As I continue to gradually reduce my funds, book gains vs losses on the books, and move toward go anywhere funds, I have put in a sell for DODWX yesterday.
I will be deploying the proceeds equally into existing funds in my taxable accounts - FMIHX, FMIJX, PTHDX, WGRNX, equally.
DODWX was inherited. Has not lived up to hype. Does not let me sleep better. Lowest ER is not proving anything. It is gone.

Stopped my AIP lately due to a couple of weddings pending. Meets my main criteria: good relatively long positive previous track record and a lot younger than I am. Hope he makes my children happy. (Shucks, hope he makes me happy in 2020.)

Reply to @Old_Joe: Thanks Joe. Good comments, understand.
The Janet Yang M* article pointed out some good characteristics of Capital Research and Management Company. But it never once mentioned the arcane pricing policies, front-loads, and generally higher fees (based on AUM) that American Funds continues to impose on its shareholders.
You are absolutely right that years ago, circa 1960-70s, front loads were common. But simply not the case today.
I guess I just can't get out of my head the image of a young school teacher, opening up her first American Funds' statement showing that she's lost nearly 6% of her savings. Again, not having read the fine print in the brochure that her principal handed out to everybody at the first teachers meeting. But she proudly signed-up for weekly deposits, so every week, American Funds skims 5.75% off the top.
This practice goes on across the nation to thousands of young or inexperienced investors not knowing the expenses they are paying. There are much better alternatives today.
In this case, I think M* helps perpetuate an indefensible practice by the mutual fund industry, which borderlines on shareholder abuse.
Take the strengths American Funds has today, eliminate the front-loads, eliminate the 12b-1 fees, streamline their share class structure, reduce ERs commensurate with the enormous AUM, and then they will truly be deserving of the high stewardship grade for a future generation of investors.

David's advice is right-on though for myself, I'm not sure about the L/S part.
I don't consider myself one of the qualified, but I'll give my 2-cents. I don't think getting into a conservative or moderate mutual fund is a gamble, as you called it, at all. In fact being all in bonds is a bigger gamble if you want to stretch your nest egg over the years. If you need to withdraw 3-4% of you nestegg to live on, you will have to have some percentage in equities to have that principle last another 20, 25 or 30 years.
There are some very good conservative or moderate balanced funds. Retirement Target Date funds are an option too. Regarding TRP target funds, you don't have to use the specified retirement date, for example 2020 or 2015. Those may have higher percentages of equities then you are comfortable with. You could use the 2005 fund for example and be 50:50 stocks/bonds - again whatever is in your risk tolerance or comfort zone.
Good luck to you.

Hi, Daves.
There are others far better qualified on this topic than I am, so I'll be brief:
1. Get an idea of what your retirement income will look like. The official Social Security benefits estimator is http://www.socialsecurity.gov/estimator/. I'd look at the likely payout you'll receive by working to 65, 67 and 70. I'd then check T. Rowe Price's Retirement Income Calculator, which will not only give you a decent sense of whether you'll have enough income to meet reasonable needs but will also list alternatives for you.
2. Consider the judgment of the asset allocation professionals. I checked asset allocations for the target-date 2020 funds from Fidelity, T. Rowe Price, TIAA-CREF and Vanguard. Their bond allocations ranged from 23% (Price) to 36% (CREF).
3. Consider the possibility of using a long/short equity fund as a core position. Several offer a decent prospect of achieving the traditional profile of a 60/40 hybrid fund without dependence on bonds. Wrote a bit about them in July with a bit more coming in August.
For what it's worth,
David

FPA Crescent (FPACX), my largest holding, was up and has been quietly splendid this year. Likewise FPA International Value (FPIVX), about which we've written a fair amount.
Curiously, FPA Perennial (FPRAX) and Source Capital (SOR), it's closed-end clone, were down .59% at NAV but SOR's market price was up on the day by 0.64%.
For what that's worth,
David

Reply to @hank: Here's the whole bloody mess:
Following is the present portfolio percentage distribution, showing recent changes as noted
by dates. Cash positions are not shown, but approximate portfolio distribution currently is:
Equity Funds: 15% / Bond Funds: 5% / Cash: 80% • (May not equal 100% due to rounding error.)

	    7/24/13		AF = American Funds		
 Change Since		AC = American Century		
    7/23/13		S: = Schwab Account		
US Equity					
Fund		PF %	Change	         YTD	       Fund Name
AF ANCFX	2.1%	-0.45%		17.5%	  AF Fundamental Investors
AC ACMVX	6.5%	-0.7%		21%	  AC Midcap Value 
S: GABAX	5.1%	-0.74%		19.7%	  S: Gabelli Asset
S: GASFX	2.5%	-1.31%		16.9%	  S: FBR Fund Advisors
S: MFLDX	5.9%	-0.23%		10.5%	  S: Marketfield
S: BUFBX	0.5%	-0.36%		11.3%	  S: Buffalo Flexible Income
S: PRBLX	0.5%	-0.6%		19.9%	  S: Parnassus Equity Income
S: VVPSX	1%	-0.44%		23.3%	  S: Vulcan Value Small Cap
  Total %	22%	-0.6%			  
US Balanced					  
AF ABALX	12.4%	-0.43%		13%	  AF American Balanced Fund
AC TWSMX	6.3%	-0.27%		8.9%	  AC Strategic Allocation (Moderate)
  Total %	19%	-0.4%			  
World & EM Equity					  
AF SMCWX	19.6%	-0.41%		16.3%	  AF Smallcap World Fund
AF CWGIX	1.4%	-0.04%		12.7%	  AF Capital World Growth & Income
AF ANEFX	4.4%	+0.06%		21.9%	  AF New Economy Fund
S: MAPIX	4.8%	-1.07%		9.5%	  S: Matthews Asia Dividend
S: ARTGX	2.4%	-0.07%		17.5%	  S: Artisan Global Value Investor
S: SFGIX	4.3%	-0.97%		0.5%	  S: Seafarer Overseas G & I
S: WAFMX	2.8%	  0 %		12.9%	  S: Wasatch Frontier Emerging
  Total %	40%	-0.4%			  
US Bond Funds					  
AF ABNDX	0.6%	-0.39%		-2.4%	  AF Bond Fund of America
AF AIBAX	1.2%	-0.23%		-1.4%	  AF Intermediate Term Bond Fund
AF AHITX	2.6%	-0.26%		3.5%	  AF High Income Trust
AC ABHIX	0.7%	-0.31%		3.3%	  AC High Yield Bond Fund 
S: RPHYX	6.2%	  0 %		1.7%	  S: Riverpark Short Term HY
S: PONDX	5.7%	-0.41%		1.8%	  S: PIMCO Income Fund (D) 
  Total %	17%	-0.2%			  
Non-US Bond Funds					  
S: MAINX	0.5%	-0.08%		-1.9%	  S: Matthews Asia Strategic Income
Note: The portfolio percentages shown would be					
as a % of the present 20% Equity+Bond exposure.					

-

This came in my inbox this morning. Thought I would share.
Dear Valued Investors,
Those of you who know Matthews Asia well, or have visited us in San Francisco, may know that the most important piece of furniture on the investment team floor is our pool table. It has survived now for about 15 years and is in surprisingly decent shape. Its presence on the floor is a product of the Asian Financial Crisis of 1997—98, when Matthews Asia was still finding its feet. With markets collapsing around the region, our chairman Mark Headley decided that what Matthews Asia needed was a pool table to serve as a center of gravity, pulling analysts and portfolio managers away from their flashing red computer screens and getting them to discuss Asia in a more relaxed manner.
Back then, the U.S. dollar rallied while many Asian governments and corporations were laden with dollar debt. A few years later, however, a weakened dollar and strong global growth accompanied Asia’s comeback from 2000 to 2007. Conversely, over the past couple of years, the slowdown in growth in the region has been concurrent with the gentle rise in the dollar.
Towards the end of the second quarter of the year, indications that monetary policy might be tightened by the U.S. Federal Reserve, even as growth increased only moderately, caused a sudden liquidation of Asian assets and a rush to cash. As the greenback has strengthened, bonds, gold and equities have all fallen. Fortunately, however, Matthews Asia has some experience reflecting on volatile markets with the composure of a seasoned billiard player.
Investors appear to be rushing to hold cash—particularly in U.S. dollars—or, in some regards, shrinking their investment time horizons. As those timelines shorten, the opportunities lie further into the future. However, with money tightening in the U.S., Japan and China, economic activity could certainly be squeezed in the short term. I expect near-term GDP figures to be weak even as I aim to avoid a game of “guessing the quarterly GDP growth.” So, it may be time again to step away from those computer screens and consider the longer-term developments of Asia’s economies.
Media pundits exclaim that China’s shadow banking and wealth management products are “sub-prime,” casually comparing the current China liquidity squeeze to a “Lehman event,” a “Minsky moment” or a U.S. housing bubble repeated (all of which simply replaces analysis with catchphrases). China does not have a sub-prime mortgage market—people buy houses with cash. Nor are its households highly leveraged or the central government highly indebted. The average Chinese household still has a positive savings rate and the country as a whole runs a current account surplus. To be sure, China’s credit has grown rapidly in the past few years and the government has been acting to slow it, which will impact growth. But China is entering this liquidity squeeze with a market trading at 8.4x forward 12-month earnings* and one that has already fallen by nearly 70% since its peak in 2007. And it is not as if China lacks investment opportunities either at home or abroad that could cause it to get stuck in a rut as the U.S. has since the global financial crisis five years ago. So, whatever the current situation, it is not simply a replay of the U.S.’s recent woes.
Whereas the current monetary policy is bad for economic growth, policymakers already seem to be walking back on their hawkish comments while markets appear to have had some cushion from low valuations. There is no doubt that moves by monetary authorities can have a profound impact on growth; if everyone increases demand to hold cash just as the central banks slow the growth in the supply of that cash, spending will fall. And because, generally speaking, your spending is someone else’s income, we all end up poorer. But self-defeating spirals tend to end. I wonder how prolonged such a spiral could be this time. It seems strange, even bizarre, that monetary authorities in the U.S. and Japan would want to deflate expectations when inflation rates remain below 2% in the U.S. and are still negative in Japan. In my mind, this was much too quick on the draw! For, given the already reasonable valuations that markets were trading at before the sell-off, real value has emerged for the long-run investor. Even some of the high-yielding stocks, which had performed well in the recent past and had become somewhat expensive relative to history, were sold down aggressively on the back of rising U.S. yields and have since returned to reasonable valuations. I suspect that either growth will be stronger than we expect and support equity valuations or there will come a point in which the downwardly revised expectations of growth put a halt to the rise in bond yields.
So, whilst our pool table sees little action these days, we do appeal to the same sentiment that made it a Matthews Asia institution. Asia is still a region of strong demand in a world that seems stuck in a rut, with high unemployment and tighter money. Asia, too, has the potential to continue to grow at rates in excess of the developed world, due to its fast-growing rates of productivity. The region suffers in the capital markets, of course, from being seen through the prism of the U.S. dollar.
So, what to do in this environment? The strategies we employ to manage portfolios tend not to change. But we do have to be ever more alert for possible dislocations in market prices. This is to say that some stocks may be sold down over the short term. We may wish to trim other positions to add to holdings that have sold off aggressively or even to initiate new positions. But this should not be considered a change in our approach or a desire to “time” market movements. It is merely that our long-term view will seem relatively fixed in comparison to the short-run gyrations of market prices as speculators run to cash. Such price moves are likely to be unevenly distributed across countries and sectors, in our eyes, and we may have many new opportunities with which to implement our long-term view.
We would also like to inform you that, as of July 19, 2013, there were portfolio management changes to the Matthews Asia Dividend Fund. The Fund is now co-lead managed by Yu Zhang, CFA, and myself. Jesper Madsen, CFA, has decided to leave Matthews Asia, as of October 31, 2013, in order to pursue personal interests outside of finance.
As always, we feel privileged to be your investment advisor for Asia, and thank you for your support.
* Forward earnings are calculated by dividing market price per share by expected earnings per share.
Robert Horrocks, PhD
Chief Investment Officer
Matthews International Capital Management, LLC

Reply to @fundalarm: You have echoed the conventional wisdom. It is reasonable, in theory, there is more opportunity in the less researched areas for active managers to excel. Having said that the reality is a bit more complex. There is good research at S&P site:
http://www.standardandpoors.com/indices/spiva/en/us
Here is the S&P report on active vs indices.
http://us.spindices.com/documents/spiva/spiva-us-year-end-2012.pdf?force_download=true

The year 2012 marked the return of the double digit gains across all the domestic and global equity benchmark indices. The gains passive indices made did not, however, translate into active management, as most active managers in all categories except large-cap growth and real estate funds underperformed their respective benchmarks in 2012. Performance lagged behind the benchmark indices for 63.25% of large-cap funds, 80.45% of mid-cap funds and 66.5% of small cap funds.

However, it looks like best opportunities for active management doing better than indices lies in International Small Caps. Further in the report the number is given that index beat only 21.05% of active managers in International Small Caps category in the last 5 years. 1 year and 3 year results are even better for Active Management. Either the active managers are really taking advantage of the opportunities or the index is not constructed right. Whatever it is it pays to go active in that area.
Among international equity categories, 66.26% of global funds, 56.27% of international funds and 57.62% of emerging markets funds were outperformed by benchmarks over the past three years. A large percentage of international small-cap funds, on the other hand, continue to outperform the benchmark regardless of the period being measured, indicating that active management opportunities are still present in this space.

Start here.....please place game token on the start square, then draw a card for your next move.
A few preface points:
--- Our house is in retirement mode; meaning no more years to "offset" investment losses via cash flow from employment income. So, yes; what another investor wants or needs in a portfolio will not correlate in full.
--- No conviction to the full premise of one's age in income/bond funds and the remainer in equities. One needs to find capital appreciation with capital preservation wherever it may reside. Is this not always the ultimate goal of an investor?
--- The recent system wide test of possible rising interest rates is now complete. Mr. Bernanke and other Fed. members have performed the "recovery word dance" mantra; at least for now. Deflation is still a major consideration in the ongoing economic war(s). Treasury Sec't. Lew is pushing the Euro area....grow, grow, grow. Japan will maintain their cheap money policy. Sure don't know the outcome of this to the positive side of life. China? Only the recent charts tell the story; but I sure can't guess what is next for any policy there.
So, for equity sectors; is the U.S. currently the best of the global bunch? We know EM/BRIC's and China have had a good thumping for some months now. Recent price movements suggest that the "hot money" may consider these areas as oversold.
'Course, a tough choice is the consideration of anything fundamental towards current investing sectors; versus just the plain fact of money traveling to wherever it may have the happiest return on captial invested.
Many bond sectors recently became short term trapped in the O.D. mode; being Over-Done/oversold in the currrent environment. Equity investments were also tested during the Fed. "tapering" test period.
As to the "Et tu, Brute?", You, too Brutus?; being many of the individual investor folks who supposedly have their cash parked; I am not so certain that they will return to equity areas. Perhaps the amount of money they control really doesn't matter to the market place and the big houses will continue to trade among themselves.
A short and quick summary would continue to suggest that economies are still too anemic in the eyes of the largest central banks, many fear deflation and find the only current path; although perhaps dangerous to the future, is too keep the money gates open.
Just a few thinking outloud thoughts from this house.
Take care,
Catch

Thanks for this news David. I too do not expect any changes in investment style for the fund. Mr. Horrocks will be one of the team and that is good news. I think the size of Matthews plays favorably here compared to say a Fidelity or Vanguard.
Here is the bio of Mr. Zhang from the Matthews website if anyone is interested.
Henry Zhang is a Portfolio Manager at Matthews International Capital Management, LLC, and co-manages the firm’s China and China Small Companies strategies. Prior to joining Matthews in 2007 as a Research Analyst, Henry served as an Application Consultant and Project Manager at Gifford Fong Associates for five years. Before moving to the United States, Henry worked for more than four years at Huaneng Power International, Inc., a NYSE-listed corporation, in China. Henry received a Master’s in Financial Engineering from the University of California, Berkeley and a B.S. in Finance from San Francisco State University. He is fluent in Mandarin. Henry has been a Portfolio Manager of the Matthews China Fund since 2010 and of the China Small Companies Fund since its inception in 2011.

FYI: In my capital appreciation portfolio, SPY, IJH, and PRHSX up. In my capital preservation portfolio PONCX & PBDCX were up, but PFF was down
Regards,
Ted

Excuse what may be an elementary question in what I consider to be a highly experienced forum. I am 53, have a few mutual funds and have decided to do some indexing (is that a dirty word here?). I would like to lower some of my costs and have been reading continuously that indexes tend to reap higher returns over the long haul. I also read that indexing works best in "efficient " markets. What are efficient sectors?
I presently have 2 index, FUSVX, Fidelity Spartan 500, for my Large Cap sector, and PBDIX, US Bond Index. I would like to index in a couple more sectors but am unsure of what efficient refers to pr what sectors may be appropriate. My other MF are
POAGX, Primecap Aggressive Growth
CCASX, Conestoga Small Cap
FAGIX, Fidelity Capital and Income
FMIJX, FMI International
MNDFX, Manning & Napier Dividend
PRPFX, Permanent Portfolio
SFGIX, Seafarer
Any other areas above I can sell and buy a good index?
Thanks a lot for any guidance.
Mike

Not necessarily, although I'm not an expert in bonds so maybe others can chime in. Looking at PRSNX the largest holding is floating/bank loan and has large allocation to corporate, which is why I mentioned OSTIX (happens to be named Strategic Income as well) whose duration is about half the length with a much better track record to boot. Give THOPX a look and tell me what you think. Convertibles & floating rate funds can also be used at satellites to supplement core holdings, or an unconstrained fund such as SUBYX which has been mentioned here a few times.
HSFNX Gotcha, am personally long-term bullish on financials too. Have all the Fairholme funds so they do most of the leg work on top of positions in B of A & Wells Fargo.
PCRIX Yea, did a lot of research on commodity funds after being unsatisfied with ETF offerings. The TIPS fund is much more volatile and is down -13% compared to -6% since date of purchase. Going to liquidate it and transfer rest of money to PCLDX. Settled on FSCHX after looking at FSDPX for equity exposure.
ARIVX Know there are mixed feelings around here on this one. Can understand the conservative approach for capital preservation and Eric Cinnamond's record speaks for itself. I think it really depends on the goal of the portfolio. However, I'm of the opinion that small cap value is one of the more efficient ways for upside capture ratio so it does not make sense to put ALL my small cap eggs in that basket, but that is just me.
ARTWX Completely agree with proven manager in new fund, ie: FMIJX, FPIVX, MSCFX, GOODX. Also limited by TDA holding restriction in my Roth and waiting for the 6 months to pass.
Anytime.

Reply to @TonyGstring: You have a pretty strong international combo! ARTKX has shown it's international quality-value investing style with excellent 3, 5 and 10 year performances. Although it's closed to new investors - be glad you're in ARTGX as that's the same investment team and the 2 funds pretty much have the exact same investing style.
I also do like your FMIJX pick --- team managed and I think has one of the closest investing styles to ARTKX from a fund outside of Artisan. FMI has also done quite well with their US focused funds (FMIHX and FMIMX are closed to new investors though).
http://www.fiduciarymgt.com/funds/fmijx/FMIJX_snapshot.pdf
As of 6/30/2013 --- FMIJX is holding 14% cash because...

The blind trust in central bankers, and the notion that easy money and deficit spending will be able to solve a long list of deep-rooted structural problems, is grossly misguided. These monetary and Keynesian policies are dangerous over the long run, and create a false sense of hope and security. In light of the circumstances, we will continue to remain cautious, allocating capital with a keen focus on downside risks. We continually strive to find superior business franchises with strong management teams and balance sheets that trade at a discount to the market and to our estimates of intrinsic value. We anticipate better opportunities as markets reflect a more realistic assessment of risks and growth. Typically the best investments arise in moments of great fear and uncertainty. We will be ready.
{...}
We have articulated extensive turmoil in markets around the globe. When combined with high levels of debt in the system, it has caused us to be even more prudent and cautious in our investment process. Despite our concerns, we do expect that the FMI International Fund will hold up well in a difficult environment. Our goal is to achieve an above-average return while taking below-average risk. We believe the quality of our businesses is superior to that of the market, as we target durable franchises with defendable competitive advantages and barriers to entry. To support this claim, we note that the weighted average return on invested capital (ROIC) of the Fund’s investments is estimated to be approximately 22%11 higher than that of the iShares MSCI EAFE ETF through the trailing 12-month period ended June 30. Our companies’ balance sheets are robust, and they are led by strong, shareholder-friendly management teams. The portfolio trades at a sizeable valuation discount to the iShares MSCI EAFE ETF, at a weighted average P/E of 14.9 times (vs. 22.3 times, a discount of
approximately 33%) and EV/EBITDA of 7.9 times (vs. 10.2 times, a discount of approximately 23%). Additionally, we are holding more cash than normal, as we have found it difficult to find replacements for some of the holdings that we have sold. A pullback in the market would create an attractive buying opportunity, and we will be prepared to seize the moment.

Commenting in regards to your reply to Investor's post on July 19, who gave great advice along with MikeM as well as MaxBialystock (didn't read every single post in thread so may have missed a few). I'm familiar with all their recommendations (own quite a few) and those are some fantastic funds, IMO.
VHGEX - Replace. ARTGX (own it) is an excellent alternative but saw that you said it's in a Vanguard acct. Maybe add to VHCOX or start a position in one of the PrimeCap funds (like POAGX, POGRX, POSKX) depending on tolerance for risk and the role it will play in the portfolio to achieve your overall objective/goals.
PAUDX: What you said. Good fund and manager, I like the All Asset All Authority better than just the All Asset. Up to you, either way works
PQIDX: Based on it's limited history, great performance. Recently tried to buy it but was unavailable at my broker.
PRSNX: There are better options out there; OSTIX off the top of my head
VHCOX Refer to commentary on VHGEX. Recently opened up to new investors, great track record and management like most of Vanguard's active funds. Agree with what you said and its role for growth in the portfolio. AKREX can achieve similar goals albeit in a slightly different way. Can't go wrong whichever way you decide.
MCFCX: Not sure if this is meant to be MFCFX, Marsico Flexible Capital. Regardless, believe there was a manager change and am not familiar with their other funds. If going the Artisan route, would personally use ARTGX over ARTHX due to the managers excellent performance of ARTKX (closed) and value approach. See this thread http://www.mutualfundobserver.com/discuss/index.php?p=/discussion/7046/oakmark-global-select-vs-artisan-global-value
HSFNX - Sell. Never heard of and small cap financial seems like a really specific niche holding.
PCRIX: Several options. The Real Return Strategy uses swaps/derivatives and invests in TIPS to protect against inflation plus earn income. Instead of TIPS, CommoditiesPLUS Strategy invests in short term income. I own both (HACMX, PCLDX).
PONDX I'd keep (own it). Contains lot of MBS
AEMGX Never heard of it. Can empathize with the sentimental value and it's easy for me to say keep emotions out of investing and sell it! However, must propose a suitable replacement and just dealt with this situation in two of my portfolios as a lot of EM funds closed within the past year. Got in ODVYX (now closed) in IRA but missed it by the time my rollover was processed, so invested in SFGIX along with MACSX (missed MAPIX by a few days). Maybe look into HLEMX or THDAX.
ARIVX Like both of Investor's recommendations. Currently looking to buy SKSEX along with my position in VVPSX to add that small value tilt. When rest of money comes from 401k rollover, will have to pay a Fidelity TF fee but am still going to buy MSCFX, which think someone else already recommended. Also own ARTWX, still early but like Mark Yockey's track record, which has been covered here on MFO quite extensively.
Somewhat in the same boat with you as I don't have a lot of conviction in the managers of the currently open EM & some small-cap funds, as a lot of the ones I follow or wanted to get into recently closed (FCPVX, FSCRX, SSSFX to name a few). Not a fan of passive management for a bond portfolio, ESPECIALLY in this environment. Would strongly suggest looking at the big three of Gundlach, Gross, and Fuss (in that order, fwiw).
Lemme know if you have any questions. Best of luck!

Reply to @Charles: I like certain technology. I really like point-of-sale (credit card machines at retail stores) technology. You have an industry whether there's two large players that dominate the industry (Ingenico and Verifone) and a couple of smaller players (NCR and Square; Groupon is also doing a payments device, but Ingenico is providing the hardware and software; Ingenico has also worked with Paypal.). Verifone has had significant problems, leaving Ingenico with an even larger share of an industry that is everywhere. I'm not sure there are many other industries that are so ubiquitous where only a couple of players around the world have been allowed to become so dominant. Whether or not that dominance will change with the introduction of new players is anyone's guess, but the dominant companies have been given a giant head start over a rather long period.
You also have changes going on (more mobile devices repurposed as checkout machines with cashiers walking around stores, the US having to upgrade to EMV chip credit cards leading to machine upgrades being required, etc.) I could be completely wrong, but that's an example of a theme where I can be concerned with the bigger global picture and think the theme is a compelling one for the long-term, especially as more and more transactions are digital (Whole Foods stores no longer accept checks - http://www.newsobserver.com/2011/10/20/1580885/no-checks-at-the-checkout.html)
There are some other tech companies that I like quite a bit (Google and a number of other names), some I don't, some I've been wrong on and I am more than happy to continue to be wrong on (Microsoft, which I would consider if Ballmer ever left - Ballmer is clearly smart, but I don't like a number of things he's done and I really dislike the way that he presents himself and the company.)
I don't think GE handled things entirely well 2008 (we're not going to lower the dividend, a few days later a different story), but the GE of today is improving and a great play on a number of significant long-term themes. I'd like to see GE Capital be spun-off and was happy to see them spin-off NBC/Universal (or, as I like to call it, "Bad/Good"), which I think have a better home with Comcast.
I definitely like Kinder Morgan a great deal (I think it's a remarkable collection of assets - an energy superhighway - that no one can come along and duplicate, especially as regulations increase), but note that KMP does result in a K-1. KMR is a way to participate in KMP without a K-1, but it has continually traded at a discount to KMP and some places do not allow DRIP for KMR.) Parent KMI is also a very good choice.
I think the basic materials/materials names (X, STLD and others) will likely pay off over time for those who have a mid-to-long term positive view and time horizon; they are certainly cheap at this point. Other companies, like BHP and FCX are also down significantly and pay nice dividends; whether or not they can turn things around depends on one's larger picture view, but they continue to pay shareholders to wait.
COP I thought was cheap and a number of the other major oil companies are not only reasonably priced, but you get paid to wait - Shell paying around 5.5%, Chevron around 3.3%, etc.)
I'll also throw out that I think housing has bottomed, but the move back will be multi-speed (some areas were just overbuilt) and the enthusiasm for housing has gotten ahead of itself. I do believe that rental demand will continue, especially in major cities where rents continue to go higher than even I believed they would. Lack of space and other issues are contributing to higher rates - http://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/Bay-Area-Leads-Country-in-Rent-Increases-215894611.html, http://www.businessinsider.com/the-8-reasons-why-new-york-rents-are-so-ridiculously-high-2013-7
XRX has done a reasonably good job trying to reposition itself, but I think it will take time and success is not certain as it competes with a number of larger players already in some of these sectors.
Thank you for your comments and discussion.

Reply to @scott:
"I don't own the fund, but I have in the past and would consider it both if a space opened up and I had an interest in adding some fixed income exposure."
Your comment might lead one to believe that fixed income is an objective but it is not.
From the prospectus:
"The Fund seeks maximum real return, consistent with preservation of real capital and prudent investment management"

I think it is game over for PONDX (PIMIX) and not entralled with PDI. But then I am a buy strength, sell weakness kind of guy. What surprises me is the lack of discussion about the one area in Bondland that has survived the recent carnage and that is bank loan/floating rate funds. They have performed as advertised. Wish I could say I hold the numero uno fund there which is HFRZX but I don't. I have held however NFRIX and recently ramped back up not only there but in Junkland. Junk bonds haven't received much discussion either but it's not hard to find several with 5%+ YTD gains. A not bad gain in a year of mostly red in Bondville.

After AQR Risk Parity I'm guessing this fund will not be of interest (although, to be fair, risk parity has not done well recently - including Bridgewater's famed "All Weather" fund), but here it is:
WHAT: (AQR Long/Short - although AQR Global Long/Short would probably have been a better name in terms of marketing, given that it can go anywhere and there are very few global L/S funds.)
HOW: The Fund seeks to provide investors with three different sources of return: 1) the potential gains from its long-short equity positions, 2) overall exposure to equity markets, and 3) the tactical variation of its net exposure to equity markets. The Fund seeks to provide higher risk-adjusted returns with lower volatility compared to global equity markets.
Under normal market conditions, the Fund pursues its investment objective by investing at least 80% of its net assets (including borrowings for investment purposes) in equity instruments and equity related instruments. Equity instruments include common stock, preferred stock, and depositary receipts (“Equity Instruments”). Equity related instruments are investments that provide exposure to the performance of equity instruments, including equity swaps (both single-name and index swaps), equity index futures, equity options and exchange-traded-funds and similar pooled investment vehicles (collectively, “Equity Derivative Instruments” and together with Equity Instruments, “Instruments”)).
In managing the Fund, the Adviser takes long positions in those Instruments that, based on proprietary quantitative models, the Adviser forecasts to be undervalued and likely to increase in price, and takes short positions in those Instruments that the Adviser forecasts to be overvalued and likely to decrease in price.
The Fund may invest in or have exposure to companies of any size. The Fund has no geographic limits on where it may invest. The Fund will generally invest in instruments of companies located in global developed markets, including the United States. As of the date of this Prospectus, the Adviser considers global developed markets to be those countries included in the MSCI World Index. Although the Fund does not limit its investments to any one country, the Fund may invest in any one country without limit.
The Adviser uses a set of value, momentum, quality and other economic indicators to generate an investment portfolio based on the Adviser’s global security selection and asset allocation models.
•
Value indicators identify investments that appear cheap based on fundamental measures, often as a result of distress or lack of favor. Examples of value indicators include using price-to-earnings and price-to-book ratios for choosing individual equities.
•
Momentum indicators identify investments with strong short-term performance. Examples of momentum indicators include simple price momentum for choosing individual equities.
•
Quality indicators identify stable companies in good business health, including those with strong profitability and stable earnings.
•
In addition to these three main indicators, the Adviser may use a number of additional quantitative indicators based on the Adviser’s proprietary research. The Adviser may add or modify the economic indicators employed in selecting portfolio holdings from time to time.
Applying these indicators, the Adviser may take long or short positions in industries, sectors and companies that it believes are attractive on either a relative basis or on an absolute basis. In the aggregate the Fund expects to have net long exposure to the equity markets, which the Adviser may adjust over time. When the Adviser determines that market conditions are unfavorable, the Fund may reduce its long market exposure. Similarly, when the Adviser determines that market conditions are favorable, the Fund may increase its long market exposure.
The Fund is not designed to be market-neutral. The Adviser will use a tactical allocation overlay to manage the Fund’s beta exposure to broad global markets. The Adviser, on average, intends to target a portfolio beta of 0.5. The Adviser expects that the Fund’s target beta will typically range from 0.3 to 0.7.
WHO:Investment Manager
The Fund’s investment manager is AQR Capital Management, LLC.
Portfolio Managers
Name
Portfolio Manager
of the Fund Since
Title
Jacques A. Friedman, M.S.
Since Inception Principal of the Adviser
Lars Nielsen, M.Sc.
Since Inception Principal of the Adviser
Andrea Frazzini, Ph.D., M.S.
Since Inception Vice President of the Adviser