IEF +0.82%
EDV +2.19%
A view of sectors, with "bold" being interest rate sensitive or defensive in nature; generally, historically speaking.
Sector Change % down / up
Energy -0.75%
Basic Materials +0.02%
Industrials +0.10%
Cyclical Cons. Goods ... -0.06%
Non-Cyclical Cons. Goods +0.76%
Financials -0.25%
Healthcare +0.32%
Technology +0.22%
Telecommunications Serv +0.17%
Utilities +0.45%
Take care,
Catch