EM debt's had a good run, and the yields and spread don't really inspire a lot of optimism for the near future. I'd be at least a little cautious jumping in with new $ right now.
Just fyi, those who own PIMIX/PONDX already have ~ 15% in EM, overweighted in Latin America.
When I've had $ in pure EM vehicles, it's been in DLENX and/or PCY. PDIIX at Pimco is more diversified, but usually has a decent slug of EM in among global and high-yield FI; its benchmarks are US$-hedged.
One other caution it's probably worth being aware of: it's pretty typical for pure EM debt funds to be overweight oil and gas, which in the EM world are typically referred to as "quasi-sovereign" because many are national corporations. If you don't want a lot of commodity/cyclical exposure, I'd take a good look at holdings.

@willmatt72 We don't know your desire for inclusion of EM bonds in your portfolio and apparently Ted knows about your current holdings........I do not.
Not unlike other investment areas, EM bonds have their days in the SUN and days in the SHADE, eh?
Relative to the below charting link, which is total returns, therefore includes reinvestment in a given fund of all distributions for the time period.
The OMG with a frown side: If one purchased any of these funds in Jan., 2014 and checked the return through, Jan., 2015 would = a frown of flat return. The same frown with a Jan., 2015 through Jan., 2016 holding period.
The OMG with a yipee side: A purchase in Jan., 2016 or Nov., 2016 through June 13, 2017. Although the November election would have given pause to those who had purchased in Jan., 2016.
The below chart is referenced to some of the mentioned funds in this thread: PREMX , FNMIX , GSDIX , DLENX with a time frame of Janury, 2014 through June 13, 2017.
http://stockcharts.com/freecharts/perf.php?FNMIX,PREMX,GSDIX,DLENX&n=863&O=011000
For those who use some technical views, the current 14 day RSI (relative strength index) is at 70 for all funds, EXCEPT DLENX , which is at 87. Any reading above 70 is considered moving into or at an "over or fully priced" area. NOTE: an above 70 indicator can persist for any given term, dependent upon the nature of the investment sector.
We held FNMIX for about a 2 year period, 2010-2012. We're fully invested in other sectors, and would not have EM bonds on our purchase list at this time. I recall that FNMIX was down only 18% during the market melt period for the 2008 year. But, that was then; and is history, relative to what would happen today.
Back to work I must be.....
Catch

Hi @JohnN,
I most always enjoy reading Dr. Madell's newsletter. I find it interesting if one were to add the stock, bond and cash allocations for all three portfolios and then average them; they average at cash 20%, bonds 30% and stocks 50%. This is pretty much Old_Skeet's baseline allocation. And, by doing this one can see just how much each model is adjusted from the average of the three.
I also like his move to increase the foreign stock weighting in Europe with the addition of a new fund (VEURX) while eliminating a small cap fund (DISVX).
I wonder what others might find of value or their take away from reading the newsletter?
Thanks again for posting the newsletter. Indeed, I find his writting expressing his thinking of value.
Old_Skeet

Permit me just an initial reaction, without really looking further. DoubleLine has been around only since, when? ... 2009? They already have a fair-to-middling EM Bond fund, run by Luz Padilla. (DLENX, 5 years +5.09%, 39th percentile.) Compare PREMX +6.01/12th percentile. FNMIX +6.3 and 7th percentile. I think a short-term EM bond fund is not a thing that would interest me. In DLENX, you already have 108% turnover. PREMX = 60%. FNMIX =82%. And with a low-duration EM bond fund (DELNX), what ARE you investing in, then, when the "standard" DoubleLine EM bond fund already carries 108% turnover. How long is anything being held in DELNX? A week? Morningstar shows 60% turnover, but this is within a professed short-duration universe. So, my reaction is negative just based on common sense. Others will surely disagree. ... Yes, PRSNX is NOT a purely dedicated EM bond fund. Latest numbers at Morningstar show 41.64% of holdings are USA. The rest is REALLY spread-out, starting with Serbia, and ending with Japan, among the top 10 countries. India, Mexico, Malaysia and Brazil are surely EM, besides Serbia.
EM bonds are especially appealing with higher-grade domestic stuff just not paying much. PRSNX pays me only about .03 cents/month, but it's something of a counterweight to my all-in bet with PREMX. They're not designed to be quite the same thing, so they don't DO quite the same thing. ... Compare the disgustingly low rates of return on Savings Bonds. I looked at Canada sav. bonds, too. It's pathetic. Canada now offers TAX-FREE savings accounts. The returns are less than 1%. So a global or foreign or EM bond fund makes sense. Otherwise, you're treading water. No way to invest... Just don't go whole-hog. By the way, David Snowball featured PRSNX as a "Morningstar orphan" recently:
http://www.mutualfundobserver.com/2017/02/t-rowe-price-global-multi-sector-bond-prsnx/

From the Reuters article cited in the column:
"FINRA responded with a letter on June 15 of last year saying that it closely oversees firms 'to determine whether they present a heightened risk to investors.'”
Oh we're not a regulator enforcer, we're a regulation monitor. Those 48 brokerage firms? There's a problem.

Not so fast. While it could be a one time "blip" in 2015, that the US life expectancy for men and women did in fact decline for the first time. If it holds up and the decline continues, the probable reasons are...
. obesity epidemic
. opioid epidemic
. economic decline of the middle class, especially since 2008
. suicide
. increases in Alzheimer's disease, respiratory disease, kidney disease and diabetes. Some of which may be attributed to the obesity epidemic.
Did you know that obesity with respect to women in the US, has shot up over 40%? And in case you think I'm "fat shaming", I too am struggling with my BMI now over 25. Of course, losing an inch and half in height over the last twenty years, doesn't help the number. (Taking calcium supplement with vitamin D3.)
Anyway, I was only grasping at a financial laugh. Enjoy your RMD!
Life expectancy in the US declines in 2015
Obesity rate for women

Could not agree more. I am biased but I can't think of anything more important than being thin as we get older. Excess weight causes a host of problems too numerous to detail here. And by being thin I also mean no pot belly. I have read that regardless of weight, a pot belly can be a real killer.
Edit. As pertains to the topic of RMD my biggest financial mistake was no Roth. My annual living expenses increases some 60% this year because of the taxes on my RMD.

60 is the new 40
70 is the new 50
80 is the new dead

Thanks Ted,
Here a few more options:
7-ways-to-reduce-your-required-minimum-distributions-in-retirement

Hi slick!
Congrats on your portfolio. I saw your post on what you had at M.L. and moved to Fidelity. You had some good stuff there!!
I have said in the last 2 weeks all my holdings are at 52-week highs, but I did not check their benchmarks.....silly me. Why not? I don't know. Anyway, I say that to say this: enjoy the ride! Why? Because it's beautiful. It's what you work for, so.....enjoy! The next longneck is for you.
God bless
the Pudd
p.s. Duke's upset that I don't include him. He's happy for you, too. He says, "Woof!"

I assume some​ MFO posters are old enough to remember this cover of Time Magazine:

When did we stop admiring real heroes and start admiring guys like Paul Singer who "doesn't give a ______ what you think?"

FYI: Paul Singer Doesn't give a ______what you think !
Regards,
Ted
http://www.institutionalinvestor.com/article/3723650/asset-management-hedge-funds-and-alternatives/the-last-hedge-fund-pit-bull.html#.WTwxbdy1uZM

That just about covers the waterfront. Wife's 403b is in an Index-Vanguard small-cap fund, VSCIX. My other two small-cap funds have done better. Go figure, eh?
5 years:
MSCFX 16.99
PRDSX 16.38
VSCIX 15.00
But I suppose that VSCIX got there with lots less volatility?
MSCFX holds 52 positions.
PRDSX = 299 (Quant fund.)
VSCIX =1,432

@Paul ! Paul ! Wake up and smell the coffee, I post this article yesterday.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.mutualfundobserver.com/discuss/discussion/33509/paul-katzeff-a-focus-on-these-leading-stocks-is-helping-this-mfs-mutual-fund-outperform-the-market#latest

FYI: The largest exchange-traded products tracking the United Kingdom’s equity market and currency all fell on Friday, in the wake of an election that analysts deemed the “worst possible outcome” for the country as it prepares to negotiate how it will leave the European Union.
The iShares MSCI United Kingdom ETF EWU, -0.85% fell 1% in its biggest one-day decline since December. While the fund remains up more than 11% thus far this year, it is trading at an one-month low. Volume on the fund, in the first hour of trading, was roughly a third of its 30-day average.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/etfs-for-uk-stocks-pound-tumble-after-worst-possible-election-outcome-2017-06-09/print
M* Snapshot EWU:
http://www.morningstar.com/etfs/ARCX/EWU/quote.html

Very generously...OT, and only because we don't have BS category on MFO.
People do not live their investment lives over 100 years.
People also don't notice "pain" unless portfolio goes down 20% because they are "told" not to.
Then people start wondering - deers caught in headlights - while their 20% loss turns into 50% loss. Then they sell. And of course, not a single "expert" at that point will stick his neck out and say "don't sell". THEN, after the market returns back to the point where the correction started we get "investors are so stupid".
First, investors need to define their own "success". Don't let someone do it for you.
Second, a "successful" investor is one that does not lose money, as in permanent loss of capital.
All 20 year olds can read this post or they can read the other. Just remember, you do what YOU think is right, else either I or some expert is going to laugh at you in 30 years either way. And I hope one does not need a "Buddha" to explain this.

@PRESSmUP, @catch22, @JoeD, and everyone else.
275LB_NY_MCPO has now been banned. I apologize for his harassment. We attempted to place his account under moderation, which prevented him from posting on a discussion without approval. Apparently, he took that as an opportunity to be individually harassing. I'm sorry that I didn't catch it sooner.
Best,
Chip

I want to buy a fund only available to existing shareholders but If I own the fund in one of the accounts, doesn't that apply to
all the accounts or just the account that hold the fund?

This is good news if their recalibration works, and I'll stand corrected during the next correction if it is. However, there is a hole in the narrative. During the 2000-2002 bear market, Oberweis Small Cap Opportunities (OBSOX) dramatically underperformed its small-cap growth peers and the Russell 2000. It did so also in 2008. Why wasn't the process corrected before during the last dramatic 2000-02 underperformance? Admittedly, Oberweis Micro OBMCX did better during the 2000-2002 period, but so did all micro-caps and it actually lagged significantly a micro-index fund --Bridgeway's BRSIX. In some respects, Oberweis reminds me of Bridgeway. Historically, the funds have done well in bull markets and poorly in bears. They seem to be slightly leveraged--not literally but from a beta perspective--amplifying their upside and down by more aggressive bets in sectors like technology. Now the style re-calibration--at both shops actually post 2008--may have changed that, but it seems the nature of the beast somewhat with small-cap growth funds that they amplify risks. From a purely sector perspective recent years have been particularly good for the tech sector and Oberweis tends to focus on those kinds of names. When the sector turns, the performance may not be so good.
Regarding tax efficiency, one secret many investors don't realize is that when a fund has a small asset base that is growing rapidly it is inherently tax efficient. If you have $50 million of capital gains it is far more dramatic in a $100 million fund than a $1 billion fund. New money dilutes the tax impact of all those gains even in a high turnover fund. When money flows in the other direction--out of the fund--the opposite can be the case.

@LewisBraham... luckily I didn't own the fund then but using 2008 as the basis of your comment misses how they dealt with those losses. As Dr. Snowball reported in his 2013 review of the fund, "Indeed, OBIOX in 2013 isn’t even the OBIOX of 2009. During the 2007-09 market trauma, OBIOX suffered a 69.7% drop, well worse than their peers’ 57.7% decline. The manager was deeply dissatisfied with that performance and took concrete steps to strengthen his risk management disciplines. OBIOX is a distinctive fund and seems to have grown stronger."
That's not to suggest it can't still perform poorly but if you look at the upside and downside capture ratios over the last 3 and 5 years, they've done pretty well. To your point, the last 12 months haven't been great, but if you can deal with the volatility then the results over time have rewarded you with good risk adjusted returns.
One of the things that amazes me is the tax efficiency. It's a very high turnover fund, higher than I prefer by a lot, and M*'s tax cost ratio is very low. I haven't figured out exactly how they manage that based on the available information and I don't always trust M*'s numbers to tell me what I think they're telling me, but in absolute terms it's an impressive ratio that seems inconsistent with their turnover.