So my question is: why would you prefer to own bond funds to a longer term CD when rates are falling?

You changed what we are talking about. We were discussing shorter-term CD that matures in 3-6-12 months. I already posted that 3-5 years CD makes more sense because rates will fall in months to come, and the 3-5 years CDs will pay more months after that. Why would you sell these longer-term CDs? Usually, CD holders hold to the end + they pay a penalty if they sell early.
MM and Mutual funds give me a lot more flexibility. Investors who bought CD months ago are paid less than MM today. But again, the difference is peanuts in performance.
When rates start going down, my longer term funds will make more money in weeks-months.
Basically for me, when CD pays close to MM, I would never go with CD because CD has more constraints.
If rates are stabilized my bond funds will definitely make more money. Sure, bond funds are riskier, but I can make a lot more too. When markets turn around, you can make several % in funds within weeks. I call it the big money.
Example: look at a chart of 10 years treasury (https://schrts.co/YZrChyJi)
Now look at ORNAX(https://schrts.co/RarenBFS). See how nicely ORNAX made on 11/2022, 01/2023, 03/2023.
But, if someone just wants to make 5%, then CDs are OK, but inflation is still high. I want to make 3% above inflation. It's all correlated. Inflation is lower, CD pays lower.
CDs can't compensate you enough after inflation and why 3-5 years CDS may be a better choice if inflation goes to 3%.

@wabac,
You raised good points. A portfolio can have several goals. Performance is always important. But, I also think that risk-adjusted performance is more important, at least for me, and that can be measured by the Sharpe ratio.
The following are several simple measurements I set for myself
1) My stock portion must beat the easiest most common index VOO/VTI. If I don't beat it, my stock portion must have a better risk-adjusted performance.
2) My bond portion should beat good bond funds, starting with BND and DODIX.
3) If I have 50/50, must beat W+W (Wellington, Wellesley)
4) For a conservative portfolio, must beat Wellesley.
The above is just a start, a minimum. I also know about great funds over the years, such as PRWCX and PIMIX.
I'm very critical of my own portfolio. It's all data-driven. No excuses are allowed. It doesn't matter if you use 3 or 10-15 funds, or how you do it.
Suppose I want to set up an easy buy and hold portfolio for a retiree, see below 2 real-life examples.
1) In order to make my wife's investment decisions easier, I set up a written plan for her to invest in only 3 funds. I only trust 2 choices indexes + Vanguard funds managed by Wellington. Wellington Management is the oldest, it's conservative, team style, and not one dominant manager, with a very cheap expense ratio. Since our money isn't with Vanguard, we would have to own the more expensive funds(not Admiral), but it's still cheap.
For a younger age, until age 70-75 and still having a taxable account...45% VWINX...25% VWAHX(HY Muni)...30% VSMGX. Because of HY Muni bonds which are hybrid, this portfolio is more like 40/60
Older than 70-75 or taxable account is gone: 40% VWINX(40/60)...30% VWEHX(HY Corp)...30% VSMGX(60/40). Because of HY Corp bonds which are hybrid, this portfolio is more like 45/55.
2) An older relative retired around 2002 and told me he saw several financial advisors and they want to charge him 1% and he really doesn't trust any of them. Markets are volatile and he wants a stable LT simple portfolio and all his money is at Vanguard. Based on the amount of money he had, he needed about 3.5% yearly withdrawal and wants a conservative portfolio. I told him he can be in just 35-40% stocks and the rest bond and to invest in just 2 funds VWIAX+VCCGX. If he needs more money, just sell shares from both funds at equal amount of money. Just keep several thousands in the bank, use your SS and distributions from these 2 funds and if you require more just sell shares from both at 70/30 (VWIAX+VCCGX).
In the first 10-15 years, this guy called me every 2-3 years and thanked me how I saved him so much money and how it works well.
Below are the results(link)including 3.5% annual withdrawal, and they show that KISS investing and spending worked very well. This portfolio was able to support the 3.5% and grow at 6% (including the 3.5% withdrawal).

Diversification doesn't guarantee better performance or better risk/SD or better risk-adjusted performance. Being in 10 funds isn't necessarily better than 2 funds. I could be wrong but I can't find any research that proves that more funds are a better choice, no matter the age and goals.
Having 10 accounts isn't an excuse to own more funds than 5 accounts, because I use the same funds in different accounts.
There are many ways to Rome. I have learned and changed over the years. I never believed in a static style no matter what.
I also learned and love the exceptions to many rules and used some of these funds over the years. These funds are unique and scarce. 2 easy ones have been PRWCX+PIMIX. Many don't comfortable investing a big % in one fund, I'm not one of them.
But, many investors can benefit by using a simple portfolio with just several funds and hardly doing anything and avoiding common mistakes. Here are several examples: https://www.marketwatch.com/lazyportfolio%20

I’ve heard it said, and agree, that diversification is a risk management strategy— not a way to achieve high performance. Face it, nobody really knows which markets or sectors will perform better or worse in the future. By diversifying, you are covering more bases. So, you’ll avoid being over exposed in poor performing area while capturing the better performing ones.
Almost certainly, you can achieve better performance by focusing on only a few areas — if you are skilled or lucky enough to pick the right ones. Not many investors are successful at this approach, which is why most investment advisers will tell people to diversify, diversify, diversify. Another key to this approach is to buy and hold your investments long term. If you are forever chasing winners and selling losers, you stand a good chance of hurting your overall performance. Of course, some investors are better at picking winners and selling losers, and others have a penchant for picking losers and selling winners.
Buffet’s advice about the S&P is sound, but certainly looks better after the past 15 years. However, there have been periods (eg, 2000-2010) when the S&P did not perform well and you would have greatly improved your overall performance by owning other asset classes, such as foreign stocks, small caps, REITs, etc. For that reason, I prefer total market index funds.

Try CRV and then Accord will feel like a sports car. Now we have CRV and RDX. We have been a Honda/Acura family for many years.

@FD - Personal offense? None. But thanks. I appreciate the sentiment.
From your latest linked article - Why Average Investors Earn Below-Average Market Returns :
“Investor behavior is illogical and often based on emotion. That does not lead to wise long-term investing decisions.”
Yes. That’s pretty widely known and has been discussed here before. But it says nothing regarding your earlier (unsupported) assertion, “I have seen a lot more investors who lag the market when they own more funds, I mean over 5-7 funds.”
In addition to the obvious disconnect between what you asserted earlier and what your linked article says, let’s recognize a few relevant facts.
- “Average investors” includes all those with workplace defined contribution plans. That’s a lot of people who may have little or no investment interest or experience. And it includes all ages, from young adults buying their first home to folks with 50+ years investing experience. Lately, too, it has come to include the thrill-seeking “meme” crowd with little regard for fundamentals. All these and more fall within the realm of ”average investor”.
- “Average investors” don’t frequent investment forums like this one. Can’t speak for wherever else you’ve been, but this community represents a select slice of the investing public. Participants possess above average intelligence, are well read and highly motivated. Some have professional backgrounds in finance or financial journalism.
- To your initial assertion about number of funds … . I will contend that 8-10 high quality funds along the lines of PRWCX or JHQAX should perform as well on average as 1 or 2 equally high quality ones. The number of funds alone does not determine whether one “beats the index.” The overall quality of those holdings may.
- Indexes carry no cash reserve as funds do. So they have a built-in advantage actively managed portfolios do not possess.. “Tit-for-tat” active will underperform an index.
- Not all investors want to track or match the S&P’s performance. Some of us are pleased we didn’t lose 18% last year. We’ll sacrifice some future return if it means avoiding such dramatic 1-year losses.
- Your criticism of owning more than 5-7 funds misses the point that many investors manage several portfolios. I have a Roth, Traditional IRA, and Taxable account. Each is viewed in a different time-frame and tax perspective. Some have long-term portfolios, mid-range ones and short term investments for more immediate needs. Some manage for a spouse. Some have limited-option workplace plans - plus other outside investments.
Thanks for the linked article. But, since it contained nothing I didn’t already know, I checked the “not helpful” box at the end.

I am probably the worse investor at MFO. My ignorance/incompetence is, or should be, notorious. Yet I am among the "perfect". My before RMD is more than sufficient so RMD (before tax) amount gets reinvested. I have no debt. So far, at age 74, I am independent with a little help from the delivery guys who I compensate handsomely. So, yes, right now, I am perfect. But, maybe, not by anyone else's definition.

IMO there is no 'perfect' investing strategy or style. Everyone has their own tolerances, pain points, goals, and desires. I for one don't care if I keep pace with the SPX or 'only' make 9% per year while not worrying and still sleeping well at night. If I lose less than the SPX in a down period, I'll still sleep well even if I'm in the red for a bit. By contrast, some people (mainly institutions needing bragging rights and TV-trading retail traders) feel like failures if they don't track or beat the market and lie awake with each 2% down-wiggle in the index. Each to our own.
(I've said the same thing, or variants of this for years in active trading forums/chats ... there is no 'Holy Grail' technical indicator that's always perfect, just like there's no one investing strategy/tactic that works 100% of the time w/o losses.)
It's also why I don't like index funds. You track 'the market' but many times, like now, the 'market' returns are really only from the top 5-10 names. So if I was looking, I'd just own them and avoid the drag.

Yes, behavioral finance. And less than average investor returns. We've all seen that stuff. It makes sense. Which is why, most of the time, I take the offered advice in the article you linked, and do nothing. A couple of years ago, I put money into a real stinker. I waited too long to get out, but finally did it. Better to get out than not to do it.
Is any of us perfect? On another discussion board, I grew tired of one guy's repeated follow-ups about anything that anyone offered, expressing always that he knew better than anyone else what ought to be done. Maybe that un-tasty "flavor" you seem to frequently offer the rest of us here is the reason why you receive less than glorious and glowing feedback. I had a classmate who was that way, years ago. He was often correct, but insufferable. A grating personality.

Hank, I didn't say that I was an expert or that 15 years make me an expert. You made up these conclusions. I have been posting here for years and will keep posting, I never told anyone they are MISPLACED anywhere as you did.
I state my opinion, how about stating yours? Anytime you don't agree with my statement, you are welcome to do so with data and explanations.
Here is why most lag the SP500, one source (https://www.thebalancemoney.com/why-average-investors-earn-below-average-market-returns-2388519). There are many more.
Investment sites are for discussing different ideas and opinions without attacking anyone personally. If I offended you in any way, I apologize. Let me know.

FD - Please use quotation marks around or italicize my words when you quote them so readers know you’re quoting me. Thanks.
To your point … If hanging around discussion boards 15 years makes someone an expert, than over a dozen here, including myself, would qualify. You’re very good at making broad sweeping critical remarks about those you encounter on such sites. One is left to question your motive.
Regarding your previous assertion: “I have seen a lot more investors who lag the market when they own more funds, I mean over 5-7 funds.” One wonders why you don’t simply return to those other discussion boards you frequented for 15 years where you gleaned the data? You’re misplaced here because the data you profess to possess did not come from this board. As I said previously, the vast majority on this site are not inclined to post personal performance histories.

@dtconroe: I am intrigued by your explanation of how you use of CDs and their multiple maturity dates. I spend what some would probably call an excessive amount of my free time juggling MFs and ETFs. However, I did put $10K into a CD for the very first time a few months back. Most of my cash is in MM funds, namely SWVXX. Do you not spend any time on the equity side of your portfolio in favor of monitoring what appears to my inexperienced eye a complex operation devoted to CDs, ladders, and redemptions? For my part, I am content with the pretty generous yield on my MM stash, which allows me to buy and sell assets quickly and effortlessly, without worrying if I'm getting the last 1/10% out of the dough. FWIIW, I recall hearing it said about a stock trader in old days when stocks were priced in fractions that, "He'd sell his grandmother for an eighth." I guess I can accept my mileage varying a bit lest I become become too obsessive.

BenWP, I am 75 years old, devoted to preserving my accumulations with moderate TR, so my investments are relatively low risk now. Before retirement, I was very aggressive with a ton of Equity oriented holdings (Sector holdings, Value and Growth Equity Funds, some balanced funds, Global and International Equity holdings, etc.). After I retired, my investment emphasis changed dramatically to lower risk funds, focusing on Bond Oefs with low SD and solid momentum--my favorites were multisector and nontraditonal and HY bond oefs. In March of 2022, I sold everything, was totally in MMs, and started investing in CDs as my chosen option for risk management to produce guaranteed income. CDs require a special set of investing skills, and I chose to spread my cash around to multitude of CDs, in a short term laddering system. 90% of my CDs are in six figure CDs, but I do have a small number of 5 figure CDs. All of my CDs stay within the FDIC insured amounts, but my CD selections are more short term (2 years or less) with banks with high quality ratings. At 75, I don't have that many years left, have plenty of money to live comfortably, and have no interest in taking "unnecessary" risks, and am more focused on a retirement life, with minimal stress, and as much joy as I can muster.
I wish you well, but I suspect you are in a different life situation, with a different set of investing objectives!

M* has put VWEHX / VWEAX on review due to sudden manager change. The new manager has been an analyst for years, been a manager of an analyst group, but has no prior experience with fund management except for a short overlap with the departing manager.
Vanguard has also developed in-house bond capabilities. Its new multisector bond VMSIX / VMSAX is managed entirely in-house. So, it isn't surprising that a sleeve (about 1/3rd) of VWEHX / VWEAX is also managed internally.

Hank: Are you an investment professional? Where did you come by these individual’s performance histories? Must be from somewhere else. It’s quite rare for anyone here to ever post their annual returns. I don't.
FD: this is an observation after posting for over 15 years on several sites. I can't find where I posted my portfolio performance here.
Do professionals make more money than the SP500 over a long time frame? Bogle and Malkiel (Random Walk) proved it already decades ago that VOO/VTI beat most fund pros over a longer time.

To me, the point isn’t that CD yields can be marginally higher than money markets. It’s that interest rates will start dropping at some point, and then MM yields will drop quickly. With CDs, you can lock in high yields for as long as 10 years, and you will continue getting those yields even if interest rates drop (assuming you bought non-callable CDs).

+1
And with that in mind, bond funds will make a lot more money than CDs.
That's the beauty of owning MM on the way up, and owning bond funds when rates go down. After rates stabilize, CDs still will not be great. The idea is to make a lot more money (several %) on the big moves and disregard very small gains (0.2-0.4%) for several months with a lot more effort and gates.
So, how do you figure out the above? use the following ideas
1) Listen to the Fed chair, not the experts
2) Pay attention to CME FedWatch Tool(https://www.cmegroup.com/markets/interest-rates/cme-fedwatch-tool.html). It tells in real time where rates will be in the next several months, it's OK to be late, never be too early.

To me, the point isn’t that CD yields can be marginally higher than money markets. It’s that interest rates will start dropping at some point, and then MM yields will drop quickly. With CDs, you can lock in high yields for as long as 10 years, and you will continue getting those yields even if interest rates drop (assuming you bought non-callable CDs).

Simplification is a valuable, important consideration. My wife is somewhat and sometimes interested in the investing stuff, but mostly about passwords, to sign-in. The tactical and strategic stuff, not so much. So, we have ALMOST all of our eggs in one basket: My TRAD IRA with TRP. Brokerage joint account at TRP--- despite some of its limitations. Her own TRAD IRA is at Bruce. And within TRP, there are currently 5 funds and 5 single-stocks. Manageable. Easy to consolidate, when the time comes. She's 9 and a half years from being able to "raid" her IRA without penalty.

Thanks, @Old_Joe. I did read to the end and was rewarded. BTW, I crossed the four-score line in 2022, but I know you to be far more mature than I (lol).
Somewhat related: I do worry about leaving a complicated portfolio for my wife, say, who has no interest in investing. I assume that your ladders could be passed to a joint owner of the account with no problem. I could, OTOH, imagine a scenario in which an executor of the estate might have to liquidate everything in order to establish net worth on the date of death. I don’t want to replicate what happened after the death of a close relative whose investments were so diverse and so long-term that they pre-dated the advent of electronic brokerage record-keeping. I think it took three years to finally settle with the IRS and the state taxing authority, Nobody won that one.

@BenWP- it's really not all that complicated, at least the way that I do it-
• Take a guess at how long I might be still around. Say, hopefully, at least a couple of years.
• (Alternatively, determine a date when I might be needing cash for something.)
• Decide how much overall that I want to invest in CDs or Treasuries.
• OK, now I've got a reasonable horizon to think about.
• Take a look at Schwab or other brokerage, plug in the desired specs: duration, non-callable, desired interest.
   (There's a page for setting up the specs. I use Schwab here as an example, but I'm sure that other
    brokerages have a similar setup.)
• All of the banks listed will be FDIC insured.
• Generally speaking, in a market like this one, the longer out you look the less the interest rate will be.
• OK, now just buy CDs:
    • each one for whatever amount is comfortable for a single bank. (You're FDIC insured, but spread out
       the chance of problems.)
    • each one for a particular maturity-
            say maybe 3 mths, 6mths, 9, 12, 15, 18, 21, 24. etc. That's your "ladder".
• Now you've got an income stream with payments coming in predictably.
• Additionally, there'll also be interest coming in at various times, depending on the CD terms.
• OK, at 3 mths the first one matures. Then you decide whether to buy a new one or use the cash for
   something else. The interest rates available at that time may have increased or decreased.
• Etc. for the remaining maturities. The procedure is similar for short-term Treasuries.
• That's about it. If I can figure it out, I guarantee that can't be very hard!
(If you're FD, none of this is worth your time.)

Buffett's investment process is focused on purchasing companies with competitive advantages
(wide moats) at a fair price and holding them "forever."
He believes that at least 98% of people who invest should extensively diversify and not trade.
FWIW, I find it intriguing when individuals reference Buffett even though
their investment process is diametrically opposed to his.

Maybe the word BASED isn't the best but I explained what I do and it all came to me from Buffett. I read other books and articles but none lead me to these ideas.
Diversification according to Buffett is the SP500, not 5-10-20 funds which is how most invest. I disagree with "extensively diversify" part.
https://news.yahoo.com/warren-buffett-investing-advice-thats-beaten-most-pros-for-12-straight-years-100054380.html
Quote"I recommend the S&P 500 index fund and have for a long, long time to people," billionaire investor Warren Buffett said at Berkshire Hathaway’s annual shareholders meeting last May.
BTW, Bogle also recommends 2 or 3 funds VTI/VOO + (maybe international index) + BND.
The funny thing is that almost nobody buys and holds the above for decades, but they all know what diversification means. I have seen a lot more investors who lag the market when they own more funds, I mean over 5-7 funds. Generally, more funds = more trading = lower performance. This is a generic statement not toward anybody.

Buffett's investment process is focused on purchasing companies with competitive advantages
(wide moats) at a fair price and holding them "forever."
He believes that at least 98% of people who invest should extensively diversify and not trade.
FWIW, I find it intriguing when some people reference Buffett although their investment processes
are diametrically opposed.

+1
Buffett is a glib, but likable fellow. He’s said a lot of things over his 70+ years of investing. Need to prove a point? Search for a Buffett adage. You’ll likely find a witty remark to support your viewpoint. Right up there with the master, BF.