My suggestion is that you hire a manager who has real experience in this area. We use Templeton TGBAX as a core holding in client accounts and compliment it with Goldman Sachs GIMDX or GSDIX. There may be someone who does a better overall job than Hasenstab right now, but his ability to grasp the minutiae of currencies is darned good. That being said, we like Goldman because of the depth of research and strong knowledge of their team. GIMDX has most of its fund in local currency bonds, so if you believe it is prudent to hedge against a possible decline of the dollar, it might be a good option.
Fidelity New Markets is also a good option, but it is a dollar-based fund. Nothing wrong with that, but investors need to understand how the different funds work.
We have looked at PIMCO, but like their other bond funds, they are really loaded up on derivatives and do not do much local currency bonds, expect for the very short term PLMDX.
While I think Foster is a great manager, keep in mind that his experience is mostly in the stock side of the equation, not bonds. MAPIX, which he used to run, is a fund we use for "chicken" exposure to emerging Asia, not as a fixed-income play.
Remember that all managers will have periods of under-performance. When that occurs, use it as a buying opportunity if you are underweighted. And, just like stock funds, don't be hesitant to capture significant gains as they accumulate.

Reply to @catch22: Take a look at the issue with the Illinois Teacher's Pension Fund, which was invested (and probably still is) in a huge number of exotic derivatives products.
http://news.medill.northwestern.edu/chicago/news.aspx?id=166746
"Dale Rosenthal, a former strategist for Long Term Capital Management, the hedge fund known for its epic collapse in 1998, and a proprietary trader for Morgan Stanley, has seen his share of financial complexities.
But when shown a seven-page list of derivatives positions held by the Illinois Teachers Retirement System as of March 31, obtained by Medill News Service through a Freedom of Information Act request, the University of Illinois-Chicago assistant professor of finance expressed disbelief.
“If you were to have faxed me this balance sheet and asked me to guess who it belonged to, I would have guessed, Citadel, Magnetar or even a proprietary trading desk at a bank,” Rosenthal said. How bad is it? After losing $4.4 billion on investments in fiscal year 2009, and 5 percent on investments in fiscal 2008, the teachers’ pension is now underfunded by $44.5 billion, or 60.9 percent, according to the Commission on Government Forecasting and Accountability’s March 2010 report. By comparison, only 20.3 percent of the Chicago Teachers’ Pension Fund is unfunded."
There are pensions borrowing from themselves, as well.
http://articles.businessinsider.com/2012-03-14/politics/31162913_1_pension-costs-pension-system-pension-fund

Reply to @catch22: Thank you for the excellent response. I think this:
" A recent note on Bloomberg, related to another money area; is that someone's survey (for the auto industry) indicated that 46% of the under 30 age group would forgo the purchase of a new car; if it meant that they would have to give up their internet connection. This tells a lot, too. "
...Is particularly telling, both in terms of financial health and in terms of priorities.
"The country has a large group of boomers retired and retiring (10,000/day) for the next 10 years or so. Many of them will never step back into a full blown equity position in the markets (may get burned some with bonds, too); but will attempt to remain conservative to retain exisiting capital. With a few reports I have read and/or viewed, there are also many young folks (even though they may have a decent job) who are also very skeptical about the benefit of investing risks. There is also a large group between the boomers and the young one's with decent jobs; who have work that only pays the bills and nothing left over to consider for an investment, let alone those who are not employed. "
Exactly, and this is the Arnott article that speaks to this in stocks (and I think one can take the situation and apply it to houses)
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204795304577223632111866416.html#printMode
"but I am fully aware of the early 80's recession with high inflation that was killed by Volker with Fed policy to drive interest rates to suck the life from high inflation."
Yeah, and there is no Volcker to be found.
Finally, as for housing, I think student loans is going to be a major issue, too:
http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=203759
"Total student debt outstanding appears to have surpassed $1 trillion late last year, said officials at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, a federal agency created in the wake of the financial crisis. That would be roughly 16% higher than an estimate earlier this year by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York."
And now we find that a large portion of that is 30 days+ overdue and things aren't good with the age group....
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/first-crack-270-billion-student-loans-are-least-30-days-delinquent

Hi scott,
You noted: " As for housing, I think even that has stunned me. I think there is intrinsic value in a house. It can be rented, there is value in the materials (and speaking of inflation, I find it interesting that houses have cratered, but have the building materials gone down? I don't think so.) Yet, there's not enough buyers out there. I have friends who owned, then chose doing a short sale. They are able to get another house, but their credit is f'd. How many other people are in that position? Look at a real estate website in a major city and see how many short sales are listed.
What happens if rates were to "normalize?" (the FDIC calculated 40% of the U.S. households have insufficient income and credit to buy a home, http://www.zerohedge.com/news/guest-post-how-housing-affordability-can-falter-even-house-prices-decline) If you look at some major cities now, owning is clearly becoming cheaper than renting, but real estate is just not happening. Older people who are downsizing are going to find that there isn't enough of an audience in the younger generations to buy their bigger houses. Lastly, houses have done down dramatically, but in many places, property taxes have risen. "
>>>>> Though my note is not directly related to the original post/questions, but is related to your note.
I am reminded of a lyric section; of which, I attempt to use when guaging all areas of the global "big picture" to also attempt to envision of where monies may be placed for the best benefit to our portfolio and its risk/reward label.
The song from the hippie-dippie days by Kenny Rogers and The First Edition; and the lyric section: I just dropped in, to see what condition my condition is in...
Related to the buy or rent for one's housing. Knowing you view all of this area and others, too; I do believe or should I write "I am firmly in place on this thought" that what was and now is since the market melt and all of the ramifications continues to not be the money world I grew into, being a baby boomer. Through most of 2009 I would periodically talk back to the tv talking heads when too many of them would state that everything is going to be okay and this (market melt) won't be much different from the early 80's recession. I sure don't know what models or thinking that they were using; but I am fully aware of the early 80's recession with high inflation that was killed by Volker with Fed policy to drive interest rates to suck the life from high inflation. What I consider to be my non-formal economic education that allowed me to argue against their points of view is that 3 major areas of impact were in place in the early 80's that were mostly gone for the economic ramifications of the 2008 melt.
1. many boomers were in or approaching peak job earnings years
2. manufacturing facilites were in place in this country
3. very little foreign competition was in place against manufacturing
To the above: boomers had lots of money to do with whatever they chose; and was and still is a very large percentage of the population. Many of this group, being without more than a high school graduation and many without this level were able to obtain well paying work at the big 3 auto makers; along with great benefits. This is gone, eh?
As a side benefit to my living in MI and knowing its previous manufacturing base; and also knowing that many of the factories had literally been demolished long before the market melt; there was no longer any base to fall back upon, as was the case in the early 80's. The passage of NAFTA & GATT in the mid-90's had already begun to cause many U.S. firms to move to Mexico; and as the next 10 years passed, more of this area also moved to China and related areas.
The talking heads had somehow avoided or were unable to assemble anything but theories from text books, one must presume. Many of them surely did not have a real perspective of what was, but no longer existed; to attempt to assemble some wonderful and fanciful view of an "everything will be alright" theory.
As to the buy/rent crowd among the young. Heck we know many don't have enough money and/or will remain mobile in their search for work. No reason to have a fixed house in place with all of the hassles. I fully understand this and agree in full to this kind of thinking. A recent note on Bloomberg, related to another money area; is that someone's survey (for the auto industry) indicated that 46% of the under 30 age group would forgo the purchase of a new car; if it meant that they would have to give up their internet connection. This tells a lot, too.
Lastly; you and I have both mentioned the following:
The country has a large group of boomers retired and retiring (10,000/day) for the next 10 years or so. Many of them will never step back into a full blown equity position in the markets (may get burned some with bonds, too); but will attempt to remain conservative to retain exisiting capital. With a few reports I have read and/or viewed, there are also many young folks (even though they may have a decent job) who are also very skeptical about the benefit of investing risks. There is also a large group between the boomers and the young one's with decent jobs; who have work that only pays the bills and nothing left over to consider for an investment, let alone those who are not employed.
Our house attempts to filter what we hear/view, read and know for a fact to proceed with our investment areas.
Okay, enough of my jabber; as one could write many pages regarding the 3 above areas.
Take care,
Catch

Reply to @WxByHart:
Likely that I have not had enough coffee yet this morning; and some days the old brain cells are not working, so I shouldn't even place a question; but I will ask anyway.
You wrote:
" The nice thing about my existing NWM Roth IRA Annuity, is that I bought it 20 years ago when I was 30, which locked in my minimum guaranteed settlement rate (based on a shorter life expectancy). So if I rollover into that account, that rate is going to be better than the rate I would get with a new annuity, since life expectancy is longer today than it was 20 years ago (and I've already absorbed a lot of the expenses associated with the annuity).
--- Assuming the following: Trad. IRA and annuities monies are taxed as ordinary income, and Roth IRA monies not taxed upon withdrawal.
>>> If I recall from your first write, you had the Trad. IRA noted above with NWM which you converted to a Roth IRA, yes? Also noted above.....NWM Roth IRA Annuity.
This is a tax sheltered acct. within a sheltered acct; with an additional layer of expenses to you, from the insurance company.
Is the noted guaranteed settlement rate you mention a fixed, annual rate of interest on the monies in the Roth? Is this what this statement means?
And what are you planning to rollover into the "NWM Roth IRA Annuity"?
As far as the non-Roth money is concerned, I could roll it into my new 401-k (which is better than my former), but then the bulk of my retirement will be determined by market performance over the next 10 to 15 years. At least with an annuity, I have some guarantees, while also staying in the market. And as far as the front-load sales charge goes, since I'll be rolling over 140k, my rate will drop from 4.5 to 2.0% for all money over 100k...which is comparable to mutual fund sales charges. And the expenses within the NW Mutual Select Variable Annuity will average 1.23%, which is about the same as the Morningstar Mutual Fund average of 1.22%, and much better than the Morningstar Variable Annuities average rate of 1.74%. The final advantage over a traditional IRA is the ability to move my money around among several different fund families without a fee.
>>>I'm confused with this above paragraph. It appears you're talking about rolling over an old 401k to your new employer 401k; and also stating you will be restricted by market performance. The answer would be "yes", regardless of which employer 401k. You could likely always place all of the monies into a "stable value" area of the 401k, which is available with most 401k's if you are concerned about making choices of other investment areas.
>>> You note: "At least with an annuity, I have some guarantees, while also staying in the market." What does this mean? I will presume the annuity has a life insurance package combined with investment options for type of guarnateed payout at some future point.
>>> Where is the $140k coming from?
>>> You note: " The final advantage over a traditional IRA is the ability to move my money around among several different fund families without a fee. " Who told you this, that there is an advantage with the annuity? We have Trad. and Roth accts with Fidelity and do not have additional fees unless we wander outside of Fidelilty offerings; and then may only find a fee here and there, depending upon which other fund family we may choose to invest with, among the several 1,000 other choices.
>>> You note: " my rate will drop from 4.5 to 2.0% for all money over 100k...which is comparable to mutual fund sales charges. " This is a one time 4.5% front load on $100K, yes? Or is there also an annual fee/expense of 2% on these monies?
>>> If this annuity is a life policy, with a guaranteed payout blended with investing choices; perhaps the fees are in line. I can not speak to this, as I am not an insurance person, nor do I choose to be one from the investigative side. I am also not able to validate your noted above regarding the M* numbers for these products. A plain jane variable annuity (to be used when all other tax sheltered options are exhausted or not available) with Fidelity, has 57 fund choices, an average expense of about .95%; but is not a guaranteed life payout insurance plan, but also does not have any penalty features associated with most annuities during the first 1-7/10 years.
You note: "I plan to get all of the expenses and fees in writing before I sign on the dotted line, but it seems like I can get some security with the little extra expense it would cost to go the annuity route. "
I am only playing the devil's advocate here; to better understand what you are attempting to do, and that you may also discover some additional questions to ask your insurance salesperson. If you are not involved in a "must do" time frame, you should investigate this plan to your fullest abilities.
Lastly, you suggest that you are wary of market losses going forward. You are not alone in that boat. Capital preservation should always be a prominent consideration for one's monies, regardless of age. If one goes backwards too far in losses, it requires that much more in future gains to offset the losses. This also applies to overcoming front-load or recurring fees. These fees are loss dollars that must be overcome with forward gains in one's portfolio. To this note; and regarding the insurance company variable annuity you mention, who will be making the choices of which funds to invest your monies? I note this; as with the few folks I know who use investment advisors, none were able to position their client monies coming into the market downturn in 2008. I also presume your monies in your 401k are placed to your own choices.
Welcome to MFO. You will gain much knowledge from the wonderful folks at this forum.
Respectfully,
Catch

Hello prinx, Skeeter here …
With the forecast of rising interest rates I began to reduce my allocation to fixed income back in October of 2010. I know, you are thinking kind of early … Well, not really … and, here is why. As bond prices began to pull back stock prices were moving upward so I reduced my allocation to bonds form 30% to 25% and raised my allocation to good dividend paying stocks and funds of same by a like amount. I actually increased the income stream during the process and I have had capital appreciation on the investment move. So that was indeed a good move from my thoughts.
Now, I know that one needs to maintain some bonds within their portfolio for diversification and with this I am presently about 25% income. To reduce my allocation to 20% and raise cash by a like amount means I have some dead money form a yield generation perspective and more cash than I need to move into and out of for special strategy investments form time to time. In addition, I have been reducing my allocation to equities because I feel they have gotten ahead of themselves and are scheduled for a pull back. With this, I am awaiting their pull back and when this occurs perhaps bond valuations will increase as investors leave stocks and move to bonds. I will be doing just the opposite … I’ll reduce my allocation to bonds and move the money to good dividend paying stocks, perhaps some commodity funds too, while keeping my cash allocation at its current level.
Presently, I am 20% cash, 25% income and 55% equity and other. I just don’t see me drawing my bond allocation back of 20% nor do I see me raising my allocation to equities and other to more than 65%.
Some might have a different strategy … but, for now, the above is my game plan to deal with rising rates and a stock market pull back.
A simple ... but, likely an effective strategy ... or at least, it has been in the past on more than one occassion.
Good Investing,
Skeeter

Comment - Re:
"My brother in law is retiring and has a simple IRA that he wants to move from American funds to Price and reallocate. Currently, they've got him 90% in equities! ...
He's 63 and ...very conservative... His goals for this account, are basic capital preservation with some safe growth...."
------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm troubled by the inconsistency between the (current) 90% equity allocation and your statement that he's "very conservative."
Are there other assets elsewhere (possibly sizable) which ARE conservatively invested, so that the "90% equity allocation" makes sense and IS consistent with your statement regarding his investment approach?

Howdy good people,
My brother in law is retiring and has a simple IRA that he wants to move from American funds to Price and reallocate. Currently, they've got him 90% in equities!!!! [I don't even recall being 90% long myself during the dot.com run].
Also, please note that I've been investing with Price for about 20 odd years, and so am familiar with a lot of their stuff. That said, I could still use your good offices in how to set him up and what are your particular Price fund favorites. Nothing fancy, just Price mutual funds.
He's 63 and just filed for social security; no debt, very conservative (worse than his sister and she's bad), other monies, wife has DB pension, benefits, successful kids, etc. His goals for this account, are basic capital preservation with some safe growth. Size, small 6 figs.
Thanks muchly,
peace,
rono

Greg, your analysis here reminds us why most can't do our own income tax without help of professional anymore. And, if Congress can't pass a budget one year out, than how in tarnation can we anticipate what tax code will be in 10-20 years? My suspicion is they won't mess much with Roth - just because big money loves these and the opposition would be loud and strong. Axing Roth doesn't seem to have the same populist appeal as (for example) increasing the cap gains tax. However, that's just a suspicion and much depends on how the battle over budget & entitlements plays out and, of course, which party's in power.
I like the Roth for young folk. In addition to the obvious tax advantage compounded over a longer time, if they're anything like I was when younger, those extra taxes at the time are likely $$ that would have been blown on non-essentials. However, since dollar cost averaging in, they don't have to worry about big downdrafts in markets the way you would after a big one-time conversion. The linked article mentions one way to mitigate that risk by converting into multiple Roths and than "recharacterizing" the ones that don't do well per tax code. Others on the board have used this strategy successfully.
We were fortunate to convert a portion back in early '09. Paid taxes out of pocket - not pulling from IRA. The upside to us, in addition to catching the market updraft, was we won't have to take mandatory withdrawals on that portion at age 70.5 as with traditional IRAs. The disadvantage was we aren't allowed to withdraw from the Roth for at least 5 years after conversion (unless paying 10% early withdrawal penalty). We've also dabbled in your third strategy, putting some in a non-IRA tax efficient fund just for variety. It's unclear to me how this would benefit you with a large sum, since you'd pay the (estimated) 35% on the $$ before you invest and than the current cap gains tax as well on withdrawal. Just a few random thoughts. FWIW
http://www.financial-planning.com/fp_issues/2012_2/betting-on-a-roth-conversion-2677059-1.html?zkPrintable=1&nopagination=1

Everyone has been raving about the benefits of Roth IRA's-- but just how good are they for high income tax payers?
Hypothesis: which is better??
1. tax payer who earns $400K wants to setup a legacy for his grandkids. So his plan is to convert $100K from his traditional IRA into a Roth IRA, so that it will pass on to his grandkids tax-free. But since he is in the 35% tax bracket, he must pay $35,000 in income tax to do this conversion.
or,
2. would it be better to just invest $100,000 in a taxable investment account using a passive index fund that pays minimal dividend distributions and zero capital gain distributions. Then in 20 years the grandkids would get the assets in this brokerage account at the "stepped up" basis when he dies. Or if you cannot get the stepped up basis, at least it would be taxed as long term capital gains and not ordinary income like in a traditional IRA.
I am confused about which is better:
1. paying the income tax now at 35%, but zero when you take the money out of the Roth IRA.
2. making a pre-tax contribuion now, but taking the money out later at regular income tax rates of 35% using a traditional IRA ( I am assuming his tax bracket will be the same now as it will be then.)
3. using a taxable investment account and pay 35% tax on the initial investment, but only 15% capital gain tax on the accured profits when you take the money out.
It seems like the solution might change completely if Congress ever eliminates the capital gain tax, or reinstates the estate tax, or impliments a VAT tax like most of the rest of the developed world has.
It is really hard to plan for the future, when today's rules might not apply in the future.
Any thoughts???

Yes, exactly my observation also re diversification. Unfortunately, the same investment requirements which reduce or remove the loads also require maintenance of such a high account level that it becomes an all or nothing situation... if we were to take a significant amount out of American the remainder would then be subject to load, if we were to move it around within American.
As we are primarily interested in a relatively non-volatile retirement environment at this juncture, as opposed to trying to grow our retirement funds, American Funds is minimally satisfactory for our needs. SmallCap World for example is, as you mention, very conservative but just fine for us. New Economy, ANEFX, seems similar. Capital World Growth & Income has been hopeless during the last ten years or so.
I also agree that American is living in the past... at some point they are going to have to deal with this. As msf mentions below, one saving grace is the relatively low ongoing ER; and as David Snowball somewhat famously observed, dull is sometimes good. However, I would not recommend American Funds for anyone younger due to the loading and lack of diversity involved.

American Funds family is struggling. Some of their funds are hemmoraging assets in the billions. While they may shrug this off publicly, you can bet they are very concerned. The fact is they built their shop around multiple-advisor run funds, which has some merit. But when they have a half dozen or so large cap domestic funds with many of the same folks running them, there is obviously going to be a good deal of overlap of holdings.
The company was for years the darling of the commission-driven advisor industry. But after some significant underperformance periods during the last decade, even these folks have pulled big dollars (and, of course, moved to other loaded products, but that is another discussion). American Mutual is perhaps their strongest fund, and it has a decent risk/reward profile. SmallCap World is a very conservative EM fund. Capital World Growth & Income looked pretty good, until Thornburg Income Builder and a host of mimics arrived on the scene. It's dividend yield is downright puny, and the fund has had very little of the growth that it's name would suggest, especially when compared to its peers.
Forcing all of its managers to essentially work in the same mold has produced funds that have a lot of the same holdings, and behave similarly in good and bad times. Not much diversification here, which I think is the biggest problem for them.

Check out SATMX-Satuit Capital U.S. Emerging Companies (formerly MicroCap). High expenses but fine return for such a wild ride. David Snowball noted this fund in his November 2011 Commentary. For something a substantially more tame because of large cash holdings check out: PVFIX-Pinnacle Value. David Snowball profiled PVIFX also in November 2011. Peace out, Rick

Thanks Ted,
I own USATX and though there has been a slight pull back in fund price, the yield has been solid. Much of the gains of this fund and other Munis over the last year was price appreciation due to the "Meredith Scare".

Dear Skeeter: As Peter Lynch would say, "Duke was a ten banger" for you. In addition to good paying dividend stocks, I invest in preferred stocks and bonds for a steady stream of income in my capital preservation portfolio.
Regards,
Ted

My thoughts on these things are always sell first and ask questions later. Of course it is easy for me because I do aggressive accounting and make sure and gains/losses can I offset against each other, and in your case, you are talking tax deferred accounts. Just look at what's happening at Nuveen. Better take matters into your own hands instead of taking a chance. At the very minimum, such things are distractions for the fund managers. Chances are high nothing good will come out of it.
The other reason I still say sell is because I don't think there is necessarily anything unique about Artio. You can easily find satisfactory replacements elsewhere. Nothing is sure in this world and you never know how the funds would perform down the road with or without management shakeup, and same for the funds you would move into otherwise.
Best.

Hi Hank,
Well anything worth while is not easy. Although I had my late father to help me along the path of investing ... he is now gone. But, some of his strategies and reasoning still resonate with me today; and, I have found his simple strategies to still be in fashion. Sometimes, as grown ups, we tend to make things complicated and more complex than need to be ... when in fact ... keeping simplicity in place might be the best avenue.
Let me continue. Fact, I can not compete with the electronic and high frequency trading systems that seem to be in place and limit and perhaps destroy capital formation form my thoughts. So I took a path that somewhat involves them. I let them beat stocks down ... then I increase my allocation to stocks ... and, when they recover, I sell some of them off reducing my allocation and risk to stocks. I have found when stocks are towards their 52 week lows they are most likely under valued and oversold by investors and, with this, I increase my allocation to equities. And, when they strat to approach and reach new 52 weeks highs then they have perhaps become somewhat overvalued and overbought by investors and, with this, I sell some of them off reducing my allocation and my risk to equities. Indeed, a simple strategy. Seems to work though.
So yes ... "It's tough out there Lou" ...
Skeeter

I don't own most of these, but here are a few that eeked out positive gains:
IRNIX
LCMAX
ARBFX
MFLDX
HSGFX
CFIMX
SLASX
FAIRX
WAEMX
The top group is probably due to long short or arbitrage strategies.

Howdy,
Again, a thank you to all who post the links and also start and participate in the many fine commentaries woven into the message threads.
For those who don't know; I ramble away about this and that, at least once each week.
NOTE: For those who visit MFO, this portfolio is designed for retirement, capital preservation and to stay ahead of inflation creep. This is not a buy and hold portfolio, and is subject to change on any given day; based upon perceptions of market directions. All assets in this portfolio are in tax-sheltered accounts; and any fund distributions are reinvested in the funds. Gains or losses are computed from actual account values.
While looking around..... Speaking of looking around ! I can with clarity. I note this as I have had a 2nd eye lens implant within a month's time. Don't know about the sometimes discussed "all seeing" third eye. That one seems to be without problems most of the time...:):):) Back to the lens implant to discard the cataract burdened eyes. Will these procedures help with investments decisions? I can not say at this time; but the previous frustration with the ability to properly see all that we should read regarding investments surely must become a positive. I had chosen to write this week regarding this surgery and technology; but this will have to find another day. A small side effect of the numerous eye drops I must use for several weeks, four times a day; is drowsiness. This should only be a concern for this next week. None the less, further notes about investments with this write are at the near limit. I have added a few blips related to our portfolio and market observations at the below SELLs/BUYs and Portfolio Thoughts.
I have retained the following links for those who may choose to do their own holdings comparison against the fund types noted.
This 1st link to Bloomberg is for their list of balanced funds; although I don't always agree with the placement of fund styles in their categories.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/data?Sector=888&pid=invest_mutualfunds&ListBy=YTD&Term=1
These next two links are for conservative and moderate fund leaders YTD, per MSN.
http://moneycentral.msn.com/investor/partsub/funds/topfundresults.asp?Symbol=$HF&Category=CA
http://moneycentral.msn.com/investor/partsub/funds/topfundresults.asp?Category=MA&Type=&symbol=$HF
Such are the numerous battles with investments attempting to capture a decent return and minimize the risk.
We live and invest in interesting times, eh?
Hey, I probably forgot something; and hopefully the words make some sense.
Comments and questions always welcomed.
Good fortune to you, yours and the investments.
Take care,
Catch
SELLs/BUYs THIS PAST WEEK:

---All of FCVSX, FFGCX and a portion of FSAGX were sold and the proceeds moved to FTBFX. May in March? Okay, you're asking why these? Fair question, indeed. FCVSX and FFGCX have had decent runs, and nice YTD's. FSAGX is a bit more on the rocky path right now. Our house is not assured that there are not more investment sparks nearby; which may continue upward pressure on the $ which would likely surpress commodities and the metals. The same applies to the convertible securities sector; although our other equity holdings would also be exposed to down moves. We don't move monies around very often; and we may be off the track with these changes, but this is where we are for now.
A reflection upon the links above; we attempt to establish a "benchmark" for our portfolio to help us "see" how our funds are performing. Aside from viewing many funds within the balanced/flexible funds rankings (the above links), a quick and dirty group of 4 funds we watch for benchmarking are the following:
***Note: these YTD's per M*
VWINX ....YTD = + 3.1% - .21 week
PRPFX ....YTD = + 6.1% - .43 week
SIRRX .....YTD = + 1.8% + .0 week
HSTRX ....YTD = + .49% - .32 week
None of these 4 are twins to our holdings, but we do watch these as a type of rough guage.
Portfolio Thoughts:
Our holdings had a - .18 % move this past week. Greece may be given the old credit card rework; but all of the holders of debt are still in place; just wearing bond clothing made of a different fabric. Some CDS (Credit Default Swaps) will be trigged by losses on Greek bonds. Soon enough we will discover whether these psuedo insurance contracts written among bond holders and those stating they will cover losses are worth the electronic pages the words are noted upon. Between our Federal Reserve system and the European bank system; a form of what I will name as "halograhic" money has been formed. I suspect if one tries to touch the monies; that one's hands would merely pass through the image of what appears to be real money. These monies appear to mostly trapped within a tight circle of circulation; rotating among the central banks, the state banks and whomever may be the holders of government, state or soverign bonds. How much of this hot, halographic money is actually moving out into the consumer public is probably anyone's good guess on any given day. Where and when will all of this protective money find its landing place? So, many global and the state banks within countries are in place to note that their balance sheets are better. I don't know better than what? Also in the mix is the continued large amounts of bonds being issued by and for, everyone and his brother. One can not argue that bonds do indeed have a place in the public company sector allowing a business to raise monies for operations and/or expansion. Based upon some writings over the last six months; it appears that much of the bond issuance by emerging market governments or companies has been the result of European banks not willing or able to provide traditional loans; as their exposure to non-performing bonds is already too high; and I would suspect these banks really don't have the kind of balance sheets that one would hope for from a well capitalized bank. It appears that many of the European banks still have too much junk on the books; and they ran, did not walk for big pieces of cheap money when the ECB and friends opened up the LTRO halographic money doors, a second time at a 1% borrow rate over a 3 year period. "Such a deal I have for you"; as the old saying goes.
All of the new, cheap money would not be unlike our house having a large outstanding mortgage, the current house value being well under the remaining cost of the mortgage and being offered 2 new lines of credit against the value of the house. I take the money gladly at 1% interest and continue to pay down the mortgage. At least that is what all parties involved are hoping will happen. 'Course, in the fine print of the new credit line; one also discovers that some payment is also expected to be made against other underwater mortgages in the neighborhood. Credit, credit everywhere. Will it, the money; find its way into the public sector for spending? I sure don't know, but will presume those on the issue end sure hope so. Whether the global public continues to deleverage or spend a bit more into the economies is a most critical consideration going forward.
Bond prices at least relative to the U.S. Treasury 30 and 10 year areas have had a bit of upward yield creep over the past few weeks. The 30 year area is seeing continued downward price moves. This is not killing any broadbased bond fund holdings in my opinion; but is none the less, a movement I continue to monitor more today than six months ago. Some yet unknown days, weeks or months into the future; may find such a saturation of bonds of all flavors, that there will not be enough buyers; from either public (governments) or the private citizen. I do not know that this point would also indicate the buying of equities to replace bonds. Perhaps nothing more than a sideways and stalled equity market(s) finding the big traders swapping the ups and downs against the best laid plans of their computers algorithms. A bit like recent markets.
Enough blabber from this person...................
The old Funds Boat is at anchor, riding in the small waves and watching the weather. To the high praise of MFO and the members, it is very difficult to find a topic to note here that has not been placed into the discussion boards. Excellence, as usual.
---Below is what M* x-ray has attempted to sort for our portfolio, as of March 9, 2012---
U.S.Stocks 10.5%
Foreign Stocks 6.8%
Bonds 78.5% ***
Other 4.2%
Not Classified 0.00%
***about 35% of the bond total are high yield category (equity related cousins)
---This % listing is kinda generic, by fund "name"
-Investment grade bond funds 26.8%
-Diversified bond funds 19.8%
-HY/HI bond funds 23.2%
-Total bond funds 17.8%
-Foreign EM/debt bond funds 4.3%
-U.S./Int'l equity/speciality funds 8.1%
This is our current list: (NOTE: I have added a speciality grouping below for a few of fund types)
---High Yield/High Income Bond funds
FAGIX Fid Capital & Income
SPHIX Fid High Income
FHIIX Fed High Income
DIHYX TransAmerica HY
---Total Bond funds
FTBFX Fid Total
PTTRX Pimco Total
---Investment Grade Bonds
APOIX Amer. Cent. TIPS Bond
DGCIX Delaware Corp. Bd
FBNDX Fid Invest Grade
FINPX Fidelity TIPS Bond
OPBYX Oppenheimer Core Bond
---Global/Diversified Bonds
FSICX Fid Strategic Income
FNMIX Fid New Markets
DPFFX Delaware Diversified
TEGBX Templeton Global (load waived)
LSBDX Loomis Sayles
---Speciality Funds (sectors or mixed allocation)
FRIFX Fidelity Real Estate Income (bond/equity mix)
FDLSX Fidelity Select Leisure
FSAGX Fidelity Select Precious Metals
RNCOX RiverNorth Core Opportunity (bond/equity)
---Equity-Domestic/Foreign
FDVLX Fidelity Value
FSLVX Fidelity Lg. Cap Value
FLPSX Fidelity Low Price Stock
MACSX Matthews Asia Growth-Income

Is Jayme Wiggins really only turning 32 years old this year?
Mr. Wiggins returned to Intrepid Capital Management in 2010 after earning his MBA from Columbia Business School, graduating with highest honors. Mr. Wiggins was with Intrepid Capital Management for 6 years, originally joining the firm in 2002. Before leaving for business school, Mr. Wiggins managed Intrepid’s high‐yield bond portfolios from 2005 to 2008 and the Intrepid Income Fund (ICMYX) from inception. Prior to this, Mr. Wiggins served as a small cap analyst from 2002 to 2005. Mr. Wiggins graduated summa cum laude from Stetson University where he earned a BBA in Finance in 2002.
http://intrepidcapitalfunds.com/media/PR_081010.pdf