https://www.capitalists.com/blog/2020/01/21/the-investment-that-destroyed-the-sp-500/
2020The investment that destroyed the S&P 500
The year was 1990, and the Soviet Union was on the verge of collapse. The Berlin Wall was still in the process of being destroyed, and East and West Germany were set to reunify later in the year.

https://seekingalpha.com/article/4318061-federal-reserve-bank-is-buying-t-bills-and-you-should-too
The Federal Reserve Bank Is Buying T-Bills And You Should Too
Jan. 21, 2020 11:45 AM ETiShares Short Treasury Bond ETF (SHV)5 Comments
Summary
Investors should heed warning from the latest Fed move and consider purchasing the iShares Short Treasury Bond ETF.
SHV offers investors a safe return on short-term cash with a 30-day yield of 1.5% and a negative beta. The SHV is a very conservative way invest short-term capital.
The Federal Reserve Bank of New York added $60.7 billion in treasury bill purchases last week within the repo market

@BenWP
Ben: The “secret sauce” that you are looking for is a calculation that’s IP (intellectual property), and so Refinitiv is unable to disclose more than what is publicly available (PE Research Methodology and VC Research Methodology) to avoid any duplication effort.
This calculation is not even available to the managers of the fund.
The funds are not investing in VC/PE start-ups, IPOs or in venture capital backed and privately held companies.
But looking at private deals and their valuation, the TR Research Index (TRVC) uses proprietary econometric models like swaps, leverage, and beta matching to find public companies within the sectors, weights, and liquidity to construct the TR Venture Capital Index (TRVCI Index), which the fund is trying to track.
The managers are not picking these names.
The beta adjustments are driven by the consensus forecast of 20 proprietary models.
The sector beta refinement matches beta at the sector level, tightens the tracking to the two portfolios, and thereby offsets in aggregate that the net adjustment at the portfolio level is effectively zero.
When I wrote in my previous commentary, “The overall success of these funds may result primarily from the ability of the managers in the alternative class space to match the performance of their bogy with well-chosen public companies,” I was addressing you personally because you raised a very important issue.
What I’ve added now may be of some value. If you have additional questions, you might speak with the Leland team directly.

(link)
See quotes below:
Recession risks, which had been elevated during the middle part of 2019, have diminished in recent months...As a consequence, we are now more confident in our baseline forecast that the current window of weakness for global growth will give way to a moderate recovery during 2020.
We will tend to favor U.S. duration over global alternatives, given the relative value and potential for capital gains in U.S. Treasuries and the scope for further Fed easing in the event of a weaker-than-expected macro outcome. While we are broadly neutral on the U.S. dollar versus other G10 currencies, we generally will favor long yen positions in accounts where currency exposure is appropriate
In addition, in asset allocation portfolios, we will look to be overweight large cap over small cap equities.
We favor both U.S. agency mortgage exposures and non-agency exposures. We believe agency mortgage-backed securities (MBS) offer attractive valuation, reasonable carry, and an attractive liquidity profile in comparison with other spread assets. We see non-agency mortgages as offering relatively attractive valuation along with a more defensive source of credit and carry and better market technicals than generic corporate credit exposure. We will also look to have select commercial MBS (CMBS) exposures. U.K. residential MBS (RMBS) also looks attractive on a relative valuation basis.
In currency strategy, we look to be overweight a basket of emerging market currencies versus the U.S. dollar and the euro.
We will tend to favor curve steepening positions in the U.S. and in other countries. U.S. Treasury Inflation-Protected Securities (TIPS) look attractive on a valuation basis
we continue to expect real U.S. GDP growth to slow to a 1.5% to 2.0% range in 2020, from an estimated 2.3% pace in 2019...We look for a modest U.S. reacceleration in the second half of 2020. China’s commitments in the Phase 1 trade deal to purchase $200 billion of additional U.S. exports over the next two years should also support growth in the second half of 2020.
We see euro area growth at around 1.0% in 2020. On balance, we see core inflation remaining close to 1.0%.
The U.K. is set to formally leave the E.U. at the end of January...we expect U.K. GDP growth of 0.75% to 1.25% in 2020,
Japan: We expect GDP growth to slow to a 0.25% to 0.75% range in 2020 from an estimated 0.9% this year...Inflation is expected to remain low in a 0.25% to 0.75% range
China: We see GDP growth slowing into a 5.0% to 6.0% range in 2020 from an estimated 6.1% in 2019.

End of Quote.
======================
What the above means to me?
1) Load on securitized bonds which I have been doing for years (PIMIX,VCFIX,IOFIX,EIXIX. For cash sub use SEMMX)
2) Continue to use US LC as my main equity position which I have been doing for years already
3) If you want to invest in equities abroad go with EM.
4) I will not use TIPS and I don't believe that curve steepening will affect my Multisector funds that much.

a journo friend reports

Kiplinger was bought by a PE firm last January, and line eds, factcheckers and other recent hires, features and investigative, eventually got chopped. It will be surprising if the print edition lasts a year.

This got me curious who was doing the chopping. Kiplinger's was bought by Dennis Publishing, a British firm that was bought by Exponent, a British venture capital operation.
More about Dennis and Exponent at the dinky linky.
And here's Exponent's home page.
Buying Kiplinger's seems like an odd choice for what I'm guessing is the first foray into the USA for Dennis and Exponent.

https://www.dallasnews.com/business/personal-finance/2020/01/19/three-cheers-for-sloth-and-simplicity/
Three cheers for sloth and simplicity! 2019 another fruitful year for investing the Couch Potato way
/We have a work ethic problem. Too much of it.
Lots of people think that if they work hard and long, if they grunt and puff, if they demonstrate serious mental effort, if they read copiously and take notes — if they do all those things — they will be successful investors./
We have been following Scott Burns for quite sometimes l. He usually have good inputs regarding index Investmenting/funds

Hi @dtconroe
As to the Kiplinger list; and your notation, " Over time, I have had to continually assess the amount of "risk" I am willing to take, to generate the "returns" I am willing to make." Yes, we all have to assess our risk based upon many factors.
I'm only aware of the age range of a few here at MFO; but attempt to consider the age ranges of those who may only read here and never comment. So, I consider this thread to have more value for some age groups and their risk assessments, versus others.
My only particular problem with the list, is the inclusion of "front load" funds; although many of these are available at some platforms without the load. Past this, I'm not going to challenge the list, nor other sector candidates that probably, "almost" made the list.
From a personal point for our household investments, our backgrounds are in tech. and healthcare; and from this exposure in particular, we were in a constant continuing education mode, as both areas were and continue to be, in full and never ending change.
Our investment slant has always had focus to these two growth sectors in particular; with exceptions being limited by choices via an employer offering. Yes, these areas have their quiet, lazy and sideways periods.
Overall, we still prefer growth to other investment styles; although the "risk" of a potential bigger face slap from a market pullback is present, due in part, to the larger potential gains obtained with these types of holdings.
Your point regarding risk is always valid, relative to investor "X's" overall financial circumstance.
For the young ones today, with what ever amount they can dedicate into company plans and/or a Roth, go full ahead with growth in favored sectors or broad-based. Their young age will allow them to survive a market melt/mean reversion, as their investment friend will be compounding with time in the markets and ability to continue to contribute monies going forward.
As always, remain curious in life,
Catch

"Derf">@dtconroe: Thanks for your reply. I wasn't interested in the amount in her IRA, as that isn't any of my business. More to my question is, did she take a RMD & if so did total distribution all go into a taxable bond fund ? Thank you again for your time, Derf
Yes, she took her RMD out of the MWCIX fund, and then we split the balance between MWCIX and IISIX in her IRA for 2020. I decided to give you the total amount of her IRA, because we would use more than 2 funds, if it was much larger. I don't want to suggest any IRA holder only use one or two funds for a larger IRA. The IRA RMD distribution from my wife's IRA, and the much larger RMD distribution from my IRA, both went into our joint taxable account, where we immediately reinvested it into our existing bond oefs.

@dtconroe; You said, {Back to some investing topics! My wife has a traditional IRA, and in 2020 she is required to begin her RMD process. Our approach to RMDs, is to take the total RMD amount at the beginning of the calendar year, transfer it to our taxable account, and then make a reinvestment decision about this RMD transfer to our taxable account. My wife is even more conservative than I am, would put it in a tin can in the back of the yard if it was totally up to her, but has agreed to a conservative bond oef in her IRA account. Currently, she is totally invested in MWCIX, but I think we will diversify a little more into her account starting in 2020. IISIX is a fund that I am considering adding to her MWCIX fund for a little more total return, but still be supportive of her very low risk tolerance. We will try to produce enough TR in her account, to recoup the RMD withdrawal each year. }
I was wondering where you parked your wife's RMD & how you divided it % wise if more than one investment was picked.
Thanks for your time, Derf

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/how-fund-giant-vanguard-is-misleading-investors-about-a-proposed-tax-on-stock-trades-2020-01-16
Opinion: How fund giant Vanguard is misleading investors about a tax on stock trades
_financial-transaction tax would not harm Main Street investors, as Vanguard contends_
Be very careful out there and sometimes very helpful to read between fine prints

Hello
Thx for commentary
Added to preferred stock Allypra, vti, and opened positions in Telsla few days ago
Cut positions in several bonds - Att and tmobile
bonds also matured / short called at vanguard acct, all these positions were transferred to an primecapcore, vti, lifecycle2040, and vgstx
Don't have magic wands but think we maybe heading higher at end of year depending what happens in Washington impeachment/2020 election, and truce in china trade wars

Can someone explain why High Yield / Floating are kinda being lumped together above. I'm reading high yield not good place to be but what about floating rate?
Asking because have some of my MIL's money in PRFRX and I viewed it as conservative investment.

I'm quoting from the article the whole narrative "(2) High Yield / Floating Rate: Also called the non-investment grade bond market, high yield or junk bonds, the area of the market performed well in 2019. However, one has to remember where they started. Going into the fourth quarter of 2018, bond spreads were tight, equating with little return for the risk assumed. When the bear market/correction of Q4 2018 occurred, spreads blew out as investors sold out and ran to the safety of Treasuries and cash. As noted above, spreads were well above 500 bps. Today, they are down to ~350 bps which are very tight levels. At these levels, we would say investors in high yield are coupon clippers, meaning that you are likely to receive the yield only with little to no capital gains. The risk is to the downside."
HY correlate to stocks more than other bond categories. If stocks correct then HY probably will too.
Floating rate(=Bank Loans) are still junk bond with very short duration but they might go down too just as they did in Q4 of 2018, see (chart)
Usually, bank loans do better than most other bond categories when rates go up rapidly but rates are not expected to go up rapidly soon. I use BL funds as a trade when I'm convinced rates will go up and why I prefer to use mostly Multisector bond fund see 3 year (chart).
For conservative bond funds I prefer SEMMX,IISIX over PRFRX. See 5 year (chart) and how PRFRX was down much more than these 2 funds in the second half of 2015 and Q4 2018.

I may be slow, so help me out. LDVAX aims to replicate an index by taking positions in companies not in the index. I get CAPE and MOAT, which I own, because they invest in stocks that are part of their relative indices. CAPE does it indirectly through instruments I don't fully understand, but MOAT defines its index members quarterly and buys equal weights of the components. Both CAPE and MOAT do really well matched against SPY and I sometimes trade in and out of these ETFs depending on market conditions. I don't understand how LDVAX's managers can examine VC/PE activity for the previous quarter and translate those findings into buys or sells of companies not the subject of the activity. I recognize that existing listed companies might be receiving new infusions of capital though VC/PE, thereby making them candidates for purchase. However, for start-ups or brand new ideas, there won't be a listed stock and, more importantly, if the newby has some truly revolutionary idea or technology, there won't be a similar stock to buy. I can't argue with LDVAX's results, but they need to be put in the context of a perfect recent market environment for growth and an apparent need to trade furiously. S/T CG have risen over the fund's three-year history, so there are tax consequences. I'm hoping a board member understands better than I what the secret sauce is that juices the returns. My problem may be that I'm like the HS football team I played on: we were small, but we were slow.

I enjoyed the reads... very thorough, simple investment advice.
Keep it simple. DCA into VBINX...move on to other things...check back in 40 years.
7-rules-for-a-wealthy-retirement

The equally weighted oef that I like that is comprised of the top 100 US companies is VYCAX (Corporate Leaders 100 Fund). I have owned this fund off and on over the past ten years, or so, and have at times used it as one of my spiff (special investment) positions. One of the reasons I like this fund is that it usually has a good distribution yield. Last year its distribution yield was 9.3% which includes capital gain distributions. Although, it is an equity fund I consider it an income generating fund as well. Not only will it grow your principal through the years it will put some spiff in your poscket if you take all distributions in cash as I do.
Another equally weighted oef that I have used in the past as a spiff position is VADAX (Equally Weighted S&P 500 Fund). It has had some good distribution payouts as well; but, generally, lower than what VYCAX produces.

"As I said earlier, D&C is a good shop but I was always able to find better risk/reward funds than D&C."
That is figuratively and literally your bottom line. Though what you're looking at is volatility, not risk. SD is a measure of volatility. Sharpe ratio is a ratio of return to volatility (SD). Sortino ratio "measures the return to 'bad' volatility." Then there's the Treynor ratio, " known as the 'reward-to-volatility ratio'".
Sortino: https://www.morningstar.com/InvGlossary/sortino_ratio_definition_what_is.aspx
Treynor: https://www.morningstar.com/articles/384148/article
Sure, look at all of these measures, and more. Just realize that they're all variations on the same theme - equating volatility with risk. When cash flow is a concern, volatility does create risk. But you dismissed that.
DODFX vs VFINX? Yes, foreign investments have done worse than domestic for the past ten years. I'll guess that was a typo and that you meant to write DODGX.
Recognizing that DODGX is a value fund, value has likewise underperformed for the past ten years (link). The comparison says more about the relative performances of the market segments than the funds. Still, since you did mention mean regression, it might be helpful to look at a quote from an article praised in another thread:

Value stocks may finally do better than growth stocks thanks to the steeper yield curve. The thesis of owning growth stocks during a flattening yield curve and value stocks during steepening could prove true here.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/17/business/stock-market-index-equal-weight.html
Now, Try Slicing the Stock Market Into Equal Pieces
_
Index fund investing is already immensely popular. But is it time to consider funds that construct indexes differently?
Equal-weighted funds tend to be “more expensive, smaller in size and trade less frequently than the cap-weighted alternatives,” he said. The diversification they provide outweighs those drawbacks, in his view, “but they are things for investors to keep in mind.”
_

“ There is one particular poster, John, who introduces about 4 or 5 or more new threads every day, that goes straight to the beginning of the Discussion section.”
That’s the way it’s supposed to work. The most recent new threads go to the top. Most who post here have a broadspread appreciation of many different facets of investing. We’ve never felt a need to compartmentalize. What you might be missing, however, is the “Discussions +” link which appears to the left side of the screen when you’re logged in. By clicking on that you can view just the threads which have received comments by others. (If you login using that saved link, it will take you directly there.) That’s the link I generally use - though it’s helpful occasionally to scan all of the threads, whether commented on yet or not. Also, you can easily bump to the top of the stack any thread farther down that you want to promote by making brief comment in that thread,
As you must be aware, we recently lost Ted Didesch “the Linkster” who for many years posted dozens of helpful links virtually every day. We all miss Ted. John it seems is trying to help compensate for that loss with some fresh threads every day. I’ll criticize his formatting or choice of topics occasionally (fair game), but I would never disparage what he’s attempting to do for the rest of us. The simple answer to “not liking” the topics that are posted is to post a few of your own.
We have (or have had in the past) some excellent posters here who also post on M* or other forums. No need for exclusivity that I’m aware of. Hopefully everyone can find a forum somewhere that they enjoy and benefit from. The Discussion board here is but a “side show” to all that MFO has to offer investors. David’s monthly commentaries are top notch - required reading IMHO for mutual fund investors: https://www.mutualfundobserver.com/2020/01/january-1-2020/ And it doesn’t stop with David. There’s over a half dozen knowledgeable / experienced investors who contribute to that publication every month, including Ed Studzinsky, former manager of OAKBX, whom I particularly enjoy reading. The research tools available here to those who want to dig deeper into funds are of high repute as well.
Best wishes @dtconroe to you wherever you eventually decide to land.

The Leland Reuters Family consists of three funds: Thomson Reuters Venture Capital Index Fund, Thomson Reuters Private Equity Buyout Index Fund, and Real Asset Opportunities Fund.
We’ll focus on the first of these.
Objective and Strategy
It’s complicated.
First, the TR Venture Capital Research Index looks at 22,000 U.S. firms and all of the VC/PE deals that occurred over the previous quarter, analyzes them, and places them in the seven sectors that comprise the index to see how these companies are performing and estimates their value using data stemming from IPOs, stock buybacks, and surveys.
Then, the TR Venture Capital Index (TR VC Index) seeks to replicate that risk/ return profile of the TR VC Research Index by using the same process to identify a set of publicly listed assets that when properly weighted replicate the returns of the TR VC Research Index.
Rather than investing in venture capital/private equity companies directly, the TR VC Index seeks to replicate the industry’s returns by constructing a portfolio of liquid, U.S. large cap, listed equities, (e.g., Apple, Dow Chemical, Berkshire Hathaway Inc.).
This portfolio is designed to mirror the characteristics and returns of the VC/PE markets, which is tracked and calculated by Refinitiv in the Venture Capital Research Index.

Additionally, it uses economic factors and market indicators to calculate optimal asset weights and modifies the portfolio over time to reflect changes in the venture capital universe. Small leverage is commonly used so that the tracking portfolio’s risk loadings match those of the VC/PE industry in aggregate.
The Leland Thomson Reuters Venture Capital Index Fund acquired all of the assets and liabilities of the MPS Thomson Reuters Venture Capital Fund (the "Predecessor Fund") in a tax-free reorganization on September 24, 2015. (SAI)
Adviser: Good Harbor® Financial, LLC develops and manages a comprehensive suite of investment solutions designed to fit into a wide range of portfolios for institutions, private investors and their financial advisors. Based in Chicago, the firm provides actively managed access to a broad range of global capital markets.
Managers
Neil R. Peplinski, CFA. Managing Partner, Good Harbor Financial LLC, worked as a portfolio manager for Allstate Investments overseeing a $400 million portfolio of collateralized debt obligations. Neil earned his MBA with High Honors from The University of Chicago Booth School of Business. He also holds a MSEE in Electromagnetics from The University of Michigan, and a BSEE in Electromagnetics from Michigan Technological University where he graduated summa cum laude.
David Armstrong, portfolio manager. He is primarily responsible for working with advisory firms and investors to understand tactical asset allocation as they assess Good Harbor and its investment strategies. With 28 years of professional experience, David’s previous companies include Honeywell, RR Donnelley and Oracle. Prior to joining Good Harbor, he was a director of research conducting analysis on the nature and structure of competition in the credit card market for financial firms. David earned his MBA from the University of Chicago Booth School of Business and a BA from Knox College.
Yash Patel, CFA, Chief Operating Officer, has served as a Portfolio Manager since March 2010 at Good Harbor Financial and also serves as its Chief Operating Officer. Yash brings 14 years of professional experience to the firm. His responsibilities include the management and leadership of operations, technology, trading, and portfolio management. Prior to joining Good Harbor Financial, Yash was a quantitative equity analyst for Allstate Investments, developing and implementing model-driven trading strategies. Previous to that, he worked and consulted for hedge funds including Bridgewater Associates and Citadel Investment Group. Yash earned an MBA with Honors from The University of Chicago Booth School of Business and a BS CSE from The Ohio State University.
Managements stake in the fund
As of 9/30/18 (the latest available), Mr. Peplinski owns between $100,001-500,000 amount of the VC fund; Mr. Armstrong $10,001-50,000; Mr. Patel $1,000-10,000.
None of the five trustees own shares of the fund.
Opening dates
LDVIX 10/2/2014; LDVAX Class A 10/2/2014; LDVAX w/load 10/2/2014; LDVCX 9/23/2015
Expense ratios LDVIX 1.51; LDVCX 2.51; LDVAX 1.76
Minimum investment
LDVIX $250K Regular, IRA; LDVCX Regular $2,500, IRA $1,000; LDVAX Regular $2,500, IRA $1,000
The funds have limited brokerage availability. All are NTF at TD; Fidelity LDVAX TF;
Schwab LDVIX Institutional Class $100K Regular, IRA; LDVAX $100, Regular, IRA
Other Facts
As of 12/31/19, the AUM of the Leland Thomson Reuters Venture Capital Index Fund was $122,987,322. According to M*, the fund currently has $141.7M in assets.
The firm reports turnover for the Leland Funds on a fiscal year basis (9/30). For FY ending 9/30/2019, the turnover for the Leland Thomson Reuters Venture Capital Index Fund was 115%. It was 47% in 2018 (9/30).
The prospectus states that typically the TO is over 100%.
AUM at the firm on 9/30/19 was $280.4M EOY, a decline from $440M from the previous EOY.
The overall AUM decline is mostly due to outflows in their Good Harbor Tactical Core US strategy (both in the mutual fund version and SMA). There have also been outflows in the Leland Real Asset Opportunities Fund as well.
Here is the link of the fund’s holdings that seek to track the Index.
http://www.lelandfunds.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/2019_12_Leland-TR-VC-Index-Fund-Holdings.pdf
Performance information of the Index:
https://www.refinitiv.com/content/dam/marketing/en_us/documents/fact-sheets/venture-capital-index-fact-sheet.pdf
Comments
The gentleman who asked about the fund mentioned the three-year performance of LDVAX, a 5.75% load fund.
I’ve chosen to cite the I class LDVIX and C class LVDCX and the Primecap POAGX, the aggressive mid-cap fund with a stellar record since its inception in 1984 and currently closed with $6B in assets. Like the Leland funds, POAGX is concentrated in tech and healthcare.
Also, he also owned POAGX but sold it in 12/2018.
How have these funds performed?
As of 1/16/20, the dollar value of LDVIX is $24,670, LDVCX $23,979, and POAGX $15,709 at M*.
As of 1/16/20, LDVIX has gained 9.56%, LDVCX 9.57%, and LDVAX 9.59%. All have 5* ratings for overall performance at M*.
While these funds have some significant headwinds, their performance to date has managed to overcome them. Additionally, if one looks at MFOP for the three-year metrics that the gentleman cited ending 12/31/19, you'll see this:
LDVIX MAXDD 12/18 -23.1; Recovery Rtg. 1 (Best) 7 mo.; Sharpe Ratio 1.38 5 (Best); Martin Ratio 5.13; Ulcer Index 6.3
LDVCX MAXDD 12/18 -22.3; RR 1 (Best) 7 mo., SR 1.33 1.33 (Best); MR 4.85; UI 6.4
POAGX MAXDD 12/18 -22.3; RR 5 (Worst) 16+ mo.; SR 0.73 (Worst 1); MR 1.69; UI 8.1
The overall success of these funds may result primarily from the ability of the managers in the alternative class space to match the performance of their bogy with well-chosen public companies.
I do not own this fund and won't be buying it.
I researched this fund because a board member asked for information about it, I had already been researching it at MFOP, and because he had received no replies, I wanted to
contact him.
I’d like to thank everyone who participated in the search for this gentleman and hope that what I have written may be of some value.

Pimco Real Return PRRIX provides worthwhile inflation-protected bond exposure, which can help preserve purchasing power in retirement. By Miriam Sjoblom, (CFA) for M* ,Jan 16, 2020
"Despite some noteworthy team turnover, Pimco Real Return's experienced management team and extensive supporting cast of global-bond specialists continue to give it an edge in the inflation-linked bond arena. Given the importance of low fees in this competitive field, the fund's cheapest institutional share classes earn Morningstar Analyst Ratings of Silver and Bronze, while its remaining shares are rated Neutral."
Article Here

This retiree prefers to separate strategies so he sees the moving parts he's betting on -- I mean investing in.
So if I want derivatives, corporates, and securitized fare I'ld buy them separately.
Per the M* link:

It employs macro-driven strategies (driven by real growth, inflation, and country-specific analysis) and micro-driven themes (including Consumer Price Index seasonality, on-the-run/off-the-run premiums, and implied inflation volatility). Although U.S. TIPS and, to a lesser extent, other global inflation-linked bonds dominate the portfolio, the strategy can invest up to 20% in other sectors, such as corporates and securitized fare.
The approach has led to sizable off-index bets at times, a trait that distinguishes it from its more-constrained peers, including use of Pimco's bonds-plus techniques, by which the strategy gets exposure to its primary sectors via derivatives and invests the cash collateral in short-term bonds. The team may also make meaningful and swift maturity shifts, though the portfolio's overall duration has generally stayed within a year of the benchmark's. The strategy's adventurous nature can cause its performance to diverge from that of the U.S. TIPS market at times. But overall, its flexible approach, which benefits from the insights of Pimco's broad, deep bench of global-bond experts, earns a High Process Pillar rating.

But for people that don't like to own too many funds this offering from PIMCO is probably safe enough.