@little5bee I'm not sure if you're joking but I don't think that's the strategy and only reflective of current positioning. This fund has outperformed its peers every single calendar year since its December 2013 inception with a very high expense ratio and little explanation as to why it has managed to do that. There were a number of years it's outperformed when there was no liquidity crunch.

Thru the years I have reached the the point I ignore anything but the basic equity/fixed income ratio when comparing funds. Managers normally stay true to their culture and cultures are reflected in performance and risk metrics. Although I am in the minority on this point, I have seen too many anomalies to change my beliefs. Better to start your search with too many funds than omit good ones. My 2c.

A June 8th good morning, @hank et al.
This chart is a permanent chart-link I set a number of years ago, for a quick reference; whenever I want to take a peek at U.S. gov't. yields.
The default at the bottom of the chart is "200 days". You may double click this number to change the "days", or right click to pull up a default range list; or you may drag the "200 day" or whatever date range you have set, to look at various year periods going backwards. You may stretch or shrink the "days" box by pulling or pushing either end of the box.
Also, you may hover the cursor over any line to discover the yield on a given day. Keep in mind, this is not a performance chart; although the percentage of change in the yield is indicated along the right edge of the chart.
Side note: bond investors and traders who are skilled at their observations, may make a decent living. The "take a walk on the wild side" (not the Lou Reed song) for a bond trader/investor could be the buys/sells of TBT and TMF etf's. There are other products in this investing sector, too.
One year chart here.
--- TBT is a choice for levered bets on rising interest rates. Using a combination of swaps and futures, TBT gives investors -2x exposure to daily moves in T-bonds with more than 20 years left to maturity. ... As a levered product, TBT is not a buy-and-hold ETF, it's a short-term tactical instrument.
--- TMF provides daily leveraged (3x) exposure to the ICE U.S. Treasury 20+ Year Bond Index. Using a combination of swaps and futures, TMF gives investors 3x exposure to daily moves in T-bonds with more than 20 years left to maturity. The daily reset means investors shouldn't expect the leverage factor to hold constant over investment horizons greater than one day. In short, the fund is a valid option for tactical positioning/hedging against rising interest rates, but it's important to keep in mind that the 3x leverage results in greater impact from the effects of compounding. As a levered product, TMF is not a buy-and-hold ETF, it's a short-term tactical instrument.
Hey, set up a paper trade game and discover your skills. One may find another method of making some extra money on the side with a few 1,000's of cash. NOTE: I personally wouldn't do real trading in a taxable account. I don't want to think about the "tax time" and how much fun that accounting would become.
Regards,
Catch

@msf : Thanks for the comeback. I'll check out more when time allows.
A quick google turned this up from Vanguard.
"The fund targets an allocation of 30% stocks and 70% bonds, according to Vanguard. This is also the allocation that all (Target Retirement Funds) are expected to assume within seven years after their designated retirement dates."
Stay Kool, Derf

Could some Fido fan tell me why Fido has 2005 &2010 retirement funds ? I would have thought the glide -path for these two would have them rolled, glided, into Retirement income by this time.

From Fidelity: Allocating assets among underlying Fidelity funds according to a "neutral" asset allocation strategy that adjusts over time until it reaches an allocation similar to that of the Freedom Income Fund approximately 10 to 19 years after the target year. Ultimately, the fund will merge with the Freedom Income Fund."
https://fundresearch.fidelity.com/mutual-funds/summary/315792689
If you're asking why the runway is that long, that may be answered in this T. Rowe Price presentation of "to" vs. "through" glidepaths.
Slide 16 presents longevity risk - the odds of at least one member of a 65 year old couple living thirty more years or longer ranges from 1/4 to 1/3. A 20/80 portfolio in a period of 2% bond yields isn't going to cut it for 30 years.
Fidelity's glide path settles into this mix around age 85. See graph here:
https://www.fidelity.com/bin-public/060_www_fidelity_com/documents/mutual-funds/how-fidelity-freedom-funds-work.pdf

These new laws would benefit the "under saved" more than the "over saved".
The "under saved" essentially by definition aren't maxing out contributions. So they're not the ones who would benefit from increased catch up limits. It's the "over saved" who would "over save" even more. To avoid tax traps, they'll put those extra dollars into Roths. There that extra money will grow tax free for decades until their estate passes to their heirs, who will then have another ten years of tax-free growth.
The "under saved" won't benefit from being able to delay RMDs because they're "under saved" - they already need to draw from their IRAs for economic rather than legal reasons. Without benefiting at all, it's hard to see how the "under saved" will benefit more than the "over saved".
I consider this to be a bit of a tax trap.
The "over saved" could between age 72 and 75 take the same withdrawals as they now take under the current RMD regimen. Thus they can easily avoid aggravating the tax trap for heirs. But rather than being forced to keep that money in a taxable account as they are now, the "over saved" would be allowed to redeposit that money into a Roth. (RMDs cannot be converted into Roth dollars.)
But wait, it gets better (for the "over saved") ...
legislation that would shut down the step up in basis
With this new ability between ages of 72 and 75 to move those (formerly RMD) dollars out of taxable accounts and into Roths, the "over saved" can now permanently shield appreciation of those dollars from taxation. No more would they have to worry about potential legislation that would do away with a step up. With the dollars in a Roth, who cares?
And better still, by paying taxes on the newly allowed conversions from a taxable account, one would effectively shelter more money and simultaneously reduce one's taxable estate.
Since 2010 when income limits were removed, Roth conversions have been suggested to avoid a tax trap. Advancing the RMD start age to 75 turbocharges this strategy.

The Comment section is worthwhile to see the new proposal in different situations. For example,

professor Kelly, "But Munnell objects to increasing the age for RMDs to 75. Employees are permitted to save pretax dollars so they can have a decent retirement, she says. Postponing RMDs to 75 would permit wealthy people to build up
big cash piles that they don’t need to touch, she says."
I consider this to be a bit of a tax trap. With the new rules for heir requiring a 10-year withdrawal window, it's quite possible that heirs will be forced to withdraw a lifetime's accumulated savings in just a few years, throwing them into punitive tax brackets, depending upon the number of children heirs involved. For the non-super-rich, Roth conversions in retirement are becoming more and more important.
Reply
20
KENNETH MORALES
Professor Kelly
15 minutes ago
You hit on the rational objectively. These new laws would benefit the "under saved" more than the "over saved". The over saved crowd can't take it with them and the Secure Act, "secured" taxes will be paid by their heirs. If Biden gets his way, he would sign legislation that would shut down the step up in basis on those inherited assets, there by increasing thd tax load.

The increase in starting RMD age would apply to all tax-sheltered plans, including 457 plans and regular IRAs (as contrasted with individual retirement annuities). The article lists only 401(k)s, 403(b)s and individual retirement annuities, leaving one to wonder about the rest.
Many (not all) people working more years already have a mechanism to defer RMDs until they retire.
As for everyone else, the ability to put off RMD for more years would benefit primarily those better off, those who don't need the additional tax break.

[T]his is only an issue for about 20% of people because most people already take out the required minimum amount or more annually... That’s “because they need the money to live on” — or they don’t even have a retirement account to begin with.

Here's What's Wrong With Raising RMD Age to 75, According to Retirement Experts
https://www.thinkadvisor.com/2021/04/16/heres-whats-wrong-with-raising-rmd-age-to-75-according-to-retirement-experts/

Hey catch, thanks for your suggestions.
Yes, in the past I paired up some equity funds with bond funds for a desired allocation mix. Beginning in 2006 mainly switched to moderate allocation funds, primarily PRWCX, but also a few others. One reason then as now and going into the future was for simplification. My wife is not interested in investing, so I needed a plan that could largely run itself if something happened to me. We are 57 & 54 and have largely saved what we will probably need for retirement and are pretty much just looking for moderate growth for the next 5-7 years.
I'm guessing Giroux is around 10 years younger than I which may mean another 13-18 years at PRWCX before his retirement, fingers crossed. After which I would still be looking for a one stop fund of some sort. From my minimal research, current allocation ETFs (AOR for example) are pretty lousy compared to PRWCX.

hank. This T-note etf may be a bit past what you're looking for......I've tracked this for a number of years. This Pimco TIPS etf is listed as 1-5 years, but generally only holds 2-5 year maturity. E.R. is .20%, so; doesn't cost much to buy.
This is the etf.com link below; and you can discover more when logged-in at Fido. Tis available at Fido.
STPZ

Interestingly, according to M* their one equity holding is Microstrategy, purchased in Feb 2021 -- I suspect b/c the company went bonkers buying Bitcoin in recent years so they may be using the equity as a proxy for actual cryptocoin? *shrug*

A global minimum corporate tax rate of 15% was agreed to at the G7 finance ministers' meeting this weekend.
Proponents of the deal hope to build unstoppable momentum going into the G20 meeting next month.
Many details still need to be resolved.
It will likely take several years before a deal is implemented if it is ratified.
Link

I've had a similar experience with MIEIX.
On 09/30/20, MIEIX was classified as a Foreign Large Growth fund with a 3 star rating.
The corresponding category rank was: 5 Yr - 66; 10 Yr - 49; 15 Yr - 24.
On 12/31/20, MIEIX was classified as a Foreign Large Blend fund with a 5 star rating.
The corresponding category rank was: 5 Yr - 6; 10 Yr - 5; 15 Yr - 3.
Although no material changes were made to the fund, it "improved" considerably!

M* still posts the annual performance rankings of the fund based on the category it was in that year. I verified this by comparing the MIEIX rankings for 2018 and 2019 (when it was still classified as foreign large cap growth) with other foreign LCG funds that had nearly identical performances with MIEIX in those years.
In 2018, MIEIX returned -10.66%. M* says that placed the fund at the 19th percentile. That's the same percentile as ARTIX was ranked, with its -10.86% return.
In 2019, MIEIX returned 28.40%, only good enough for a 46th percentile ranking. That's the same percentile as TWEIX got with its 28.37% return.
http://performance.morningstar.com/fund/performance-return.action?t=MIEIX
http://performance.morningstar.com/fund/performance-return.action?t=ARTIX
http://performance.morningstar.com/fund/performance-return.action?t=TWIEX
However, on those same pages, annual performances are compared with the fund's current category, not the category the fund was in for each past year.

Here's an even more extensive M* piece on its categories, historically, how they're defined, and how funds are classified. It's a one hour(!) video and has a somewhat dubious transcription. (I'll probably watch the video and slides later.)
https://www.morningstar.com/articles/754147/morningstar-categories-introduction-update-2016
M*'s style box was created in 1996 (according to most sources). But until 2002 funds were rated according to broad categories, as Rekenthaler stated.
All ways of benchmarking performance - using a large universe (e.g. US equity), using more precisely defined peers (style boxes), using an index blend that matches the fund's portfolio - have weaknesses. My intent was to highlight a weakness of comparing a fund with a "box" of peers: instability.
In addition, the quality of the comparison degrades as one moves toward a boundary even without crossing it. This is something I have posted on a few times in the past year prior to the market rotating to value.
Funds in an given style box, say blend, that tended toward value generally ranked more poorly than their peers that had a growth leaning. Normally this distortion effect isn't pronounced within a box. But because the gradient between growth and value was so large in the past couple of years one had to keep it in mind when looking at fund ratings.
If you want stability, you can go back to M*'s old way of rating funds. Compare all US equity funds together. A fund can't drift out of this "box" because there's only one box. But then the possibility of ratings distortions within this one box become much larger. This is what Rekenthaler is calling "style effect".
If you rate a fund against a hypothetical index benchmark blended to match the fund's portfolio (as I believe S&P is doing, or at least was doing years ago), you lose the sense of how well the manager is positioning the fund in its investment universe. What you get is just a measure of specific security selection, e.g. was the decision to invest solely in Coke rather than in the market mix of Coke and Pepsi a good one?
If you like, fault M*'s choice of methodology (style boxes). Though each methodology has its weaknesses. The discontinuity in a fund's star rating is inherent in the style box methodology. M*'s quality of execution doesn't create that discontinuity, but rather determines when discontinuity manifests.

Call me dense, but I have been trained/educated over the years, to shift from accumulation investing, to preservation of principal investing. That relates to the "age in bonds" principal, the older you get. What I was not trained/educated over the years about, is that not all bonds are the same. Some bonds are traditional safe harbor, low total return, and low income producing funds. Other bond funds are much more "equity-like" in total return, that can be invaluable in preventing erosion of principal.
Now that I have been in retirement for the past 8 years, my objective is to develop a system of harvesting RMDs, that is tax friendly, but not necessarily tax avoidance. My system is devoted to shifting my principal from tax deferred, retirement accounts, to taxable accounts that I can more easily use for all kinds of age related expenses, and expenses I can address from a taxable account. My system is devoted to having a preservation of principal investing strategy, in which I use more aggressive bond oefs to produce sufficient total return to "recoup" RMD amounts that were harvested, so that my principal in tax deferred accounts can stay neutral, while my taxable account grows in principal each year. I don't want/need the extreme volatility of equities, where my principal can drop 25% to 35% over night, forcing me to have "patience" in an advanced age, to recoup major principal losses over time, which leads to age related stress in my golden retirement years. More aggressive bond oefs (nontraditional, multisector, HY Munis, FR/BL, etc. bond oefs) have great "total return" value for me, to preserve principal, with modest total return, in my tax deferred accounts, while I can use some more conservative bond oefs in my taxable account, to minimize taxes and prevent any major drops in principal.
I have become more and more a trader of bond oefs (both aggressive and conservative) to prevent major losses in recessions and black swan events, and to prevent major erosion of principal I have accumulated in over 40 years of working and investing for retirement.

@Mark, I often get frustrated with the Windows 10 PC at work. Several years ago Mac computers were introduced in the workplace and our lives became very good. Our kids got the new M1 MacAir for school and they absolutely love them. My old iMac at home still run well but the latest upgrade to Big Sur causes compatibility issue with few old legacy software. No problem with TurboTax.

M* recently reclassified VPMCX as large cap blend. It had been classified large cap growth even though its portfolio had been in the blend column since 2018.
Its performance looked very poor compared with its "peers": 50th percentile (2018), 84th percentile (2019), 94th percentile (2020). (Though in 2021, with value ascending, it looked great - somewhere in the top 5%).
As a result of its long term "poor" performance, it had been rated 2 or 3 stars earlier this year. But with the reclassification, it's suddenly a five star fund. Nothing has changed. Its half brother POGRX is a bit more growthy, so M* has left it in the LCG category. As a result, that fund sports a 2 star rating.
An example how even unintentional drift affects star ratings is FSMAX. It tracks the S&P 500 completion index. M* writes: "This has been one of the strongest performers in the mid-cap blend category over the trailing 10 years through July 2020." But it has been on the blend/growth boundary since at least 2017, and M* recently reclassified it as growth. So this perennially strong performer is now rated 2 stars.
I'm not faulting M* here. Funds that do not sit near the center of a style "box" have a good chance of being over- or under-rated. This will happen regardless of what box they're dropped into.

”The longest collapse in history was 1929 and lasted 2.8 years. The 2007 recession lasted 1.3 years.”

Dow Jones Average 1925-1955

2006-2012 S&P
Trying hard not to interpret these charts. Others may draw their own conclusions. But (since this is a bond related thread) I did check the yield of the 10-year Treasury near the beginning of the ‘07-‘09 crash. On January 1, 2008, the 10-year Treasury yielded 3.74% (more than double today’s rate).

Ben Carlson discusses historical real returns for commodities, stocks, bonds, and cash.
"Many investors want to be invested in commodities today because of worries about inflation. And commodities can have high returns under inflationary environments. But stocks have a much better track record over the rate of inflation in the long run."
"The performance of commodities may also be surprising to some investors. Commodities have negative real returns over the past 100 years! Now there could be some selection bias here. You can see from Reid’s numbers that gold has a much better track record."
"A decade feels like a long time but might not be worthy of consideration when it comes to 'long-term' for the stock market. In 3 out of the last 11 decades, the stock market has experienced negative real returns."
"There can be negative real returns on bonds for an extended period of time. The four-decade stretch from the 1940s through the 1970s saw negative real returns for bonds."
"Cash has had negative real returns in 5 out of the past 11 decades. You can probably expect that to continue from such low rates at the moment."
Link

(Just took a glance at article.) Probably not incorrect. However, buying anything (stocks, bonds, commodities) involves making judgments about current valuation. Like equities, the various sectors within the commodity markets are prone to “bull” and “bear” markets, If anything, these swings are more exaggerated / severe in the commodities markets. (For a quick refresher pull up some charts on NYMEX crude futures over the past dozen years.)
I caught a bit of Bloomberg’s latest Wall Street Week yesterday and am eager to view the whole program. One guest speculates that after the stock market falters or falls severely, the than disillusioned (and poorer) Robinhood crowd will abandon equities and pour their money instead into commodities - driving valuations up to levels where they could eventually bring down the entire economy (speculation of course).