@Chinfist: I'm not trying to beat a dead horse, but here is a example of less is more.
Regards,
Ted
SPY: 5-yr. 16.18%
QQQ 5-yr. 20.74%
PRSHX 5-yr. 30.02%
Average Return Just Three Funds: 22.31%
SPY: 10Yrs. 7.87%
QQQ 10Yrs. 11.98%
PRHSX 10 Yrs. 18.31%
Average Return Just Three Funds: 12.72%

@BenWP: Yes, My drugs went from $10 per generic drug for a ninety day supply to $25 for the same seven generics. For three years I paid $280 for my meds, I'm now paying $700.
Regards,
Ted

I just picked up two prescriptions for meds we've been taking for several years and which are Tier One generics on our prescription plan. One rose in price from $1.79 to 2.89 and the other from $10 to $40. The lower prices had been in effect for at least two calendar years. We did not change the drug plan from 2014 to 2015. The pharmacist told me I am not to only one to register sticker shock since Jan 1st. No wonder our healthcare stocks and funds are doing so well…

Hey Catch, from M* charts and Yahoo price data, it looks like those pretty mild capital losses at PIMIX go back ~ 7 months.
One of the eye-catching features of the portfolio lately has been the lowered duration of the fund, down below 3 now, which they've pulled off by going negative duration on U.S. government debt. I think, without doing month-by month reviews of the portfolio commentary, that the negative duration position and some of the EM holdings (Russia, Brazil) are what have had the most to do with the capital losses. They're also vulnerable to credit risk on their mortgages, as they no longer hold much if anything in gov't mortgages. (Current breakdown is 2% government and 45% private.)
I wouldn't think the reorganization per se would have had a lot of effect on PIMIX, but they have been advertising themselves heavily as THE place to go for income, so I kinda wonder if there's been a subtle shift in how much they care about maintaining NAV.
Fwiw, I cut my formerly large position in half during Q4 '14, but holding there.
Good luck, AJ

Hi @scott,
PIMIX dropped 3% between Nov 27 and Dec 17 last year, bumped up about 1.5% and remains sideways. And yes, this has been an exceptional bond fund for the past several years of our holding. The fund is 1, 1 and 7 ranking over the past five years and has almost doubled the average return of all M* rated, multisector bond funds.
Something has changed their previous pattern.
We also sold all of LSBDX the first week of January, our 2nd largest bond holding at the time.
This comes from a house that has "overstayed" the bond rally way past what most would have considered to be prudent investing in this sector. Every year for the past 5 years we have been issued warnings about the death of bonds. We also sold our HY bonds, early last fall.
We're 50% equity right now. Keeping in mind that our investments are all post-retirement directed.
The major consideration, as with all sells, is where the money will travel next.
Thank you, scott.
Regards,
Catch

I don't own either of these and own little in the way of bonds, but you're dealing with a manager who is probably one of the most respected people left at Pimco. The fund has not had a good YTD, but 1, 3, 5 year are very good.
You can sell if you like, but 1) seems kinda quick and 2) if you are selling that I'd guess you're leaving Pimco from the standpoint of not sure what else is an appealing replacement there.

Managed Futures Funds per M*
How would an investor find a fund in this category that they would be assured could perform in a steady performance pattern over the years?
Yes, there are winners and losers over various time frames; but most investors here at MFO, are managing their "future" mix of funds for steady and positive returns, just not using the "common futures tools" that these funds use.
Check the 3 and 5 year average returns at the link above. Also look at some of the winners and losers in various time frames. One would have to hold 10 of these type of funds to hope for a decent averaged profit, using a best guess method, IMO.
Regards,
Catch

Combining thread ideas here.
Ted recently posted a similar Top Performing Global Stock list which revealed a few funds that I might call "Global Hybrid" and what M* calls "World Allocation" funds.
These funds are typically made up of:
-stock (both US and Foreign)
-bonds (both US and Foreign)
-cash (hedging currency?)
-other opportunistic holdings
For example HCOYX holds a large portfolio percentage of its bonds in Argentinian Sovereign debt. I find important and interesting looking under the hood and understanding these fund's holdings.
A few others "Global Hybrid" / "World Allocation" funds are GAOAX(40% stock/40% bond/20% cash), MDLOX(56/17/15/11% other), SGENX (80% stock/ 20% cash), KTRSX(55% stock/40% bonds), ARTGX(90% stock/ 10% cash).

Thanks for bringing this fund to our attention. It certainly has had great returns.
Scott makes some good points.
It looks like Equinox has 3 managed futures funds. According to the annual report, Equinox Chesapeake Strategy Fund (EQCHX, up 12.6% YTD, 43% 1 year) follows a "classic" trend following program. Equinox Crabel Strategy Fund (EQCRX, down 1.28% YTD, up 3.77% 1 year) uses a very short term trading program. Equinox BH-DG Strategy Fund (EBHIX, up 5.55% YTD, up 23.50% 1 year) uses a medium-term trend following program. Unsure what "classic" trend means for EQCHX, but maybe it is longer trend? My guess is that EQCHX will excel as it has during certain environments (the market has seemed to defy gravity for the most part and continues mostly in 1 direction in it's push up), and EQCRX might excel, at least compared to EQCHX, during more uncertain and choppy markets. EBHIX might be the happy medium. So if we get more volatility, my guess is EQCRX, despite it's lousy performance, could perform better.

Equinox Chesapeake Strategy I EQCHX
Managed Futures
Total Return % (02/25/2015) 1-Day 1-Week 1-Month 3-Month YTD 1-Year 3-Year 5-Year 10-Year
0.31 6.06 3.55 21.32 12.61 42.92
Rank in Category 9 1 1 1 1 1

FYI: While the Obama administration is pressing for more financial advisers to operate as “fiduciaries,” the reality is that many advisers currently wear two hats.
That can be confusing because those advisers provide some financial-planning or portfolio-management services under a fiduciary standard, which requires them to put their clients’ interests first. They typically charge fees for this work.
Regards,
Ted
http://blogs.wsj.com/totalreturn/2015/02/25/fiduciary-or-broker-many-financial-advisers-wear-both-hats/tab/print/?mg=blogs-wsj&url=http%3A%2F%2Fblogs.wsj.com%2Ftotalreturn%2F2015%2F02%2F25%2Ffiduciary-or-broker-many-financial-advisers-wear-both-hats%2Ftab%2Fprint&fpid=2,121

FYI: The Dow just made another all-time record high. To provide some further perspective to the current Dow rally, all major market rallies of the last 115 years are plotted on today's chart.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.chartoftheday.com/20150225.htm?H

Interesting. Thanks Ted. But I hate groupings like this (and in general I guess).
The only two I own are PRWCX and DODBX. It's hard for me to see them as members of the same class. Can both be called "Hybrid"? Yes - I guess so, but for quite different reasons. DODBX is essentially a (hybrid) mix of two other funds (DODGX and DODIX). Like DODGX, it is actually pretty darn aggressive.
PRWCX is what I would call a (hybrid) "opportunistic" fund, probably best viewed as conservative growth and income - for lack of a better term. Actually began as more of a mid-cap fund in the 80s - but as big $$ found its way in, they've been forced to go more and more to large caps. Heck, I've owned it when it held a lot of junk bonds and at other times a good chunk of gold miners. They go where they can find value. It's really a very unique fund and T. Rowe has done an outstanding job with it. (Also now closed to new investors).
DODBX will give you a somewhat rockier ride. But it should also outperform PRWCX slightly over longer 15-25 year time frames. (Surprisingly, DODBX didn't even make the cut on the 20 year trophy chart - very interesting)
Back to the list Ted linked. Suspect these are all fine funds in their own way. But the reading should START with those eye-popping numbers - not end there. Before you buy, read the prospectus and manager commentaries. Look at the holdings, and of course, the ER and other fees.
End of rant!

FYI: The world is out to get active money managers. As Bloomberg’s Charles Stein reports, they’ve been having a tough economic recovery, with only 21 percent of stock-picking mutual funds beating their benchmarks during the past five years. They (at least, several that Stein talked to) have also identified a culprit on Constitution Avenue:
Regards,
Ted
http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-02-24/active-money-managers-have-the-whole-world-against-them

This came out yesterday.
http://www.investmentnews.com/article/20150224/FREE/150229957/gundlach-tests-etf-waters-with-new-fund

Those big dogs are still licking their wounds from the 2000 tech bubble pop. Only now has the QQQ come almost back to that level. 15 years drawdown is a long time.
http://etfs.morningstar.com/quote?t=Qqq

Hi Ted,
I looked into QQQ through doing a Morningstar Instant Xray analysis. While it indeed does hold a lot of technology (56%) it also holds a lot of other sectors and carries a large growth classification.
From review of this it seems you like to invest in investment vehicles that spread things around some eventhough they might be heavly weighted towards a certain sector(s). My thinking is that is a good thing because if technology tumbles ... well there are the others sectors that can offer support and perhaps propel QQQ. My portfolio based sleeve system does much the same. The concept is to spread not only asset risk but to spread portofio manager risk as well.
I have provided a link to its Morningstar portfolio report for those that would like to take a closer look.
http://portfolios.morningstar.com/fund/summary?t=QQQ&region=usa&culture=en-US
My best to you,
Old_Skeet

Cashin is about as good as our local weatherman. Lately it's been 50% chance of fair skies and 50% chance of snow showers. (He's been right every day.)
Funny .. but I got a decidedly different message from the 2-minute clip I viewed of Janet's testimony than Cashin and 90% of the other pundits did. "We're no longer time dependent" (my words) was the message. That must mean no more of that "considerable period" nonsense. Essentially, they're now fully data driven. Guess who reads, interprets and reacts to that data? (Hint - not Congress, Art Cashin or you and me.)
-
As I've said before, I believe there will be a token increase in the Federał Funds Rate before the end of 2015. Lots of reasons why they would do so - and the first would be primarily to gage market reaction. They've telegraphed this pretty well. So it may not have much of an impact on equities. I'm not sure what the significance (if any) is for bond holders. A bubble Is a bubble Is a .....
Consider that the Fed's influence is mainly at the shorter end of the curve - though rate hikes there can sometimes cause the longer part of the curve to react.
Hang on.

Sound like my weatherman...he uses 50/50

Classic Risk/Reward 101
(Bloomberg) -- Chevron Corp. sold $6.35 billion of bonds, the biggest debt offering by a U.S. oil and gas producer since the 54 percent rout in crude began in July, as investors seek debt of energy producers that can weather the downturn.
“Chevron is a reminder that all energy companies aren’t created equal,” said Scott Carmack, a money manager at Portland, Oregon-based Leader Capital Corp., which oversees $1.5 billion in fixed-income assets. “They are a behemoth of a company that is built for the long haul. Investors have no problem lending to them.”
Debt of the riskiest energy companies tracked by Bank of Merrill Lynch Bond Indexes lost more than 9 percent since last June, while those of safer energy securities gained 0.6 percent.
The new debt is an insurance policy against further declines in oil as well as an opportunity to take advantage of lower interest rates, Fadel Gheit, Chevron analyst at Oppenheimer & Co., said in a telephone interview.
“If they see a once-in-a-lifetime investment opportunity, they don’t want to be stuck in a situation where interest rates rise,” he said.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-02-24/chevron-said-to-plan-bond-sale-in-second-deal-since-oil-plunge
Original
http://seekingalpha.com/news/2322826-chevron-raises-6_35b-in-biggest-oil-bond-deal-since-rout
Country,Company,Commodity,Corruption Risk Wrapped in One
Moody's downgrades Petrobras' ratings to Ba2; maintains review for downgrade
Global Credit Research - 24 Feb 2015
These rating actions reflect increasing concern about corruption investigations and liquidity pressures that might result from delays in delivering audited financial statements, as well as Moody's expectation that the company will be challenged to make meaningful reduction in its very high debt burden over the next several years. The ratings remain on review for downgrade.
https://www.moodys.com/research/Moodys-downgrades-Petrobras-ratings-to-Ba2-maintains-review-for-downgrade--PR_319021
It was the fourth Petrobras downgrade in five months by Moody's.
http://seekingalpha.com/news/2322936-moody-s-downgrades-petrobras-debt-to-junk