Kris Jenner started his hedge fund Rocks Spring capital last October, so far his fund is doing better than TR health care fund and most other health care related funds.

I think the trend will last for awhile due to ageing baby boomers.Since the market will anticipate that event, 2020 might be a time to reduce allocation rather than say 2026 which is the year peak births turn around 75.

FYI: DoubleLine Capital, an investment firm that has been a major rival of Pimco, saw between $400 million and $500 million of net inflows on Friday in the wake of Bill Gross' departure from Pimco, DoubleLine Chief Executive Officer Jeffrey Gundlach said on Monday.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.reuters.com/assets/print?aid=USKCN0HO1SN20140929

I own PASAX, which accounts for about 3.5% of my overall portfolio. I am currently watching as I have some long term capital gains in this fund as I have owned it for some time now. However, it is a fund-of-funds and if other Pimco funds are taking it on the chin, and begin to falter, this one most likely will too. If I see a price drop down to about five percent below its 52 week high them I am thinking strongly of letting it go and not waiting to read Morningstar under review take. It is currently trading at about 3.75% off its 52 week high and has a year-to-date gain of about 4.1% (I'll want to be out with some positive gain left).
Old_Skeet

FYI: Daniel Ivascyn, Pacific Investment Management Co.’s new Group Chief Investment Officer, is about to go head to head with Bill Gross in the fastest-growing segment of fixed income: unconstrained funds.
Ivascyn, who was named Pimco’s investment chief on Sept. 26 after his old boss abruptly quit, was also appointed as one of the three portfolio managers on the $21.6 billion Pimco Unconstrained Bond Fund. (PUBAX) Gross will run a startup unconstrained fund for his new employer, Denver-based Janus Capital Group Inc.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/print/2014-09-29/pimco-s-ivascyn-takes-on-gross-with-unconstrained-fund.html

The mandates for both DSL and DBL seem to be 'go anywhere' yet the portfolio compositions of the two funds are very different. DSL seems to emphasize corporate bonds while DBL emphasizes mortgage debt. Would appreciate any insight on why the portfolios are so different.
I have appended below information about both funds from the Doubleline website:
DBL
Investment Objective
The Fund’s investment objective is to seek high total investment return by providing a high level of current income and the potential for capital appreciation. The Fund cannot assure you that it will achieve its investment objective.
Philosophy
The Fund may invest in debt securities and income-producing investments of any kind, including, without limitation, residential and commercial mortgage-backed securities, asset-backed securitites, U.S Government securities, corporate debt, international sovereign debt, and short-term investments. The Fund’s investment adviser, DoubleLine Capital LP allocated the Fund’s assets among market sectors, and among investments within those sectors, in an attempt to construct a portfolio providing a high level of current income and the potential for capital appreciation consistent with what DoubleLine considers an appropriate level of risk in light of market conditions prevailing at the time.
DSL
Investment Objective
The Fund's investment objective is to provide a high level of current income and its secondary objective is to seek capital appreciation.
Philosophy
The Fund will seek to achieve its investment objectives by investing in a portfolio of investments selected for their potential to provide high current income, growth of capital, or both. The Fund may invest in debt securities and other income-producing investments anywhere in the world, including in emerging markets. The Fund's investment adviser, DoubleLine Capital LP ("DoubleLine" or the "Adviser"), allocates the Fund's assets among debt security market sectors, and among investments within those sectors, in an attempt to construct a portfolio providing the potential for a high level of current income and for capital appreciation consistent with what DoubleLine considers an appropriate level of risk in light of market conditions prevailing at the time.

In my effort to reduce the ER, to swap vcvlx(Vanguard Capital [email protected]) to vig ( Vanguard Dividend Appreciation ETF @0.10) under Large blend category: what factors should I consider? Thanks in advance. I am still searching for etf alternative to prwcx ( @0.75).

I know I'm not going to out-invest Berkowitz in the long run. I'll venture a guess and say know one on this board will do so. So, that is why I hold onto FAAFX. It's only 5% of my portfolio. I sit back and listen to the death-watch of Sears, St. Joes and AIG on this discussion board and in other publications and just have to tell myself Bruce is not a dummy. Maybe it's blind faith on my part, but I'll stick with the small amount I have invested in him.
John, I disagree as to top reason to invest in funds. I'm a believer that focused funds have the better chance to out perform diversified funds and focused funds have the only chance of out-performing a market index over time.
1) Proven management - 2) capital preservation focus - 3) focused portfolio - 4) smaller asset base... these principles drive my fund selection. FAAFX has 3 out of 4 of those attributes. Can't double guess the managers skills.

The reasons were the same reasons many invest in a mutual fund to begin with - exposure to a credible manager(s), diversification of holdings, not enough capital to invest on your own and so on and so forth topped by a hope for better results than one might achieve on their own.
Once you've accumulated enough capital you can play the build your own portfolio game. However I also believe that with certain funds, and Fairholme is a prime example, you can't invest in the stuff they have exposure to. Nor can you follow their moves to a tee. If you want to B&H then by all means jump in.

Doug Kass: Buy Oaktree (OAK) On Gross's Departure
http://blogs.barrons.com/focusonfunds/2014/09/26/seabreeze-buy-oaktree-on-grosss-departure/?mod=BOLBlog
"Instead, Kass says he is buying into Oaktree stock, on the basis of their 22% ownership stake in DoubleLine Capital—which was also in talks with Gross, Jeff Gundlach confirmed this morning. “At $50/share, Oaktree’s stock is well off their early 2014 high of over $62 and, arguably possesses the best management team in the industry,” Kass says."

Another year-end of mutual fund estimated distributions is upon us. If you find any fund's estimated distributions that are not posted, please post them here so that we may keep them centralized on the board as well as for the benefit of others.
Franklin Templeton:
https://www.franklintempleton.com/share/pdf/lit/GOF-PAKCG.pdf
or
https://www.franklintempleton.com/funds/fund-capital-gain-distributions
Pioneer Funds:
http://us.pioneerinvestments.com/misc/pdfs/taxcenter/capgains14.pdf?adtrack=news_hmpg_notice_2014capgains_sept14
Columbia Acorn Funds:
https://www.columbiamanagement.com/content/columbia/pdf/2014_ACORN_YEAR_END_CAP_GAIN_ESTIMATES.PDF

From Bloomberg:
Pacific Investment Management Co. is likely to name Daniel Ivascyn chief investment officer of the $1.97 trillion bond firm after Bill Gross left to join Janus Capital Group Inc. (JNS), according to a person familiar with the matter... Dan Tarman, a spokesman for Newport Beach, California-based Pimco, didn’t immediately respond to an e-mail seeking comment.
So I wonder whether he will have enough time to dedicate to PDI?...

Wow. Wondering how all this will affect the SEC probe? PIMCO's still under investigation. But both men at the top have fled the ship.
Allianz, PIMCO's European owner, has been rumored for some months to be unhappy.
Here's the blurb from MarketWatch: "...William H. Gross, world-renowned fixed income investor, will be joining Janus Capital Group. He will manage a recently launched Janus Global Unconstrained Bond." See David's clarification below as to which fund Gross will manage.
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/william-h-gross-joins-janus-capital-2014-09-26?reflink=MW_news_stmp

The big picture at Grandeur Peak (from our August 2013 issue)
In the course of launching their new Global Reach fund, profiled below, Grandeur Peak decided to share a bit of their firm’s long-term planning with the public. Grandeur Peak’s investment focus is small- to micro-cap stocks. The firm estimates that they will be able to manage about $3 billion in assets before their size becomes an impediment to their performance. From that estimate, they backed out the point at which they might need to soft close their products in order to allow room for capital growth (about $2 billion) and then allocated resource levels for each of their seven envisioned strategies.
Those strategies are:

• Global Reach, their 300-500 stock flagship fund
  
• Global Opportunities, a more concentrated version of Global Reach
  
• International Opportunities, the non-U.S. sub-set of Global Reach
  
• Emerging Markets Opportunities, the emerging and frontier markets subset of International Opportunities
  
• US Opportunities, the U.S.-only subset of Global Opportunities
  
• Global Value, the “Fallen Angels” sub-set of Global Reach
  
• Global Microcap, the micro-cap subset of Global Reach

President Eric Huefner remarks that “Remaining nimble is critical for a small/micro cap manager to be world-class,” hence “we are terribly passionate about asset capping across the firm.” With two strategies already closed and another gaining traction, it might be prudent to look into the opportunity.

I think Berkowitz is going off the deep end with respect to Sears, St Joe, having 49% of the Fairholme Fund invested in one stock, AIG, owning Fannie and Freddie which supposedly are going to "end" as companies.
Hmmm......Bruce Berkowitz has always said that his first rule is, Don't Lose Money....and his second rule is, Don't forget rule number 1.
St. Joe (JOE) is a risky company. Sears (SHLD) is a risky company. Above it says that Fairholme Capital Management owns 24% of each of those risky companies.
Add that to the 49% weighting of AIG in FAIRX;
Owning Fannie and Freddie which are scheduled for termination.......a 14.4% weighting in BAC in the Fairholme Fund
Can anyone convince me that Bruce is investing according to the rule of "Don't Lose Money"? Are these the actions of a risk averse investor whose stated objective is not to lose?
No, they are the actions of a risk taker whose first rule is Take Risk To Make As Much As Possible
Don't get me wrong, I think Bruce Berkowitz may very well succeed, and hit home runs and grand slams. He may one day again be the Morningstar Manager of the Decade. But don't do it under the guise of being a risk averse investor who is trying to protect his shareholders from capital loss.
Check out his returns in 2000, 2001 and 2002. They were brilliant.
But also look at the return of FAIRX in 2011.

http://www.insidermonkey.com/blog/bruce-berkowitzs-fairholme-affiliate-in-talks-with-sears-holdings-corp-shld-regarding-short-term-loan-328818/
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-09-19/sears-needs-10-times-loan-from-lampert-corporate-finance.html
"St. Joe Co. (JOE) may contribute as much as $100 million to the loan, according to a filing yesterday. St. Joe, a real estate and timber company, is 24 percent-owned by Bruce Berkowitz’s Fairholme Capital Management, which also has a 24 percent stake in Sears."

@JohnChisum, the bond fund you went into has a manager that is actively doing things to prepare. A lot of bond funds never do that, because by prospectus they have to stay pretty close to an index, like the total bond market index, which is based on the "Barclays Capital U.S. Aggregate Float Adjusted Index, a broad proxy for the investment-grade U.S. bond market", according to M*.
There seem to be two big IFs:
1. Will the Federal Reserve actually raise rates 3.75% by the end of 2017?
2. What will happen to longer term interest rates, such as the 10-year Treasury rate?
PIMCO doesn't believe the Fed will go that high. Bill Gross and company believe there will be a "New Neutral" rate of 2%, not the old standard of close to 4%, which apparently the Fed still believes in.
But look, the Fed just said last week that this is what they expect to do! And they told the whole world. We'll see who turns out to be correct, the Fed or PIMCO.
With regards to your question about "will bond funds perform better than equity funds in this same climate", I have no idea. I've read that stocks have not reacted nearly as badly as bonds to the initial volley of interest rate hikes. But who knows if the past historical patterns will repeat themselves.

Vanguard PRIMECAP Core Fund
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/826473/000093247114006730/ps1220a092014blue.htm
Vanguard Capital Opportunity Fund
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/932471/000093247114006729/capitalopportunityps11109201.htm
Vanguard PRIMECAP Fund
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/752177/000093247114006728/ps59a092014blue.htm
Here is one of the filings as an example:
Vanguard PRIMECAP Fund
Supplement to the Prospectus and Summary Prospectus
Important Changes to Vanguard PRIMECAP Fund
New or current Vanguard PRIMECAP Fund shareholders may not open new accounts or contribute to existing Fund accounts, except as described in this supplement. Clients enrolled in Vanguard Flagship Services® or Vanguard Asset Management Services™ may open new Fund accounts, investing up to $25,000 per Fund account per year as described in this supplement, in individual, joint, and/or personal trust registrations. There is no specific time frame for when the Fund might reopen for new account registrations by other Vanguard clients, or increase investment limitations.
Limits on Additional Investments
Current PRIMECAP Fund shareholders may invest up to $25,000 per Fund account per year in the Fund. The $25,000 limit includes the total amount invested during any calendar year in each Fund account. Dividend and capital gains reinvestments do not count toward the $25,000 annual limit. Participants in certain qualified retirement plans may continue to invest in accordance with the terms of their plans. Certain qualifying asset allocation programs may continue to operate in accordance with the program terms.
The Fund may modify these transaction policies at any time and without prior notice to shareholders. You may call Vanguard for more detailed information about the Fund’s transaction policies. Participants in employer-sponsored plans may call Vanguard Participant Services at 800-523-1188. Investors in nonretirement accounts and IRAs may call Vanguard’s Investor Information Department at 800-662-7447.
© 2014 The Vanguard Group, Inc. All rights reserved.
Vanguard Marketing Corporation, Distributor.
PS 59A 092014

Until a few month ago I paid little attention to these funds. Since then I researched some especially Arnott and the RAFI fundamental index, in particular the offering from Schwab. FNDF. It's on my watch list.
Having more choices is always better.

I'm in the same boat as you here John. We have ended up in the same place. I heard Rob Arnott give a webinar on "smart beta" and the RAFI, and it was very appealing, the idea of getting the price out of the weighting scheme. It's certainly an intriguing idea, possibly worth it. Professor Jeremy Siegel is also big on an alternative way to weight indexes. He's the advisor to the Wisdom Tree family. He's apparently big on dividend weighting. It all sounds very interesting. One thing is that the expense ratios are higher on these alternative methods of weighting and selection of the index. VTI only costs 5 basis points, .05%. A big issue is that if you are already invested, you have to sell things and pay capital gains taxes to re-invest in a "smart beta" index. We should take a look at performance of the RAFI funds vs. VTI and the traditional cap weighted index funds.

@mrdarcey, question for you. This is off topic, because it does not apply to Vanguard ETFs vs. Vanguard Traditional Index Funds. Vanguard has a patented, unique structure so that their ETFs are simply a different share class of the identical traditional index fund.
But for non-Vanguard ETFs vs. index funds, the financial press used to be very big on saying that ETFs would have lower taxable distributions than even traditional index funds in the event that a lot of shareholders sold, say in a bear market.
The press would always say that traditional index funds were very tax efficient, but in the event of a lot of selling, say in a bear market, the previously unrealized capital gains would become realized capital gains and affect all shareholders to some extent. Realized capital gains would be distributed to all shareholders of the traditional index funds, including those that did not sell.
But this would not take place in an ETF, because shareholder selling in a bear market would not cause unrealized capital gains to become realized for those in the ETF that did not sell.
I haven't heard this talked about much lately, but it used to be very common.
It's similar to an actively managed fund. If the managers sell a lot of individual stock at a gain [assuming it's not balanced out by other losses], those capital gains get distributed to all shareholders, who have to pay capital gains taxes on them, even though they didn't sell any shares of their mutual fund.
So if you have an S&P 500 traditional index fund, a bad bear market comes and tons of shareholders sell. The "managers" have to sell stocks to generate redemption proceeds. Supposedly that will cause a capital gains distribution to hit even those shareholders that didn't sell.