CIPSX's five year returns are below average, but since inception, as Charles's charts show, it's beaten the S&P by 2.8% a year with below average risk. According to M*, since inception on 11/30/2004, 10K in CIPSX has grown to $25,131, vs $19,581 for the average small growth fund and $20,535 for the S&P.
If like me, VF bought it near inception, it's done well for him. I think it's best to judge funds over a full market cycle, including a bear, and on that scale CIPSX has done well.
That said, I think there are better funds (and I have too many), but I'd have to take a big capital gains hit so I'm planning to sell it only when I decide to cut back on equities. But I'm nearing that moment...

(My condolences to his family)
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1366043/000116204414000830/ocean497201407.htm
Oceanstone Fund
Supplement dated July 18, 2014
To Prospectus dated October 24, 2013
With deep and sincere regrets, the Board of Trustees hereby informs you that Mr. James J. Wang passed away. He was the Fund's portfolio manager since its inception in 2006. He was very sincere, hard working, humble, efficient and caring. On July 18, 2014, the Board of Trustees of Oceanstone Fund (the “Trust”) determined, based primarily upon the recommendations of Oceanstone Capital Management, Inc., R.I.A, the investment adviser to the Oceanstone Fund (the “Fund”), to close the Fund and provide for its orderly dissolution. Accordingly, the Trustees have authorized the officers of the Trust to take all appropriate actions necessary for the liquidation of the Fund on or about August 31, 2014. Upon the date of liquidation, those shareholders remaining in the Fund will have their shares redeemed and the proceeds will be distributed as directed.
As a result of these developments, the Fund is closed to new investors, and shares are no longer available for purchase by current shareholders, other than through reinvested dividends. The Fund is no longer pursuing its investment objective.
ANY SHAREHOLDERS WHO HAVE NOT REDEEMED THEIR SHARES OF THE FUND PRIOR TO AUGUST 31, 2014 WILL HAVE THEIR SHARES AUTOMATICALLY REDEEMED AS OF THAT DATE, AND PROCEEDS WILL BE SENT TO THE ADDRESS OF RECORD (For retirement plan accounts, federal taxes of ten percent (10%) of the proceeds will be withheld as per IRS rules if shares are not redeemed before August 31st, 2014). Prior to AUGUST 31, 2014 you may redeem your account, including reinvested distributions, in accordance with the “How to Redeem Shares” section in the Prospectus. Because of the extraordinary circumstances we are waiving the requirement for signature guarantee. If you have questions or need assistance, please contact Mutual Shareholder Services, LLC at 1-800-988-6290.
IMPORTANT INFORMATION FOR RETIREMENT PLAN INVESTORS
If you are a retirement plan investor, you should consult your tax advisor regarding the consequences of a redemption of Fund shares. If you receive a distribution from an Individual Retirement Account or a Simplified Employee Pension (SEP) IRA, you must roll the proceeds into another Individual Retirement Account within sixty (60) days of the date of the distribution in order to avoid having to include the distribution in your taxable income for the year. If you receive a distribution from a 403(b)(7) Custodian Account (Tax-Sheltered account) or a Keogh Account, you must roll the distribution into a similar type of retirement plan within sixty (60) days in order to avoid disqualification of your plan and the severe tax consequences that it can bring. If you are the trustee of a Qualified Retirement Plan, you may reinvest the money in any way permitted by the plan and trust agreement.
______________________________________
This supplement dated July 18, 2014 to the Prospectus dated October 24, 2013 provide the information an investor ought to know and should be retained for future reference.

I too would get rid of FSCRX, because of its size. It's probably not a bad time to dial down on small caps anyway. I hate to pay taxes, but a concern with WSCVX is that its manager is also nearing retirement age (born 1945), so it's probably not one you will want to leave to your heirs, and I think it's pretty similar to VVPSX in its profile. GPROX I don't think overlaps with the others, since it's mostly global.
So my vote would be to sell FSCRX and, if you can sell something else at a loss to compensate for the capital gains, sell WSCVX too. Otherwise just sell FSCRX and call it a day.
Or you can just sit tight -- I think consolidation for the sake of consolidation is overrated, and FSCRX, with its low turnover and good downside protection, seems to be managing its size well.
Congrats on having chosen such good funds!

http://blogs.marketwatch.com/thetell/2014/07/17/gundlach-fund-declared-unratable-by-morningstar-amid-prolonged-dispute/
Loren Fleckenstein, analyst at DoubleLine Capital said by telephone: “Honestly, I don’t know the difference between their former neutral rating and this new non-ratable designation. Either way, they don’t understand our fund.”

FYI: Copy & Paste 7/16/14: Dimitra Defotis: WSJ
Regards,
Ted
H. Kevin Birzer of the Tortoise MLP & Pipeline Fund has averaged 24% annual returns over the past three yrs.
For investors looking for income and an energy allocation, the Tortoise MLP & Pipeline Fund has performed like a hare.
The mutual fund (ticker: TORTX ) boasts one of the top performances among an increasing variety of funds that invest in master limited partnerships, those energy pipeline and infrastructure assets with rich, tax-deferred yields. But the fund owns regular energy corporations, too, and the combo has produced a three-year annualized return of roughly 24%, and a 36% total return in the past year, well ahead of the Standard & Poor's 500 Energy Index and the benchmark Alerian MLP Index.
The fund's five co-managers look for businesses that produce double-digit cash-flow growth and collect steady fees. And with gushers from American oil-and-gas fields filling pipelines coast to coast, the fund's relatively low dividend should continue its recent growth spurt.
We asked co-manager H. Kevin Birzer to talk about picks and risks. Birzer co-founded Tortoise Capital Advisors, which is one of the largest MLP asset managers and is based in Leawood, Kan.
Barrons.com: How do you choose winners?
Birzer: It comes down to: Do these assets have to exist? Second question is: Do they have the right management team? Third, we don't want a lot of cash flow volatility risk. We look at the nature of the assets and the contract structure. Refiners have huge volatility. A pipeline, on the other hand, generally gets paid for transporting the product into the refinery and out of the refinery based on volume. There has been a heck of a lot of activity with the shale plays, and pipelines tend to be the cheapest, easiest way to get those hydrocarbons to market.
Manager's Bio
Name: H. Kevin Birzer
Age: 54
Title: Co-founder, Tortoise Capital Advisors and co-portfolio manager, Tortoise MLP & Pipeline Fund
Education: B.S., University of Notre Dame; M.B.A., New York University
Free Time: Reading, co-founder and volunteer with The Giving Grove, a Kansas City nonprofit that develops inner city edible tree gardens
Q: What names do you like?
A: Our top holding today is Spectra Energy ( SE ), a large, diversified pipeline company that is investment-grade rated and has a $28 billion market capitalization. They own Spectra Energy Partners ( SEP ), an MLP. Spectra Energy has a great footprint of assets. Its Texas Eastern Pipeline goes from Texas up to New York City carrying natural gas right smack dab through Pennsylvania, where the Marcellus Shale has gone from virtually no production to about 12 billion cubic feet per day. Nearly 20% of the U.S. supply of natural gas now comes through Pennsylvania. It is just crazy how this has changed over the last five years. Spectra is in the process of making that pipeline bidirectional, to reverse gas from New York and take it back to Tennessee or other parts of the country. That is a great asset. Spectra also has a valuable pipeline from Canada's oil sands that extends to Missouri. They have about $20 billion in pipeline growth projects [with] pretty good commitments up front for both return of your capital as well as return on your capital during the contract period. That means low risk. Spectra can grow its distributions at about a 10% rate for many years to come. It yields about 3%. Probably 14% [annual] returns over the long term.
Q: Will pipelines become obsolete as oil and gas production dwindles?
A: In some cases, yes. There are some pipelines that are so, so strategic and they are sitting on a gold mine. Spectra's pipelines are sitting on some gold mines.
Fund Facts
(as of July 10, 2014)
Tortoise MLP & Pipeline Fund (TORTX)
Assets: $1.8 billion
Expense Ratio: 1.33%
Front Load: 5.75%
Annual Portfolio Turnover: 25%
Yield: 1.2%
Source: Morningstar
Q: Spectra stock is near a 52-week high. How much upside is there?
A: We have added to our position over time, from $25, and it is near $42 today. As a long-term investment I think it is a strong buy. We do a long-term, discounted cash flow analysis. No matter how you slice and dice it, you end up with: the current yield, yield growth, and visibility into that growth. In New York City, you are not going to heat your home this winter if Spectra doesn't exist.
Q: What other names do you like?
A: Williams Cos. ( WMB ), a corporation, as opposed to Williams Partners ( WPZ ), the MLP. It operates 15,000 miles of interstate gas pipelines, more than 10,000 miles of oil and gas gathering pipelines. It is a pure play general partner on Williams Partners and Access Midstream Partners ( ACMP ), which are to merge. Williams got rid of a lot of its exploration and production assets. They now have one of the biggest gathering and processing businesses in the country. Williams has a footprint in all the big plays in the country except the Bakken. It is an investment-grade-rated company with $40 billion in market-equity capitalization. They are just getting paid for moving products from point A to point B; about 80% of their business will be fee-based after the merger they are doing.
Q: What would be the case for buying it here?
A: Similar to Spectra, yield plus growth. The company says it can grow cash flow 15% annually every year between now and 2017. Williams Cos. has a 2.9% yield and if you add 15% growth, you have upper-teens returns. This isn't a trade, this is a long-term investment.
Top 10 Holdings
(as of May 31, 2014)
Spectra Energy (SE)
Williams Cos. (WMB)
Oneok (OKE)
NiSource (NI)
EQT (EQT)
Enbridge (ENB)
Plains GP Holdings (PAGP)
Enterprise Products Partners (EPD)
TransCanada (TRP)
Pembina Pipeline (PBA)
Source: Tortoise Capital Advisors
Q: Why aren't we talking about price-to-earnings ratios?
A: We can talk about P/E, we can talk about enterprise value to earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization (Ebitda), we can talk about discounted cash flow. In my mind this is one segment of the world where just talking about yield and growth is the best proxy for returns.
Q: Another pick?
A: Oneok ( OKE ) is the general partner, a corporation, that controls what happens at the master limited partnership, Oneok Partners ( OKS ). Two different legal entities, but their assets are extremely closely tied.
Q: The general partner gets a rising percentage of the distribution. What else do you like about Oneok the corporation?
A: About two-thirds of its business is fee-based -- very low risk and a great investment. And, they have a big footprint in the Bakken shale, unlike Williams and Spectra. They have about $2 billion in their construction backlog and $3 billion to $4 billion in unannounced projects. Their market cap is about $14 billion. They think they can grow their distribution at least 10% per annum for the next several years. I get a mid-3% yield with 10% growth. So 13% returns is a heck of a good story.
Q: You see big opportunities in the Permian basin in Texas. Who benefits?
A: Plains All American Pipeline ( PAA ). We own the general partner, Plains GP Holdings ( PAGP ). Plains probably touches 20% of the crude oil in our country every single day. If Plains All American didn't exist, you'd have a problem. Plains also happens to have this great footprint in West Texas. As new pipelines are built, Plains benefits.
Q: Barron's has questioned how MLPs account for maintenance capital expenditures, including Kinder Morgan ( KMI ), which Tortoise owns. What are your thoughts?
A: You have to be careful: What makes up that distributable cash flow is operating income or Ebitda. You start with Ebitda, you back out interest expenses or your debt burden, and you back out maintenance capital expenditures. That leaves distributable cash flow -- what's available to pay out. There could be an inherent conflict of interest: Management may want to skimp on maintenance capital expenditures because that would increase what is paid out -- distributable cash flow. If a management team is trying to cut corners, cut the maintenance capital expenditures, you could have an issue. We ask: Have the companies reinvested appropriately? Have they accounted for it appropriately? Have they disclosed appropriately to investors? We invest in managements that are running assets for the long term.
Q: What else do you worry about?
A: Interest rate risks. Broad economic risk. The re-plumbing issue: There are basins that probably aren't as valuable anymore. The Haynesville three to five years ago was a hot natural gas play, but it is not as economic to get natural gas out of that area today with natural gas prices in the range of $4.50 to $4.75 per million British thermal units. To get Canadian oil sands out of the ground, oil needs to be priced at $70 to $80 a barrel. If oil prices drop to $70 or $80, you may not have a whole lot going on in Canadian oil sands. I worry about regulation, especially tax changes but also about fracking. I worry about what is allowed as an MLP asset.
Q: What kind of returns do you expect from pipelines in 2014?
A: Our expectation from the day we started this company 12 years ago until today really has not changed a lot: low double digits, 10% to 14%. Ten years ago I would have said yields of 6% and distribution growth of 4% to 6%. Today, I probably would say lower yields, probably 4%, but higher growth and 10% to 14% returns long term.
Q: Thanks.
M* Snapshot Of: TORTX: http://quotes.morningstar.com/fund/f?t=TORTX&region=usa&culture=en-US

I'm relatively bullish too. For me, near the end but not quite there yet means another couple years, and probably another 200-400 points on the S&P before we get another bear. But considering how far we've come, even 400 points would stil put most of the gains in this bull in the past.
My point was that retail investors starting to pile is trditionally an indicator we're in the 7th inning or so, but not quite at the end of the game. It's when folks at cocktail parties are bragging over how much they made ever since they finally bought in last year, and spontaneously offer you some tips, that we're at the end.
That's my guess, anyway!

FYI: Cope & Paste 7/11/14: Kristian Grind: WSJ:
Choices Including Nontraded Real-Estate Investment Trusts and 'Liquid Alternative' Funds Have Numerous Risks
Regards,
Ted
Mutual funds that try to emulate hedge funds. Exchange-traded funds that use borrowed money to jack up their bets. Real-estate investment trusts that are hard to unload. Structured notes that look like conventional debt but can be far more risky, and "go anywhere" bond funds that are prone to trade safety for yield.
All these investments have at least one thing in common: They have seen their popularity soar recently as investors seek protection from perceived market dangers—or as fund companies market them heavily. They also are hard to understand, lack transparency, are expensive and don't have proven performance records.
In interviews, financial advisers, analysts and industry experts frequently said these investment types should be treated with extra caution by investors.
"Anything that is complicated is not something that the typical investor should buy," says Samuel Lee, an analyst at Chicago-based investment-research firm Morningstar MORN +0.44% who specializes in ETFs. "There are more opportunities for sophisticated players to take advantage of you."
To be sure, these investments can perform well and could have a place in a portfolio—albeit a small one—as long as they are used correctly. There are plenty of other risky investments marketed to individuals that aren't named here—foreign-exchange trading or options trading, for example.
Investors should ask several questions before they plunk down their money, says Robert Hockett, president and wealth manager at Atlanta-based Cambridge Wealth Counsel, which oversees $260 million in assets: Is it clear what the investment does? Does it come with high fees? Can you sell it easily? And does it have a proven record?
Here is what you need to know about the five investments—and some safer alternatives.
Liquid-Alternative Funds
"Liquid alternative" mutual funds typically employ hedge-fund-like strategies but don't come with the same restrictions. There isn't a high investment minimum, for example, and the funds aren't as difficult to exit as traditional hedge funds.
The category encompasses several different subsets, including so-called long-short funds—equity funds that hold long positions in some stocks while betting against others, and managed-futures funds, which bet on futures contracts. Other funds use leverage, or borrowed money, to ramp up their bets.
Liquid-alternative funds have skyrocketed in popularity, with investors pouring $40 billion into them in 2013, up from $14 billion the previous year, according to Morningstar. This year through June, they have taken in $14.6 billion.
Fund companies say they offer investors a chance to diversify their portfolio and capture at least some of the upside of stock returns in good markets while offering protection in down markets.
But skeptics say the strategies often are too complicated for the average investor to understand, and many are too new to have a proven track record. They also come with high fees: an average of 1.9% of total assets, or $190 per a $10,000 investment, compared with 1.2% for a typical actively managed stock mutual fund and 0.6% for a stock index fund, according to Morningstar.
"They have some ugly baggage and warts they carry," says Mark Balasa of Balasa Dinverno Foltz in Itasca, Ill., a wealth-management firm with $2.8 billion in assets under management. "Advisers are challenged to understand what they do, let alone investors."
Christopher Van Slyke, founder of WorthPointe, a wealth adviser in Austin, Texas, with $325 million of assets under management, says most of the funds he has seen pitched by investment firms don't have more than a six-month track record. He likens them to a "black box" because of their complex investment strategies.
Try instead: If you want some shelter from the risk of a bad decline in stocks, you could always keep more of your money in cash instead. It is safer and a lot cheaper.
Nontraded Real-Estate Investment Trusts
Nontraded real-estate investment trusts are similar to their public counterparts, which trade like stocks and allow investors to invest in an array of commercial properties.
Lately, nontraded REITs have been going gangbusters: In 2013, they raised $19.6 billion, up from $10.3 billion in 2012, according to Robert A. Stanger & Co., a Shrewsbury, N.J.-based investment bank that tracks the industry. Through June of this year, nontraded REITs have raised $8.8 billion.
Investors are attracted to them because of their high dividends—generally as much as 7% on invested capital versus 3% to 4% for publicly traded REITs, according to Green Street Advisors, a research firm in Newport Beach, Calif.
But nontraded REITs can be hard for investors to unload during a real-estate downturn, advisers say. The investments have become a concern of the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, the industry's self-regulator. Because they are generally illiquid, their performance and value are difficult to understand and the cost is high, the agency has warned.
Disclosure is murkier than with publicly traded REITs. While nontraded REITs report their holdings quarterly, investors don't initially know more than the general asset class they are investing in when they buy in—what is known as a "blind pool."
What's more, say experts, because the REIT isn't trading publicly, it is hard to gauge its value until a liquidity event occurs, such as when the REIT is sold, merged or publicly listed, although the REITs typically use appraisals to report the share value after the offering closes.
Fees also are high, as much as 11% in initial sales charges to pay the retail broker, the dealer and the back-end costs of putting the REIT together, according to Stanger.
Nontraded REITs have a mixed track record. Of seven deals that were merged or sold in 2013, four are worth more now than the initial issuing price of the shares, according to Stanger. A $10 share in the Chambers Street REIT, for example, would now be worth $8.04, while a $10 investment in the Cole REIT would be worth $13.56.
Try instead: Publicly traded REITs aren't nearly as risky and are far more transparent, and they can be a good diversifier in a portfolio, experts say. A mutual fund that holds a basket of commercial real-estate companies also can provide exposure to the market and is liquid, says Dave Homan of Willow Creek Wealth Management in Sebastopol, Calif.
The $24 billion Vanguard REIT ETF, VNQ +0.01% for example, whose holdings include property developers and REITs, has returned an average of 10.5% over the past three years as of July 10, according to Morningstar. The ETF has an annual expense ratio of 0.1%, or $10 per $10,000 invested.
Graphic; http://online.wsj.com/news/interactive/INVESTOR0711?ref=SB10001424052702304642804580015090303169012

Since you are thinking about capital preservation, and maybe PRPFX has a bright short-term future (as you suggest), sure, and maybe even longterm, I nonetheless suggest that you graph its last year against GLRBX, PONDX, and, oh, AOM. Looks okay, not great, but quite okay. Then do the same for two years.

FWIW, here is a relatively recent and long article on Onex.
http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-06-26/gerry-schwartzs-private-equity-firm-onex-thrives-in-the-shadows

Added to Oaktree (OAK). Considering the following Canadian companies:
Onex (Private Equity)
Dundee (Holding Co.)
Dream Unlimited (REOC) and
Boardwalk REIT
Also, pondering MONIF.
Would appreciated comments from others on any of these names.
GLTA

I like Oaktree and have been adding a bit in the upper $40's. It is a long-term holding.
I'm not familiar with Onex, but Dundee, Dream and Boardwalk (I own CapREIT instead of Boardwalk, but Boardwalk is a good company) are all solid choices.
I've owned Monitise a few times. Once I did well, once I didn't and the last time was very brief about a month or so ago and was out flat. I think the company has potential still, but the change in business model recently really has caused expectations to be re-set lower - the stock's down about half since the high earlier this year and was down 20+% a day or two ago after earnings were disappointing. It's definitely a volatile stock.
The new co-CEO situation looked promising, but the stock gained no traction on the news. You have Visa (Visa Europe and Visa owning around a combined 11-12%), Mastercard (small investment) as investors and Omega (Leon Cooperman's hedge fund) owning over 10%. Capital Research (the American Funds) now appearing as large shareholder with almost 3%. Doug Kass is also highly bullish on Monitise.
That said, stock is down nearly 10% again this morning. I still think the story eventually ends well for Monitise, but the journey now appears longer (a lot longer, perhaps?) than expected. I'm not looking to get back into it (getting in at this point at probably around 75 cents or wherever it opens this morning may be work out great, who knows, but I'm just not looking for another go-around with it) and instead just focusing on things that are less speculative/ long-term holdings - FIS (and I'd consider FISV too, if it paid a dividend), V, MA and AXP.
Cooperman is apparently going to be on CNBC's "Delivering Alpha" next week and I'd guess he will try to talk up the company. While CNBC's ratings are in decline, if he does talk up Monitise, that will likely be good for a move higher but it becomes whether or not that move is sustainable.

I'm finding myself thinking more about capital preservation these days.
I have also noticed Precious Metals (more so) and LT Treasuries (to a lesser degree) seems to be acting as uncorrelated assets to equities more often than not. At times like these, I use a fund like PRPFX and compare it's relative performance against my other funds and look for signs of weakness (where my equity fund crosses over or underperforms relative to a fund like PRPFX).
In the past I have often scaled back on my equity position putting a larger weighting in a fund like PRPFX (or a multisector bond fund like PONDX) as a way to protect assets. PRPFX is up 6% YTD and 11% over the last 1 year time frame. Over a 3 year time frame is has provided capital preservation at best while many sectors of the markets roared ahead of this fund by as much as 60%.
If we are headed for a revision, a fund like PRPFX is not a bad place to be. If we are merely consolidating, a PRPFX like fund is still not a bad place to be.
Here's a chart showing PRPFX vs. VFINX (S&P 500 index) over the last month...VFINX is still out performing PONDX (my multisector bond fund), but having trouble outperforming PRPFX. Obliviously this is a short timeframe, but the relative out performance of PRPFX is, to me, worth noting. In this case PRPFX's PM and LT treasuries are serving an important role at this particular moment.
Are you using any funds for these stated purposes...either capital preservation or as a fund that protects on the downside?

Added to Oaktree (OAK). Considering the following Canadian companies:
Onex (Private Equity)
Dundee (Holding Co.)
Dream Unlimited (REOC) and
Boardwalk REIT
Also, pondering MONIF.
Would appreciated comments from others on any of these names.
GLTA

I like Oaktree and have been adding a bit in the upper $40's. It is a long-term holding.
I'm not familiar with Onex, but Dundee, Dream and Boardwalk (I own CapREIT instead of Boardwalk, but Boardwalk is a good company) are all solid choices.
I've owned Monitise a few times. Once I did well, once I didn't and the last time was very brief about a month or so ago and was out flat. I think the company has potential still, but the change in business model recently really has caused expectations to be re-set lower - the stock's down about half since the high earlier this year and was down 20+% a day or two ago after earnings were disappointing. It's definitely a volatile stock.
The new co-CEO situation looked promising, but the stock gained no traction on the news. You have Visa (Visa Europe and Visa owning around a combined 11-12%), Mastercard (small investment) as investors and Omega (Leon Cooperman's hedge fund) owning over 10%. Capital Research (the American Funds) now appearing as large shareholder with almost 3%. Doug Kass is also highly bullish on Monitise.
That said, stock is down nearly 10% again this morning. I still think the story eventually ends well for Monitise, but the journey now appears longer (a lot longer, perhaps?) than expected. I'm not looking to get back into it (getting in at this point at probably around 75 cents or wherever it opens this morning may be work out great, who knows, but I'm just not looking for another go-around with it) and instead just focusing on things that are less speculative/ long-term holdings - FIS (and I'd consider FISV too, if it paid a dividend), V, MA and AXP.
Cooperman is apparently going to be on CNBC's "Delivering Alpha" next week and I'd guess he will try to talk up the company. While CNBC's ratings are in decline, if he does talk up Monitise, that will likely be good for a move higher but it becomes whether or not that move is sustainable.

Dear Lord, what bunk. I suggest anyone looking at these graph how they did as far back as they go (many are young), and for sure doublecheck manager tenure (many are recent starts). Incredible this gets published by MW with that hed.
/// There are 10 five-star funds that rank in the top 10% on both active share and returns within their subgroup — smaller companies, large-capitalization value and so on. The list was compiled this way because active share tends to vary across categories, as does performance.
/// Five of the funds specialize in larger companies: Guinness Atkinson Global Innovators (IWIRX) (MFD:IWIRX) ; Johnson Enhanced Return (MFD:JENHX) ; Marsico Flexible Capital (MFD:MFCFX) ; Pimco Fundamental IndexPlus (MFD:PIXAX) and Pimco StocksPlus Absolute Return (MFD:PSPTX) .
Compare with PRBLX and any Yackt. And against one another. Note 08-09 dip severity. Check management dates. Etc. The usual.
Did not have the energy to do the same with the SCs, but since most are not so known, I fear similar finding.

>>>The most powerful weapons in an investor’s arsenal are time and patience. <<<
You are a walking encyclopedia of stock market platitudes. Not a criticism, just an observation. Let's see, when I was approaching my 38th birthday in the spring of 1985 I was unemployed and had around $2200-$2300 in my account. I actually had a negative net worth if you take into consideration credit card debt, etc. Taking your beloved index approach with my account coupled with "time and patience" would put me about where almost 30 years later? Not in a very secure financial situation that's for sure.
Edit: Stock market platitudes aren't all that bad. For instance, I think the best wealth creation tool out there is the tax free compounding of your capital over time (but please no patience as that leads to subpar returns) You talk to some of the traders on the trading forums and tax free accounts ala IRAs etc are foreign concepts to them.

Was there not a ratio of stocks to bonds that factored in risk versus gains? In other words a person could invest 70/30 and almost achieve the same returns as being in 100% stocks but with far less risk.
I believe Professor Sharpe had it down to 64% stocks and 36% bonds.
Granted, stocks will always give one the better returns over the long haul but with higher risk.

FYI:
U.S. stocks extended gains after the release of Federal Reserve meeting minutes that market participants described as largely in line with expectations
Regards,
Ted
http://online.wsj.com/articles/u-s-stock-futures-inch-higher-1404908255#printMode
Markets At A Glance: http://markets.wsj.com/us

Some may, and will, argue. But my take is that all of this New Neutral is a re-constituted version of a lot of PIMCO's New Normal from a few years ago. Back then, the view from PIMCO was that stocks would return fairly low single digits, which is what this pseudo-new view suggests. And bonds will do slightly less than stocks, with less volatility, which just happens to play into PIMCO's hands as the world bond gurus. I do not necessarily disagree with the premise, nor the reasoning behind it. But I suspect that, just as New Normal had umpteen revisions and editions, New Neutral will evolve, too. Then again, PIMCO's leader may change the company's outlook and come up with a NEW 'new' next year. So nothing really new here. We have all been wondering what will happen when the Fed takes away the punch bowl. The scenarios have been all over the place. Mr. Gross' take is pretty benign, but it assumes the Fed follows his newest NEW economic analysis.
Other well-respected folks think the Fed has already waited too long and will be forced to raise rates much faster than anticipated, perhaps as much as 50-100 bps at a time. Now THAT would certainly step on Mr. Gross' tail! Since my economic crystal ball is in the shop, and since I am not prescient enough to be able to foretell the future, my take is to remain nimble, flexible, and to not be greedy, either with bond yields or with stock allocations. Most of our clients are more fearful of losing principal than they are of missing out on more stock market gains. There are always a few who want to join the part when the majority of people have started to exit, but that is just the nature of personalities. Is the party over? Probably not, but it seems unlikely the good times can last long, once the Fed removes the punch bowl.

Yes, the current P/E ratio and/or the CAPE ratio are currently a tad (that’s a scientific measure) on the high side relative to long term averages. But these signals, which according to a Vanguard study do provide a 20-30% explanation of market price movements, are not sufficiently above the norm to likely generate negative equity returns for the upcoming decade.
They are not in the worrisome zone yet, but warrant some watching.
Based on current values and historical average data, I expect stock dividends to yield 2% annually, productivity gains to yield a 2% gain, demographics to enhance returns by 1% annually........
Adding these factors together projects an expected 10-year positive 7% annual equity reward.

1. What is your thinking regarding expecting "demographics to enhance returns by 1% annually....."? One of the biggest demographic issues in the U.S. is "The Graying of America", the aging of America. Substantial numbers of baby boomers retire every day, reducing the overall GDP and productivity, which in and of itself as a factor decreases the profits of corporations. What are the demographic trends you think will add to stock returns going forward?
2. Re: "according to a Vanguard study do provide a 20-30% explanation of market price movements.
Do you have a reference to this study, or link/URL? I'm not doubting what you are saying, but would like to read it
3. Re: 'the current P/E ratio and/or CAPE ratio a tad on the high side relative to long term averages....not in the worrisome zone yet'
James Montier is a key member on Jeremy Grantham's GMO team, who write their monthly stock market 7-year forecast. The Shiller CAPE is a significant factor they consider.
James Montier does not agree that the Shiller P/E is a tad high. He says it is exceedingly high.
In this interview from May 15, 2014: http://money.cnn.com/2014/05/01/pf/stocks-overpriced.moneymag/index.html?iid=SF_M_River
he is asked:
Interviewer: "Are stocks overpriced?"
James Montier: "There is no doubt that the U.S. stock market is exceedingly overvalued."
Interviewer: "What makes you so sure?"
James Montier: "The simplest sensible benchmark is the Shiller P/E. Right now we're looking at a broad index like the Standard & Poor's 500 trading at something like 26, 27 times the Shiller P/E. Fair value would be 16 or 17 times historical earnings."

Hi Guys,
I’m in davidrmoran’s and Charles’ corner on this issue.
Yes, the current P/E ratio and/or the CAPE ratio are currently a tad (that’s a scientific measure) on the high side relative to long term averages. But these signals, which according to a Vanguard study do provide a 20-30% explanation of market price movements, are not sufficiently above the norm to likely generate negative equity returns for the upcoming decade.
They are not in the worrisome zone yet, but warrant some watching.
Here’s why. I’ll be using the methodology formulated in Chapter 2, On the Nature of Returns, of John Bogle’s classic “Common Sense on Mutual Funds” book.
Based on current values and historical average data, I expect stock dividends to yield 2% annually, productivity gains to yield a 2% gain, demographics to enhance returns by 1% annually, inflation to contribute about 3%, and since the P/E ratio is nearing a tipping point, I expect a modest regression-to-the-mean to subtract maybe 1% annually.
Adding these factors together projects an expected 10-year positive 7% annual equity reward. That’s roughly 3% below the long-term returns because of a little muted GDP growth rate (which impacts productivity profits) and a likely slight regression-to-the-mean of the present P/E status.
Well, that’s my guesstimate. It directly reflects the Bogle long-term returns model, historical data sets, and current parameter valuations. Given the depressed character of current bond performance, stocks still don’t appear to be a bad deal, but also don’t expect the historical average of equity returns. Too bad, but not really too bad.
Well, that’s my hat in the forecasting ring. Forecasting the next 10-year return is actually easier and more reliably made than projecting next year’s return. I hope this helps.
Best Regards.

This is extremely interesting to me since Shiller CAPE has become such a meme:
>> If you avoided equities while they were above their historical CAPE measurement, you just missed 24 years of equity gains.

Hear, hear.

This is extremely interesting to me since Shiller CAPE has become such a meme:
>> If you avoided equities while they were above their historical CAPE measurement, you just missed 24 years of equity gains.