Private banks are stuffing structured products into client portfolios wherever the banks have discretionary authority to purchase these notes on behalf of clients – without explaining the risks and without obtaining specific client consent to these opaque, high risk, conflict-ridden investments.
If you’ve ever wondered how the major structured note issuers are able to move such massive amounts of highly-complex debt no customer could possibly understand, let alone ask for, now you have your answer. According to published reports, banks and Wall Street brokers sold more than $50 billion of structured products in 2010 alone. For the period January- November 2010, J.P. Morgan was rated as the fourth Top Seller in structured product retail sales, with $4.21 billion in sales and 9% market share.
My investigations nationally reveal that private banks today typically invest around 15% of client portfolios in structures issued, or underwritten, by the banks themselves.
Look to pay fees in excess of 2% to purchase and an additional 1% to exit these roach motels. Structured investments are not subject to any uniform standards and transparency as to pricing, valuation and fees is profoundly lacking.
Private bank clients aren’t clamoring for this junk. Most clients don’t even know what a structured product is, or that their assets are being invested in so-called structures. Holdings such as DB 95% PPN FX BASKET 1/25/13 LNKED or BARC 95% PPN EM FX BASKET 5/23/12 LNKE mysteriously appear on the account statements private banks provide to their clients. What client could make sense of those listings?
http://www.forbes.com/sites/edwardsiedle/2012/06/07/private-banks-stuff-structured-notes-into-discretionary-accounts-deny-fiduciary-responsibility/
Demonic Structured Notes Haunt Church Portfolios
Where a bank serves as trustee of an endowment or foundation portfolio, I have observed that structured notes issued or underwritten by the bank are most likely to be found in abundance. If the complexity and risk related to structured notes weren’t daunting enough, you’d think banks would consider conflicts of interest and self-dealing sufficient reason to avoid recommending them to fiduciary accounts. I can only conclude that the worldly profits derived from selling these products are compelling.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/edwardsiedle/2011/08/03/demonic-structured-notes-haunt-church-portfolios/
Forget investing, Wall Street is a marketing and sales machine. They’ve developed a real stinker of a product that at first glimpse appears like the answers to your prayers but really is just one more way Wall streets is going to separate you from your money.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/greatspeculations/2012/11/30/structured-notes-buyers-be-warned/
Wall Street banks have rightly earned a bad rep for their disreputable behavior. Attracting assets under management then proceeding to enrich themselves with client's capital at the client's expense, predators and their prey, seems endemic and systemic to the financial services industry, mutual fund complex included.

Reply to @ron:
The absence of capital gains tax for those in the 15% tax bracket wouldn't seem to change the suggestion to keep securities generating LTCGs in a taxable account. It just makes the suggestion even stronger.
On the other hand (for the 1 percenters), there's no mention of the Medicare surtax. That tax weakens the argument for keeping any securities that spin off income in taxable accounts (e.g. one might try to avoid fund that pay qualified dividends in taxable accounts).
It is curious that Schwab suggests keeping Series I savings bonds in taxable accounts, but makes no mention of Series EE savings bonds.

No mention of no capital gains or taxes for those in 15% tax bracket again in 2013.

SUPPLEMENT DATED JANUARY 15, 2013 TO THE PROSPECTUS FOR SEAFARER OVERSEAS GROWTH AND INCOME FUND (THE “FUND”) DATED AUGUST 31, 2012.
Seafarer Capital Partners, LLC (“Seafarer”), the Fund’s investment adviser, has voluntarily agreed to waive a portion of its management fee and waive and/or reimburse certain other Fund fees or expenses. This voluntary agreement . . . continues until August 31, 2013.
[The following language was added to the prospectus]:
In addition to the Adviser’s agreement to contractually waive and/or reimburse fees or expenses as described above, the Adviser has voluntarily agreed to [reduce management fees] to 0.75% . . . . Further, after giving effect to this voluntary agreement to waive a portion of its management fee, the Adviser has also agreed to voluntarily . . . limit total annual fund operating expenses (excluding acquired fund fees and expenses, brokerage expenses, interest expenses, taxes and extraordinary expenses) to 1.40% and 1.25% of . . . for the Investor and Institutional share classes, respectively. The Adviser intends to continue these voluntary arrangements through at least August 31, 2013 . . . , at which point they may be extended further. However, the Adviser may reduce or terminate these voluntary arrangements at any time without notice.

Hi Guys
Callan Associates just published their annual update of the Callan Periodic Table of Returns (PTR). It now includes complete data for 2012. Their checkerboard color scheme allows for a quick assessment of market returns for an expanding list of investment categories.
The current release now incorporates 20 years worth of returns data for 9 investment categories. That’s a slight increase in data sets and longevity when contrasted against its first publication in this arena. For example, Callan now includes Emerging Market returns in their assembled data. Also, Callan has a publicity incentive to be the first among their competitors to update the market Tables. More power to them.
The Callan Link follows immediately:
http://www.callan.com/research/download/?file=periodic/free/655.pdf
It’s a standalone lesson by itself to scan the various asset categories, and see the up and down volatility in class reward ranking each year. Betting on last year’s winner is a loser’s game. Performance persistence is ephemeral. In many instances a top performer becomes the dregs of the earth the following year, and the reverse is equally likely. An investment category regression to the mean seems to be an empirical ironclad law. Trees do not grow to the sky.
The Periodic Table of Returns field is not solely occupied by Callan. Other investment houses offer both direct competing products and other versions of the Table that feature more focused data sets. I thought you might enjoy and will definitely benefit from exploring these alternate presentations. Most of the Links that I will reference have not yet made their 2012 returns data updates.
I personally treasure the Allianz Global Investors version that covers slightly different category groupings beyond the Callan work. For example, Allianz shows historic Real Estate performance; Real Estate holdings are part of my portfolio. Here is a Link to the Allianz product:
http://www.allianzinvestors.com/MarketingPrograms/External Documents/The_Importance_Of_Diversification_ACO33.pdf
Note that Allianz updates their PTR data sets more frequently (like quarterly) than their competitors do. Also Allianz incorporates a broader universe of investment classes within their presentation.
I feel we’re on a mission now. Here is a Link that summarizes Sector returns (from State Street Global Advisors) in the same format as the Callan presentation:
https://www.spdrs.com/library-content/public/US Sector Periodic Table of Returns 01.2012.pdf
Also, let’s explore commodity performance in the PTR spirit. Here is a functional Link to that somewhat dated data source from U.S. Global Investors:
http://www.usfunds.com/research/the-periodic-table-of-commodity-returns/
Tired yet? If so, you might forgo visiting the following Link (hosted by Boomerang Capital) that summarizes Hedge Fund rewards using the increasingly familiar PTR perspective:
http://boomcap.com/periodic/Periodic Table 2012-08.pdf
Plenty of style variety among slick Hedge Fund operators which generates a wide speculative performance record. And these data likely only reflect survivors and those who choose to report. Observe that this Hedge Fund summary is policy-wise updated on a monthly cycle, but, practically was last revised about 6 months ago.
I hope you examine these sundry data sources. They will serve to inform and guide your portfolio investment decisions. One caveat: I have only used Callan and Allianz regularly; therefore I can not vouch for the accuracy of several Links that I referenced.
Note the transient character of the returns and the instability within the dynamic rankings. Not much remains constant. Behavioral research scientists claim we are pattern seeking folks. Often we see patterns when none exist, which leads to bad decisions.
I suppose the good news here is that I do not see patterns within these referenced data sets. For me, they are a chaotic jumble without any plausible coherence. If you perceive a pattern within this enigmatic mess, “you’re a better man than I am, Gunga Din”. The other side of that coin is that you might be falling into the pattern recognition trap identified by the behavioral wiz-kids.
Convergent Wealth Advisors has a particularly attractive PTR presentation that provides a nice summary of asset class performance for 5-year, 10-year, 15-year, and 20-year measurement periods. The raw rankings might surprise or perhaps inspire you. Here is my final Link:
http://www.convergentwealth.com/sites/default/files/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/2011-Q4-CWA-Periodic-Table.pdf
These PTR surveys are addictive. I visit them several times every year. They might even prove to be helpful to everyone. I hope so.
Enjoy these numerous and informative PTRs. Many others with easy access that I have not mentioned in this posting are readily available to anyone inclined to search just a little.
There are not many verities that last in the investment universe. It is a dynamic world with a shortening time constant. I am astonished what incongruent interpretations are made of the PTR data sets. I have attended several investment seminars where the PTRs were used (falsely) to illustrate some fleeting momentum principle. In other workshops, they were used to backstop the need for diversity. I support this latter interpretation. Investing is often a wild ride with abrupt upsets, collisions, and detours. Diversification tames that ride.
Vigilance is the price of maintaining a portfolio. From the Bible, Prov 27:23, we read that “Riches can disappear fast. And the king's crown doesn't stay in his family forever-so watch your business interests closely. Know the state of your flocks and your herds”. That’s actionable lasting advice.
Wealth diversification is a subject the Bible addresses in several passages. For example, Solomon offered this advice in Ecclesiates 11:2 : “Divide your portion to seven, or even to eight, for you do not know what misfortune may occur on earth”. So the Bible championed the need to diversify your wealth centuries before Baron Rothschild recommended that same commonsense strategy in his famous quote to divide your holdings into three major asset classes for both hard-time and uncertainty protection.
As a sidebar, a few financial advisors, with a strong religious-based belief system, justify and endorse the Lazy-Man portfolio array monitored by MarketWatch curmudgeon Paul Farrell by referencing Solomon’s 8-piece admonishment and caution. They equate the 8-biblical pieces to a portfolio assembled with 8 investment asset classes.
Actually, the numerous Lazy-Man portfolios have much more going for them (cost containment, long term commitment, world wide diversification, delivery of historic market returns) than a tenuous allusion to Solomon’s wisdom. An internationally diversified holdings set can cut overall portfolio volatility in half while retaining expected returns at a constant level. Although correlation coefficients are never perfectly zero or negative, and are never perfectly constant over time, they always contribute to a lowering of portfolio volatility. That’s in the direction of goodness.
I wish you all happy, trouble-free, and profitable investing.
Best Regards.

Hi again MJG. Thanks for good words of encouragement...a lot of this stuff is your doing!
Hey, my bad for not reiterating on this post, but the results presented here are based on life-time only performance from fund inception date, similar to the way results were presented in the Funds That Beat The Market thread.

Each timeframe that you examined yielded a different array of “winning” mutual funds. Performance persistence was never established.

Funds from the older age groups were not included in the rankings of the funds from the younger age groups. So, they were not competed, as you say.
That's actually my next project...persistence!
I suspect though that funds like Sequoia SEQUX and T Rowe Price Capital Appreciation PRWCX may do pretty well. Both are seasoned funds, but with recent accolades.
Until then...
PS. I like the Ulcer Index too...my kind of no-nonsense risk measure.

It's been real fun, profitable, and most of all tranquil cruising with close to 100% in PONDX and before that for many years it was pretty much all Junkland for me. I like to concentrate with whatever is working best but enough is enough. Today the Dow Transports joined a slew of other indexes recently making all time historic highs ala the Russell 2000 Small Cap Index and the S&P 400 Mid Cap index. Think I will *gingerly* (like around 4%) try some of those derivative driven equity funds at PIMCO such as PCKDX and then build further from there if the market cooperates. I don't need to be reminded I could well be the last one on-board the equity train so will use a 3% to 5% mental exit point.
Edit: I should mention I am an elderly old man who while not rich is more than comfortable and doesn't any longer need the stress of hyper-active fund allocation and most of all drawdown of my capital. I would much prefer being on the trails hiking, running, and climbing mountains.

warning signs for treasuries
http://www.minyanville.com/trading-and-investing/fixed-income/articles/Two-Warning-Signs-For-Treasuries-us/1/14/2013/id/47292
rbc weekly commentaries
Market Week: January 14, 2013
The Markets
Equities didn't match the prior week's fireworks, but they still posted gains in the new year's second week. The S&P 500 hit a five-year high for the second week in a row. However, the Global Dow soundly beat all four domestic indices for the week, in part because of encouraging retail sales in Europe.
Market/Index 2012 Close Prior Week As of 1/11 Week Change YTD Change
DJIA 13104.14 13435.21 13488.43 .40% 2.93%
Nasdaq 3019.51 3101.66 3125.63 .77% 3.51%
S&P 500 1426.19 1466.47 1472.05 .38% 3.22%
Russell 2000 849.35 879.15 880.77 .18% 3.70%
Global Dow 1995.96 2051.22 2075.84 1.20% 4.00%
Fed. Funds .25% .25% .25% 0 bps 0 bps
10-year Treasuries 1.78% 1.93% 1.89% -4 bps 11 bps
Equities data reflect price changes, not total return.
Last Week's Headlines
President Obama nominated White House chief of staff Jacob Lew to replace Timothy Geithner as Secretary of the Treasury.
Increased imports of consumer goods such as smart phones were a key factor in widening the trade deficit in November. Exports also rose, but not by as much, according to the Commerce Department. As a result, the trade deficit rose 16% to $48.7 billion.
Ten mortgage servicers agreed to pay $8.5 billion to help resolve mortgage foreclosures that have been under review for faulty processing. The agreement, which will provide $5.2 billion in mortgage assistance and $3.3 billion in direct payments to borrowers, will bring to an end the case-by-case review of faulty foreclosures. In addition to participating in the settlement, Bank of America agreed to pay $10 billion to Fannie Mae to resolve allegations of faulty processing.
Eurozone unemployment hit a new record of 11.8% in November as 113,000 workers lost their jobs. However, European retail sales were up for the first time since July.
The Federal Reserve turned over to the U.S. Treasury almost $77 billion in profits from its 2012 quantitative easing efforts. The interest on Treasury bonds and mortgage-backed securities provided the Treasury's second highest windfall from the Fed, behind only 2010's $79 billion.
After its deliberations were made public, insurer American International Group (AIG) decided not to join a $25 billion lawsuit filed by former CEO Maurice Greenberg and other shareholders against the U.S. Treasury. That suit claims that the terms of the Treasury's $182 billion bailout of AIG, which has since been repaid, were too onerous.
Eye on the Week Ahead
Earnings reports, particularly those from key financial institutions, will join inflation, retail, and housing data as grist for investor decisions.
Key dates and data releases: wholesale inflation, retail sales, business inventories, Empire State manufacturing survey (1/15); consumer inflation, industrial production, Fed "beige book" report, international capital flows (1/16); housing starts, Philly Fed manufacturing survey (1/17).

Until the Fed stops buying $85 Billion worth of 10 year treasuries and mortgages back securities interest rates on these securities will have downward pressure. This, along with the fact that the world still views these securities as a "flight to safety" makes them an interesting investment in my mind. On the other side of the argument are the eventual interest rate pendulum (raising rates), the potential for a down grade in US soviegn debt issues and the economic recovery (lower unemployment).
For Treasury investments I use two zero coupon bond mutual funds managed by American Century that mature in 2025 and 2020. Also EDV (Vaguard's Long Duration Treasuries) gives a similar Treasury dynamic in a EFT investment with an even longer maturity. They seem like good yang investments to the overall equity market when it yings upward.
Charted below is VTI (Total US Market) along with BTTRX. Allocating to both a broad market equity fund (like VTI) and a Zero Coupon Bond Fund (like BTTRX) in different percentages (90%/10%, 80%/20%, 70%/30%, etc.) could be one way to manage through the ups and downs of the market. Take profits...reallocate....take profits...reallocate. I like to use 5% trigger for a fund like BTTRX and 10% for a ETF like VTI.

Howdy DPN,
You note:

I feel like it is a little on the aggressive side but I have about 20+ years to go so I am okay right now

A quick blip for my inflation adjusted 2 cents worth. If you add FUSEX, you will be adding to the aggressive side; at least relative to U.S. large cap equity. I don't think that FBIDX is going to add a lot to your wealth; although this fund/area will offer downside protection if equity markets go south, which would be its value and perhaps a +4%/year.
Cousins of the equity market that you could add within Fidelity would be FAGIX, Fido's most aggressive of its high yield bond sector; aggressive, meaning this fund usually holds higher risk junk bonds. SPHIX, also high yield bonds, but is a less aggressive (generally higher quality junk bonds) fund. Both have decent long term returns and will likely continue to do well; as long as the equity sector remains in place/sideways or upward. Another high yield bond fund to review would be FGHNX, which has also performed well. Although a relatively new offering from Fido, the lead manager is John Carlson; who is the manager of the highly regarded FNMIX, emerging markets bond fund. These would give you more exposure to other bond styles not in your mix.
As to the equity side for your cash, and in the moderate arena; you mentioned FBALX which is more in the mode of a 60/40 equity-bond mix and has a decent record. You may want to look at VILLX and/or MAPOX in the balanced area too; and available within Fido. This fund (VILLX), has a better performance record against FBALX; but will cost $75 in transaction fees and .4% more in expense ratio versus FBALX.
Or, you could add to you FSDIX holdings and get a bit more equity exposure; as well as some other sectors, which may not be in your other equity/bond holdings.
---FSDIX income first, then capital appreciation, 2.5% yield, 50% equity (80% large cap, 20% mid/small cap), 15% REITs, 11% convertible securities and 20% preferred stocks. Largest equity exposure (last report) = Exxon-Mobil, Chevron, Verizon, P&G, Pfizer, Microsoft, J&J, Merck, Simon properties and Coca-Cola.
Note: I lean towards the preservation of capital, in order to continue the most important area of investing; and that is to gather compounding of one's monies over the years. However, we all have to also establish our own risk/reward basis. Our house is retired, so our risk/reward will not be the same as yours; although we still must plan for another 20 years of positive investment returns, too.
Take care,
Catch

Hi Ted. I know what you mean. Eric Cinnamond has 49% in cash and his fund ARIVX charges 1.42% ER. My only defense is that we pay folks like Cinnamond and Redleaf to assess markets and effectively time our investments, as active fund managers.
If WBMIX gets it right, that equities (and cash vs bonds) are place to be right now, then I have no problem with its fee and high allocation to SPY.
Here's quote from Whitebox Fund's most recent commentary:

Today, lots of people worry that stock prices are being artificially boosted by the excess liquidity created by the Fed. We don’t think that is true. The vectors of capital flows don’t support the idea that excess Fed dollars are going into stocks. So we don’t see stocks collapsing when the Fed takes away the money. Rather we see stocks eventually benefitting from a coming realignment of supply and demand.

But if they get it wrong, your critique will be spot-on.

Hello. An interesting topic. The lone "balanced" or "allocation" fund I hold which includes both stocks and bonds in its portfolio is MAPOX, from Mairs & Power, out of St. Paul... M* rates it with "average" risk for its category, but with "high" returns and a "below-average" ER of 0.79%. I've owned it only since last Spring. Right now, it represents only 3.24% of my portfolio, but I'm still re-investing all dividends and cap. gains from ALL of my funds. However, it has become a yearly tradition to "raid" one of our non-tax-sheltered funds---MACSX--- in order to share some happiness with relatives over in Asia, just after the New Year.
I would like it if the size of my MAPOX holding was bigger than it is, in proportion to my other stuff. Portfolio "construction" for us has been a matter of working through obstacles and hoops and detours through the years. It used to be that I held almost all mutual fund shares in a Trad. IRA or a 403b..... Now there's no more 403b, I rolled it over. And it's a good thing to be able to report that, having maxed-out my IRA contrib. for 2012 at $6,000.00, I was "forced" to take a bunch of new money and use it to open regular, taxable accounts. I chose not to just "sit" on the cash.

Howdy,
A thank you to all who post the links, 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. The perspectives and investments are based, not upon a formal economic studies background; but from the "School of Hard Knocks & Studies", in which, we are still enrolled.
NOTE: 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....."WHAT-ever!" If this house had a $100 bill for every time we have had this phrase over this past few years; especially from the "tweens and teens". But, as to real situations with investing; "whatever" does apply relative to one's basket of investments, still relative to the risk/reward, needs and wants of the investor.
Your investment dollars enter at point A, bottom center, out of view; choose your tracks; and exit at point B, top center, for travel into the land of happy returns.
Now that you have finished that task, don't forget to continue to do this; in case your travel package wasn't totally what you expected; and you may then be prepared to choose other tracks.
Now, that was easy, eh?; ya, right!
The Millionaire Next Door, 1996 A book we always give as an extra wedding present. Investment book lists have been placed, here at MFO, previously; but if one can not properly control their spending and budget habits, there may be little money to invest and not much need for investment books. Some of the data and numbers used in the book will be out of date; but not the main thrust, "spending and debt habits, may eat one alive". Ages old bad habits, continuing to cause problems for many today.
As to sector rotations below (Fidelity funds); for the past week: (Note: any given fund in any of these sectors will have varying degrees of performance based upon where the manager(s) choose to be invested and will not directly reflect upon your particular fund holdings from other vendors.) Sidenote: The average weekly return of 200 combined Fidelity retail funds across all sectors (week avg = +.41%, YTD +2.2%).
--- U.S. equity - .4% through + 1.0%, week avg. = + .4% YTD = + 3.4%
--- Int'l equity - 1.7% through + 1.9%, week avg. = + .5% YTD = + 1.9%
--- Select eq. sectors - .6% through + 2.8%, week avg. = + .6% YTD = + 3.7%
--- U.S./Int'l bonds - .3% through + 1.0%, week avg. = +24 .67% YTD = - .22%
--- HY bonds - .8% through + .8%, week avg. = + .20% YTD = + .66%
A Decent Overview, M* 1 Month through 5 Year, Multiple Indexes
You may consider our portfolio to be quite boring, but you may be assured that it moves and bends each and every day; from forces beyond our control.
I have added a few blips related to our portfolio and market observations at the below SELLs/BUYs and Portfolio Thoughts.
SELLs/BUYs THIS PAST WEEK: = NONE
Portfolio Thoughts: Our holdings had a + .53 % move this past week. EM bonds continue to be weak from early Dec., 2012, averaging -2% since then. The past week found some recovery in the IG bond area; TIPs, gov't. and corporate issues; although most of these areas remain negative for the year. High yield bonds continue to find strength; as well as multisector and specialty (steroid) bond funds. As to our equity entrance watch; well, new 5 year and 52 week highs are everywhere. Watch is what we will do for now; at least for pure equity funds adventures. We'll either miss a continued equity run for months to come; or find a better entry point within the next 2 month period. We can't imagine some of the big players not taking some profits, if; equities hit a 10% return point in the next several weeks. The algo machines will be counting, watching and waiting for the signal.
We'll continue to watch; and do have plans, at this time, to add some equity this year, 2013. Our current short list, not in any order, of equity fund watches include: PAUDX, PAAIX, MAPIX, MACSX, SFGIX, GPGIX, FMIJX, FTIEX, FBALX, FTEMX, FEDDX, FIREX, FJPNX, FSVLX, FSDIX, FPURX, FLPSX, FGHNX, PMZDX as well as some other Pimco funds, as PSTDX, etc.
Still plodding along, and we will retain the below write from previous weeks; as what we are watching, still applies.
--- commodity pricing, especially the energy and base materials areas; copper and related.
--- the $US broad basket value, and in particular against the Euro and Aussie dollar (EU zone and China/Asia uncertainties).
--- price directions of U.S. treasury's, German bunds, U.K. gilts, Japanese bonds; and continued monitoring of Spanish/Italian bond pricing/yield.
--- what we are watching to help understand the money flows: SHY, IEF, TLT, TIPZ, STPZ, LTPZ, LQD, EMB, HYG, IWM, IYT & VWO; all of which offer insights reflected from the big traders as to the quality/risk, or lack of quality/risk; in various equity/bond sectors.
The Funds Boat is at anchor, riding in the small waves, watching the weather and behind the breakwater barrier. 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.
I have retained the following links for those who may choose to do their own holdings comparison against the fund types noted.
The first two links to Bloomberg are for their list of balanced/flexible funds; although I don't always agree with the placement of fund styles in their categories.
Bloomberg Balanced
Bloomberg Flexible
These next two links are for conservative and moderate fund leaders YTD, per MSN.
Conservative Allocation
Moderate Allocation
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 5 funds (below) we watch for psuedo benchmarking are the following:
***Note: these week/YTD's per M*
VWINX .... + .21% week, YTD = + 1.08%
PRPFX .... - .33% week, YTD = + .86%
SIRRX ..... + .08% week, YTD = + .38%
TRRFX .... + .33% week, YTD = + 1.32%
VTENX ... + .08% week, YTD = + 1.24%
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
---Below is what M* x-ray has attempted to sort for our portfolio, as of Nov. 1, 2012 ---
From what I find, M* has a difficult time sorting out the holdings with bond funds.
U.S./Foreign Stocks 2.9%
Bonds 92.9% ***
Other 4.2%
Not Classified 0.00%
Avg yield = 3.99%
Avg expense = .57%
***about 18% of the bond total are high yield category (equity related cousins)
---This % listing is kinda generic, by fund "name"; which doesn't always imply the holdings, eh?
-Investment grade bond funds 27.2%
-Diversified bond funds 22.4%
-HY/HI bond funds 14.5%
-Total bond funds 32.4%
-Foreign EM/debt bond funds .6%
-U.S./Int'l equity/speciality funds 2.9%
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.LW Fed High Income
DIHYX TransAmerica HY
---Total Bond funds
FTBFX Fid Total
PTTRX Pimco Total
---Investment Grade Bonds
ACITX 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
LSBDX Loomis Sayles
PONDX Pimco Income fund (steroid version)
PLDDX Pimco Low Duration (domestic/foreign)
---Speciality Funds (sectors or mixed allocation)
FRIFX Fidelity Real Estate Income (bond/equity mix)
---Equity-Domestic/Foreign
FSHOX Fidelity Select Construction & Housing

You can, of course, do whatever you want with OAKBX. But I think you would be very shortsighted to dump it. Assuming that it is just one piece of your portfolio, this fund's manager has always managed for risk, NOT for capital appreciation. First of all, I would quit comparing OAKBX with funds that are not even closely related to it. This is certainly the case with M*'s crappy method of forcing every fund into one of its boxes and categories, no matter that it is a square fund in a round box. PRWCX and DODBX and VWELX and in no way similar to OAKBX. It is managed very differently from the others. It has a very low bear market rank by comparison, has a better worst 3-month return since inception, has a lower 5-yr downside capture ratio, and a lower Beta. These are all good things.
Hang on to OAKBX. Let it be your lower-risk "balanced" option. Use something else for that big alpha play.

You can, of course, do whatever you want with OAKBX. But I think you would be very shortsighted to dump it. Assuming that it is just one piece of your portfolio, this fund's manager has always managed for risk, NOT for capital appreciation. First of all, I would quit comparing OAKBX with funds that are not even closely related to it. This is certainly the case with M*'s crappy method of forcing every fund into one of its boxes and categories, no matter that it is a square fund in a round box. PRWCX and DODBX and VWELX and in no way similar to OAKBX. It is managed very differently from the others. It has a very low bear market rank by comparison, has a better worst 3-month return since inception, has a lower 5-yr downside capture ratio, and a lower Beta. These are all good things.
Hang on to OAKBX. Let it be your lower-risk "balanced" option. Use something else for that big alpha play.

I've been on both sides of this issue, having served as a board member of a non-profit who outsourced the investment decision making, and being the investment advisor for a non-profit organization's assets.
The most important thing you can do (and must do) is creat an Investment Policy Statement for the account(s). This should outline the goals for the account(s), the income needed and the frequency it will be taken, the risk profile, the kinds of investments you will use, and those that you will not (some non-profits have specific exclusions in the kinds of investments they can own), who is going to manage the account(s), the kind of reporting that will be done and how the account(s) will be monitored and re-balanced.
One of the non-profits we currently work with has three accounts: an emergency fund, a cash & capital fund, and a development fund. The first two have been restricted to CDs and investments in various kinds of U.S. government securities. We are working to have that restriction amended for obvious reasons. The third is a very diversified mix of non-commission funds including domestic & foreign bonds, domestic & foreign stocks, and alternative investments that use 40-Act funds. The organization has another RIA who monitors the accounts to be sure the investments are appropriate and fall within the policy statement guidelines and allocation targets. We meet with the board's investment committee quarterly to look at the numbers and report our observations. We have discretionary authority to make changes. This has worked out really well.
We have a potential new client in another non-profit. They just want to give us a large chunk of dollars and get it invested. We told them it does not work that way. They may decide to work with someone local (we are in Ohio, they are in California) who will shortcut the process, but I hope for their sake they do not. Managing a non-profits dollars requires everything to be done with a fiduciary understanding. If these folks cut corners and do not get their ducks lined up, the organizations members would have good cause to press legal action if things turn sour with the accounts.
Our church's endowment accounts were at one time managed by the trustees. That was a real mistake. As another poster noted, managing by committee is just asking for trouble. At my suggestion and insistence, we interviewed three RIA firms and hired the one that took the long process very seriously. That was more than 10 years ago, and they are still handling the church's dollars.
My advice, forget about managing the dollars yourselves. Pay a qualified firm to do it right and then monitor the process and results. We charge our non-profits a much lower fee than other clients, and that seems fair. Search out 2-3 companies with experience doing this, interview them, ask good questions (like the policy statment requirements), make a decision, and move on. A good company will ask how much of the total might be needed in the next 12-36 months and invest that accordingly. And for Pete's sake, don't work with anyone who is going to be paid by commission. The opportunities for conflict of interest are too great.
I hope this helps.

Dear Catch22: A little TA for you. PONCX & PBDCX are both in my capital preservation portfolio. Another nice day in my capital appreciation portfolio, SPY, QQQ, PFF, PRHSX are up. S&P 500 finished above 1,456 a technical resistance point. I once again suggest you get out of the bond closet by switching your asset allocation to a 21st century one. At least 30% equities
Regards,
Ted
http://www.barchart.com/quotes/funds/PONDX

Through the first five trading days of 2013 on a *total return* basis (including dividends) those who have heeded the multitude of year end 2012 calls to "run don't walk to the nearest bond exits" have proved premature - to say the least. Thanks to a red hot non agency mortgage backed securities market the past two days, one of the bond leaders in 2013 has been ANGIX with 2013 returns of 1.40%. And junk bonds have adhered to probably one of the strongest anomolies in trading/investing - i.e. their January propensity to outperform - have racked up returns over .80%. Board fave PONDX, is also up over .80%, thanks to non agencies. PPSIX while not a bond fund but a yield fund specializing in preferred securities is up almost 1.25%.
While these returns lag the S&P, .80%+ over five trading days is nothing to sneer at in Bondland. I am as worried about the bond/yield bubble bursting as anyone. It could happen tomorrow or the next day or whenever. But in the meantime, why not enjoy the ride and wait for signs of weakness before throwing in the towell or being unduly influenced by the self proclaimed experts. There is a lot more to the bond markets than simply plain vanilla Treasuries.
Edit: #1 How could I forget, oft mentioned SUBFX is also off to a stellar 2013 start with gains close to 1%.
Edit #2 For those who live in a literal world, my title was sarcasm.

I've had several similar questions about Lipper's tax efficiency scores in the past, and since they don't explain them, I mostly use M*'s tax pages, which give you columns of data rather than just one unexplained rating number. The "tax cost ratio" M*calculates, tempered by "potential capital gains exposure," is a good starting point to make an informed judgement on tax efficiency. For example:
http://performance.morningstar.com/fund/tax-analysis.action?t=MPGFX&region=USA&culture=en-US
The tax-cost ratio of MPGFX doesn't look excessive for a stock fund, and it ranks in the top decile for tax-adjusted return. But the unrealized cap gain number is pretty big, so maybe that's where Lipper is getting the "1".