Added bit more risk today. Should raise the equity position from 26% closer to 30%. Buys included a few shares of CZR priced around $26.50.
Edit. I fumbled the hand-off and sold CZR the next day. Too hot to handle. I’m sure it will join the growing club of stocks I bailed from early only to watch them grow 5X in the following few years. Replaced CZR’s 2% position with UTF which is selling at an unusually attractive discount.
BTW - That’s a great photo above.

What made HOSIX great to this point is its SD. In terms of returns, HOSIX performed in line with HY bonds, hence my reference to BGHIX. What is unknown is how HOSIX will do when the space gets hit, and it inevitably will. What concerns me most is even looking at the structured space, other funds experienced significantly more volatility (the SD for CLOZ was 3.07 compared to 1.25 for HOSIX...and the max DD was 1.35 versus .16). Was this the result of better bond selection at HOSIX or the possibility that HOSIX has hard to price bonds such that volatility is masked when the bonds perform? Again, no one knows. I think I will still with JSVIX for now. Those guys from Semper have seen tough times before and that provides some comfort. Separate from these bond funds, I've been pretty impressed with BUYW in terms of risk v. reward. Good luck all!

What made HOSIX great to this point is its SD.

Nope. Both performance and risk/SD were great. That's 2 knockouts.
RPHIX has better SD than HOSIX but performance is far behind.
This is exactly what I'm looking for. Performance + lower SD. It doesn't mean I get the best performance; I get good risk-adjusted performance funds.
Remember, SD is based on monthly numbers and does not always show the volatility.
I don't invest in typical HY or EM, and if I do, it's only for weeks.
But if I'm looking for riskier funds, EGRIX, and APDPX would be top funds for me.
See 3+ years of EGRIX, APDPX, BGHIX
(

link).
You can also see YTD at (https://schrts.co/egqaVFzj)

The fact is that since the inception of HOSIX its CAGR is 8.97 versus 8.01 for BGHIX. I get the comparison over the past three years of the funds you listed on PV...but if you go back past 3 years you can look at how HOBIX compares to BGHIX (surrogate for the HY space) back to 2016. While I get that HOBIX is not HOSIX, if I recall correctly it was still a fund heavily invested in the securitized space. It's not such a pretty picture for HOBIX as BGHIX performed better overall, and even better compared to EGRIX, which shows how different times can yield very different outcomes.

WABAC:"I suppose it comes down to which is more important to you, the 4% rate or just staying ahead of CD's and money markets. There are certainly inexpensive short and ultra-short funds that stick to old-fashioned, garden-variety government and corporate bonds/bill/notes that have track records back to the GFC, or even the dot com bust."
What is "important" to me is the least risky way to make at least 4% total return. For the last 3 years, the least risky way was in CDs and MMs. I don't see that continuing. I see Ultra Short term bond funds as very unlikely to do that going forward, as interest rates fall. Some Short Term bond funds are possibilities, especially those focusing on corporate bonds, or on junkier grade bonds. Another option is more flexible multisector or nontraditional bond oefs, that can shift investing strategies and options as needed to handle falling interest rates. I am not sure where I will land, but I am not a trader, so I will look for funds with lower volatility, and are easier to buy and hold for longer periods of time. If I had to make a decision today, I would look strongly at funds like HOSIX and CBLDX, but my CDs start maturing in December and so I have a little time to make that decision.

What made HOSIX great to this point is its SD. In terms of returns, HOSIX performed in line with HY bonds, hence my reference to BGHIX. What is unknown is how HOSIX will do when the space gets hit, and it inevitably will. What concerns me most is even looking at the structured space, other funds experienced significantly more volatility (the SD for CLOZ was 3.07 compared to 1.25 for HOSIX...and the max DD was 1.35 versus .16). Was this the result of better bond selection at HOSIX or the possibility that HOSIX has hard to price bonds such that volatility is masked when the bonds perform? Again, no one knows. I think I will still with JSVIX for now. Those guys from Semper have seen tough times before and that provides some comfort. Separate from these bond funds, I've been pretty impressed with BUYW in terms of risk v. reward. Good luck all!

What made HOSIX great to this point is its SD.

Nope. Both performance and risk/SD were great. That's 2 knockouts.
RPHIX has better SD than HOSIX but performance is far behind.
This is exactly what I'm looking for. Performance + lower SD. It doesn't mean I get the best performance; I get good risk-adjusted performance funds.
Remember, SD is based on monthly numbers and does not always show the volatility.
I don't invest in typical HY or EM, and if I do, it's only for weeks.
But if I'm looking for riskier funds, EGRIX, and APDPX would be top funds for me.
See 3+ years of EGRIX, APDPX, BGHIX
(link).
You can also see YTD at (https://schrts.co/egqaVFzj)

the IRS is looking to restrict retirement savings
The IRS had little to do with this other than restate what Congress required. Give credit where credit is due.

SECURE 2.0 introduced two notable changes to this system:
mandatory Roth treatment for catch-up contributions by high earners for taxable years beginning after Dec. 31, 2023
optional "super catch-up" contributions for participants ages 60 to 63 for taxable years beginning after Dec. 31, 2024

https://www.hklaw.com/en/insights/publications/2025/05/irs-proposes-key-changes-to-roth-catch-up-contributions
As a practical matter, the executive branch does have limited discretion in carrying out what Congress says, especially in making sure that the law can actually be executed:

Due to concerns that plan sponsors and recordkeepers would be unable to comply with the mandatory Roth catch-up requirement by the original deadline, Notice 2023-62 provided a transition period that delayed the effective date until Jan. 1, 2026 (although, a later effective date may apply for collectively bargained plans).

Even Congress isn't restricting retirement savings; see e.g. rforno's post above. What Congress has always done is to restrain the government's largesse by limiting contributions. That's far and away the larger restriction. And with its new "super catch up" provision, Congress is enabling earners to shelter of another $11K of assets that would otherwise sit in taxable accounts.
Still, not to worry if you're a really high earner (read business partner). Congress continues to give them favorable tax treatment on profit sharing (carried interest) and even on catch up contributions:

No FICA Wages, No Roth Mandate. Participants without FICA wages (e.g., partners who have only self-employment income) are not subject to the Roth requirement.

Every now and then I get the urge to downsize my PRWCX position for one reason or other but have yet to pull the trigger. However I may finally start that in Dec as I keep repositioning that portfolio to have more international and income tiltings.
A little voice in my head (which can be wrong) keeps thinking that Giroux will retire from the fund sometime soon. I mean he's been on it for nearly 20 years now....

From the previously linked report::

The loan market has grown substantially over the past 20 years to $1.6 trillion in size, now exceeding the high yield bond market in total par outstanding. Concurrent with the growth of the market has been a gradual shift lower in credit quality, when measured using rating agencies as a proxy. Since 2005, the median issuer net leverage in the loan market has increased more than in the high yield bond market. As a result, while the high yield market has “high-graded” in recent years, the average quality in the loan market has shifted from previously a BB oriented market to a segment that is more single-B focused.

A little while back I posted a commentary from OSTIX noting the same phenomena. At the time they weren't feeling the need to get into bank loans.
Since bank loans are still around 27% of the income sleeve at PRWCX, I hope they are as judicious as the folks at Artisan Partners claim to be.

Lots of trader comments which just brings stress to my thinking. I just bought 2 CDs at 4 and 4.2% at my local bank, while they are available. Money Market rates are falling pretty quickly now and don't expect any of them to make 4% much longer. Lots of comments about SD and Sharpe on bond oefs, but the last 3 years can produce misleading expectations going forward.

I suppose it comes down to which is more important to you, the 4% rate or just staying ahead of CD's and money markets. There are certainly inexpensive short and ultra-short funds that stick to old-fashioned, garden-variety government and corporate bonds/bill/notes that have track records back to the GFC, or even the dot com bust.

Conclusion of June, '25 newsletter:
"...As total credit in the US and global system continues to grow over the next five or ten years, scarce assets at reasonable valuations are likely to continue to be worthwhile things to own. This can include high-quality equities, real estate in non-bubbly markets, precious metals, and bitcoin."

I sold my business to a so called sophisticated private equity firm. It only took 5 years for them to destroy it and erase my 45 years of sweat. Get me excited about private equity - pass.

Following are excerpts from today's commentary by Matt Levine. It strikes me as a pretty good summary of the current Private Equity situation.

A simple gloomy model you could have of private equity is:

1. Once upon a time, companies were mispriced. Lots of companies were available cheaply. Their price didn’t reflect the present value of their cash flows, or at least, it didn’t reflect the present value of the cash flows they could reasonably achieve if you added some leverage and improved their management.
2. A few ambitious risk-seeking entrepreneurs noticed this systematic mispricing and set out to fix it. They raised money from friends and family and patient investors who were willing to take risk, they bought companies at low prices, levered them up, fixed their operations and resold them after a few years at higher prices.
3. It helped, in doing this business, that interest rates were declining for decades and valuation multiples were rising. If you bought a company, did nothing to it, waited five years and sold it, you’d have a profit just from valuation tailwinds.
4. The people who started this business — private equity — made great returns for their investors and became billionaires themselves.
5. This attracted many, many more people to the business. Who wouldn’t want to become a billionaire by buying and selling companies? Who wouldn’t want to invest with them?
6. So now private equity is the default career path for smart ambitious people entering the financial industry, and private equity firms are now giant alternative asset managers with hundreds of billions of dollars under management.
7. Why would companies be mispriced?

Like: There was an arbitrage, and correcting it made people rich, and now it is corrected, so correcting it can no longer make you rich. If you want to buy a good company, lever it up, improve its operations and sell it back to the public markets:

• Other private equity firms have already bought most of the good companies;
• The companies that are left have all levered themselves up and hired consultants to improve their operations, like a private equity firm would have done, so there’s no reward to you for doing that;
• Interest rates have gone up, so borrowing money is more expensive now than it was a few years ago; and
• Other private equity firms own tons of companies that they want to sell, so you have to compete with them when you try to sell your company back to the public markets, and you won’t get a premium price.

In the golden age of private equity, private equity ownership was an exception, a way to move companies from a low-value state to a high-value state. In 2025, private equity ownership is almost the norm: Huge chunks of modern business are owned by private equity funds rather than public shareholders. It would be a little weird if those private equity funds could all sustainably get much higher returns than public shareholders.
Anyway Bloomberg’s Allison McNeely, Preeti Singh and Laura Benitez report on gloomy times for private equity:

After a half-century of meteoric growth, buyout firms are facing challenges at every step of their life cycle: Attractive takeover targets are scarcer, financing costs are up and it’s harder to cash out old investments and deliver the robust returns once promised to pension managers, endowments, foundations and wealthy individuals. Even dealmakers are frustrated — waiting to collect their share of profits known as carried interest that comes when investments are successfully wrapped up. …
“Private equity has lost its way and has to go back to what this industry — that employs the brightest and best minds — does best,” Orlando Bravo, managing partner of private equity firm Thoma Bravo, said in an interview. That’s “buying and selling companies and generating great returns for its investors.” …
“Many PE firms are dead already, they just don’t know it,” said Charles Wilson, senior vice president of investment management at industry recruiter Selby Jennings. “Survival will likely hinge on how forgiving managers find their LPs to be when they hit the fundraising trail again in coming years.”
The troubles follow a long, high-flying era. For more than a decade, rock-bottom interest rates and cheap financing helped firms scoop up businesses, re-engineer their finances and then unload them at lofty valuations. But when the Federal Reserve started hiking borrowing costs in 2022, the industry got stuck — unable to exit holdings at the prices and returns they had been touting in marketing pitches and updates to clients. …
Privately, many institutional investors concede that their expectations from private equity investments are muted for the next decade compared with the previous 10 years.

Perfect time to, uh, sell private equity to retail?

Nothing much changed for the average Joe investor.
The classic investment guide A Random Walk Down Wall Street was first published in 1973. It was written by Princeton University economist Burton Malkiel.
Burton Malkiel served on the Board of Directors and as a trustee for The Vanguard Group for 28 years, ending his service in 2005. His time at Vanguard was highly influential, as he was a close friend of founder Jack Bogle and a strong supporter of the company's pioneering work in index funds.
No other book taught me more about investing, and I read many for decades after that.
You can learn a lot by reading articles by Charles Lynn Bolin. I have used similar techniques that I developed myself.

usual accolades, but prompted me to scan his holdings.
unsure which\how many bank loans are still in from his great reward:risk call a few years back.
artisan had a good update on this niche:
https://www.artisancanvas.com/en.entry.html/2025/09/02/not_your_parentsloanmarketstructuralshiftsc-tqGI.html
also noticed holding called 'filtration'.
could this be a holding in private european 'filtration group'? looks like an appealing subsector, and also unusual as a non-american holding.

@msf Excellent. Great information and clarification. Thanks again!
I know that a Roth conversion is a taxable event, of course. But, does it also count as unearned income, as it pertains to LTCG tax treatment. Or is it more of a "unique" event?
I've thought about delaying anywhere from 6 months to 24 months. And using that time to cash out some LTCG positions, perform Roth conversions and/or spend down some (taxable?) accounts.
I am playing with some tax calculators, trying to see what works best. Our spending needs will drop off significantly in 2026. We have been spending on home improvements, automobile upgrades, education, medical/dental, all in preparation for retirement over the past 6-7 years. All of that will be behind us at the end of this year.
We are about 62% tax-deferred, 5% Roth and 33% taxable. Our taxable accounts hold a great deal of LTCG and cash.
A few articles/calculators that I have squirreled away on retirement taxation:
https://www.kiplinger.com/article/retirement/t037-c032-s014-tax-efficient-retirement-withdrawal-strategies.html
https://www.irscalculators.com/tax-calculator
https://www.schwab.com/ira/ira-calculators/roth-ira-conversion

Lots of trader comments which just brings stress to my thinking. I just bought 2 CDs at 4 and 4.2% at my local bank, while they are available. Money Market rates are falling pretty quickly now and don't expect any of them to make 4% much longer. Lots of comments about SD and Sharpe on bond oefs, but the last 3 years can produce misleading expectations going forward.

If I am reading it correctly (probably not), my spouse still gets more than her current benefit (claimed at 65 and much lower earnings), when I claim at FRA and she switches to spousal benefits, just not as much as it might've been had she also waited until FRA. We are about the same age. Is that correct interpretation?
Yes.
And the spousal benefit is half of my PIA, regardless of when I claim. Though she cannot switch to spousal, until I start my benefits? In layman's terms her spousal benefit is already fixed/determind before I decide to claim?
Yes. When you claim (as opposed to when you stop working) affects when she can switch to spousal benefits but doesn't affect the amount of those benefits.
Though the longer you work, potentially the larger your PIA becomes, since it is based on your highest 35 years of earnings. And a larger PIA makes her spousal benefits larger. So to maximize spousal benefits, claim early (to start those benefits earlier) but continue working (to increase PIA).
Survivor benefits work the opposite way. The longer you wait before claiming (up to age 70) the larger your own benefits become. Consequently the larger her survivor benefits become (if/when you predecease her).
Having a spouse complicates life :-)
Also, it appears that the SSA is using the terms "FRA" and "normal retirement" interchangeably?
That's certainly what it looks like. Here's an SSA table with a column labeled "Full (normal) Retirement Age". If I'm wrong about the NRA don't shoot me (ouch!).
the specter of cut SS benefits is not unrealistic. So, another unknown variable. And that suggests one should take the money and run.
If the government doesn't reduce benefits, you'll reach the break even point in about 14 years, i.e. at the end of 2039. If nothing is done, the government is predicted to cut benefits by about 1/4 after 2033. So for the last 6 years (2034-2039) you'll be catching up only 3/4 as fast as originally planned.
So rather than taking another six years after 2033 to catch up, you'll need another 8 years (4/3 x 6) to catch up. That makes your break even point the end of 2041 instead of 2039. Whether that extra two years tips the scales is up to you to decide.
The fact that SS is inflation adjusted makes the calculation above simple. It's all in real dollars so you don't have to worry about inflation or depreciating future dollars or present value. It's already baked in.

@WABC. my sense of humor is such that I am wondering if the hiatus will be longer than my days. I am old enough that my wife and I spent 3 years sailing the sea of Cortez and saving money because double digit interest rates on our savings more than covered beer, food and insurance.

Nice coincidence. I remember San Felipe very fondly. Amazing tides, like the Bay of Fundy.

@WABC. my sense of humor is such that I am wondering if the hiatus will be longer than my days. I am old enough that my wife and I spent 3 years sailing the sea of Cortez and saving money because double digit interest rates on our savings more than covered beer, food and insurance.

His perspective is primarily on dollar differences; breakeven points are almost incidental. If one is focused on breakeven points, one ignores nominal dollars altogether. His "Level 2" adjustment just straightens out the green nominal dollar line (almost invisibly concave up) into the straight red (constant dollar) line.
http://danielamerman.com/Images/Resources/BenefitAge/BenefitsL9.jpg
(image doesn't seem to display inline)
The Britanica graph above already uses constant dollars and shows the same breakeven point - its red and green lines cross (breakeven point) between 80 and 81, the same point where Amerman's red line crosses the x axis.
The COLA adjustment for SS was 0.0% in 2016, as it was in 2010 and 2011. That did trigger the Medicare Part B hold harmless provision as he described for 2016. The question is whether any of this is material now. Do people expect inflation to run near zero over the next few years?
Even if Medicare premiums rise significantly on a percentage basis, the dollar increase is going to be less than the dollar increase in most people's SS COLA adjustments. SS payments are so much larger than Medicare premiums that a small (but non-zero) increase in SS will more than cover the dollar increase in Medicare premiums.
The people most likely to benefit from the hold harmless provision are those beneficiaries who receive small SS checks. Those are the same people who are most likely to be taking SS early - not because they come out better, but because they need the cash now.
Which gets us back to what I was concluded with before - the main factors to consider are cash flow needs and expected longevity. (Marital status also comes into play if one is strategizing to optimize expected benefits.) IMHO most other considerations are secondary.

The ages you posted suggest that you'd come out better waiting.
The breakeven point (assuming one gets the same after tax returns with investing as with inflation adjusted, state-exempt SS) is around 81, give or take, depending on which two ages are being compared. From Britanica:

Since you expect to live at least to the breakeven point, and possibly several years longer, waiting seems like a heads (long life) you win, tails (short end of expectations) you break even choice.
Having a larger income stream going forward (which can be viewed as either a bond or a cash investment) allows you to allocate more in your taxable account to equities. Thus returns are improved (over the 60/40 used in the Kitces piece); tax efficiency is also improved. The "bonds" (SS income stream) is state-exempt; another bonus.
The key seems to be the last sentence: "waiting would make me anxious, I think."
I don't dismiss such concerns. There's a reason why "Spock" was used as the prototype for "Case 2" in the cited piece. But one can still ask: anxious about what?
It sounds like you won't need the cash flow (you'll be investing it). If you die at, say, age 75, you leave a bit less cash to wife. OTOH, wife gets a larger survivor benefit income stream to partially compensate. And if wife outlives you by several years, with that greater cash stream she could actually come out better. This is why, for some couples, it is suggested that the lower earner claim at 62 and the higher earner wait until 70. Then the augmented SS income stream survives until both partners are deceased.