The only real Diversification I do is hold a certain % of my portfolio in Bonds, they serve a purpose, I consider them my CASH, returning 3+% in 2014, , and I won't give them up, though they do reduce my total returns (11% in 2014), I do change %'s (yearly) of total holdings I have in bonds....
So Big (S&P) companies had a good year last year, great...... I hold a lot of them,
but not Always the case and nobody knows about 2015, so its hard to comment on being Diversified in other assets classes for 2015......just thinking

The concept "Real Assets" is open to widely differing interpretations by different managers. If a manager rode the real estate bull for the past several years, he's looking pretty good today. If he's been heavily into oil, not so good. It's a broad area which might include timber, infrastructure (railways, ports, power generation), farmland, miners or gold bullion. So, you really need to look under the hood and see what you'd be diversifying into.
...
I'm not familiar with the funds you list. But, I known there are a great many out there and that there are profound differences among them.

@willmatt72 I think @hank 's advice here is exactly right. Because "real asset" can mean such a broad swath of things, you need to look under the hood. There are lots of differing funds, each sort of specializing in different areas. NRIAX, for instance, looks a lot different than PRAFX, which is different than FSRRX. They can all certainly act as diversifiers, but you have to know specifically what you want out of them.
NRIAX / JRI 's focus is creating income in areas which could also show capital appreciation and might fight inflation. As such it looks for passthrough income from real assets, specifically from Real Estate and Infrastructure, and in both equities, preferreds, and fixed income. In other words, it has very limited commodity or natural resource exposure. That's also a big part of the reason why it has looked so good recently. Here's a link to NRIAX's info page at Nuveen. They have some good literature on the fund there. In particular, this is what the prospectus says about NRIAX's holdings:

Principal Investment Strategies
Under normal market conditions, the Fund invests at least 80% of the sum of its net assets and the amount of any borrowings for investment purposes in securities issued by real asset related companies that are generating income at the time of purchase. Real asset related companies are defined as: (i) companies that are in the energy, telecommunications, utilities or materials sectors; (ii) companies in the real estate or transportation industry groups; (iii) companies, if not in one of these sectors or industries, that (a) derive at least 50% of their revenues or profits from the ownership, management, operation, development, construction, renovation, financing, or sale of real assets, or (b) have at least 50% of the fair market value of their assets invested in real assets; or (iv) pooled investment vehicles that primarily invest in the foregoing companies or that are otherwise designed primarily to provide investment exposure to real assets.
The categories of real assets on which the Fund will focus its investments are infrastructure and real estate. Infrastructure consists of the physical structures and networks upon which the operation, growth and development of a community depends, which include water, sewer, and energy utilities; transportation and communication networks; health care facilities, government accommodations, and other public service facilities; and shipping, timber, steel, alternative energy, and other resources and services necessary for the construction and maintenance of these physical structures and networks.

Depending on the size of your portfolio, your risk tolerance, individual goals, and your comfort level with managing such things, you could just take a global infrastructure fund (GII, GLFOX, TOLSX) and combine it with a REIT index/fund or REIT income fund (FRIOX, LRIOX), and maybe some sort of TIPS or commodity exposure to come up with your own allocation. If the portfolio is smaller, or you want professional management, than something like NRIAX or PRAFX make sense to my mind. In anycase, it makes more sense as an "alternative" to me than liquid alternatives/managed futures/non-traded assets or what have you.

FYI: –- Nuveen Asset Management’s California and national high-yield municipal-bond funds earned the biggest tax-free returns in 2014, leading a broad rally in risky debt as investors combatted an unexpected drop in interest rates.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/print/2015-01-05/nuveen-s-21-return-leads-2014-s-high-yield-frenzy-muni-credit.html
M* Snapshot Of NCHAX: http://quotes.morningstar.com/fund/f?t=NCHAX&region=usa&culture=en-US
Lipper Snapshot Of NCHAX: http://www.marketwatch.com/investing/Fund/NCHAX?countrycode=US
NCHAX Is Ranked #12 In The (MCL) Fund Category By U.S. News & World Report
http://money.usnews.com/funds/mutual-funds/muni-california-long/nuveen-california-high-yield-municipal-bond-fund/nchax

FYI: (Click On Article Title At Top Of Google Search)
When John Templeton said, “The time of maximum pessimism is the best time to buy,” he probably wasn’t thinking that his tenet might one day refer to his own industry. Yet, for active mutual fund managers, 2014 was a point of maximum pessimism.
While the Standard & Poor’s 500 returned 13.7% for the year, stockpickers struggled to keep up. Just 19.9% of U.S. equity fund managers bested their benchmarks, according to Morningstar -- but those who did managed an advantage of 1.8 percentage points, on average. Specialists, such as sector and alternative funds, also struggled, with 33% and 25%, respectively, beating their benchmarks.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.google.com/search?newwindow=1&site=&source=hp&q=return+of+the+stockpickers+barron's&oq=return+of+the+stockpickers+barron's&gs_l=hp.3...1522.13639.0.14304.35.28.0.7.7.0.79.1685.28.28.0.msedr...0...1c.1.60.hp..13.22.1022.caZSxDnDuDQ

Hi,
I have some basic questions on MA.Those of you who use trends and MA in your fund analysis, do you use SMA or EMA ? Also, how many years chart (3/5/from Inception ?) should be used while looking at the trend ?
Thanks,
Mrc

@hank said Only.. if you can stand/afford to loose 15, 25 or 35% on the position (initially) and than smile about it.
Been there,unfortunately.
JANUARY 09 2015 Guggenheim Investments Macro View:
If the mid-80s’ supply-driven oil crisis is a guide, we should expect further declines and a prolonged period where oil prices remain depressed.
Global CIO Commentary by Scott Minerd
"But investors beware in the near-term. Even at $48 per barrel, oil is still a falling knife—I believe there remains another significant downside move. If we hit the $34 a barrel price target, which I believe we could, that would be another 30 percent decline in oil prices. Typically, people would rightly characterize a 30 percent decline as a bear market. We’ve already had a decline of over 55 percent from the high, so we’ve already been in a bear market, but if we started over today we’re going to have another one."
Supply Shock Suggests More Downside Risk for Oil
Over the past 30 years, there have been six major declines in the price of oil (defined as a greater than 50 percent cumulative decline). The current decline now stands at around 55 percent, matching the magnitude of some of the worst historical oil crashes. However, most of the past declines have been due to faltering global demand, whereas the current slump is due to a glut of oil. Therefore, the best comparable decline is that of 1985-86, when a supply shock caused the West Texas Intermediate price to plunge by more than 67 percent over the course of four and a half months. With no near-term signs of supply letting up, oil prices could continue to fall.
http://guggenheimpartners.com/perspectives/macroview/supply-shock-and-awe

So, your returns were less than the S&P 500 due to your diversification.
But somehow in a slipshod moment, he failed to mention the
feather in the diversification cap – rebalancing.
Your returns would have been even less if you had rebalanced
at the beginning of 2014.
How can he elide this factor when it’s a given in his overall playbook?

Only make these speculative moves if you can stand/afford to loose 15, 25 or 35% on the position (initially) and than smile about it.
Yes, eventually prices will be higher. But nobody knows when.

FYI:
Regards,
Ted
WSJ Slant:
http://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-stock-futures-fall-ahead-of-jobs-report-1420809711
Bloomberg Slant:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/print/2015-01-09/u-s-index-futures-are-little-changed-before-payroll-growth-data.html
Reuters Slant:
http://www.reuters.com/assets/print?aid=USL1N0UO23820150109
MarketWatch Slant:
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/us-stocks-end-volatile-week-lower-2015-01-09/print
Markets At A Glance: http://markets.wsj.com/us
Sector Tracker: http://www.sectorspdr.com/sectorspdr/tools/sector-tracker

FYI: Last year, you didn’t really need diversification, and it didn’t really help you.
This year, you may well need to be diversified, but it’s not going to save you.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/diversification-wont-work-in-2015-2015-01-09/print

FYI: Oil prices have been cut in half in six months, hitting a large swath of energy stocks in the process. But where there’s pain, there’s usually opportunity, making now a good time to take a close look at mutual funds that offer exposure to energy stocks.
Regards,
Ted
http://investorplace.com/2015/01/best-mutual-funds-energy-stocks-now/print

China warning from BofA. Attention grabbing headline.
Bank of America warns of 'lethal' damage to China's financial system as deflation deepens
'Deflation, Devaluation, and Default' loom in China this year. The denouement for Shanghai's bourse will not be pretty, says the US bank.
By Ambrose Evans-Pritchard7:50PM GMT 08 Jan 2015
China is at mounting risk of a financial crisis this year as growth sputters and deflationary pressures trigger a wave of defaults, Bank of America has warned.
The US lender told clients that a confluence of forces are coming together that threaten to chill the speculative mania on the Shanghai stock exchange and to expose the underlying fragility of China’s $26 trillion edifice of debt.
“A credit crunch is highly probable,” said the bank in a report entitled “Deflation, Devaluation, and Default”, written by David Cui and Tracy Tian.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/11333928/Bank-of-America-warns-of-lethal-damage-to-Chinas-financial-system-as-deflation-deepens.html

FYI: The pharmaceutical sector, which had been witnessing several tax inversion deals over the last few months, is not likely to go down this route given the Sep 2014 notice issued by the U.S. Department of the Treasury. New rules imposed by the Treasury Department make such cross-border deals unattractive -- in fact, companies like AbbVie, Auxilium and Salix backed off from such agreements.
However, mergers and acquisitions (M&As) will continue to play a major role and are not showing any signs of slowing down. Auxilium, which terminated its merger agreement with QLT, will be acquired by Endo in the first quarter of 2015. Other acquisition deals announced recently include the upcoming acquisition of Cubist by Merck and that of Avanir by Japanese firm, Otsuka. (Read: 3 Biotech ETF Winners from 2014’s Best Performing Sector)
Regards,
Ted
http://www.zacks.com/stock/news/159623/can-pharma-etfs-continue-their-uptrend-in-2015?article_id=159623&type=BLOG

FYI: China region funds have outperformed the S&P 500 as well as foreign developed and emerging markets funds in the past 10 years.
The average China fund would have turned a $1,000 investment made on Dec. 31, 2004, into $27,979 by Jan. 7 this year, according to Morningstar data. Where would the same investment be in the broad U.S. stock market today?
Regards,
Ted
http://license.icopyright.net/user/viewFreeUse.act?fuid=MTg4MjU1MDg=
Enlarged Graphic: http://news.investors.com/photopopup.aspx?path=WEBlv010915.jpg&docId=733972&xmpSource=&width=1000&height=1152&caption=&id=733973

Charles, thank you for your sacrifice, dedication, and professionalism that you have consistently shown MFO since you joined. Your work complements David's wonderfully.
As a former engineer, I am a stats/numbers junkie. Perhaps that's why I so appreciate your compilation of data. But I especially enjoy your ability to post not just the overall risk/return profile for the life of the fund, but also it's 1, 3, 5, and 10 years. Also your risk/return profile over a full market cycle is unmatched by anything I've ever come across.
My question to you, Charles, is how difficult would it be for you to produce the depth of information you have provided in the above example for MAPIX, but for any fund that we input in the risk profile search? I know that is asking a lot of you. But I thoroughly enjoy this extra depth of information. Keep up the great work!
Sincerely,
Mike_E

A couple of thoughts:
1. Buy only what you would be willing to hold if the market closed for 10 years. Or even 5. That's really not a bad way to really filter down to what you consider your best ideas.
2. Buy at a reasonable price. Maybe you don't always get something for cheap, but again with the Buffett quote: "It's far better to buy a wonderful company at a fair price than a fair company at a wonderful price." I mean, look at Coke - which I believe was trading at a significantly higher p/e in the late 90's - in 1998 it was $42.50, it's now around $43, with a fairly sizable dip in-between. Of course, people also bought YHOO and MSFT at absurd valuations in the 90's, but there's quite a few less extreme examples and I see a lot of consumer names that are trading at valuations that I consider out-of-whack or at the very least, quite rich.
3. It's difficult for me to buy things that don't have a dividend, but I've made some exceptions recently (Gilead, for example, which I'd like to hope will offer a dividend over the next few years - same with Howard Hughes Corp.) Otherwise, I buy things that interest me (which helps when things are difficult - if I don't care about what the company does, it's difficult for me to have it as a long-term holding) and that - in many cases - have a strong moat, good long-term track record and who have a track record of increasing dividends.

BUY CHEAP,SELL HIGH......The ONLY lesson you have to implement to be successful in the buying and selling of securities....can it be any more simple, cowboy?

Simple?
If you were buying every "dip" on the NASDAQ during the 2-3 year run-up from 1500 to 5000 in the late 90s, you would have had a rude awakening.
Don't laugh. I know people who did just that.
Also: Don't try to catch falling knives. This assumes there are those among us with the brilliance to call bottoms precisely. Perhaps you TB?

FYI: (Click On Article Title At Top Of Google Search)
The chairman of Janus Capital Group Inc. said he didn’t know that a single California brokerage office that handles money for Bill Gross accounted for a vast majority of the cash in Mr. Gross’s new mutual fund at the company.
“I had no idea” how much of the fund was made up of money from the brokerage office “because I had no idea who Bill uses as a financial adviser,” said the chairman, Glenn S. Schafer
Regards,
Ted
https://www.google.com/search?newwindow=1&site=&source=hp&q=janus+chariman+wsj&oq=janus+chariman+wsj&gs_l=hp.3...1480.8125.0.8666.18.18.0.0.0.0.155.1119.17j1.18.0.msedr...0...1c.1.60.hp..6.12.814.EOuS7Ke02k8

The bigger point to Vanguard's lackluster stance on environmental issues and how it affects all fund shareholders is already in the story:
"Institutional investors often scoff at such proposals as irrelevant to shareholders. But there’s ample evidence environmental behavior affects financial prospects. In June 2012, Deutsche Bank published a report analyzing the results of some 100 academic studies and 56 research papers on sustainable investing. In 89 percent of the studies, companies rated highly on environmental, social and governance factors beat the stock market.
Companies with bad environmental records can face regulatory fines, reputation damage and class-action lawsuits. Right now, DTE’s Shenango infractions are a minor cost of doing business. But as etiological science improves and attitudes toward coal change, one day a serious lawsuit may stick."
I suggest you read this study: https://institutional.deutscheawm.com/content/_media/Sustainable_Investing_2012.pdf
Simply stating you think I am self-interested is a distraction from the basic fact that being a bad steward of the environment is actually bad for business and bad for fund shareholders who invest in companies long-term. And Vanguard as an index fund shop is the ultimate long-term investor as it holds stocks in the market forever. A sensible investor would want greater transparency and greater accountability on the executive level regarding companies environmental policies, especially at a utility facing increasing regulation and public scrutiny on such issues.
And quite frankly coal is about the dirtiest resource on the planet. The idea that a long-term shareholder like DiNapoli might question the long-term viability of coal as a line of business at DTE and ask for some sort of timeline as to when DTE might phase out its use isn't just being some sort of granola environmentalist. It's being a smart investor concerned about the liability of such a resource.

Here are the numbers through November...December should be up shortly:

And, 3 alarm metrics...none so far...