FWIW ... on the T Rowe Price M* Tool, GPGOX looks like this in the Portfolio Manager:
Cash ............. 2.95
US Stk ..........31.85
Non US Stk ...64.81
Other ............ 0.40
TOTAL ....... 100.00
Which agrees with M*'s "mothership" site.

Because of it's relevance to this conversation, I'm taking the liberty of reproducing my comments from the "Many market sectors are struggling a bit" thread, yesterday. If you've already seen it, please disregard the duplication. Thanks.
What's to be bearish about?
• The US is pretty much alone in climbing back... sort of... out of the great recession.
• The EU is heading back down, also in a major fistfight with their main energy supplier, Russia: there will be more collateral damage before that's over.
• South America isn't going anywhere for a while.
• China, Asia: Yes, what about China? Poised to shove their weight around and cause lots of trouble in the South China Sea area. No problem for us though, we'll just "pivot" over that way to keep an eye on those guys. Wait... wait... maybe we'd better stay in Europe and keep an eye on Putin... and what about Iraq/Syria/Iran/Israel (yet again)??? Holy smoke!
• The Mideast. Yes, the bloody never-ending fanatic, murderous Mideast. Well, nothing much new going on there, other than a new bunch of fanatic, bloody, murderous bastards who will do their best to overthrow, mutilate, behead, destroy and otherwise inconvenience all of the existing fanatic, bloody, murderous bastards. Not our problem, right? Oh-oh... wait a minute... that's not going so well either... it looks like we may have to do... something!
Well, at least things are just fine here at home. Fortunately we are completely independent of the rest of the world, so none of that other stuff can cause any problems here. The middle class is recovering nicely, the folks at the bottom are moving smartly right up the ladder, good jobs are plentiful, folks now have a little extra to put away for retirement, education is available at reasonable cost, our infrastructure is rapidly being modernized, and best of all, everyone has new iPhones!!
PARRRTTTTYYYY!!!

Hank said:
Commodities are getting absolutely crushed.As evidenced in today's news blips!
"iron ore prices slide to five-year lows"
http://seekingalpha.com/news/1977095-end-of-the-iron-age-as-iron-ore-prices-slide-to-five-year-lows
Crude closes below $92 on demand woes, energy shares hit
Sep 10 2014, 15:28 ET | By: Carl Surran,
http://seekingalpha.com/news/1976565-crude-closes-below-92-on-demand-woes-energy-shares-hit
OPEC's latest monthly report adds to the bearish outlook for crude oil, as it cuts forecasts for the amount of crude it will need to supply as surging North American shale output reduces reliance on its supplies.
http://seekingalpha.com/news/1976075-opec-sees-slower-demand-for-its-oil-thanks-to-u-s-shale-surge
OPEC reduced forecasts for the amount of crude it will need to supply by the most in at least three years as surging North American shale output reduces reliance on the group’s supplies.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-09-10/opec-cuts-demand-outlook-by-most-in-three-years-on-shale.html
Raw-sugar prices fell to the lowest in more than four years amid signs of an expanding global surplus as output accelerated in Brazil, the largest supplier.
“It’s basic economics -- more supply available than demand,” George Kopp, a senior market analyst at International Futures Group in Greenville, South Carolina, said in a telephone interview. “It’s hard to get excited about a market that’s been in a downtrend for so long.”
By Luzi Ann Javier Sep 10, 2014 2:12 PM CT
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-09-10/sugar-declines-to-lowest-since-2010-on-global-surplus.html

@Junkster: In case you missed this earlier link.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.mutualfundobserver.com/discuss/discussion/15615/average-stock-declines-from-52-week-highs#latest

Thanks Ted, I read most of your links but not this one because I thought it was just referencing the S&P 500. After reading it now and seeing it also references the other indexes makes the market even more sickly as that CNBC technician was trying to convey.
Edit: Heard and saw all sorts of divegences with the market beginning in April 1998 (before the ultimate top in early 2000) and sure would have hated to have missed that nearly two year period. I get a bit leery when everyone and their mother sees the same things, so we shall see how this plays out.
Edit 2 - Before I hear about it yes, there are a lot of rich Wall Street technicians who make their income from being on the payrolls of various Wall Street firms and hedge funds. Just never met a rich mom and pop home-based trading technician using all the technical mumbo jumbo, at least any in that top 5% of U.S. households with over 1 million in investable assets.

@Junkster: In case you missed this earlier link.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.mutualfundobserver.com/discuss/discussion/15615/average-stock-declines-from-52-week-highs#latest

Not sure I ever a met a rich technician. Strong day today but more new 52 week lows than highs on the NASDAQ and AMEX and barely more 52 week highs than lows on the NYSE. Yet the Dow, S&P, and NASDAQ are hanging around 52 week highs. The Russell 2000 appears to have topped months ago and the Mid Cap Index appeared to have double topped just recently as have junk corporates which had another bad day today. Meanwhile the 10 year has looked ugly since Labor Day. There was some technician on CNBC lamenting how much the average listed stock is off its 52 week high compared to the averages. So what's my point here? No point, just idle technical chatter.

•This is now the 4th longest bull market in history. We're in the 2nd longest period without a 10% correction. Every day, we get closer to the next correction.
http://seekingalpha.com/article/2484155-theres-very-little-chance-of-beating-a-balanced-portfolio-from-here?source=feed_tag_editors_picks

"The bubble probably needs to continue in order to sustain the current global financial system and the necessary future deleveraging. However with yields moving ever lower in many parts of the world in recent times, partly due to weak growth, and with debt levels still moving higher, the chances are that most government bondholders are unlikely to achieve a positive real return over the medium to long-term from this starting point. Inflation or even the risk of sovereign restructuring will likely prevent this."
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-09-10/deutsche-bank-bubble-must-go-sustain-current-global-financial-system

Maybe I shouldn't admit it but I have a subscription and he tracks the recommended exposure to gold as well as stocks and bonds amongst newsletters that provide timing advice. In total he tracks more than 500 newsletter portfolios, some of which provide timing advice. When the average sentiment amongst those timing letters becomes extremely negative of gold he figures its a good sign of a bottom and a good time to buy. I don't pay attention to his sentiment indexes or the timing newsletters so I have no idea how successful the sentiment index is at identifying bottoms.

FYI:
Regards,
Ted
http://online.wsj.com/articles/u-s-stock-futures-trade-little-changed-1410351466#printMode
Markets At A Glance; http://markets.wsj.com/us

OSTIX is a no-brainer for folks looking for decent yield but very low volatility. Current duration is less than 2.0 years. Manager Carl Kaufman's track record is one of the best. With only150 holdings and only one-fifth the size of DLTNX, this is a core hold for most client accounts.

@BobC: I think a fundamental question about junk bonds and OSTIX is:
Does it properly diversify an equities heavy portfolio? Do these bonds play the typical role that people want bonds to play, that is, to diversify equities? Articles I read written by Larry Swedroe and William Bernstein strongly favor only very high quality bonds, saying that below investment grade bonds do not provide proper diversification and risk reduction for equities.
Perhaps what they are saying is that someone with a 100% bond portfolio might gain valuable diversification from junk bonds. But someone using bonds for what John Bogle calls "ballast" and "an anchor to windward" might need only investment grade bonds for this purpose.
If junk bonds tend to perform somewhat similarly to equities, how are they providing the diversification? Yes, I know these are short term junk bonds, but the general principle is still there.
Appreciate your comments on this Bob.
thanks.

"But in terms of recommending American Funds today, I do side with Charles."
Hi Maurice- yes, I also completely agree with that. There's no excuse for a load fund in today's environment. Also, if one happens to be in American Funds, you'd better keep an eye on things- among those 57 or 59 funds they have some real dogs, some pretty decent ones, and many just so-so.
OJ

American Funds offers 59 funds (not 57). One of these funds never charges a load. It's a MMF, but MMFs in load families used to charge loads (e.g. I believe Fidelity Select MMF used to charge the same 3% load that Fidelity charged for its Select Funds).
As others pointed out, the min load on these A shares is 0%, since there are breakpoints. (Your "min" in the earlier post above referred rather to the lowest maximum load charged by any of these funds.)
"Nominal" roughly means stated as opposed to actual. For example, one's nominal tax bracket may be 25%, but the actual percentage paid on an incremental dollar may be more or less than a quarter, depending on phaseouts, credits, surtaxes, etc. Likewise, the actual front end load (as a percentage of amount going into the investment) for a 5.75% load fund is 1/(1-5.75%) = 6.1%. The "nominal" is 5.75% (or lower for bond funds, etc.)
M* uses not only front load, but all loads in their star ratings (other loads are assessed on a daily basis as part of the ER - though I wonder if M* correctly adjusts 10 year ratings for share classes that convert after 8 years).
Investors pay for advertising, regardless of whether the expense is broken out as a separate line item (12b-1). Where do people think the money comes to pay for all those Vanguard ads I keep seeing? Or as Vanguard itself writes: "In the words of one client - 'Why spend some of my money to attract some other investor?'"
So I regard 12b-1 fees as just a distraction. Though in contrast, when's the last time you saw a D&C ad?
Speaking of Vanguard, investors there pay different fees and commissions depending on their association of some kind. If they have enough invested in a Vanguard fund, their ER drops (Admiral share conversion). If they use VBS, they can buy ETFs without paying the broker. And if they have a lot invested with the family (like OJ and American), they can get into closed Vanguard funds and buy non-Vanguard TF funds without a commission. I for one am not complaining about their fees, even if I don't get all the perks there.
Thank you for taking note of PIMCO's loads. Below is a bit more on this that I'd drafted prior to your latest responses. The data and observations are, I think, still relevant.
American Funds' oldest share classes do carry loads; they've since been adding share classes without loads. In contrast, PIMCO's original funds from 1987, PTLDX, PTTRX, and PTSHX all added load shares (PTLAX, PTTAX, PSHAX, respectively) in January 1997.
While PIMCO's original share classes don't have 12b-1 fees, the new ones do. (Not a concern of mine, as I explained above, but it is nevertheless a nominal fee :-))
Which family is moving in the right direction? There are indeed dinosaurs, but they may come from different "prehistoric" (last century) eras. Several fund families in the 90s tried to grow their market share by adding load classes and using salesman (um, "advisers") to gather assets. American Century, for example. Some families like AC moved on, returning to the NTF marketplace without adding 12b-1 fees as PIMCO did. Other families seem to be stuck in the tarpit of the 90s.

In the below linked article form Seeking Alpha a summary of its major points are listed below:
•This is now the 4th longest bull market in history. We're in the 2nd longest period without a 10% correction. Every day, we get closer to the next correction.
•A re-balanced growth portfolio that holds a modest 25-35% bond component offers the likelihood of delivering stock market like gains (or better) with a much lower risk profile.
•The risk return proposition is likely swinging in favor of a balanced portfolio.
http://seekingalpha.com/article/2484155-theres-very-little-chance-of-beating-a-balanced-portfolio-from-here?source=feed_tag_editors_picks

From my experience ...
American Funds sales loads vary based upon the fund and the amount you have invested with them. For starters the top commission paid for an equity product is 5.75% and is discounted down from there. The top commission paid for their fixed income product is 3.75% and is discounted down from there. And, should you own, or invest, a million with A/F then you buy everything at nav. In addition, after purchase, an investor can move around within their family of funds through net asset value exchange program commission free. I believe that commission discounts start to kick in at the $25,000 threshold. And, if you wanted to be clever and buy, say, the fixed income product ABNDX and then later do a nav exchange to an equity product, say, AGTHX then their entry commission would be the 3.75%, and not the 5.75%, would stand. This is not widely known so keep it to yourself.
Old_Skeet

@mrdarcey and MFOers, I'm under the impression that if one only owns this fund in a taxable account, it won't do any good to transfer that account from a brokerage to them. Would only benefit if it is in a tax deferred account.
Do I have that correct?

Think AndyJ is correct, but its worth asking them about Roy's question. I'm not sure if you have GPROX in a brokerage and moved it whether they'd let you establish an AIP before the end of the month or not. They're letting me do an AIP, but the fund is held in a Roth.
It's probably been linked elsewhere, but here is the announcement.

@Desota. I double checked this morning and through June 2014, AF does indeed have 57 funds at least 1 year old. Oldest share class. All impose load, min 2.5%. The 5.75% load is on 32 of the 57 funds. All impose 12b-1, average 0.22%. Average ER after load: 0.74%.

Charles's latest post is filled with inaccuracies. AF offers 33 funds, not counting funds of funds. The loads charged vary depending on the fund. Bond funds have a smaller load. The max load is 5.75. The loads are reduced or eliminated with larger investments. The 12b1 goes to the advisor, it does not go for ads. This is my last post on this subject.

OSTIX is a no-brainer for folks looking for decent yield but very low volatility. Current duration is less than 2.0 years. Manager Carl Kaufman's track record is one of the best. With only150 holdings and only one-fifth the size of DLTNX, this is a core hold for most client accounts. The fund stays under most radars, and Mr. Kaufman prefers to stay out of the limelight.

Yet Another Wall Street Bear Folds
Stocks have surged to unprecedented levels amid improving earnings, a pickup in economic growth and an accommodative Federal Reserve. The S&P 500 has set 33 record highs in 2014 and is up more than 8% so far this year.
Strategists aren’t the only ones ditching their pessimistic views. Bearish sentiment among financial advisers dropped to 30.6% last week, the lowest level since 1987, according to the Investors Intelligence weekly poll.
“The history of sentiment reminds us that it’s more dangerous to have an evaporation of bears compared to a plethora of bulls,” Mr. O’Hara said. “The lack of bears is something we should not take lightly,” he added.
http://blogs.wsj.com/moneybeat/2014/09/09/yet-another-wall-street-bear-folds/?mod=yahoo_hs

Let's look at Vanguard's most important index fund, the Total Stock Market Index fund. Admiral shares: VTSAX. Exchange traded fund shares, VTI.
Their performance is almost identical.
That tells us a lot.