Here's a statement of the obvious: The opinions expressed here are those of the participants, not those of the Mutual Fund Observer. We cannot vouch for the accuracy or appropriateness of any of it, though we do encourage civility and good humor.
The bottom line is that with unconstrained/flexible mandate bond funds you are substituting a known risk (specific bond sector) for an unknown risk (manager ability). So you need to be darned sure of the ability/experience/expertise of the manager/team running any flexible bond funds. OSTIX, BSIIX, GSZIX, LSBDX are four that fit our requirements.
The WaPo article confuses some characteristics of multi-sector funds with what is usually thought of as "unconstrained" and what M* calls "nontraditional." M* defines nontraditional as a fund that can go outside the style box, i.e., can go negative duration and use long-short strategies. Going off-index, e.g., weighting very differently from an index, is a strategy commonly available to both multi-sectors and nontraditional.
M* still hasn't seen fit to add a blurb about the nontraditional bond category in its glossary entry of category definitions, but this M* video from late 2011 explains what they use as the defining characteristics of the category.
Comments
M* still hasn't seen fit to add a blurb about the nontraditional bond category in its glossary entry of category definitions, but this M* video from late 2011 explains what they use as the defining characteristics of the category.