"...Demographic trends mean that women are controlling a greater share of financial wealth, since they live longer than male partners. At present, women control about 53% of investible assets; by 2030 this will rise to two-thirds, according to a study by the Family Wealth Advisors Council. ‘Making the industry more women-friendly has to be a clear priority,’ Jones says."
Is the goal to manage money and grow it, or to make women feel comfortable? Wise decisions are key. Men trade much more often, says the article. That may be true. So, they're shooting themselves in the foot. Seems to me, however, that it's not gender that matters, but a thing called WISDOM. I just made my first and only trade in YEARS the other day, buying a VERY small position in a foreign electric utility company. *The most recent "Wealthtrack" show with Consuelo Mack featured Dan Rosenberg. Right now, he's suggesting UTILITIES because they are currently out of favor. (Gretzky: "I don't skate to the puck. I skate to where the puck is GOING TO BE.")

Interesting conclusion:

The decision to convert or not to convert may be influenced by external factors beyond maximizing disposable income. It would seem desirable to convert when asset prices are depressed because there is less tax paid and the state of the market is amenable to a recovery. Following the same logic, converting when asset prices are inflated would seem imprudent.

https://i-orp.com/modeldescription/Vol15Issue1.pdf#page=49
I found this tidbit as a referenced link within the Optimal Retirement Planner which @davidmoran has referenced often. I am finding lots of useful links and information embedded in this planner. If you are approaching retirement or even in retirement this seems like a worthy tool to use.
Linked here:
https://i-orp.com/Plans/index.html

I am in bond funds because they offer me the best returns with the lowest risk. Their trend persistency combined with their low volatility enable me to best implement the scale up buying strategy I learned from Nicolas Darvas. My first bond trade was in junk bonds in 1991. It was January 17 one of the greatest momentum days ever in equities. That day the Dow surged some 114 points which at that time was its second best on record. As is often the case there was a lag and a few days later junk bonds went on tear and had 60 consecutive trading days without a decline. That smooth ride upward continued for the next three years until February 1994 in junk bonds as they bested the S@P over that period.
That one LUCKY trade made a lasting impression on me and the way I have traded my capital ever since. Most especially after the tech wreck in March 2000. There have been many repeat performances and exhibitions of unreal trend persistency since 2000 in various bond fund categories. Emerging market debt in the early 2000s, junk bonds 2009-12, junk munis 2014, bank loans 2016, and last but not least the securitized category since last spring - IOFIX, BDKAX, abd SEMPX. IOFIX has had something like only 8 down days since last April 2020 when many of the veteran bond traders re entered. An amazing run over a 15 month period.
Some remember me as a day trader in the stock index futures. Others as a trader in tech funds who also exploited the new fund effect as well as datelining. Yet less than 3% of my total trading profits have come from daytrading and only around 13% from tech funds, new funds, datelining. Meaning almost 85% of my nest egg has come from bond funds - my one true love in the financial arena. I have always said everyone needs a trading or investing niche and I found my niche in bond funds.

@dtconroe,
Here’s what PRWCX manager David Geroux said recently about IG bonds as an investment:
“What I would tell you about rates today is that the risk/reward on Treasuries or IG [investment grade] is so poor, it gets a situation where if rates stay static, you make very, very low returns. If rates revert back to more normalized levels, you lose a lot of money. And if rates go down, you don't have a lot of room for rates to go down … So, it's a really negatively skewed risk-adjusted return … As a result of that, we have a very short duration in our fixed-income portfolio, probably the shortest duration we've had since I've been running this strategy. Our duration today is 1.5 years” LINK
Your attempts to immunize the thread from mention of PRWCX or manager David Geroux’s views on the question “Why do you still own Bond funds?” sounds to me a bit cocoonish. Why would your view, or my view, or that of anyone else here on the question supersede that of Mr. Geroux as both verbalized by him publicly and as practiced thru his management approach?
-
“David Geroux is a five-time nominee and two-time winner of Morningstar's Fund Manager of the Year award in the allocation category. David’s fund has also won 15 "Best Fund" awards 2 from Lipper. “ LINK

Thinking about the original question, I've tried to take a step back and reformulate the question a bit: what is a bond, and why would one own a bond (or in the aggregate a bond fund)?
From a business finance perspective, a bond is a way to raise cash without selling part of a company. Funds are characterized as bond funds if they hold these financial instruments; not if they behave like traditional bonds. This is an important distinction because it affects what we mean when we talk about bond funds.
From an investor perspective, a traditional IG bond is a way to get a better return than in a bank. In exchange, one takes on a modest amount of risk, some of which can be diversified away in a fund. IG bonds preserve nominal principal, though inflation gradually reduces their value over time.
One diverges (slightly) from this traditional perspective of bonds as pure income streams when one starts trading bonds in an attempt to increase total return. This began in the 70s, largely with Bill Gross and total return funds. These funds take on a measure of equity characteristics, especially as they add junk bonds. At this point, ISTM one is at the edge of crossing over from "bonds" to "allocation" funds, in behavior albeit not in name.
Moving on, multisector bond funds behave significantly like allocation funds. But because they're still bond funds from a finance perspective, people can feel good about eating their vegetables - investing in "bonds" while getting better returns.
Here's Portfolio Visualizer's correlation matrix of a "pure bond" (albeit leveraged) multisector fund PDIIX, a multisector fund with a 13% equity kicker RPSIX, and a rougly 40/60 allocation fund (disregarding cash) FTANX. The five year time frame I selected is the period covered by PDIIX's current management team including Ivascyn.
They're all pretty well correlated. Further, annualized standard deviations are quite close together, ranging from 5.62% to 5.84%. In terms of risk and performance these multisector funds feel like hybrid funds.
I do own a multisector fund (none of the funds here), but I expect it to behave like a hybrid fund. It's just another way for me to get that risk/reward profile.
To the extent that I use IG bond funds, they're there to serve as the last bastion before dipping into equities should stocks swoon for several years. On the short end, I use short/ultrashort funds as backup to pure cash - a bit more return in exchange not drawing upon them monthly in case of hiccups.
I've no bond funds for a traditional, widows and orphans, monthly pension type cash flow.

10 year treasury bond slid to 1.54% this morning (June 8), down from around 1.57% yesterday morning.
While financial stocks (like banks) have soared this year on the expectation longer term interest rates would rise substantially, the circuitous path of 10-year tells a different story. Peaked near 1.7% about a month ago, but falling since.
(Schwab apparently called attention to the above inconsistency in an advisory of some sort today.)
The retrenchment of bond yields may be a short term aberration. Many market observers still expect the 10 year bond to hit 2% by year’s end. Some of the decline might be due to Fed meddling at the long end.
This does have some implication for value oriented funds, since they’re often loaded with banks and other financials. However, I wouldn’t make too much of it yet.

”You can use an ETF as a savings account. But you're going to have to manually move money into the "checking" account (core fund) if you want to use it.”
*** Have to? Are we simply talking sound financial practice here? Or, does Fido prevent you from using the more direct route between ETF and another purchase or sale?
What I kind of surmise is that buying directly out of an ETF would take at least 1 extra day to settle, making the intended purchase more susceptible to price fluctuation. If true, that would be enough to convince me to use a money market fund for transactions.

Have to. There is no "direct route". With a fund distributor, you place can a single order to literally exchange shares of one fund for another. But when you trade on the secondary market (selling an ETF and buying something else), there are three parties involved - you, the party you sell the ETF to (and receive cash from) and the party you purchase your new holding from (and pay cash to).
There are two separate transactions. The broker literally brokers (makes the connections for) each of these transactions. But it doesn't connect your ETF buyer directly to the seller of your new investment. Same idea if you're going between two different fund families - there are still three parties involved (aside from the broker).
I don't trade ETFs frequently, so I was trying to remember what the rules were the last time I did (earlier this year). I was able to sell shares of an ETF and on the same day place an order to purchase a T. Rowe Price mutual fund. I just had to wait until the sale executed to know the amount of the proceeds. This was at Merrill Edge.
They acknowledged that it didn't make much sense because they were floating me the cash for a day (in an IRA) since the purchase would settle a day earlier than the sale. I was told that somehow, because I was good for the money, the trade was permissible.
This turns out to be an advantage of ETFs. The instant the trade executes, you know the amount of cash you (will) have available so you can immediately enter a purchase order using 100% of the proceeds. Still, this is not a "direct route".

And at TRP they won’t allow you to sell 99% of a non-money market fund because the system is set up to retain a certain % in case of daily price fluctuation. Found that out the hard way recently when I tried to sell / exchange most, but not all, of TRBUX from IRA to my TOD account. (However, you can do so by selling all and closing the account.)

I believe you could have sold 99% of your shares. Though as you said, you couldn't ask TRP to raise cash equal to 99% of yesterday's close, because there was no assurance you had enough shares for that.

”You can use an ETF as a savings account. But you're going to have to manually move money into the "checking" account (core fund) if you want to use it.”
*** Have to? Are we simply talking sound financial practice here? Or, does Fido prevent you from using the more direct route between ETF and another purchase or sale?
What I kind of surmise is that buying directly out of an ETF would take at least 1 extra day to settle, making the intended purchase more susceptible to price fluctuation. If true, that would be enough to convince me to use a money market fund for transactions.
And at TRP they won’t allow you to sell 99% of a non-money market fund because the system is set up to retain a certain % in case of daily price fluctuation. Found that out the hard way recently when I tried to sell / exchange most, but not all, of TRBUX from IRA to my TOD account. (However, you can do so by selling all and closing the account.)
Re cap gains. This is a tax deferred account. But the headache caused by using TRBUX as a checking account is the reason I began using Price’s short term and money market muni funds. And did see @Investor’s comment on the matter.
I’m one not to worry about putting cash at an elevated level of risk. I know others don’t feel the same. Even 0.5% earned on an ultra short bond fund looks better than 0.0%. :)
Thanks for all the thoughts.

Another read:
Optimal Retirement Asset Decumulation Strategies: The Impact of Housing Wealth

A considerable literature examines the optimal decumulation of financial wealth in retirement. We extend this line of research to incorporate housing, which comprises the majority of most households' non-pension wealth.
We estimate the relationship between the returns on housing, stocks, and bonds, and simulate a variety of decumulation strategies incorporating reverse mortgages. We show that homeowner's reversionary interest, the amount that can be borrowed through a reverse mortgage, is a surprisingly risky asset. Under our baseline assumptions we find that the average household would be as much as 24 percent better off taking a reverse mortgage as a lifetime income relative to what appears to be the most common strategy: delaying tapping housing wealth until financial wealth is exhausted and then taking a line of credit. In addition, the results show that housing wealth displaces bonds in optimal portfolios, making the low rate of participation in the stock market even more of a puzzle.

Link to Full Text:
optimal-retirement-asset-decumulation-strategies-the-impact-of-housing-wealth

Not necessarily. Advisors don't need loads to make money.
"Financial advisors would switch from selling funds that charged commissions of any kind to selling funds that lacked commissions, while levying asset-based fees. That change has indeed occurred. Per McKinsey’s “The state of North American retail wealth management,” more than two thirds of revenues for its surveyed financial advisors now come from asset-based fees, rather than commissions."
https://www.morningstar.com/articles/1000749/asset-based-fees-are-not-intrinsically-better

Financial advisors will not disappear anytime soon. Thus, loaded mutual funds will be around for awhile.

You're talking about bonus dividends, which are paid by customer-owned institutions.

Why don’t credit unions keep things simple with just “checking” and “savings”? It’s because the “share” in question is your financial share in the organization. At a credit union you aren’t just a customer: you’re a member with a financial stake in the union.

https://www.penfed.org/learn/share-account-instead

Based on the success of our credit union, the board of directors, at its discretion, may declare a bonus dividend to all members. The board will be responsible for establishing the terms, conditions and dividend rates on share accounts. Payments are based on the member’s principal balance.

https://www.aodfcu.com/bonus-dividends/
Technically, these bonus dividends are authorized by 12 U.S. Code § 1763
It's not just credit unions that pay bonus dividends to its customers (shareholders). It's mutual insurance companies.

Just as a public company is owned by its stockholders, mutual insurance companies are owned by policyholders. Mutual insurers generally try to match the rates they charge to the amount they expect to pay out, plus expenses. But when they do better than expected, they may pay dividends.

https://www.nerdwallet.com/article/insurance/car-insurance-savings-dividends
Then there's the well known(?) example of TIAA Traditional.

The TIAA Traditional Annuity’s primary goal is to protect an investor’s principal while proving the highest rate of return possible. This return comes in the form of a guaranteed return (1% to 3%) with the addition of a dividend (or additional return) at the discretion of the TIAA Board of Trustees.

https://www.brightscope.com/financial-planning/advice/article/6208/Tiaa-Cref-I-Cant-Get-My-Money-Out/

"Congress will investigate." If one of the two major Parties does not block the move. And would it do any good, anyway? "That's all we need, amiright?" Congress can't even get out of its own way.
This whole thing will not end well. Financial literacy NEEDS to be taught to young people. Everyone else would do well to learn about it, without a doubt. I've got "pre-approved loan" offers ready for me to view and take advantage of when I log-in to my credit union account. If I was very stoopid, I'd hop right on and take them! ORK.

“Online brokerage Robinhood touts its willingness to lend money to customers so they can multiply their returns just like Wall Street pros, even likening investing with borrowed money to the thrill of riding a motorcycle. What the company doesn't say is that its lending strategy has put clients — who tend to be younger and less experienced at playing the market — in financial peril even before many piled into the shares of struggling video game retailer GameStop in January.
“Robinhood's lending so customers could "buy on margin" — in which someone takes out a loan to buy stock, options or other securities — more than doubled in the first six months of 2020, all too often with negative results. Regulatory filings reviewed by CBS MoneyWatch show that investors who borrowed money from Robinhood were nearly 14 times more likely to be unable to repay the loans than investors who borrowed from rival brokerages eTrade, TD Ameritrade and others.”
(Sorry / Article a bit dated.(References 2020) Likely, more relevant today than then)
Story

I think a good portion of this argument relates to the issue of whether cash or longer duration fixed-income holdings are better to hold at this period in time. Looking at the macro picture (including historically low global rates) I’d say it’s a tough call. Younger more aggressive investors probably shouldn’t even be thinking about this one. But for older investors, looking to lower portfolio volatility, it may be an important consideration.
The problem I always have in bond fund discussions is that they (bond funds) come in so many different colors and stripes it’s hard to make meaningful comparisons. Corporate or government? Domestic or international? investment grade or lower quality? Duration? Fees? Indexed or managed? Does the income fund hold equities in addition to bonds (as does RPSIX)?
I refuse to get hung up on whose bond fund is better. For the small commitment to bond funds I hold, I’m mostly inclined to look at (1) credit quality, (2) duration, (3) fees & other costs and (4) hot-money indicators. Re the last, a fund that excels during good times may be a hazard to your financial health if a large number of holders decide to exit at the same time. Yes, for really serious bond investors there are some fund managers who have excelled in fixed income in the past. Pimco and Loomis Sayles come to mind.
The issue of bloat seems to gain traction here only when a fund is struggling. If you really want to avoid bloat, why would you own PRWCX?

“Almost three months after markets stumbled when after China’s top banking regulator said he’s ‘very worried’ about risks emerging from bubbles in global financial markets (and China's property sector) sparking concerns about further tightening in the world’s second-biggest economy and slamming risk assets, China has done it again and on Saturday Liang Tao, vice chairman of China Banking and Insurance Regulatory Commission, said at the International Finance Forum in Beijing that recent interest rate hikes by emerging economies could lead to a bursting of global financial asset bubbles which have been made even bigger by unprecedented pandemic easing measures by developed countries (i.e., Biden's trillions).
And just in case it wasn't clear whose fault this is, Tao added that developed countries are sticking with ultra-low rates even as emerging economies raised their borrowing costs, ‘potentially resulting in the re-pricing of global assets.’ In short, China is already pre-emptively pointing the finger at the US and western central banks as the parties responsible not only for bursting the biggest asset bubble in history, but for creating it in the first place.”
(Take this for what it’s worth. ISTM a few members here have voiced similar concerns and / or divested themselves of some risk assets over past year.)
Source:
Related How China Could Derail the Commodities Super-Cycle - Barron’s May 28, 2021
“A few words from the Chinese government can go a long way. A one-sentence statement on May 23 promised “zero tolerance” for “abnormal transactions and malicious speculation” in commodities markets. The local price of iron ore and steel promptly tanked by 7%.That isn’t the end of the story. If China can’t quite command world metals prices, it can certainly slam the brakes on the new commodities supercycle many investors are counting on.
“Net long positions on commodities of all types are at a 25-year high globally, says Arthur Budaghyan, chief emerging markets strategist at BCA Research. Developments in Beijing could mean a lot of those bulls get burned. “Over the next six months, metals will move significantly below current levels,” he says. Such a slump would also drag down highflying mining stocks such as Vale (VALE), Glencore (GLEN.UK) and Anglo American (AAL.UK).”
May not link.

"she was in touch with her Fido advisor ... He mentioned dollar cost averaging, Fido’s wealth management service and separately managed accounts, outside advisors Fido works with, and tax-loss harvesting. It was all very generic ..."
There's a popular perception that people you talk with for free are "advisors". Even with a large amount of assets at an institution, that's rarely the case. The people one talks with, e.g. "Private Client Advisors", are sales people. They're there to match you with for-pay services, and to give you warm fuzzy feelings about keeping your money with them. As you observed, it is all very generic.
On Fidelity's site I can no longer readily find the phrase "Private Client Advisor" or much of anything that suggests one's free investment "team" or lead provides advice.
For the most part the only place you'll find "advisor" mentioned is in the context of pay for service. See this Fidelity page on "How we can work together". No mention of advisor under DIY or its pure robo offering (Fidelity Go).
When you get to the next fee level (Fidelity® Personalized Planning & Advice), you find "1-on-1 financial coaching calls with Fidelity advisors". Wealth Management, the next fee level up, brings you "a dedicated Fidelity advisor". And finally for those with over $2M at Fidelity and willing to pay for the services, there's Private Wealth Management, with "a dedicated Wealth Management Advisor and team of specialists".
"Am I expecting too much...?"
Yes.
Years ago, Vanguard would provide customers with enough AUM a free financial plan prepared by a CFP. That's been gone for years. These days, TANSTAAFL.

I considered PIMIX a few years ago but didn't invest in the fund.
For many years, Pimco Income Fund delivered excellent returns with muted volatility.
The fund's managers made shrewd investments in legacy, non-agency residential mortgage-backed securities (RMBS) after the Global Financial Crisis.
Trailing 5 Yr. and 10 Yr. returns for PIMIX were in the top 1% of the Multisector Bond category as of 10/31/17.
The total AUM dedicated to vehicles using the same strategy, $124 B as of March 2017, gave me pause.
It would be difficult for Pimco Income Fund to maintain meaningful exposure to legacy, non-agency RMBS while the supply of these securities was decreasing in the future.
I also did not appreciate that Pimco has never closed a fund (to my knowledge) due to excessive AUM.
This is not a very shareholder-friendly stance in my opinion.
Having said that, Dan Ivascyn and Alfred Murata are renowned and talented managers.
Pimco is widely respected and it is a very well-resourced firm.
I still believe PIMIX is a decent fund but doubt the stellar performance of the past will be replicated.

Hank. When I had to take the RMD from my IRA in 2019, I set the percentage of Fed. taxes to withhold and did not have any Michigan taxes withheld. I do not recall a statement stating a mandatory withholding for Michigan.
No letters or other signed documents to Fidelity about this area.
When performing an electronic transfer from the IRA to a C.U. account, a series of brief questions and fill in the blanks is needed. This is where the tax withholding percentages are noted, being set to whatever percentage one desires or ZERO.
There was confusion in this area after the legislation for changing the pension(s) taxation of seniors in Michigan, by age grouping, was finalized in early 2012 (MI Supreme Court ruling).
I presume you may have already setup your financial institution account link for money into Fidelity or from Fidelity. Related to this, is that the normal travel time is 2 or 3 days; and of course, no fees.
Don't forget to set your beneficiary section and don't hesitate with any questions, either here; or via private message.
Take care,
Catch

Quite a few column inches devoted to one particular type of bank account, TD Bank's "Preferred Chequing". It talks about one customer who's had the account for 25 years.
What isn't mentioned is that the reason such a long time customer was used as an example is that all customers of this account have had it for at least two decades. Preferred Chequing was discontinued in 2001 except for grandfathered customers.
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/investing/personal-finance/household-finances/article-was-this-big-bank-too-nice-in-giving-some-clients-a-break-on-fees/
The disproportionate coverage of this one particular account type to the exclusion of all others suggests that this is a corner case and not necessarily representative.
The customer is quoted as asking: "In an environment where people have lost their jobs, they're on furlough, they're trying to get CERB payments, who's going to be able to keep $5,000 in their bank account to not get service fees?"
The article could have responded to this by noting that since 2003, low-cost accounts (with minimum requirements set by the government) have been available at many banks, including TD Bank.
https://www.canada.ca/en/financial-consumer-agency/services/banking/bank-accounts/low-cost-no-cost.html
Or that TD Bank is not raising monthly maintenance fees or min balance requirements on its current offerings, and is eliminating the paper statement fee on its Student Chequing Account. Though it is converting Youth Accounts to Student Chequing Accounts, resulting in a new cap of 25 transactions/mo w/o fees.
https://www.tdcanadatrust.com/document/PDF/accounts/513796.pdf
Or that CERB shut down before these fee hikes. If the point is that many people are dealing with reduced cash flows (notably, lower income), that's whom low cost accounts are designed for.
Certainly some Canadian bank fees are going up, and while the government is doing something to help, it could always do more. But this article does not present the typical account nor does it present a broad picture of banking fees in Canada.
It's a little dated (2014), but here's a Canadian government study of banking fees.
https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/canada/financial-consumer-agency/migration/eng/resources/researchsurveys/documents/bankingfees-fraisbancaires-eng.pdf