Giroux does openly assert that his strategy is to maximize profit while allowing for only about 2/3 of the average market volatility, generally. I won't get into an analysis of the numbers you have both reported. I guess wifey and I hold the best of both worlds, with these two. BRUFX and PRWCX. But it's foolish under our current circumstances to add to them with new money. Not enough reportable income. If we did that, they would be non-deductible contributions, while also being tax-free upon withdrawal. I'm already withdrawing money annually from the IRA, and according to the ridiculously arcane and convoluted IRS formula, the tax-free, non-deductible portion is just a fraction of the full amount of my customary annual withdrawal. My tax guy understands it.
"Hello, IRS? I'm holding $5,000 in my T-IRA which is non-taxable and non-deductible from several years ago, before realizing that it is counter-productive to deposit $$$ into a T-IRA when there's no deduction to be had.
Why don't I just withdraw that $5000 in one lump, and be done with it?"
IRS: "Sorry. No. THAT would make TOO MUCH SENSE! We can't have THAT!"

Looking at last few years of distributions, another distro in 2022 is possible but I'm basing this purely on the pattern of prior distros.

Haven't been following BRUFX recently but followed it closely for many years. I don't recollect this amount of cash being unusual for BFUFX at major inflection points. BRUFX makes high conviction bets and isn't scared going off the beaten path.

The tech giant’s flawed business model for its popular smart devices has cost the company a fortune and thousands of jobs
A commentary by John Naughton, in The Guardian
Following are edited excerpts from that commentary:

Intrigued by an Ars Technica post about Amazon’s Alexa that suggested all was not well in the tech company’s division that looks after its smart home devices, I went rooting in a drawer where the Echo Dot I bought years ago had been gathering dust. Having found it, and set it up to join the upgraded wifi network that hadn’t existed when I first got it, I asked it a question: “Alexa, why are you such a loss-maker?” To which she calmly replied: “This might answer your question: mustard gas, also known as Lost, is manufactured by the United States.” At which point, I solemnly thanked her, pulled the power cable and returned her to the drawer, where she will continue to gather dust until I can think of an ecologically responsible way of recycling her.
Initially, it looked like a shrewd beachhead for the invasion of our homes. Alexa became a kind of hub for other IoT (internet of things) gizmos – lights, thermostats, heaters, doorbells and so on. Clearly, other tech giants also thought it was significant – Apple, Google and Facebook raced to get their home hubs over our thresholds. And people seemed to like using Alexa: children loved conning her into saying stupid things, while their elders used her to set timers for cooking, compiling shopping lists, playing music, requesting definitions of words or information from Wikipedia and so on. But since it was of no real use to me, I switched it off and put it away, assuming that Amazon’s big bet had really paid off.
How wrong can you be? “Amazon Alexa is a ‘colossal failure’,” ran Ars Technica’s headline, “on pace to lose $10bn this year.” It was picking up on a long piece by Business Insider reporting that during the first quarter of this year Amazon’s worldwide digital unit, which includes everything from the Echo smart speakers and Alexa voice technology to the Prime Video streaming service, had an operating loss of more than $3bn, the “vast majority” of which was accounted for by Alexa and related devices and was the largest among all of Amazon’s business units.
So what went wrong? Basically, the business model underpinning Alexa failed to deliver. The company thought that the Echo device (which apparently was sold at cost) would lead people to buy more stuff on Amazon. And when more than 5m of the devices were sold in its first two years, that must have looked like a plausible idea, especially when it transpired Alexa was getting a billion interactions a week!
Sadly, it seems that most of those “conversations” with the device were rather like mine had been: trivial and inconsequential. And, as time went on, the “smart assistants” offered by the other tech giants muscled in on the market. Alexa, with 71.6 million users, now occupies third place but even the thought that the other two are also losing money on their gizmos will not provide much consolation for the Alexa team as its unit is slimmed down.
Amazon, which went on a hiring spree during the pandemic, is now, like all the big tech outfits, shedding jobs on an industrial scale; beginning this month, it plans to lay off 10,000 workers, quite a few of whom will probably be in its hardware division. So maybe the industry is about to discover that invasions – of homes as well as countries – don’t always work out as well as you hoped.

In order to try and find those elusive asymmetrical managers, I set up multisearch to screen for funds with alphas =>0, top rating for max draw down, and top rating for max upside. I set the fund age to five years to include the best of times, and the worst of times.
Then to the display columns I added alpha, and the up-down numbers. Out of curiosity I added R vs SP500. And I always add the ulcer index column to cover my IRA.
I didn't find any G managers. But you might find someone that interests you

Yes, you have pinpointed the important variables to consider as the interest rate situation is fluid. I am getting yields well above money market funds (in CDs and treasury ladders). Will continue to add as Fed hike rates in order to capture higher yields. When the yield curve flattens out, then it is time to go longer duration, > 2 years or longer. At that point, we may be in recession unfortunately. Hopefully that may be a mild recession and not nearly as bad as 2008’s GRC.
Will have adequate dry power to buy bond funds as the shorter duration CD and treasury mature. The timing depends on when the Fed stops rising rates. Second half of 2023? If recession gets bad and the Fed may cut rates. So there are number of different scenarios that can play out next year.

Thanks!
The 2+ years that I have been at the MFO have also coincided with the time for my switch from a dedicated single-site poster to a multi-site poster. Now MFO (really a funds+ site) is among the sites that I visit more often. I found several old friends here (from elsewhere) as well as many new friends.
My thanks also to many posters who contribute to the success of MFO. My special thanks to @David_Snowball who has been welcoming and supportive from the beginning.

FD: "RPHIX is a unique bond fund. I don't think you can find another one for 2022, with that kind of low SD + performance. The fund is closed to new investors at Fidelity and Schwab."
Yep, for years, this bond oef was the best alternative, to CDs and MMFs that paid nothing. I often used it as my safe harbor to get through rough bond oef market periods. I still hold a few shares in it, just in case it did close, so I could use it in the future, if I wanted to. Maybe I will use it again at some point in the future, but for now, it is not as compelling of an alternative, to MMFs and short term CDs, as it once was. It is always good to have "options" when you need them!

I have been using https://www.taxhawk.com/ for years.
Federal filing is always free. State is $14.99, but every year, they have 10% coupon.
It's simple, but can also do complicate scenarios. You can ask questions, and you get answers within several hours. It remembers the numbers from last year.
When I checked years ago against the big tax software, Taxhawk was easier and cheaper of course.

gotcha, yogi. If I stick with my fav. junk bond fund for, ... let's say 39 years, maybe the ups and downs will even-out?

Three US Senators have urged Fidelity to stop its 401(k) sponsor partners from offering bitcoin exposure — likening crypto investing to “catching lightning in a bottle.”
In a Monday letter penned to Fidelity CEO Abigail Johnson, Democrat Senators Elizabeth Warren, Dick Durbin and Tina Smith argue that crypto markets have become riskier following FTX’s sudden collapse, making bitcoin unsuitable for retirement plans.
Boston-based Fidelity began allowing employees to put as much as 20% of their retirement savings into bitcoin exposure this fall.
The crypto industry considered the move a strong sign of shifting institutional sentiment toward the 12 year old asset class, although bitcoin has shed some 60% of its value since Fidelity flagged the 401(k) move in late April.
Fidelity, which overall boasts some $9.6 trillion in assets under administration, is the largest individual retirement plan (IRA) provider in the US — supporting more than 35 million IRA, 401(k) and 403(b) retirement accounts. As of 2020, FIdelity controlled more than a third of the retirement fund market in the US, maintaining $2.4 trillion in 401(k) assets.

https://blockworks.co/news/senators-fidelity-stop-offering-bitcoin-401ks
For full disclosure, Fidelity was my past 401(k) plan administrator. The choices were solid and their service, phone or online, were second to none. Outside of that, they also have been our main brokerage for many years.

@Ben,that what we have done for many years until 2020 pandemic. I understand that paper filing requires an IRS agent to enter your data manually and they are prone to human error. Also you get your refund longer to complete. Some takes over 6 months, presumably they have lengthy returns. We will go back to that route this year.

Try this for the text:
https://fidelity.com/news/article/top-news/202211230959RTRSNEWSCOMBINED_KBN2SD11Z-OUSBS_1?print=true
Be sure that you consider the total return of emerging market debts, not just the yields alone. The EM bond prices get crushed as their yields rise. A minus 20% down for this year will take more than one year to fully recover. I learned my lesson in 2008 and it took over 4-5 years to recover. Talking about opportunity cost when the market came back strongly after 2008 when you are still holding 80 cents on a dollar of investment.

I assume the board is running out of interest so I will not answer all of your points in detail, but am happy to discuss further if you want.
When I graduated from medical school in 1978, over half the class went into internal medicine, as it was intellectually exciting, involved doing something for people and was close to other specialties in salary. We had little debt. Neither of these last two points are the case now , and students are following their pocket books so lots of specialists and few Internists. The specialists have manufactured their markets, insisting all older people get "skin checks" and anyone with chest pain see a cardiologist etc.
I was against the AMAs stand in almost everything and remain so today.
All I had to offer my patients when I was in practice was the time they needed, my experience and training and deep interest in their problems and their lives. That could not be crammed into less than 15 minutes. But our office visits became more and more important to them because they never heard from specialists about test results, saw the surgeon once ( maybe) before surgery and usually not after, and got life changing results (ie cancer diagnoses) without explanation by email.
Patents who did not have docs like me to rely on, went to the ED, had more symptoms, got more tests, more visits and more costs.
If this society is to achieve cost control with better results in health care, we desperately need an economic environment where competent well trained PCPs can function effectively, without constantly trying to see more patients in less time and have payors continually cut their fees, add more to their workloads and office requirements. We need to stop incentivizing medical students to go into lucrative subspecialties with ridiculous salaries that add little to the nation's health. Countless studies show PCPs are much more cost effective than specialists in management of most medical problems, and that our medical costs are so high because of an overreliance on specialists that no other western nation needs.
I don't know of the accuracy of your reference, but the table shows a salary increase from $147000 to $189000 or 28% total in 20 years. These increases however hardly beat inflation. Compared to lawyers and MBAs (who have only three years post college, not seven for PCPs) these salaries don't seem excessive. The fact that specialists make three to ten times that of a PCP is where American MD salaries are really skewed far away from other countries averages.
No one I hired or recruited out of residency started at $147,000, and I rarely made that much in 30 years of practice.
My main point remains: with fixed fees the only way to achieve a salary increase with more experience and seniority a PCP has to either see many more patients in less time, do lucrative but unnecessary procedures in the office or work longer hours. None of these are conducive to good patient care.
Medicare rates are set in a complicated political process involving local cost differentials, usual and customary adjustments, advisory boards (loaded with subspecialists), caps on Part B reimbursements requiring budget reconciliation legislation etc, not by "negotiations" with any group. In fact, due to the budget reconciliation process, rates are automatically cut almost every year without a specific restoration from Congress.
Medication costs for Medicare patients are finally going to be negotiated, but this will not stop the enormous political pressure applied by big pharma to get "copy cat" drugs approved at lucrative rates, or get ineffective medications for Alzheimer's approved at $58,000 a year. As some of these will be outpatient services( Part B) , not just drugs, it could decrease physician payments further.
The system is stacked against a specialty that uses it's brains and humanity to talk to patients, hear their concerns, make an accurate diagnosis and determine an individual plan rather than ordering an MRI in 60 seconds or referring to a specialist because there is not enough time to figure out what the problem is.

@Dr.sma3. I think your beef is with managed care. I suspect you would be cool with a health insurance industry that only sold old fashioned indemnity plans. You docs could bill anything you wanted and they would pay 80%. The patient would pay the other 20%. The problem is that it wouldn’t take long for the premiums to go so high that few could afford them. I used to hang with a doc who told me that he understood that without health insurance he would have very few patients and he knew that without managed care very few patients could afford health insurance. Disclosure: I spent thirty years in the health insurance industry. And without managed care I would not have been able the pay for my cancer treatment. I would have gone without or lost my home and maybe gone BK. Just sayin.

A self-employed primary care doctor seeking reimbursements is different from a surgeon working in a hospital. Hospital medical staff do get raises based on experience: https://work.chron.com/rate-salary-increase-physician-27112.html
The other interesting question is whether years of experience are the best measure of quality in medicine. I wouldn’t want to be a surgeon’s first patient, but I also wouldn’t want to be their last either. A doctor with five or more years of practical experience may be more aware of the latest medical research or trends than one with 40 years about to retire. A younger surgeon might also have steadier hands.
Yet in some respects, the question is moot because doctors of any level of experience tend to get paid handsomely here. I feel for the overworked internists with huge student loans still to pay, but that is a different issue. You don’t hear of too many poor established American doctors. The reason we don’t have national health insurance is directly due to the AMA, which lobbied hard to prevent it from happening many moons ago. And Old Joe is exactly right about the different levels of care here. This is not a country to be poor and sick in. And other countries have consistently better outcomes than we do both on the cost and health front for their entire populations.
The problem with just letting the market handle healthcare is the inequality of supply—limited—and demand—unlimited—for necessary life saving care. If it costs you 5 cents to make a candy bar and you want to charge $50 for it, have at it. I’ll just buy something else, but there may be wealthy people who love your candy so much they’ll pay the $50 for it. But if it costs you 5 cents to make a pill that you have an exclusive patent on and it keeps my parents, children, or spouse alive and you want to charge $500 for it—we’ve got a problem.
Note, one of the additional problems our for profit healthcare industry has created is that through lobbying big pharma made it so that Medicare could not use its negotiating muscle to demand lower prices on drugs. That’s why you have poor seniors cutting pills in half. Medicare however does have the power to negotiate reimbursement rates for doctors visits and medical procedures. Doctors are unhappy with those lower reimbursement rates. I have a feeling many seniors are alive today because of them.

I've used TaxAct for over ten years. I image it is too late to try to save my information.

I used to use TaxAct many years ago, but never again.

@ LewisBraham
You are referencing salaries paid to trainees in residency programs, not what a licensed physician bills and gets paid for to see a patient.
I used "medical intern" as the minimal amount of training most states require to get a license. I technically should have said "medical resident" because all states require at least one year ( internship) of post medical school training to be licensed and then to bill. So therefore technically a post internship MD
My point, based on 40 years of office practice is that insurance companies and Medicare pay the same amount for the procedure or office visit, regardless of what physician renders the service.
So a MD 366 days out of medical school gets the exact same $ amount for, say, an office visit that your long term internist with 40 years of experience and advanced training receives. Longer training, board certification, fellowship training etc have no effect on the fee, nor are they usually required to bill for procedures.
Nor is there, at the present time, any easy way to bill for additional time spent with the patient. This may change soon, but cognitive services will remain at a huge disadvantage when a dermatologist can remove a mole in 30 seconds for $100 and an internist only gets a little more to spend 45 minutes with you to diagnose your heart attack, or interpret your CT scan and plan your cancer care.
I too used to think the government was generally responsible for positive things in health care, but 40 years of running a small medical office convinced me otherwise. Most of our overhead, ( 50 to 60% of our revenues ) was due billing staff trying to collect a few dollars more from multiple payors, extra staff to deal with regulations from botht he government and our payors and mandated programing and Medicare mandated computers and electronic medical records. The latter required 3 to 4 hours a day of my time in front of the computer after the patients ( and staff) went home that added nothing to patient care or their health. I rarely left the office before 9 PM.
Is it any wonder why you can't find a primary care MD in practice taking new patients?
I could easily have taken home the same amount of money charging $50 to $100 a visit, and spent a lot less time with far fewer headaches.
I can't speak for specialists or hospitals and what what would happen to orthopedists, for example if they billed patients directly for a hip replacement. Specialists in high demand would obviously charge outrageous amounts. This is already happening in some states where subspecialty societies have limited sub specialist training.
Every study I have read demonstrates at least 30% of American health care expenses goes to needless administrative overhead and outrageous salaries of executives.

When purchasing a long term CD , say 5 years, & the interest accumulates until the maturity date, does Uncle Sam want interest payments taxed & paid on a yearly basis ?
Do all CD's have a POD or TOD , or is this info part of due-diligence ?
Thanks for any info, Derf