I just did a search and found these. any thoughts how it might be?
Corporate Bonds
•Guggenheim BulletShares 2013 Corporate Bond ETF (BSCD)
•Guggenheim BulletShares 2014 Corporate Bond ETF (BSCE)
•Guggenheim BulletShares 2015 Corporate Bond ETF (BSCF)
•Guggenheim BulletShares 2016 Corporate Bond ETF (BSCG)
•Guggenheim BulletShares 2017 Corporate Bond ETF (BSCH)
•Guggenheim BulletShares 2018 Corporate Bond ETF (BSCI)
•Guggenheim BulletShares 2019 Corporate Bond ETF (BSCJ)
•Guggenheim BulletShares 2020 Corporate Bond ETF (BSCK)
•Guggenheim BulletShares 2021 Corporate Bond ETF (BSCL)
•Guggenheim BulletShares 2022 Corporate Bond ETF (BSCM)
•iShares 2016 Investment Grade Corporate ex-Financials Term ETF (IBCB)
•iShares 2018 Investment Grade Corporate ex-Financials Term ETF (IBCC)
•iShares 2020 Investment Grade Corporate ex-Financials Term ETF (IBCD)
•iShares 2023 Investment Grade Corporate ex-Financials Term ETF (IBCE)
•iSharesBond 2016 Corporate Term ETF (IBDA)
•iSharesBond 2018 Corporate Term ETF (IBDB)
•iSharesBond 2020 Corporate Term ETF (IBDC)
•iSharesBond 2023 Corporate Term ETF (IBDD)
High Yield Bonds
•Guggenheim BulletShares 2013 High Yield Corporate Bond ETF (BSJD)
•Guggenheim BulletShares 2014 High Yield Corporate Bond ETF (BSJE)
•Guggenheim BulletShares 2015 High Yield Corporate Bond ETF (BSJF)
•Guggenheim BulletShares 2016 High Yield Corporate Bond ETF (BSJG)
•Guggenheim BulletShares 2017 High Yield Corporate Bond ETF (BSJH)
•Guggenheim BulletShares 2018 High Yield Corporate Bond ETF (BSJI)

Reply to @Sven:
Vanguard's theory (and this appears in many other places as well) is that rising rates are not necessarily bad for long term bond fund investors, because investors ultimately benefit from the higher rates and come out ahead. (Besides, you can't time the rate increases - people have been predicting the end of the world in bonds for years and lost out on significant gains.)
I'm not saying that Vanguard's comment regarding Wellington is a variation on this theme - it's not - but rather trying to respond to your comment that there are few safe havens.
A problem with bond funds, including many actively managed ones notably by Vanguard and T. Rowe Price is that they tend to keep average duration close to the benchmark, which is in itself flawed. Not only for the reason that M* gives (see, e.g. Apple floating loads of long term bonds rather than repatriating money because rates are so low), but for the related reason John Bogle gives (that the index has much too much in Treasuries).
So, for safe(r) havens, one can seek out more "creative" funds - ones which don't come close to their benchmarks. Not surprisingly, FPA New Income FPNIX did not lose much in May-July (about 0.38% was the worst monthly loss, vs a percent worse for most bond funds in June). Its problem is that it yields little, so it is more difficult for its yield to make up for even these small losses. Nevertheless, I still think of it as a "relatively" safe haven (and it is positive YTD).
Bank loan funds and high yield funds are also still largely positive YTD. But I don't have faith in either. The former because lots of bank loans won't float (the current market yield is below the bonds' floors, so as the market rate rises, the bonds' won't, and so the bonds will depreciate). The latter because everyone has piled into junk, so they're likely more overpriced than other bonds. That's why I'm poking around more flexible bond funds. Strictly on numbers, IFUNX has held up well ("modest" loss of 1.38% in June, no other significant monthly losses since May 2012), but I don't know anything about the fund.
In short - safe havens are indeed few. That doesn't mean one gives up looking.

Mike,
Ultimate goal is simplification. An impediment to meeting this goal as I explained above was my need to "churn" my portfolio to book gains to offset losses on the books. I have a lot primarily because of investing in stock of company i or my wife (keep guessing) worked at which then went bankrupt.
So, I've been thinking about this since I started this thread. After examining the portfolios of the 4 Wasatch funds I own, I am coming to conclusion instead of keeping WAIGX and WAHGX, I should ONLY keep WAGOX. WAGOX seems to be giving me exposure across what WAIGX, WAHGX and WAEMX does. In fact WAGOX owns more of Emerging Markets as percentage of total assets than in WAIGX. Needless to say I will not be buying as much as I own in the other three into WAGOX. Besides I also own SFGIX which I plan to DCA into.
So next week I expect to sell all 4 at the brokerage I own them at, one, one day at a time with the first being WAGOX. Meanwhile I will start rolling into WAGOX at another brokerage.
This is how you do it people !!!

I recently acquired a few long-short funds (and I have had MFLDX for a few years). The reason why is that I would normally keep about 40-50% exposure outside of the stock market. That is my comfort level. Most of the money not in stock mutual funds has been in bond funds. When there was a spike in yields a few months back, both stocks and bonds went south. Other than cash, there seemed to be nowhere to hide in such a scenario, and we are likely to see that again in the future. Bonds were thought to offer me some degree of protection if my stock funds went down. Since they no longer served that role in my portfolio, I needed to find something to replace some of my bond funds that might provide that role. I wanted to find something that would survive increases in interest rates, and still hopefully offer gains in the long term. So I looked for funds that held their own during yield spikes, and still offered decent gains before and after the spike. Some long-short funds did a good job at minimizing losses during that period. So I have been slowly moving money out of some of my bond funds and moving them into those long-short funds. They are playing the role in my portfolio that some of my bond funds had been playing. Some of my bond fund money will probably move into floating rate funds also.

Reply to @MaxBialystock: Effectively, this is a T Rowe Price global balanced fund that can devote 10% to alternatives, which include hedge funds. "Under normal conditions, the fund’s portfolio will consist of approximately 60% stocks; 30% bonds, money market securities, and other debt instruments; and 10% alternative investments."
From MFO: "T. Rowe Price Global Allocation Fund will seek long-term capital appreciation and income through a broadly diversified global portfolio of stocks, bonds, cash and alternative investments. The baseline asset allocation will be 60% stocks, 30% bonds and cash and 10% alternative investments. They’ll actively adjust those allocations based on its assessment of U.S. and global economic and market conditions, interest rate movements, industry and issuer conditions and business cycles, and so on. They may invest in publicly-traded assets, but also derivatives, Price funds, unregistered hedge funds or other private or registered investment companies. Normally half of its stocks and one third of its bonds will be non-US, though the managers will hedge their currency exposure. The fund will be managed by Charles Shriver. He joined Price in 1991 and is the lead manager for their Balanced, Personal Strategy and Spectrum funds. He has between $500,000 and $1 million invested in those funds. The minimum initial purchase is $2500, reduced to $1000 for IRAs. Expense ratio will be 1.05%."
http://www.mutualfundobserver.com/2013/04/april-2013-funds-in-registration/
Lastly, from the prospectus regarding alternatives: "The fund invests in hedge funds to provide exposure to alternative investments which, in the opinion of T. Rowe Price, have the potential to produce attractive long-term risk-adjusted returns and exhibit a relatively low correlation of returns to more traditional asset classes. The fund’s alternative investments are expected to move in directions unrelated to movements in the major equity and bond markets, thereby enhancing the fund’s overall diversification and offering potentially greater downside protection than typical equity investments."
I think the fund is going to have to highlight the details of the alternative investments in reports, as with a fund like this, one has to really dig to find what it is (I only found that it was a fund-of-funds by looking under some college endowment program that has an investment in it.)

Scout Unconstrained's objective is "to maximize total return consistent with the preservation of capital." Looking beyond the income distributions to total return, the fund has held up reasonably well. It's gained 1.64% YTD, compared to -0.93 for DBLTX, and -3.08 for PTTRX. Given their negative duration stance, it looks like they're focused more on capital preservation than income at the moment which seems like a reasonable and prudent stance. This is probably not the best fund for yield, the unconstrained flexibility could send Egan and team to odd corners of the bond market like zero coupon bonds or last cash-flow tranches of CMOs, wherever there may be value.

OK, so now some tough extracts:
From Mr. Cinnamond-

Cash levels increased from 57% at the beginning of the quarter to 60% by the end. Cash levels remain high as most high-quality small cap stocks continue to be expensive, in our opinion.

Ouch! And shareholders are paying 1.42% per year on that cash. Especially given that "Small-caps outperformed large-cap stocks for the third consecutive quarter..."

Precious metals miners AuRico Gold and Pan American Silver were the two largest negative contributors during the quarter. Gold miners remained under pressure as gold prices declined 23% during the period...AuRico continued to trade at a discount to our valuation and we increased the Fund’s position as its price declined.
Pan American’s stock remained under pressure along with the rest of the mining industry even though the company announced production and cash cost results that were in-line with expectations. The 31% decline in silver prices during the second quarter weighed on its share price. We think that Pan American possesses one of the strongest balance sheets in the mining industry, and though we expect further industry volatility we maintained the portfolio’s position as it remained at a discount to our valuation.
Given that stock prices and profits are highly correlated, we find our observations on profits are often confirmed by trends in stock prices. However, this is not currently the case as we are witnessing a divergence between the stock prices and profit trends of the businesses we follow and analyze. The small-cap market, measured by the Russell 2000 Index, is up 18% over the last three quarters. Meanwhile, most of the businesses we follow are not reporting commensurate gains in profits.
In conclusion, our views and positioning have changed little since last quarter. We remain disciplined and are willing to maintain current positioning until future opportunities justify change...We intend to remain committed to two of the most important principles of our value investing approach—patience and not overpaying.

From Mr. Moran and Mr. Johnson-

The Fund posted marginally positive returns during the quarter, but trailed its long-only Russell 3000 Index benchmark. The long portion of the portfolio performed well while the short portfolio struggled.
Commodity stocks weighed on the long portfolio’s performance during the quarter. Four of the top-five negative contributors for the long portfolio were smaller commodity positions. These stocks were down nearly 13% on average, and we trimmed them by more than a quarter, with commodity hedges in the short portfolio offsetting some of the damage.
Mining equipment manufacturer Joy Global and silver miner Pan American were among the commodity-related laggards.

Some collateral damage here, sounds like.

The largest individual detractor to returns during the quarter, however, was a short position in luxury retailer Saks. The firm generates more than 20% of its sales from its New York City flagship store and the brand has historically not resonated nationally, limiting both growth prospects and operational leverage opportunities. The stock rallied and hit our stop-loss after hiring Goldman Sachs to explore “strategic alternatives,” including a potential sale of the company.

Take-over is always a classic and scary threat to selling short.

We will utilize our Drawdown Plan to help protect capital if the portfolio starts to lose a material amount of money, as we understand the negative compounding consequences of deep drawdowns. As such, we feel the portfolio is well positioned to meet the goals of the Fund.

Reply to @JoeNoEskimo: I do not see rates going significantly higher in the meantime, given the effect on mortgage rates and how desperately it would seem that there's a desire to continue to push housing.
(Mortgage apps this morning fell to a 2 year low - http://blogs.marketwatch.com/capitolreport/2013/07/31/mortgage-applications-slump-to-two-year-low-in-worrying-sign-for-housing/) There also seems to be a desire to off-load rental housing on investors - whether via a poorly received IPO ("American Homes 4 Rent") or via securitization of rentals by Blackstone and Deutsche Bank.
Whether or not that is because of a top in housing (although again, it's rather remarkable given historical rates how much desire for mortgages goes down once mortgage rates start pushing towards 5%) or because this bizarre decentralized business model of having thousands of single family rentals to somehow keep tabs on (how are repairs handled?) is much worse than the centralized model of an apartment building, I don't know. Given how badly the single family REITs have done (see SBY), it may just be the business model was flawed.
I do think that housing has bottomed, but expectations - despite a way strong desire to keep rates low - have gotten ahead of themselves and any housing gains going forward are going to be much more realistic. I wouldn't be in bonds as I just think there's more downside than upside, but I do think it would be concerning to the Fed if rates went in a hurry to 3% on the 10yr.
I agree with Skeeter, especially re energy and telecom. The latter I think is a must to have exposure to. In terms of mobile, AT & T noted on CNBC the other week that mobile data demand was +50% y/o/y. Look at Linkedin, Facebook, Yelp this week. Conservative investors may not want to go near those names, but you can get a VZ yielding 4%, or look at Cisco, yielding 2.6% or a telecom fund.
Something more aggressive would be a T Rowe Price Telecom/Media (PRMTX).
It doesn't pay a dividend and has gone up quite a bit, but I do continue to like Liberty Media (LMCA), a media/telecom conglomerate chaired by the famed John Malone. There's also Liberty Interactive (LINTA) and Liberty Ventures (LVNTA) in the Liberty family (and Starz was also a spin-off of Liberty.)
Cisco's "The Internet of Everything":
http://newsroom.cisco.com/feature-content?type=webcontent&articleId=1208342
"In 2012, there were 8.7 billion connected objects globally, constituting 0.6% of the ‘things' in the world. In 2013, this number is exceeding 10.0 billion. Driven by reducing price per connection and the consequent rapid growth in the number of machine-to-machine (M2M) connections, we expect the number of connected objects to reach 50bn by 2020 (2.7% of things in the world). We expect connectivity costs to reduce at a 25% CAGR during 2012-20, which is approximately equal to the growth in number of connected objects (implying price-elasticity demand of 1). Lastly, we believe that more than 50% of the connected objects added during 2013-20 will be added in the last 3 years of the decade. This also implies that the maximum connected objects are likely to be added when the connectivity costs are the lowest."
Verizon M2M (although many of the major carriers have exposure to M2M:)
http://www.verizonenterprise.com/solutions/connected-machines/

Reply to @scott: Can't argue with you at all on that particular one. But overall, in a year of double digit gains of 20% and more there seems to be a lot of discussions on losers and underacheivers ala SFGIX, AQRNX, and ARIVX, to name just a few. There also seems to be an inordinate amount of discussions on alternative funds and capital preservation. Fine if you are in your 60s and beyond, but I can't believe there aren't younger investors here. Heavens forbid had I ventured into the realm of alternative funds when I was younger and in an accumulation mode.
Edit: Everything seems to run in cycles on these boards so alternative funds too shall pass. It wasn't that long ago we had the gold and silver bugs forever extolling the virtues of that form of investment.

http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/935015/000119312513311543/d574422d497.htm
ARTISAN PARTNERS FUNDS, INC.
SUPPLEMENT DATED JULY 31, 2013
TO THE PROSPECTUS OF ARTISAN PARTNERS FUNDS, INC. (Investor, Institutional and Advisor Shares)
DATED FEBRUARY 1, 2013, AS SUPPLEMENTED JULY 22, 2013 AND JULY 31, 2013
ARTISAN SMALL CAP FUND
Effective as of the close of business on August 2, 2013, Artisan Small Cap Fund is closed to most new investors. The Fund will accept new accounts from certain investors who satisfy new account eligibility requirements. Eligibility requirements are described in Artisan Funds’ prospectus under the heading “Who is Eligible to Invest in a Closed Artisan Fund?”
Effective as of the close of business on August 2, 2013, the following paragraph is added under the heading “Purchase and Sale of Fund Shares” on page 31 of Artisan Funds’ prospectus:
Artisan Small Cap Fund closed to most new investors as of the close of business on August 2, 2013. See “Investing with Artisan Funds – Who is Eligible to Invest in a Closed Artisan Fund?” in the Fund’s statutory prospectus for new account eligibility criteria.
Effective as of the close of business on August 2, 2013, the following replaces the text under the heading “Who is Eligible to Invest in a Closed Artisan Fund?” on pages 56-57 of Artisan Funds’ prospectus in its entirety:
Artisan International Small Cap Fund, Artisan International Value Fund, Artisan Mid Cap Fund, Artisan Mid Cap Value Fund, Artisan Small Cap Fund and Artisan Small Cap Value Fund are closed to most new investors. The Funds do not permit investors to pool their investments in order to meet the eligibility requirements, except as otherwise noted below. Unless specified below, each individual in a pooled vehicle must meet one of the eligibility requirements set forth below.
If you have been a shareholder in a Fund continuously since it closed, you may make additional investments in that Fund and reinvest your dividends and capital gain distributions in that Fund, even though the Fund has closed, unless Artisan Partners considers such additional purchases to be not in the best interests of the Fund and its other shareholders. An employee benefit plan that is a Fund shareholder may continue to buy shares in the ordinary course of the plan’s operations, even for new plan participants. You may open a new account in a closed Fund only if that account meets the Fund’s other criteria (for example, minimum initial investment) and:
• you are already a shareholder in the closed Fund (in your own name or as beneficial owner of shares held in someone else’s name) (for example, a nominee, custodian or omnibus account holding shares for the benefit of an investor would not be eligible to open a new account for its own benefit or for the benefit of another customer, but the investor would be eligible to open a new account in that Fund);
• you are a shareholder with combined balances of $100,000 in any of the Artisan Funds (in your own name or as beneficial owner of shares held in someone else’s name);
• you receive shares of the closed Fund as a gift from an existing shareholder of the Fund (additional investments generally are not permitted unless you are otherwise eligible to open an account under one of the other criteria listed);
• you are transferring or “rolling over” into a Fund IRA account from an employee benefit plan through which you held shares of the Fund (if your plan doesn’t qualify for rollovers you may still open a new account with all or part of the proceeds of a distribution from the plan);
• you are purchasing Fund shares through a sponsored fee-based program and shares of the Fund are made available to that program pursuant to an agreement with Artisan Funds or Artisan Partners Distributors LLC and Artisan Funds or Artisan Partners Distributors LLC has notified the sponsor of that program, in writing, that shares may be offered through such program and has not withdrawn that notification;
• you are an employee benefit plan or other type of corporate or charitable account sponsored by or affiliated with an organization that also sponsors or is affiliated with (or is related to an organization that sponsors or is affiliated with) another employee benefit plan or corporate or charitable account that is a shareholder of the Fund;
• you are a client (other than an employee benefit plan) of an institutional consultant and Artisan Funds or Artisan Partners Distributors LLC has notified that consultant in writing that you may invest in the Fund;
• you are an employee benefit plan that is a client of an institutional consultant that has an existing business relationship with Artisan Partners or Artisan Funds and Artisan Funds or Artisan Partners Distributors LLC has notified that consultant in writing that the plan may invest in the Fund (only available for investments in Artisan Mid Cap Fund, Artisan Mid Cap Value Fund, Artisan Small Cap Fund and Artisan Small Cap Value Fund);
• you are a client (other than an employee benefit plan) of a financial advisor or a financial planner, or an affiliate of a financial advisor or financial planner, who has at least $500,000 of client assets invested with the Fund or at least $1,000,000 of client assets invested with Artisan Funds at the time of your application;
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
• you are a client of Artisan Partners or you have an existing business relationship with Artisan Partners and, in the judgment of Artisan Partners, your investment in a closed Fund would not adversely affect Artisan Partners’ ability to manage the Fund effectively; or
• you are a director or officer of Artisan Funds, or a partner or employee of Artisan Partners or its affiliates, or a member of the immediate family of any of those persons.
A Fund may ask you to verify that you meet one of the guidelines above prior to permitting you to open a new account in a closed Fund. A Fund may permit you to open a new account if the Fund reasonably believes that you are eligible. A Fund also may decline to permit you to open a new account if the Fund believes that doing so would be in the best interests of the Fund and its shareholders, even if you would be eligible to open a new account under these guidelines.
The Funds’ ability to impose the guidelines above with respect to accounts held by financial intermediaries may vary depending on the systems capabilities of those intermediaries, applicable contractual and legal restrictions and cooperation of those intermediaries.
Call us at 800.344.1770 if you have questions about your ability to invest in a closed Fund.
Please Retain This Supplement for Future Reference

I'm serious. Not Buy and Hold. Not Buy and Hope.
Furthermore, this is TRUE Buy and Rotate. Which tells me Buy and Rotate has been out there, but that was really FALSE Buy and Rotate, otherwise known as trading.
ATAC Inflaction Rotation. Symbol ATACX.
Welcome and thank you for your interest in the ATAC Inflation Rotation Fund ("the Fund"), managed by Ed Dempsey, CFP® and Michael A. Gayed, CFA of Pension Partners, LLC. By utilizing a buy and rotate approach based on the direction of inflation expectations, the Fund's goal is to provide an alternative to buy and hold strategies and generate absolute returns in all market environments. Based on the ATAC strategies currently run for separately managed accounts by Pension Partners, LLC, the Fund uses a quantitative model to position into stocks or bonds dynamically in an effort to Accelerate Time And Capital spent in markets.
Attack !!!

Reply to @Hogan:
I understand completely about being careful about family dynamics with fund selection. I was asked to look at funds for the trust by by brother, who has POA over the account, because $400,000 of this money has been in 4 of my father's bank accounts for the last 3 years earning exactly nothing. We are selling our family home and cars and that money will soon enter the trust. We did try to have the bank invest the trust, however, they only take accounts of one million or more. So, this means we are pretty much on our own with the decisions. One reason I like FPACX is that is is very conservative and at the same time it does invest for future gains. I also like Wellington and Wellesley at Vanguard for this reason as well. Anything that is done will be done with the approval of my father and my brothers. We are not looking to shoot the lights out, but we do want to earn more than almost zero in a bank account. I will get agreement for anything that is invested.

You need to be careful about family dynamics not just fund selection. All of the heirs need to be involved with this process (maybe they are) because if the market goes down and the trust loses money it is going to be your fault. If you think the other heirs would be upset with you if the markets do go down then I would go with funds or other investments that preserve capital just in case such an event occurs. Family harmony is priceless.

Hello Everyone,
My father has just set up a trust for his 4 children to inherit from his estate. We are slowly moving assets into the trust. The account will eventually hold around $600,000 to $800,000. We need to begin to think about how to invest the money. My father likes Vanguard and we plan to open up a Vanguard Brokerage Account there. I would appreciate any ideas you have for choosing funds to invest in. My father is in assisted living and still going strong, so we are looking to invest over the next 5 to 10 years.
I am choosing the brokerage account because it allows us to invest in funds outside Vanguard. I really like FPA Crescent, FPACX, and want to hold it in the account. My father is very Vanguard-centric, but I hope to include a few funds from outside the company.
We do not want to invest the funds all at once, so I am really interested in your help with where to hold the money while we begin to dollar cost average into our selected funds. We do not need to invest for income and are hoping to grow the money over time. I am not sure about investing in bonds funds, especially in the current climate. I am a little worried about putting everything into stock funds having lived through the last financial disaster and the tech blow up.
Thanks so much for your help. I have already bought several funds for my own account from information learned by following David's excellent site.
This is what I have bought for my own account from reading information here: FPACX, PRWCX, FAIRX, FAAFX, ARTGX, MSMLX, and ARIVX. I also own Vanguard's Wellington, Primecap Odyssey, Special Health Care and Capital Opportunity in my own Roth IRA.
Kindest regards,

Given the recent conversation about risk parity at MFO, I found this M* interview with GMO's Ben Inker pretty interesting. Sayeth Ben (emphasis added):
"The different risk parity implementations have different underlying assumptions behind them, but what a lot of them tend to assume is that the correlations between assets are going to be low. What the events of this spring showed is that's not always true, and what we think it's important for people to realize is what happened in May and June wasn't this weird, random event, meteorites striking the Earth in a way that's not (going to) happen again and could never be predicted. This is what you should expect to happen if cash rates normalize. It's not a guarantee that they will normalize, but it's a risk that's sitting there if you put together a portfolio and said, it's okay to lever this thing because the low correlations mean I'm going to be taking losses on one thing while I've got gains on another. That is absolutely not guaranteed to happen. You can rely on it less today given how low rates are than you could under normal circumstances.
"The other problem we see with risk parity is that it's assuming that risk premia exist rather than checking to see if they exist before investing. So the assumption was that even at a yield of 1.6% on the 10-year, that 10-year bonds offered a risk premium over cash, it was far from clear to us that at those levels they did. Now, maybe at a 2.5% yield they do or certainly at a 5% yield they would, but the two things we think you've really got to look out for, and that we think in various ways a lot of the managers of risk parity ignored, were, first and foremost, the correlations that they're assuming are going to be low are not always low, and we're in one of those situations where they could easily be higher in important and dangerous ways for an extended period of time.
"The second one is that just because an asset class has provided a return above cash historically does not mean it's priced to do that today. Levering up an overvalued asset class doesn't make it cheap. It is just a recipe for losing money."
He also has some interesting things to say about EM equities and debt; worth a full read, IMHO.

Reply to @TonyGstring: I do own GPGOX in my IRA. This is for my taxable accounts though.
I should mention I also have SFGIX. Again, folks, I'm reducing my number of funds - that's the objective. A combination of stupidity and trading to book gains vs losses in the books prompted me to buy lot of funds. Don't need to do that as much anymore (and of course I think I'm getting less stupid with age I think)

These are the Wasatch Funds I own today. I have been selling them in one place and then buying in another, booking gains to offset losses on the books. Have been doing so for the past 2 years. Time has come now to sell some and only hold those I want in 2013. Need to start thinking now so I am ready to make adjustments in a jiffy.
WAEMX, WAHGX, WAGOX, WAIGX. Only one - WAEMX is closed now, so if I sell I cannot buy again (since I'm using NTF brokerage)
So I have been pouring over Wasatch Prospectus and Reports all of yesterday. I've looked at asset breakdowns. I'm thinking if I only buy WAIGX and WAHGX, that combined gives me exposure like WAGOX while at the same time gives me enough WAEMX like exposure through WAIGX.
I don't want to have any sudden regrets, so taking baby steps reducing number of funds. Eventually maybe I only own WAGOX to get "all" the exposure I need out of Wasatch (just like in my IRA I do same with GPGOX)
Would appreciate thoughts on this.

Reply to @msf:
Hi msf,
Both MDISX and MQIFX are available at Wellstrade for low minimums, and both are fine funds which have more attractive risk/reward profiles by my analysis than PTHDX and WGRNX. Looking at the two Franklin Mutual funds, MDISX is more of a global fund with its higher foreign equity exposure, and has a more experienced team of managers. But like you said, MQIFX has a lower expense ratio and much lower AUM. It is a close call between these two funds, but one cannot go wrong with owing either or both funds. Also, the two funds have significant overlap as they share 22 stocks in common.
As for MSFAX/MSFBX, the managers use the following process as detailed in the prospectus:
"The Sub-Advisers seek to invest in companies that they believe have resilient business franchises, strong cash flows, modest capital requirements, capable managements and growth potential. Securities are selected on a global basis with a bias towards value. The franchise focus of the Portfolio is based on the Sub-Advisers' belief that the intangible assets underlying a strong business franchise (such as patents, copyrights, brand names, licenses or distribution methods) are difficult to create or to replicate and that carefully selected franchise companies can yield above-average potential for long-term capital appreciation."
The managers currently have a strong bias toward the consumer defensive sector, but they are not obligated to do so. But if you look at the companies that they own, the stocks are definitely global gorillas. And as I detailed previously to VF, the fund has a very attractive risk/reward profile that cannot be ignored or explained away.
Take care.
Kevin

Own both. The funds use derivatives to gain commodity exposure via futures, and put the rest of capital in fixed-income. The difference is PCRDX uses TIPS, whereas PCLDX invests in short-term bonds. Personally prefer PCLDX as TIPS are more correlated to interest-rate risk and have a longer duration opposed to short-term instruments.
If you decide to invest in PCRDX, see if your broker offers HACMX. It has a lower expense ratio.

While past performance is no guarantee T.Rowe Price is very proud of the long term record of PRWCX capital appreciation and will avoid trying to ruin it by changing the funds strategy and though it has seen many changes in manager over a roughly 25 year period it has had very few down years in part because it seems to invest according to the don't lose money principle.
here are some performance data .note that 5 year record inclues 2008 where it lost about 27% >its currently about 60% stocks, 25% bonds and 10% cash. Its in the moderate allocation category which might be a good place to look for alternatives
1 Year 18.26%
3 Years 14.84%
5 Years 8.35%
10 Years 9.30%
Since Inception 11.33%
Inception Date June 30, 1986
Something more conservative might be something like vanguard wellesley (40% stocks ) plus a TIPs fund and or a floating rate fund and a short term bond fund. I am doubtful you should invest in something much riskier than these suggestions in order to acquire a large retirement fund. Still as suggested by others investing more (not necessarily bolder ) will have two benefits . You will know if it is possible to live on less (which may help you to decide at what age you should stop working and of course you will increase the size of the retirement fund. .
Still remember you are in much better financial shape than many in your position.