BTW, the expected yield on the 20-year Treasury bond auction today is 5.156%

Many investors think that the 20-year is a good buy now. 20 years of 5% interest will work for many folks. But once interest rates start declining you will make a nice CG on the bonds you own. Any kind of market timing is difficult. If one doesn't hit the highest yield, 5% is still great and most likely will be great a few years from now.

Tarwheel: Your problem is one that most investors suffer through. If it isn't bonds, it's stocks or something else. We always worry about what is going to happen in the future. You must set your goals and allocations and stick to them, unless you are a trader. I don't like the way the market is going either, but I am sticking to my plan. I'm not smart enough to figure out the future. I don't remember if you said that you were married or not, but in my case, everything is set up to make it easier for my wife if I pass. (I am much older than you.) I once owned some treasuries (thru VG), and then was worried what would happen if I passed before they matured. The proceeds would be placed into our settlement fund and she would have to decide what to do with the cash. They have since matured and the proceeds have been reinvested, but I will not invest in them again for the for this reason. I want to leave her a portfolio that runs on auto-pilot for her remaining years.
Now for bonds. I use mostly balanced funds. Of course they are struggling now since both stocks and bonds are struggling. I also hold two bond funds, both high-yield. You know they are not doing so well, but I am sticking with them. Each month the dividends buy more shares at a lower price, and I believe that later next year interest rates are going to start going down and the NAV will start going up. Don't ask me why I believe that, because I don't know. I just believe that in the long run the US market will be alright.
My best advise for you is to delete my post and do what you thing is right for you and your family.
Just another point of view.

from the great John Waggoner
The S&P500 quarterly income tax rate for Q2 2023 was 18.81%, down from the Q1 2023 20.20% rate, down from the Q2 2022 20.05%, significantly lower than the pre-Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017's Q2 2013 29.53% (10 years ago), and 48% lower than the Q2 1998 35.84% rate (25 years ago).
Good thing they're passing those savings on to their customers!

@Yogibearbull - Thanks for clarifying. Guess I’ll have to sell it than! For years I’ve been under the false impression it was a bond fund. Actually, not knowing what I’m doing sometimes works better than when I know what I’m doing.
Yes, M* shows CVSIX to have only a small weighting in bonds. Looks like 15-20% on their pie chart. However, Lipper puts the bond holdings somewhat higher at 46%. Bonds & cash combined come out to 65-70%.
ALLOCATION (CVSIX)
Bonds 45.94%
Stocks 34.79%
Cash 21.56%
Other -2.29%
(Figures from MarketWatch / Lipper)

I’ve never bought a bond directly (aside from some savings bonds years ago). But I do know that 0-coupon bonds are extremely volatile. American Century had some 0-coupon bond funds back in the 90s. You could choose from a variety of maturity dates. Owned them briefly. One wild ride. True, if you can endure the changes in NAV you’ll get your promised pay out at maturity. Most bond / income funds I’m familiar with pay dividends monthly. Some pay quarterly. So that income would compound depending on when paid.
@Tarwheel - Sorry. I might have been more tactful in addressing your question.
One reason bonds are suffering badly is the ongoing dash-to-cash. Where does all that money running into cash originate? From bonds and equities being sold. As with any asset, when there are more sellers than buyers prices fall. Howard Marks speaks at length in “The Most Important Thing” about the investing ”pendulum”. That is: Asset valuations always run to the extreme. I merely suggest that we take that thought into consideration here. Cash is king right now. My only question (borrowed from a popular 70s hit) - ”Will You Still Love Me Tomorrow?”

I’m not trying to convince anyone to buy CDs and Treasuries, just trying to wrap my head around investing in them. For most of my investing history, cash investments have yielded next to nothing. Treasuries and short term bonds fared little better.
Many financial planners and experts say you can safely withdraw about 4% a year from a portfolio in retirement. I am unlikely to live 20 or more years, based on my family history, although my wife could. So, if I can buy a 20-year Treasury yielding 5.15%, that will pay more than my income needs for longer than my expected life span, what’s not to like? I have no intention in putting all of my portfolio in Treasuries, just a portion that would make up the long portion of a ladder.
I’m trying to decide whether to convert more of my bond funds into Treasuries. My bond funds are currently yielding close to 6% but continue to lose value. I know that at some point they will start increasing in value again, and selling now will lock in my losses, so I don’t plan to totally abandon them. But I no longer view them as low-risk investments to anchor my portfolio. I also plan to continue holding 40-60% of my portfolio in stock funds.
So, if I buy a 20-year Treasury that pays dividends semiannually, is that income compounded, or simply paid out in cash every 6 months? So far, the Treasuries I’ve bought are all zero-coupons that you buy at a discount and mature at full cash value. I haven’t bought any 5-year or longer Treasuries, so I don’t understand if the interest is compounded or simply paid out at regular intervals.

2021-23 will go down the history as the WORST period for bonds. Investors and organizations (M*, etc) that have gone exclusively with bond FUNDs only for all times have done poorly. But those who have also used other fixed-income tools have done better - individual Treasuries, CDs, ladders, stable-value (in retirement plans); m-mkt funds too since mid-2022.
The media is NOW saying that these are the best times to get into bonds. But many investors don't trust that.
Here is a chart showing Treasuries, core, core-plus and multisector bond funds (beneficiaries of HY); default is 1-yr, but can change timeframes to 2, 3 or other years.
https://stockcharts.com/h-perf/ui?s=IEF&compare=BND,FBND,PIMIX&id=p36003419830

I track a number of bond funds on the soon-to-be extinct M* portfolio manager. These are all funds that were highly ranked with good returns in their various categories. Very few of these funds have achieved 5% returns over the past 15 years, and few hit 3% over the past 10 years. The average returns among various short and intermediate bond funds was 1.1% over 5 years, 1.56% over 10 years, and 3.79% over 15 years. Multi-sector bond funds fared slightly better — 1.3% over 5 years, 2.65% over 10 years, and 5.93% over 15 years. The best performing bond funds were high-yield or junk — 2.78% over 5 years, 3.58% over 10 years, and 7.06% over 15 years.
Here is my question: why bother with bond funds when you can currently lock CDs and Treasuries with yields above or approaching 5% over the next 3, 5, 10 and 20 years? I have sold a number of bond funds this year to set up CD and Treasury ladders extending out 5 years. However, I still maintain substantial holdings in several bond funds with good long term returns (but terrible returns over the past 5 years), in hopes that their future returns will rebound when yields finally stabilize or fall. Plus, selling now would just lock in my losses.
I’ll be 70 years old in January. I might not be alive in 10 years, or the time it takes for bond funds to recoup their losses. It’s different with stock funds because it’s not unusual for them to post large gains after bear markets and corrections. But bond funds? Do they ever have big years that make up for the terrible losses they’ve incurred over the past 2-3 years?

What's the connection? Is the cheapest quintile requirement intended to bias the selection toward Vanguard, American Funds, D&C (not one of the three firms totaling 18 funds on the list), and Baird? If so, is it also intended to bias against Fidelity and T. Rowe Price? As Kinnel wrote in his 2019 edition, these families tend to have funds with ERs just outside the lowest quintile.
I do think that requiring an analyst rating is a bit hokey. Especially since this builds in an unnecessary bias toward larger firms (the ones M* covers). And it's prospective which makes it less than objective.
M* is nevertheless rational in covering primarily larger firms: that's where the investor money is. 98% of money invested goes into the 150 largest firms.
Aside from a few analyst rating criteria, the other screens used - like ER, manager longevity (at least five years), and so on - are objective. Are there particular criteria you feel are intentionally biased or have other problems?
For example, comparing a manager's performance with a benchmark sounds good, until one realizes that there are some periods when most funds in a given category beat their benchmark. Wouldn't it make more sense to require a fund to best both its benchmark and its category average performance?
That would knock out one of the few funds on the list from a smaller firm: MERDX. Meade and Schaub had a great record with Triton, but since they took over Meridian Growth in Sept 2013 (almost exactly 10 years ago), the have not set the world on fire. Sure, their 10 year record (as of Sept 30, 2023) of 7.43% annualized beat the M* benchmark of 6.88%, but it underperformed its category (returning 7.78%) and also underperformed the S&P 600 by about 0.05% cumulative over a decade, let alone the S&P 600 growth by about 1%/year on an annualized basis.
Kinnel has fudged the list in the past, e.g. removing PRFDX because the manager (Brian Rogers) was about to retire. So in the future the fund would no longer have a manager meeting the five year requirement.
Certainly he could have fudged his list here to remove MERDX because the fund beat a benchmark but not its category average and not a different category benchmark.
Which funds would you knock off the list of thrilling 30 and why? Or which funds would you add by relaxing which criteria? Independent of advertising dollars.

As a follow up to the MoveIT etc breach, we have been hacked twice more since this summer. Our Utility was hacked with out info and an old employer of mine (2019) was hacked.
Both offered us two years of "IDEX" credit and email address monitoring, but when I called them, they said the only way they can monitor your credit accounts is without a credit freeze. So I am supposed to unfreeze my credit reports ( so I could become an identify theft victim? ) so these turkeys can monitor it and then tell me I was a victim of identity theft?
What a scam

Below is the complete response received from Fidelity. There's really little else Fidelity could say.

Thank you for your email that we received on October 6, 2023, regarding SEC rule 2a-7. As your concerns are important to us, your email was forwarded to the Executive Office for review. I appreciate this opportunity to address your concerns.
Fidelity has been working diligently to implement the SEC’s amendments. To ensure our investors are aware, we have incorporated the recent changes to each money market fund’s fact sheet on our website.
I can confirm that Fidelity fully complies with all laws and regulations applicable to our businesses, products, and services, including SEC Rule 2a-7. Before October 2, when Rule 2a-7 permitted fees and gates, Fidelity did not impose a fee upon the sale of shares or temporarily suspend a shareholder’s ability to sell shares in any money market fund we manage.
We appreciate your years of loyalty to Fidelity, and we look forward to assisting with your accounts in the future. If you have additional questions, please call us at 800-544-6666. For your convenience, representatives are available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.
Sincerely,
Nathan Snyder
Executive Office

What's the point of a having prospectus that (still) says that the fund might violate the law (by suspending redemptions)? It could just as easily say that the fund might hold long term securities. That's also prohibited. Hard to trust a document that borders on fiction.
Updates to Fidelity's website do not inform all of Fidelity's investors of changes. Fidelity MMF investors also invest via third parties (e.g. WellsTrade, Merrill). They see the unamended SEC filings.

I switched from a VW Golf to a Toyota RAV4 hybrid a few years ago. I would have gotten another Golf, but I needed more space for my dog and VW quit importing their wagon (and the Golf).
I had resisted getting an SUV for years due to their terrible gas mileage. However, my RAV4 hybrid gets more than 40 mpg — which is considerably higher than my little Golf. I do miss the handling and easy parking with my Golf, but the RAV4 handles and parks surprisingly well, and it has much more power. And, of course, it has tons of storage space and room for my dog. We seldom get snow in NC, but the all-wheel drive could prove useful during our rare snow events.
If I get tired of driving an SUV, I would probably now get a Toyota Prius, which has incredible gas mileage. The newest model has much more power, nice handling and good styling for a change. Toyota finally seems to be listening to critics about the awful styling of some of their models.

@msf and other, I want to draw your attention to market correlation in PV.
I added VFINX to your link (by adding a benchmark ticker).
Add VFINX
Your three portfolios have market correlation that range from 94% - 96%. This leads me to believe they are highly correlated to market (VFINX = 1.0%), yet their standard deviation as well as their Max DD appear to be about 2/3 less correlated to “the market”. Though VFINX deviated (deeper) during Max DD (15% vs 10%) they all took the same amount of time to heal from their losses. One can get this information by clicking on the “I” symbol next their respective MaxDD figures.
Over the long run (your charts timeframe is 8 years), if we can accepted the higher SD (the ups as well as the downs of VFINX) it appears we achieve market returns.
1991- 2023 Comparison:
VFINX, PRWCX, QGIEX, CSIEX
Most investors don’t enjoy losing money and appreciate losing less even though the timeframe for “shallow losses” and “deep losses” appears to be the same (at least in this chart).
PRWCX’s goal of providing market returns on the up side while losing less on the downside is an investor’s challenge as well. Hope it succeeds!

Several years ago, my brokerage firm performed a "share class exchange" for me at no charge, through which I exchanged all of my shares of PRWCX into the institutional class TRAIX. Now, for the last year or two, this same brokerage firm says they cannot allow me to purchase new shares of TRAIX. So I'm frozen. I've called repeatedly, spoke to a "mutual fund trader," and have always gotten the same answer. I even asked to do another "share class exchange" to transfer some of the institutional class shares TRAIX into PRWCX but the answer I've consistently gotten is that "PRWCX is closed." The "mutual fund trader" stated that he contacted TR Price on my behalf but with no luck. This is frustrating. Does anyone have any ideas on how I can add to TRP Capital Appreciation fund (in either class)? This is a brokerage link account tied to a former employer's 401a plan.

@racqueteer
To be clearer, and to support my statement, FPACX has done better 3y, 1y, and ytd.
Cumulative. I do not look at, care about, or judge by single years.
That's all. Don't own any of them currently, but wish I had for the last decade.
>> ... can’t see a good reason to prefer it over the other two.
Again, as I said, whether UI matters. (Also the matter of availability.)

Summary
° The investment environment has undergone a sweeping alteration, calling for significant capital reallocation.
° The decline in interest rates over the past 40 years has been overlooked as a major driver of investment profits.
° Credit instruments may offer competitive returns and should be considered for a substantial portion of portfolios.
Article

“ FPACX has nontrivially outperformed PRWCX the last few years,”
Let’s be clear…. M* has PRWCX ahead by about 6% in 2020 and 3.5% in 2021. Behind by about 1.7% in 2022 and 1.6% this year. I’m not sure that supports your statement, but it certainly supports the notion that the cash helped its return recently.
Again, I have no issue with FPACX being a decent fund, but I can’t see a good reason to prefer it over the other two. Ymmv

@racqueteer
I don't see why it would be logical since you don't mention it.
Ah, maybe you meant
>> Those who know me know ...
Romick's cash thing has been discussed here for decades, iirc, and I myself care only about returns as a function of UI and vice-versa.
FBALX has waaay higher UI most of the time (in keeping with Fidelity's ever aggressive equity-favoring approaches).
I've no other thoughts on what you don't see. FPACX has nontrivially outperformed PRWCX the last few years, yes, and with lower or the same UI. If you knew all that, bully.

Agree, BaluBalu. Those who know me know that I've spent a lot of time looking at the Allocation-type funds over the years, and while traditional bonds have done them no favors with rates rising; we're already talking about reductions next year - maybe. Of all of these types of funds, PRWCX and FBALX seem to always stand at the head of the class.

You should get to know the history of FPACX

From my post, it would be logical to assume that I am quite aware of its history. I’ve owned it and it is quite good… but… He always seems to be holding a lot of cash; regardless of the investing environment. That’s been fine recently, but there were times when I would rather have seen him buying something; especially when cash was paying nothing. Obviously, that has been beneficial recently. It’s one of the funds I routinely watch.
In any event, M* has FBALX and PRWCX in the first quartile of performance every year other than 2022 (ten times). FPACX hit that milestone four times; two of those in the last two years when cash was better than most traditional fixed income vehicles. What do you see that you think I don’t?

@Derf, another way to calculate TR is to use adjusted-prices between the 2 times.
So, for simplicity, assuming that from 11/1/10 (adj-price 6.93) to 10/13/23 (adj-price 9.61) is almost 13 years, the TR = (9.61/6.93)^(1/13) = 1.02547 or +2.55%. So-so over 13 years.
Using SPY instead, adjusted-prices were 92.81 on 11/1/10 and 431.50 on 10/13/23, so TR = (431.50/92.81)^(1/13) = 1.1255 or 12.55%. Of course, this is to show the method, not to compare stock fund with HY bond fund.
Backward-ratio-adjustment applies to ALL prices prior to the dividend date. That is why it works.