Hello @bee,
I’ve been an infrequent poster but have been snooping on MFO for some time. In 2002, after the dotcom implosion, I crafted an Excel file to keep track of our (with DW) investment accumulations. I would track the bi-weekly changes, as well as the starting totals on January 1st of each year.
As we got closer to retirement, I calculated our current expenses and projected a retirement budget for comparison. The retirement budget had/has two versions = “Frugal Lite” and “Frugal Extreme.“ With those numbers, I then calculated the taxes to add to this total number. From this number I calculated the percentage passive income we needed to offset this total expense need. I calculated a 2.5%, 3.0%, and 4.0% yearly return. I use 2.5% as my S.W.A.N. figure.
I then projected the social security we would each receive and subtracted that amount from the total expense budget. The remaining balance was the amount our portfolio would need to generate each year. When 2.5% would cover this cost, I believed that I would/had come to a place I considered - “financial independence.”
All of this data is the “Rube Goldberg” that comes down to the final number. That is, the difference between what is needed for living expenses & aspirations, and how much our portfolio generates. My concern is that this number be on the “positive” side of the ledger even with withdrawals (RMDs, etc.). If it should dip to the negative, then we would need to shift our expenses from the “frugal lite” to the “frugal extreme“ budget.
I am in my 3rd year and my DW her 6th year of retirement. So far so good.
Best to all,
Brian

Interesting comment from hedge fund manager, Leon Cooperman:

Risks for the market
The nation's rapidly growing national debt is among Cooperman's biggest concerns.Instead of whittling down the federal deficit when the economy was strong, Trump directed the federal government pile on even more debt to pay for massive tax cuts and spending surged, which meant the country entered the coronavirus crisis in rough financial shape. Now, the national debt is exploding as Washington scrambles to rescue the US economy from the shock of the pandemic.
"I am focused on something the market is not focusing on at the present time and that is: Who pays for the party when the party is over?" Cooperman said. The deficit is growing at a rate "well in excess of the growth rate of the economy," he added. "To me, that means more of our nation's income will have to be devoted to debt service, which will retard economic growth in the long term."

https://cnn.com/2020/07/20/investing/leon-cooperman-stock-market-overvalued/index.html

I considered investing in PIMIX a while ago. In the multi-sector bond category, PIMIX had generated top-decile trailing returns with below average volatility. The fund's non-agency mortgage sector investments accounted for much of the strong performance after the financial crisis. However, the non-agency mortgage sector is much smaller today. Yet, Pimco refuses to close PIMIX which currently has ~ $120 Bil AUM. Matter of fact, I don't believe that PIMCO has ever closed a fund because it grew too large. This compaoblony policy is not in an investor's best interest.

The above is a good encapsulation of M*'s latest analyst review (not paywalled):
https://www.morningstar.com/articles/986480/why-pimco-income-remains-among-the-best
With the better financial reporting, "trust but verify" is good practice. (With much financial reporting, the "trust" part isn't justified.)
Jacobson writes that "Pre-financial-crisis supply in the [nonagency residential mortgage] sector has been shrinking." Those securities are often referred to as legacy RMBS (i.e. securities issued pre-financial crisis). And the statement's correct. However, the post GFC RMBS 2.0 sector (with stricter borrower guidelines) is growing. Though it is still minuscule; I don't want to suggest otherwise.
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/credit-suisse-and-citigroup-join-other-major-banks-in-mortgage-bond-revival-with-a-twist-2019-08-20
In late 2017 Jacobson (along with lead writer Miriam Sjoblom) was making the same point about a shrinking supply, describing the post GFC years as "a once-in-a-career opportunity. " They also commented even back then on the fund size (more on that below).
A bit concerning is Jacobson's statement that "Pimco still likes the sector for its return potential and modest volatility: ... they totaled 37% as of March 2020." This seems to be overstated.
According to M*'s portfolio page (old-style version) non-agency RMBSs amounted to 8.57% (out of 120% bond exposure) of the portfolio. The largest sector was agency MBS pass throughs at 40.58% (out of 120%), followed by asset-backed securities at 33.63% (out of 120%). All as of March 31, 2020.
According to the fund's annual statement, summary section, non-agency MBSs constituted 19.5% of assets (out of 100%), and asset backed securities constituted 12.8%. We report, you decide :-)
PIMCO says that securities (substantially all are bonds) constitute 154.5% of assets. And it reports non-agency MBSs constituting 30.3% of assets. So the non-agency RMBS percentage of securities (out of 100%) is, according to PIMCO, 30.3%/154% = 19.6%, or about what was reported in the annual statement's summary.
Regarding size: current size is $120B according to PIMCO ($117B according to M*). Jacobson made the same complaint about bloat in his 2018 analyst report (free) entitled "Is PIMCO Income Getting Too Big". According to that year's annual report, the fund's assets (all share classes) totaled $112B, or about the same size as now. But it had grown from about $69B the year before.
Mitigating that, Christine Benz (M*) comments that (at least with respect to vanilla bond funds):

managers who use derivatives to express their market outlooks may be able to successfully manage more girth than managers who focus more on bond-picking to make a difference. PIMCO Total Return and its various clones, for example, were able to deliver peer-beating returns for many years even though the fund grew too large for bond-picking to make a significant difference in its returns. At its peak, PIMCO Total Return had nearly $300 billion in assets, and Gross managed various pools of money in that same style for other entities, too.

PIMCO's funds have their issues, but so far they seem to have handled them better than I would have expected. I might put the fund on a watch list for more problems. But as I wrote above, if I had reasons before for liking the fund, I would examine those reasons before jumping ship.

I considered investing in PIMIX a while ago. In the multi-sector bond category, PIMIX had generated top-decile trailing returns with below average volatility. The fund's non-agency mortgage sector investments accounted for much of the strong performance after the financial crisis. However, the non-agency mortgage sector is much smaller today. Yet, Pimco refuses to close PIMIX which currently has ~ $120 Bil AUM. Matter of fact, I don't believe that PIMCO has ever closed a fund because it grew too large. This company policy is not in an investor's best interest.

With 390 “hits” and climbing for this Jim Cramer thread, somebody must be listening to Cramer and / or similar talking heads. Outside of PBS, is there anything worth watching on TV? Personally, I truly enjoy following the various financial markets (S&P, NASDAQ, Europe, Australia, Japan, Latin America, bonds gold, oil, etc.), so Bloomberg holds some appeal weekdays for sheer entertainment. And I’m not sure I’d agree that “not knowing” is preferable to “knowing” what’s happening in any area of human endeavor, be science, politics, or finance. Admittedly, hitting the “mute“ button is one way some choose to view these financial networks.

Market suppose to crash this wk....that was the last wk headlines say regarding earnings...maybe up little at end of today. I was expecting blood baths and bought more corp bonds recently
.
Unless 50% of US Economy fully reopened again or COVID-19 flattening, hold on to the Disney Rock&Roller mountain ride. We have new bad outbreaks/ spots in India and Mexico now...

Much Adu About Nothing? I always operate under the assumption the market could crash anytime. As a retiree it’s a prudent assumption. Anyone who worries about that all the time probably shouldn’t own equities. As I’ve lamented before, there’s rarely any discussion of risk vs personal situation in these types of discussions. “All-in” is fine if you’re 25 years old. As our life situation evolves / changes, most financial advisors advise incrementally curtailing risk. Therein lies the problem today. Those formerly “safe” alternatives (cash & bonds) yield so little. To this, David’s discussion (July Commentary) of TMSRX is spot-on. My fear (and guess) is that like many funds that have attempted hedging with less success, money flows will be late arriving and equally late departing so that investors in general won’t fare as well as they might with a longer term commitment.
Personally, life’s more fun when markets are crashing and I can poke around in the rubble looking for really beaten up funds. However, things “feel better” when markets are on a tear and everything’s rising. Like many here, I picked up some bargains back in March / April. While I’ve done nothing with my normal static allocation, the 10-15% in speculative holdings I initiated back than has been pared to only about 6% of portfolio as of today. Ideally, I’ll get that down to near 0 just before the next 25-35% market drubbing. :)
Re Jim Cramer. I don’t watch him; nor do I find his circus antics particularly annoying. I’d guess his calls are probably around 50% correct. Since it’s essentially “free” TV, you get what you pay for. The one I really can’t stand is Jonathan Ferro on Bloomberg in the morning. Yack. Yack. Like a chicken with his head cut off. Much exaggeration of whatever financial pin might have fallen that day. He’s enough to make me consider switching back to CNBC (except for their right wing-nuts). On the other hand, Ferro is often paired with raspy voiced Tom Keene whose inquisitive attitude and dry humor go well with morning coffee. Like coffee ... take the bitter with the sweet here.

https://stocknews.com/news/pffa-an-etf-that-pays-10-with-41-future-upside/
An ETF That Pays 10% With 41% Future Upside
StockNews.com
The financial news covers the hot stocks such as Amazon and Tesla, which seem to set new record highs every day.
https://www.google.com/search?q=NYSEARCA: PFFA

FWIW, there are a few remaining free Usenet (nntp) servers (for text groups, not binaries). I still find misc.taxes.moderated one of the best places to go for arcane and not so arcane tax issues.
As rono said, many of the unmoderated groups like misc.taxes and misc.invest.mutual-funds are worthless. Another good moderated group, misc.invest.financial-plan seems to have effectively vanished.

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/99203/000110465920082874/tm2024548-1_497seq.htm
...Effective August 1, 2020, the following is added to the front page of the Prospectus:
Fund shares are presently offered for sale only to existing shareholders and to directors, officers and employees
of the Fund, the Fund’s Adviser, First Pacific Advisors, LP, and affiliated companies, and their immediate
relatives, and certain categories of shareholders.
Effective August 1, 2020, the section titled “Purchase and Sale of Fund Shares” on page 8 is replaced in its entirety with the following:
Purchase and Sale of Fund Shares
The Fund has discontinued indefinitely the sale of its shares to new investors, except existing shareholders, directors, officers and employees of the Fund, the Adviser and affiliated companies, and their immediate relatives. See the section entitled “Limited Availability to New Investors” for a description of shareholders eligible to purchase shares of the Fund. Investors may purchase or redeem Fund shares on any business day by written request, check, wire, ACH (Automated Clearing House), telephone, or through dealers as further described in this prospectus. You may conduct transactions by mail (FPA Funds, c/o UMB Fund Services, Inc., P.O. Box 2175, Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53201-2175, or 235 West Galena Street, Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53212), by wire, or by telephone at (800) 638-3060. Purchases and redemptions by telephone are only permitted if you previously established this option in your account. Eligible investors can use the Account Application for initial purchases.
Eligible investors can purchase shares by contacting any investment dealer authorized to sell the Fund’s shares. The minimum initial investment is $1,500, and each subsequent investment, which can be made directly to UMB Fund Services, Inc., must be at least $100. However, as described herein, no minimum investment amount is imposed for subsequent investments in retirement plans. All purchases made by check should be in U.S. dollars and made payable to the FPA Funds. Third party, starter or counter checks will not be accepted. A charge may be imposed if a check does not clear. The Fund reserves the right to waive or lower purchase and investment minimums in certain circumstances. For example, the minimums listed above may be waived or lowered for investors who are customers of certain financial intermediaries that hold the Fund’s shares in certain omnibus accounts, at the discretion of the officers of the Fund. In addition, financial intermediaries may impose their own minimum investment and subsequent purchase amounts.
Subsequent investments and redemptions can be made directly to UMB Fund Services, Inc.
Effective August 1, 2020, the following is added at the beginning of the section titled “Investing with the Fund” on page 23:
LIMITED AVAILABILITY TO NEW INVESTORS
The availability of shares of the Fund to new investors is limited. The Fund has discontinued indefinitely the sale of its shares to new investors, except existing shareholders, directors, officers and employees of the Fund, the Adviser and affiliated companies, and their immediate relatives. Affiliated companies include: current and former directors, officers and employees of the Adviser (and its predecessor firm and such predecessor firm’s parent firms) and its affiliates; current and former directors of, and partners and employees of legal counsel to, the investment companies advised by the Adviser; investment advisory clients of the Adviser and consultants to such clients and their directors, officers and employees; employees (including registered representatives) of a dealer that has a selling group agreement with UMB Distribution Services, LLC and consents to the purchases; any employee benefit plan maintained for the benefit of such qualified investors; directors, officers and employees of a company whose employee benefit plan holds shares of one or more of the FPA Funds; and directors, officers and employees of the Fund’s custodian and transfer agent.
In addition, the Fund will allow new investors to purchase shares if they fall into one of the following categories:
1. Clients of an institutional consultant, a financial advisor, a financial planner, or an affiliate of a financial advisor or financial planner, who has client assets invested with the Fund or the Adviser at the time of the investor’s application;
2. Investors purchasing Fund shares through a sponsored fee-based program where shares of the Fund are made available to that program pursuant to an agreement with FPA Funds or UMB Distribution Services, LLC, and FPA Funds or UMB Distribution Services, LLC has notified the sponsor of that program, in writing, that shares may be offered through such program and has not withdrawn that notification;
3. Investors transferring or “rolling over” into a Fund IRA from an employee benefit plan through which the investor held shares of the Fund (if an investor’s plan doesn’t qualify for rollovers an investor may still open a new account with all or part of the proceeds of a distribution from the plan);
4. Investors that are an employee benefit plan or other type of corporate or charitable account sponsored by or affiliated with an organization that also sponsors or is affiliated with (or is related to an organization that sponsors or is affiliated with) another employee benefit plan or corporate or charitable account that is a shareholder of the Fund; or
5. Investors participating in an employee benefit plan that is already a Fund shareholder.
The Fund may ask you to verify that you meet one of the categories above prior to permitting you to open a new account in the Fund. The Fund may permit you to open a new account if the Fund reasonably believes that you are eligible. The Fund also may decline to permit you to open a new account if the Fund believes that doing so would be in the best interests of the Fund and its shareholders, even if you would be eligible to open a new account under these guidelines.
The Fund’s ability to impose the guidelines above with respect to accounts held by financial intermediaries may vary depending on the systems capabilities of those intermediaries, applicable contractual and legal restrictions and cooperation of those intermediaries.
The Fund continues to reinvest dividends and capital gain distributions with respect to the accounts of existing shareholders who elect such options.
The Fund may recommence at any time the offering of shares to all investors if the Board of Directors believes it would be in the best interests of the Fund and its shareholders.
Federal regulations may require the Fund to obtain your name, your date of birth (for a natural person), your residential street address or principal place of business and your Social Security Number, Employer Identification Number or other government issued identification when you open an account. Additional information may be required in certain circumstances or to open accounts for corporations or other entities, and certain information regarding beneficial ownership will be verified, including information about beneficial owners of such entities. The Fund may use this information to attempt to verify your identity and, for legal entities, the identity of beneficial owners. The Fund may not be able to establish an account if the necessary information is not received. The Fund may also place limits on account transactions while it is in the process of attempting to verify your identity and, for legal entities, the identity of beneficial owners. Additionally, if the Fund is unable to verify the identity of you or your beneficial owners after your account is established, the Fund, the Fund's distributor and the Fund's transfer agent each reserve the right to reject further purchase orders from you or to take such other action as they deem reasonable or required by law, including closing your account. If your account is closed for this reason, your shares will be redeemed at the NAV next calculated on the date your account is closed, and you bear the risk of loss.
Effective August 1, 2020, the section titled “How to Buy Fund Shares” on page 25 of the Prospectus is hereby deleted in its entirety.
PLEASE RETAIN FOR FUTURE REFERENCE.
FPA New Income, Inc. (FPNIX)
Supplement dated July 13, 2020 to the
Statement of Additional Information dated January 31, 2020
This Supplement amends information in the Statement of Additional Information (the “SAI”) for the FPA New Income, Inc. (the “Fund”), dated January 31, 2020. You should retain this Supplement and the Prospectus for future reference. Additional copies of the SAI may be obtained free of charge by visiting our web site at www.fpa.com or calling us at (800) 638-3060.
Effective August 1, 2020, on page 50 of the SAI, the following language is added to the section titled “Purchase, Redemption and Pricing of Shares”:
Limited Availability to New Investors. The availability of shares of the Fund to new investors is limited. See the section titled, “Limited Availability to New Investors” in the Prospectus for a complete description of categories of shareholders eligible to purchase shares of the Fund.
The Fund continues to accept additional investments from existing shareholders, and continues to reinvest dividends and capital gain distributions with respect to the accounts of existing shareholders who elect such options.
The Fund may recommence at any time the offering of shares to all investors if the Board of Directors believes it would be in the best interests of the Fund and its shareholders.
PLEASE RETAIN FOR FUTURE REFERENCE.

Like Old_Joe I found FundAlarm through WSJ. The 3-alarm was very useful to avoid the hits and miss approach I was using. The monthly commentary was always informative. I run across MFO being referenced in other financial articles.

While I generally try to take a longer view rather than be unduly influenced by (relatively) recent experiences, I admit upfront to being biased here by the 2008 collapse of the muni bond insurers.
ISTM that insurers can provide a valuable service when they spread their risks and payouts are isolated. But results can be disastrous in the face of a systemic failure.

...[T]he low frequency of municipal bond defaults made the insurance business seem quite safe. Insurers responded by increasing their leverage—using less capital to insure more bonds—and diversifying into the more profitable business of insuring structured finance debt instruments such as collateralized debt obligations (CDOs).
Structured finance proved fatal to most insurers during the financial crisis. Defaults on CDOs backed by subprime mortgages resulted in numerous claims on the insurance companies’ thin layers of capital, which (at least in the case of MBIA) was less than 1 percent of insured par. As a result, all insurers either became insolvent or suffered multiple notch downgrades. At the beginning of 2008, Moody’s rated seven bond insurers Aaa; none carried this rating by the end of 2010.
Since 2012, only three insurers have been active, and none were rated higher than AA/Aa by the major rating agencies.

https://www.mercatus.org/system/files/mercatus-kriz-joffe-municipal-bond-insurance-v1a.pdf
Muni bond insurance appears to be in the throes of adverse selection. The market for coverage of new issues peaked at 57% in 2005 [ibid.], and is now at just 5-6%. Adverse selection occurs when the "healthiest" issuers opt out because they'd rather not subsidize the risk of the "sickest" (lowest rated) issuers.
The insurers seem to be focusing more these days on their muni bond coverage. So while they don't have CDO exposure, a systemic problem in the muni market could sink them this time. Especially given the lower (still investment) grade bonds that they are likely insuring.
For example, MMIN's top holding, Phenix City Alabama Brd Ed Sch Tax Wts 4.0%, due 8/1/2037T (CUSIP 717335CC5) has an underlying rating of A+ according to S&P. (See EMMA for ratings)
I'm not knocking the value of the insurance for isolated defaults. I am wondering about the value if the concern is municipal risk in general.

The Center for Strategic and International Studies estimates that China has yet to break through the material science that goes into the latest microscopic chips, despite throwing money at the challenge of successive programs, the latest commanding over $ 20 billion of dollars. Its high-end chip industry is ten years behind, but in ten years the infrastructure for global cyber dominance will already be in place.In short, the United States controls the global semiconductor ecosystem, working closely with Japan, Korea, and Taiwan. All Washington had to do at the end of May was to move their fingers and TCMS of Taiwan instantly cut the chips to Huawei, suddenly condemning the company’s global G5 quest.
Britain cannot stay with Huawei even if it wants to. US Congress Won’t Authorize Branch of Chinese State – Serving Xi’s Doctrine civil-military merger – acquire global control over a key technological break point.
China is already in Germany...Any telecommunications group aiming to pursue Huawei’s G5 plans in these circumstances commits financial suicide. Deutsche Telekom internal documents speak of “Armageddon” if the German firm is forced to replace 3 billion euros of Huawei equipment already installed. Armageddon is what they are going to get.

https://fr24news.com/a/2020/07/china-has-already-peaked-and-faces-economic-stagnation.html

Mr. Seed is able to provide interesting data and thoughts.
With his knowledge of the bond world, he indeed should be a very wealthy man.
'Course, this statement:
"Summary: Don’t Listen to Bloomberg, Treasuries Aren’t for Everyone, at Least at These Rates."
He does note the money that can be made during falling yields, but IMHO; he could have dedicated a few more words regarding this.
I'm reminded of the period of falling yields after the melt in 2008. At the time, I also watched some CNBC tv. The commentators would mention falling Treasury yields and a fairly standard verbal statement would be, "you're not going to get much for your money with those." These folks, I presume; have enough financial wisdom to know what happens to bond pricing when the yields are falling. I watched numerous times expecting one of them to say that when yields are falling you may make good money from the price increases. Nope !!!
And from where do folks think a lot of the price appreciation arrives for the more plain vanilla balanced funds, be they moderate or conservative, during these past decades. Sure........the bonds.
Two and one half years chart of BAGIX v AGG v SPY . I used this time period, as 2018 had several bumps for equity, not counting the big bump on Christmas eve of 2018. So, if one held a decent bond fund or even the etf AGG, your holdings on those clunky bonds provided, eh? The point for the etf, is that these can provide, too; although I prefer a proven active managed bond fund at this time. Using sector etf's in bondland will allow one to build whatever mix you choose. Choices for a mixer are vast, as never before.
Lastly, we've traveled this bond turf many times. If you feel that yields may continue to move lower, you'll make money with quality bonds. If the hot equity market is going to melt, you'll likely do well with Treasury issues. If you are sure yields are going to move higher, then time to assess whatever bonds you're invested. If one finds an alternate, long/short or other magic box fund that is of interest, compare its life span to say a, FBALX or even VWINX to discover the ability of the fund to provide for profits.
Some of the investment grade bond funds have been flat for a few weeks (too much money after equity, I suspect). This week has found more positive moves (price). Perhaps the bond folks are buying on the cheap, or hedging that equity is a bit too hot.
I don't know.
The ultimate consideration for one's portfolio is capital preservation and that you are comfortable with your choices. More now, than ever before; one has every which way to customize a portfolio.
Take care,
Catch

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/806633/000119312520190194/d943802d497.htm
Core Growth Fund, International Opportunities Fund and Small Cap Growth Fund
From Wasatch:
https://wasatchglobal.com/wasatch-core-growth-and-small-cap-growth-funds-to-close-to-new-investors/

For us we have Vanguard 13 years, schwab 11 years, and merrilledge 7 years. All are easy to talk to representatives, low cost trading, good bonddesks, schwab offers excellence research for stocks/mutual funds. All maintenance fees extremely low (for instance merrilledge charge you 0.7% annually fees but you need only 100ks And 1%if less 100k in acct [rest can be self managed without financial advisor])
Mama has Fidelity and we use it to buy etf and bonds, its reasonable but I heard they have best cd/ visa cards 2% cash back
Which firms do you folks prefer

A decade ago I looked fairly closely into different brokerages' bond services. What I found at the time was that while offerings were of course different, they tended to rely on third party services for inventory. So their offerings at any given time, while different, were similar. Fidelity would offer the same bonds at a lower price than Schwab.
Things may have changed, but a very small spot check (1 bond) suggests that this pricing differential remains. Calif (Sacramento) muni, callable starting in two years, maturing in five, CUSIP 786073BG0. Schwab price: 118.636 (2.394% YTW), Fidelity price: 118.536 [sic] (2.407% YTW). Both charge a $1/bond commission. I've bought bonds at Fidelity. Because of the higher cost, I haven't at Schwab.
If you're looking at keeping $100K at Merrill, BofA credit cards can come out better. Their cash rewards cards (with the $100K balance) pay 5.25% on the category of your choice (e.g. online purchases), 3.5% on grocery and warehouse purchases, and 1.75% on everything else. (The higher rebates are limited to $2500 in purchases/quarter). Of it you travel a bit (which can include mass transit, zoos(!) and other oddities), there's a cash back card that pays 2.625% on everything. The catch there is that the rebate must be used to cover travel costs.
With respect to mutual funds, Merrill Edge is limited in its offerings. Essentially, just NTF share classes are available. So you can't buy lower cost institutional shares even if the total cost of ownership would be less for you. Fidelity and Schwab are better in this regard. Fidelity also enable you to buy additional shares of a TF fund for $5 while at Schwab it's still $50. Vanguard's advantage is that it offers some institutional shares with lower mins than at Fidelity or Schwab. My impression is that T. Rowe Price's third party fund offerings are slim, but TRP hasn't posted its "catalogue" for years.
ETF and stock trading are free at Merrill, Fidelity, Schwab, and Vanguard. At TRP they can cost $20, unless the ETF is on their NTF list.
IMHO where TRP shines is in it broad offering of fine mutual funds. Essentially what @rforno said. In addition, it offers a free individual 401(k) plan with Roth option, as does Vanguard. Schwab doesn't allow Roths, nor does Fidelity. Merrill doesn't offer a free individual 401k.
I've found TRP's service to be on par with Fidelity and Schwab. I have found service at Merrill and Vanguard wanting.

Is Trow better than Vanguard Fidelity? What are their best qualities
For us we have Vanguard 13 years, schwab 11 years, and merrilledge 7 years. All are easy to talk to representatives, low cost trading, good bonddesks, schwab offers excellence research for stocks/mutual funds. All maintenance fees extremely low (for instance merrilledge charge you 0.7% annually fees but you need only 100ks And 1%if less 100k in acct [rest can be self managed without financial advisor])
Mama has Fidelity and we use it to buy etf and bonds, its reasonable but I heard they have best cd/ visa cards 2% cash back
Which firms do you folks prefer

That's actually a question from one of their reps. In our TMSRX profile, I refer to them as "Price." They think of, and hence refer to, themselves as "T. Rowe" or "T. Rowe Price." They admit to seeing "Price" used occasionally in the financial media, but were wondering how investors thought of the firm.
A funny side note: we publish in WordPress and if the WordPress software sees the freestanding letter "T" as the first character in a paragraph, it interprets that as a command to create a bulleted list out of the rest of the article. On whole, Chip would rather prefer that I not do that.
Curious, as ever,
David

I agree that @carew888 did a nice job of quickly summarizing what the F fund is and why it performed the way it did. The only thing I'd add to that (I'm not a TSP participant, so please correct me if I'm mistaken), is that divs, cap gains, etc. are already incorporated into the share prices. This is in response to @dstone42's question.
In this regard, the TSP funds resemble variable annuity portfolios. The TSP funds are not mutual funds and are not required to distribute their earnings in the form of dividends. "The net earnings are reflected in the share price of the funds."
https://www.tsp.gov/InvestmentFunds/FundsOverview/earningsComponents.html
I’d be loath to criticize the content, but neither is the financial insight / information equivalent to what you’d find on this board generally, or at any mainstream financial information-based service like the WSJ, Bloomberg, Barron’s, etc.
I'm not so loathe :-). The FedSmith content includes:

With the large spending stimulus in 2020, there is a possibility of inflation returning as a new reality. If that should occur, bonds could turn out to be a wise investment.

Fidelity (and virtually any mainstream financial service) writes:

Inflationary conditions generally lead to a higher interest rate environment. Therefore, inflation has the same effect as interest rates. When the inflation rate rises, the price of a bond tends to drop, because the bond may not be paying enough interest to stay ahead of inflation.

https://www.fidelity.com/learning-center/investment-products/fixed-income-bonds/bond-prices-rates-yields

I'm a federal retiree with a TSP account. The F fund is an index fund based on the Bloomberg Barclays Aggregate Bond Index. IIRC, the duration is around 4.5. The 8.65 1 year return reflects capital gains from falling interest rates, similar to the gains recorded by core bond funds/intermediate bond funds.

+1
FedSmith is an advertising-based publication directed at Federal employees and retirees from what I can make out. It reminds me a bit of the publications sent free of charge to me from organizations like AARP and NEA / MEA (related due to prior employment). I’d be loath to criticize the content of any of these. They mean well. But neither do they provide the depth of financial insight / information you’d find on this board generally, or at any mainstream financial information service like WSJ, Bloomberg, Barron’s, etc. That may be because FedSmith (and the ones I cited above) are aimed at a broader, less financially astute population.
Excellent point about the declining interest rate trend we’ve grown accustomed to. If you’re under 50 you may not even remember previous decades of generally rising interest rates (assuming you can only remember such things back to when you were 20). Some of us who lived through and were investing during the 70s and 80s can assure you that what you’ve lived through is somewhat of an aberration as interest rates go. Rates can and do go in either direction - rising or falling. Someone here recently mentioned paying a 12 or 14% rate on a mortgage for a first time home.
The fund referenced in the article sounds a lot like the T Rowe Price U S Bond Enhanced Index Fund (PBDIX) which I happen to own. As bond funds go, its fairly “safe” holding all / mostly investment grade bonds having short-intermediate maturities. But in a serious ramp-up of interest rates it would certainly lose money,

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2020/06/30/stocks-interest-rate-fed/
How the Fed is driving savers to riskier investments
The Federal Reserve’s efforts to buoy the economy and stabilize financial markets are working nicely for now — but we are in for a bumpy ride