Yes I maintain a little in a global bond fund and also hold a high yield mini fund. They’ve long been part of a well diversified low risk portfolio. Bonds & bond funds got whacked in 2022. Worst year for bonds I can remember in more than 25 years of managing my own investments. That didn’t deter me from keeping the same allocation. Since my total allocation to all fixed income (cash and bonds) is only 20% you might assume there’s not a whole lot in bond funds. Where possible, I favor multi-asset allocation and alternative investment funds to either pure fixed income or stock funds.
*Note: I also hold a convertible bond fund. That’s considered an “alternative” type investment and so is not included in the above fixed income amount.

I increased my position in RHPIX but sold everything else last year when they all were down 4 to 5%, thus avoiding worse losses. I did jump into OSTIX again a month or so again. I have had a position in it off and on over the years
I figure they have a decent chance of avoiding credit blow ups and high yield may be less interest rate sensitive.
I also bought some long term munis and muni bond funds
It is hard to beat 4 to 4.5%

OP Q: "Anybody investing in bond funds?"
A: Um, not us.
Why not? Well, we ask ourselves, what do we expect as likely/probable average annual TRs from dedicated bond funds over the next say, five years? We answer, maybe 4%-5% if we're very lucky.
With 5-yr, non-callable, 4.5% CDs widely available now, and over 5% widely available back at the peak, why should be bother with dedicated bond funds for the next 3-5 years?
We are sufficiently over the interest rate hurdle that allows us to "Just Say No" to dedicated bond funds for the next several years.

Recently I found out that the Orange Julius years produced yuuuge juicy budget surpluses. In fact the surpluses even paid for the entirety of the big and beautiful 2000 mile long and 200 foot tall wall at the border which even the Chinese were awestruck by but didn't have the best words to describe (Cheeto of course as a stable genius has the best words)
The fake news media will never tell you all this.

As I understand it, the Republican bill, in general, would raise the debt limit to avoid the default and reduce spending to stop going above the new debt limit. Biden does not want any debt limit so that he can spend all he desires. There has to be a limit on the debt and a start to decrease it. I hope the Republicans hold the line even if it results in default. The liberals have to be stopped at some point. The default would be on Biden's head if he refuses.

Come on Hondo, this is a blame game that goes on with both parties. Neither party wants debt limit controls, when they are in power. It is pure power politics and when either party is in power, they impact the budgeting process, that typically raises the deficit. The biggest debt deficit increase in recent years, came from Trump and the Republicans cutting crucial revenue for our budget, by cutting taxes for the wealthy and corporations, and the Republicans now seem intent on cutting funding for the IRS because of those "pesky" audits to expose tax evasion. I don't see a "high ground" in this process that either party has a right to claim!

Just don't see much else to say on this topic. I am not convinced that either political party really wants a debt deficit control bill. The Democrats are devoted to a number of unresolved social issues that are not addressed in the budget. The Republicans are devoted to reducing tax/revenue issues, that burden the wealthy and corporations. We have just completed the first couple of years of the Biden presidency, and there have been some Covid related spending to more "normalize" our future, and then there was Infrastructure spending package that even the Republicans were happy to present to their home constituents, who needed and wanted water/road/bridge/internet etc. help. So the big gesture now is the Republicans trying to undue some "Inflationary" related legislation, that was recently passed. Its all just partisan bulls...t that is not going to change for now. Default consequences will now be broadcast in scary detailed ways, and then when we see many things that will directly impact almost everyone, a magical solution will likely be found, so no one will be blamed for disaster.

@staycalm. “Itching for a showdown.” “Just because.” You nailed the bigger issue here. When the history of this cluster fuck is written 40 years from now it might indeed be bigger than the obvious. It might be that the no nothing caucus had a bigger goal in mind. Or nothing in mind except messing up with the existing order.

@Mark
Thank you for kind words. Hopefully the advice on this board will allow you sufficient funds so you can pay his tuition in 18 years!

Don't confuse the GOP with facts!
Sure, erase the new IRS funding, so my family will wait decades ( instead of two plus years and counting) for the refund of thousands of dollars the IRS owes my deceased Mother's estate.
Only since "the Bolshie" in the WH passed the additional IRS funding have they even been able to answer the phone.

@Mark, Congratulation! It is a beautiful thing to welcome a new generation.
Now is the time to help your son and daughter to get the 529 plan started. Time is on your side for the college fund to compound for next 18 years before withdrawing. You can apply for his/her social security number now and you are all set… College tuition is much higher now than those periods when we went to college. One of our kid graduated without debt while another one is entering graduate school with sufficient 529 fund to cover her schooling.

The authors’ (Feldstein and Wrobel) research corroborated the theory that more progressive state tax structures cannot achieve redistribution of income in the long run. In states where high income individuals are taxed more heavily, migration increases high earners’ pretax real incomes and lowers pretax incomes of lower income individuals.
Instead of achieving a long-run redistribution of income, a more progressive tax system distorts economic choices and reduces total real incomes. A change in the progressivity of a state tax structure promotes migration and changes the allocation of resources within the state. As pretax wages of highly skilled individuals rise and wages of low skilled individuals fall, firms are incentivized to reduce the number of higher paying jobs and increase the number of lower paying jobs.
But you don't have to read the data, research and propoganda online etc....just open your own eyes and observe....I submit to you the State of Illinois...you can hear the whooshing sound of the wealth leaving the state...those with means (and gov't pensions) are leaving in a hurry....Cook County (CHI) has over 200,000 residents leave in the past 3 years...
I further submit to you that the Bolshevik's in the White House etc are following Lenin's playbook almost to a T....crushing the middle class (the way to crush the bourgeoisie (middle class) is to grind them between the millstones of taxation and inflation)...destroy the family, destroy the country...(hmm, sound familiar as to things said allouded to by BLM commentary and viewpoint about the family unit)...divide people on nonsense, corrupt the young, I submit to you the Facebook, Instrgram...deny them gun ownership.
Ahh...while I 100% agree we should lock all punks, dingbats, crazies, etc who are not licensed to carry the firearms in jail...of course you Bolsheviks/Demorats want our weapons...that is the only way you can achieve your insane goals and control the country.
Best Regards to ALL,
Baseball Fan

Disclaimer_1: Been investing in CD ladders for about 15 years. I only ever by non-callable and usually go out 3-5 years. And I many times buy CDs on the Secondary Market, but not-so-much in the past several months as the pendulum decisively swung to New Issues.
----------------------------------
To the OP, pretty sure you should expect the majority, if not all of your longer-term, callable CDs to be called in the coming months/years. Just as we were reasonably certain that interest rates would rise this year, I at least am reasonably certain that interest rates will start decreasing in the near future. And, the difference between callable and non-callable is generally not greater than 0.5%.
----------------------------------
On the issue of buying only shorter term CDs of say 2 years...Well, that is, how shall I say, short-sighted, and those investors who want to replace their maturing CDs in 2 years are likely going to be feeling a wee bit of buyer's regret.
Example using current listing of Fido CDs:
You are looking at CDs today. You only want non-callable CDs and you only want to go out a max of 2 years. So you buy the best 2-yr, non-callable CD that Fido has to offer at 4.95%.
In two years it matures and you are looking for another 2-yr, non-callable CD to replace it. In 2 years, you will need to find a 2-yr, 4.25%, non-callable CD to equal the same rate that you could have had in hand IF you had bought today's best 4-yr, non-callable CD at 4.60%.
Good luck with that. I'm reasonably certain that 2-yr, 4.25%, non-callable CDs will NOT be available in May 2025.
Always best to put together an EXCEL spreadsheet and drop in the rates that are available NOW for respective periods, and determine what rate you will need upon maturing of a shorter-term CD (2 yrs in this example) to meet or exceed the rate of the currently available longer-term CD (4 yrs in this example).
----------------------------------
Disclaimer_2: Future interest rates are usually WAGs.
BUT, in the last say 6-12 months, it was something short of that as we were reasonably certain they were going UP, and we could even reasonably project where they would peak.
Likewise, at this point, I at least am reasonably certain that rates will start going DOWN in the near future, but not anywhere near as capable of projecting how low they might go.
So, my money, in this example, is on buying the 4-yr, 4.60% non-callable CD today as I have little-to-no expectation that a 2-yr, 4.25% non-callable CD will be available in May 2025.
EDIT: The other argument against buying shorter term CDs, e.g., a current 1-yr, 5.15%, non-callable, is that the best money market funds are paying about the same, with VMRXX currently at 5.03% and FZDXX currently at 4.88%.
------------------------------------
And speaking of potential buyer's regret, recall that 4-yr, 5+%, non-callable CDs were widely available for a brief period not so long ago. Here's hoping that many here participated when we hit peak rates AND thought long-term!
YMMV.

All of them are callable except some of the shorter term ones. Non-callable CDs tend to have much lower yields.

I have bought about 15 CDs this past year from Schwab, that were non-callable, but I did not buy anything longer than 2 years. I just went on Schwab, and looked at their 3, 4, and 5 year CDs and it appears to be primarily non-callable CDs on their menu of offerings. I have no interest in callable CDs, have no intention of buying a callable CD in the future, so apparently I am not facing the same dilemma you are describing. Good luck!

I’ve been building CD ladders in my IRA and taxable savings accounts now that yields are so high. My IRA ladder extends to five years with a yield higher than 5%. However, I’ve been wondering if the longer term CDs will end up being called in if interest rates drop, and how quickly. It’s been so long since yields on cash were this high that I have no frame of reference. Does anyone recall past circumstances when CD yields were high and then dropped? I’m perfectly happy earning a 5% yield and will reinvest maturing CDs if yields stay high, particularly after the bond fund fiasco of the past year or so.

One problem is that legislative Acts that are passed are applicable for years/decades and many are touted to be budget-neutral when passed. But that is based on wild guesstimates of future economy, taxes, consumer and business behaviors. Many Acts are front-loaded for benefits/effects and back-loaded for revenue generation. So, it is hard to quantify their effects on annual budget deficits.
Of course, there is an obvious budget deficit when the the FY budgets are passed, often with long delays, but that is the time to simultaneously adjust the debt-ceiling. If the FY budget is balanced, then there won't be any need to adjust the debt-ceiling.
Keep in mind that the context of the 14th Amendment was the Civil War debt but it is written in a very broad way.

Not a lawyer by a far stretch but to me, there cannot be a ceiling for debt that has already been incurred by Congress itself.
I hope this goes to the SC and the entire silly concept of debt ceiling gets busted once and for all in favor of making spend decisions during the budget process only.

Budgets, and the incurred debt from a long list of previous administrations, is not just a focus on spending, but also on income/revenue. In recent years, the biggest factor that increased our national debt, was a result of Trump and the Republicans decreasing taxes for the wealthy and corportations. It is popular to talk about "spending", but collecting income/revenue is equally important.

Tend to agree with Shipwreck. I’ve long kept a minuscule position in SPDN as part of a hedge position (SPDN = around 2% of portfolio). Doesn’t amount to a hill of beans, but tempers downside on some days and allows for taking more risk in other areas. (And I expect to lose $$ on it.) So the thought today was to sell SPDN and move temporarily into TAIL which more closely corresponds to changes in the VIX. I believe it would provide a better offset near term were someone so inclined. But decided against it. One problem is knowing when to move back out.
The charts back to 2020 show a reading of 16 on VIX to be very low. On a couple instances it dropped to around 10 - but didn’t stay there long. TAIL (etf) has been hampered in recent years by extremely low returns on treasury bonds in which it invests. So, I’m thinking that now with higher rates its better days (as an effective hedge) are probably ahead.
Heads Up - If you’re wondering what turned the markets around in the last hour today, it may be related to Mitch McConnell making a statement around 3 PM saying he believes the deficit dispute will be resolved in time to avoid default. Just my guess. As far as bearish sentiment today, that came in part from Evercore’s Ed Hyman interviewed on Bloomberg extensively this AM. (I actually copped some of Hyman’s concerns in writing my OP.)

I've lived in TX for 17 years and moved from CA. TX today is very different than what it was in 2006. I wouldn't move to TX today. This is a state full of nut jobs at every level of government. Abbott and Patrick would make Taliban proud.
TX lack of income tax is more than offset by high property taxes, high insurance bills and bare minimum services for residents.

ESG investors tend to reward companies with good ESG scores (like green-energy companies) and penalize companies with bad ESG scores (like oil companies).
IMHO most investors just look for an ESG label slapped onto a company or fund. Many ratings services rate companies relative to their industry peers, meaning that you'll have as many top rated oil companies (percentage-wise) as any other sector.

Our assessment is industry relative, using a seven-point AAA-CCC scale.

MSCI, ESG Ratings Methodology, April 2023.

Hess Corporation (NYSE: HES) has received a AAA rating in the MSCI environmental, social and governance (ESG) ratings for 2021 after earning AA ratings from MSCI ESG for 10 consecutive years.

Hess press release, Oct 11, 2021.

BlackRock remains a signatory to the net zero initiative and its iShares ESG Aware MSCI USA ETF holds a host of oil and gas producers, including Exxon, which has a larger weighting than Facebook owner Meta Platforms Inc., and Chevron, which has a larger weighting than Walt Disney Co. Similarly, Exxon is the seventh-largest holding in the SPDR S&P 500 ESG ETF, which also owns Schlumberger, ConocoPhillips and EOG Resources Inc

Bloomberg, ESG Investors' Best Intentions Slam Into Surging Oil Stocks, March 15, 2023 (via FA-Mag, no paywall)
There's ESG investing from a risk perspective (i.e. use ESG considerations in evaluating the business prospects for companies- how well are they mitigating risks); ESG investing from what I choose to call a "feel good" perspective (negative screens - I won't personally profit from bad acts); impact investing (improving behaviour of companies, improving their business prospects). These are all different, though they're all labeled (marketed) as ESG.
If your cost of capital is high, near-term projects are worth relatively more and long-term projects are worth relatively less, so you will focus on the short term
This a very serious issue in developing countries that cannot afford long term investments. The world (IMF, etc.) needs to establish better lending policies. Instead, we have oil companies putting money into short term foreign projects in exchange for building roads (that are used to transport equipment) and schools and internet infrastructure and providing needed jobs, turning villages into company towns.

If you are the chief executive officer of an oil company, and you believe this, what should you do about it? What is the best way to create long-term value for your shareholders?

Therein lies the problem with this analysis. It assumes CEOs care about creating long-term value. In my experience and research, most executives don’t care about this. They think short-term, about the next quarter’s earnings, not about five or ten years down the road. Their compensation packages, their bonuses, are generally built around hitting or exceeding short-term earnings targets.
A CEO is often just a hired gun who if he hits these short-term profit targets can make a fortune and cash out of their stock options bonuses at their earliest convenience, even if their short-term decisions destroy the company five or ten years down the road. Share buybacks fit nicely—for them—into this model. Buybacks create a short term boost in earnings per share and the stock price. This short-term mindset, pervasive on Wall Street, is destructive to businesses, our economy, and in the case of the oil industry regarding climate change and renewable energy, which requires long-term thinking and investment, our entire planet. Changing how executives are compensated could help correct the problem.