it wasn't... bond funds accrue daily dividends in their NAV, not like stock funds. the decline you saw was a market decline - movements in spreads -- see my previous explanation.

Update for PIMIX / PONDX
---PIMIX, dividend of 0.05550 per share, declared on 09/30/2014
---PONDX, dividend of 0.05266 per share, declared on 9/30/2014

Yeah, but what is the ex-dividend date?
When was the NAV lowered as a result of the income coming out of the fund?
"Declared"?
Typically there is a Date of Record, An Ex-Dividend Date/Re-investment date, and a Payable Date.

Update for PIMIX / PONDX
---PIMIX, dividend of 0.05550 per share, declared on 09/30/2014
---PONDX, dividend of 0.05266 per share, declared on 9/30/2014

Yeah, but what is the ex-dividend date?
When was the NAV lowered as a result of the income coming out of the fund?
"Declared"?
Typically there is a Date of Record, An Ex-Dividend Date/Re-investment date, and a Payable Date.

I use DFA for a 529 account, but mainly managed MF's for other accounts.

Absolutely agree.
Again, think only way out of current malaise is 3Q earnings.
Here's look back at SPY and AGG.
SPY not as poor as Russell, still, below 10 day and headed below 50 day moving averages. But, still up more than 8% YTD.

More recently, AGG trending in right direction. But honestly neither index is offerring much comfort these days. Comfort...what's that?!

Update for PIMIX / PONDX
---PIMIX, dividend of 0.05550 per share, declared on 09/30/2014
---PONDX, dividend of 0.05266 per share, declared on 9/30/2014

FYI: (Click On Artitle Title At Top Of Google Search)
Pacific Investment Management Co.'s strategy won't substantially change under new Chief .
Regards,
Ted
https://www.google.com/search?newwindow=1&site=&source=hp&q=new+pimco+captian's+qsj&oq=new+pimco+captian's+qsj&gs_l=hp.3...1097.10610.0.11071.23.21.0.2.2.0.92.1402.21.21.0....0...1c.1.54.hp..7.16.981.WFF60k4ca2Y

My point exactly. The portfolio composition of DSL and DBL are very different even though the stated fund objectives are very similar and they are run by the same manager. What gives? At least for PDI and PCI, the differences in portfolio strategy can be explained by the differences in the management teams for the two funds.
As an aside, one sees a much lower discount for DBL vs DSL. Could be explained by the fact that Gundlach's expertise is greater in the mortgage bond space.
I am long DSL. Better price and NAV performance than DBL and greater discount to NAV. The nagging question is how much of that outperformance is due to greater risk (vs. DBL).

you are histerical, Ted.
DBL: 99% MBS and agency CMO, i.e. it's a mortgage fund
DSL: 17% MBS and agency CMO; 5% CMBS; 46% corporate non-US (including EMD); 16% corporate US, i.e. it's a diversified fixed income vehicle.

you are histerical, Ted.
DBL: 99% MBS and agency CMO, i.e. it's a mortgage fund
DSL: 17% MBS and agency CMO; 5% CMBS; 46% corporate non-US (including EMD); 16% corporate US, i.e. it's a diversified fixed income vehicle.

@BWG: Difference in the two funds:
Cash Position:
DSl: Less Than 1%
DBL: 20% (18% long-2% short)
Number of Bonds;
DSL 90%
DBL 99%
Regards,
Ted

BG might do well starting with a low-AUM unconstrained fund, if the BOND-PTTRX history is any guide. Using essentially the same general strategy, BOND whipped PTTRX handily since inception in 2012: +15.5% vs. + 8.4% cumulative, per M* chart function, and although the two converged somewhat after the first year or so, BOND is still winning, YTD at 4.5% vs. 3.4%.

Harbor Fund, like American Beacon, to a certain extent Vanguard, and other fund families, legally manages their funds but subcontracts out the day to day management to other management companies, not specific managers.
From the prospectus:

The Adviser has engaged the services of several subadvisers (each, a “Subadviser”) to assist with the portfolio management of the Funds ... Each Subadviser is responsible to provide the Fund with advice concerning the investment management of the Fund’s portfolio, which advice shall be consistent with the investment objectives and policies of the Fund. The Subadviser determines what securities shall be purchased, sold or held for the Fund and what portion of the Fund’s assets are held uninvested. ...
Harbor Commodity Real Return Strategy Fund, Harbor Unconstrained Bond Fund, Harbor Bond Fund and Harbor Real Return Fund. The Funds are subadvised by Pacific Investment Management Company LLC (“PIMCO”).

Not by Gross (or Worah for the Commodity fund).
Here's the subadvisory contract between Harbor and PIMCO for the Unconstrained Bond Fund; the manager's name (Gross) appears nowhere in the contract.
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/793769/000119312513336741/d583237dex99d40.htm
So if Harbor wants Gross to continue, it seems it would have to negotiate a new subadvisory contract with Janus, which would likely need fund shareholder approval. BTW, Gross owns no shares of the Harbor funds he managed.

FYI: It's college-rankings season again, and it's not just about which colleges are the most selective (Stanford); produce the most billionaires (University of Pennsylvania) or have the highest-ranked football team (Alabama). More interesting for investors is the annual investment returns announced recently by the top university endowments. Taking a shorter-term view suggests that perhaps investing as these universities do might be a bad idea. The longer-term view, however, says something very different.
Last week, Harvard announced its endowment rose 15.4% in the fiscal year ending June. That trailed rival Yale and Stanford's 20.2% and 17% returns, respectively. Each of these endowments trailed the S&P 500's return of 24.6% over the same period by a substantial margin
Regards,
Ted
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/why-you-should-invest-like-harvard-2014-09-30/print

rjb112, not sure now where I saw the 65% rank. I must have been confused. Looking now I see PTTRX ranked 40% in it's category under 5 year returns. Still mediocre but not horrible.
p.s. why is the 'Rank in Category' data missing in your print?

Good question MikeM. Have no idea. I noticed that before I posted it, and even looked at it using both Internet Explorer and Chrome as different browsers, thinking it could have been a browser issue. Still wasn't there with either one. But just now it IS there! I notice on Morningstar that at times, category rank numbers are "missing", then at a later time will be present. Here's what it shows now, 3 pm EST:

lol

rjb112, not sure now where I saw the 65% rank. I must have been confused. Looking now I see PTTRX ranked 40% in it's category under 5 year returns. Still mediocre but not horrible.
p.s. why is the 'Rank in Category' data missing in your print?

Fun with numbers. Mean is not the same as median, so it is possible for a fund to have above mean performance while still ranking below the category median. For example, if a category has five funds with performance figures of 10%, 10%, 10%, 9%, 1%, the category average performance is 8%. The 9% fund is below the median (50th percentile) in raking, but above category average in performance.
To find the category rankings, look at M*'s summary (quote) page, not the performance page.
Bond fund performances tend to cluster, so a small difference in expenses can make a large difference in rankings. In particular, different share classes can have vastly different rankings. PTRRX (as of 9/29/14) is ranked at the 65th percentile for five year performance, as MikeM wrote. PTTCX is even worse, at 78th percentile. Even the retail no load class, PTTDX barely breaks into the top half, at 49th percentile. PTTRX, the institutional class, does better, at 40th percentile, still lackluster.

I not only disagree with this Josh Brown, some of what he is saying is total BS. Take a look at the chart of PTTRX right after Gross made the call. There is a marked difference away from the aggregate bond index, but following that a marked difference toward the index. What about all the correct calls Gross made for so many years?
Everyone is an "expert". They know the "one thing" that caused Gross' downfall. Assets went down from 290B to 220B, right? WTF made assets go up to 290B in first place? Gross had nothing to do with it?
Let's be honest here. Gross may not have been Puss N Boots, but no one had any trouble with him as long as PTTRX assets, if not its performance were in an upward trajectory. I would hardly call Gross an underdog, but I'm starting to think he was not the only "problem" at PIMCO. They can't say "we were already contributing to the investment decisions" AND then also blame Gross completely for his "bad call" on treasuries. This is the same as capitalizing profits and socializing losses. Not to mention, all individual investors are idiots for chasing performance, but when institutions do it after Gross's "bad call", there is no focus on it.
I'm sticking with Robert Arnott for PAUDX in the IRA. I've already reduced my PTTRX stake to 50% of what it was in the 401k. I'm putting my PGMDX stake in IRA on notice. El Erian didn't do diddly here because he was allegedly cleaning up Gross' s*** that he was tired of doing, instead of cleaning his own. Now that I learn Mihir Worah is a nuclear physicist, it might be prudent to look for manager with PhD in finance. Not to say I have anything against physicists, but I typically don't hire them to manage my money.

Hi @Mona
You're probably correct about distribution; although nothing posted at Fido or Pimco.
There was a 0.0555 on August 29.....is that what you saw somewhere?
Thanks.
Catch

What am I missing? Why are people so enamored with Gross opening a new fund? Isn't this the same guy who has guided the PIMCO Total Return fund to mediocrity with some pretty bad calls in the last 5 years? Per M*, 65% of all intermediate-bond funds have outperformed his flagship fund.

I'm not seeing that 65% of all intermediate bond funds have outperformed his flagship fund. Looks to me like Gross outperformed his category nicely, in all time periods longer than one year. Am I reading this incorrectly?

Wraps finally off Eaton Vance’s active ETF innovation
ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/c9e5c0e8-1c95-11e4-98d8-00144feabdc0.html#axzz3EklAhz3P

That Financial Times site is a bear when it comes to access. Wasn't able to read that article

This is the top holding of Pimco Income fund, at 8.24%:
Irs Aud 4.000 03/15/13-10y Cme. Don't know what that is.
And they have more than 7.5% of the below, which I suspect may have gone down today?
Nota Do Tesouro Nacional
What is that? Some National Treasury note, is that from Portugal? Would help to explain why the fund may have dropped today.
I don't suspect any trick plays that you allude to.
PTTRX looks like it is a more plain vanilla, safer bond fund. Just guessing. Look at the top holding, at almost 19.5%
NYSE/Liffe 10 Year US Treasury Note Future Sept14
Longer term bonds did well today. The market was spooked by Hong Kong. The longer the Treasury bond, the better it did....flight to safety. Junk bonds did not do well.
I think global bonds did not do well....flight to Treasuries.