Many years ago, one could get into MWTIX at Fidelity at mere mortal mins (not the current $3M). With the lower ER of MWTIX, the fund might be worth holding. But between the higher ER of MWTRX, the fact that Rivelle will be retiring next year, and the fund's asset bloat, it's likely time to leave.
You might take a look at FTBFX. As a Fidelity fund, the short term/excessive trading restrictions are different than non-Fidelity funds at Fidelity. Not a criterion I would use for a fund in this category, but still a differentiator. And a fine fund generally.
A fund that was brought up recently in another thread is WCPNX. It's having a spectacular 2021 (for a bond fund). Though if one disregards the past year, most of the funds you're looking at (with the notable exception of MWTRX) have had similar returns over the lifetime of WCPNX.
So the question is whether this past year is an anomaly or a sign of better things to come. Note that it has the highest volatility of the funds mentioned.
Which brings us to the criterion of risk. You referenced it implicitly ("love the consistency"); it's worth calling out as an explicit criterion. Here's a page that should help make comparing risk metrics on various funds easy:
http://performance.morningstar.com/fund/ratings-risk.action?t=BCOIX
What I notice when I drop in some other funds is that BCOIX tends to be a bit above average (compared with the other funds I'm looking at) in risk - a higher (but not highest) standard deviation (MWTRX is toward the lowest) resulting in slightly lower Sharpe and Sortino ratios.
Regarding credit risk - M* has an interesting way of calculating risk. Instead of assigning 1 to A rated bonds, 2 to B rated bonds, and so on, M* assigns numbers to each credit rating based on how sensitive bonds with that rating are to market changes. It turns out that BBB bonds are much more sensitive than A bonds. So a few BBB bonds can pull the down average credit rating of a whole portfolio.
I like this way of computing the average credit rating of a portfolio, but many do not. 68% of the bonds in MTWRX are rated AAA, nearly 80% are A or better. And only about 6% are junk. But that smattering of junk is enough to pull its portfolio credit rating down to BBB.
In contrast, BCOIX has only 46% of bonds rated AAA, and 65% are A or better. But since it has only about 4% in junk bonds, those A (or better) bonds are good enough to keep the fund's average rating at an A.

I've been researching via Fidelity and M* for alternatives to MWTRX. I've owned the fund for several years but with performance pretty close due to current market conditions in Fixed Inc, I'm always 'shopping'. Duration, Avg Maturity, Bond Ratings and Expenses are what I've been focused on.
The 2 Int Core Plus Funds that I have zeroed in on are BCOIX and DODIX. I alraedy own DODIX in an IRA Rollover and love the consistency. Other OEF's I've researched are Western, Pru, American, Pimco etc...I worked for Pru for years so I know their funds intimately.
Any other criteria and ideas that you like as much or more than BCOIX? The expense ration alone is more than 1/2 what MWTRX is along with higher credit quality.
Thanks in advance!

Check out WBALX for a solid 30%- 50% alloc fund.

I did quickly, and while the equity part of WBALX may be "solid", I question the performance of the bond portion in the current rising interest rate environment. It makes up 42% of the fund's portfolio, and of that 67% consists of short term US Treasuries and AAA bonds. It's the only balanced fund I have come across where the SEC dividend yield is negative, according to M*.
The majority of the fund's bonds may actually be a detractor from its future performance, unless management makes a change. Holding cash instead may actually be a better choice in the current environment.
My other question is why a "solid" fund like WBALX has accumulated only $223 million in assets over the past 18 years? What am I missing?
Fred

While a negative yield is less than ideal, their short-term bond holdings have probably held up better than many other bond sleeves in recent quarters. That type of allocation is probably why this fund has less volatility. Works for some, not for others.

Check out WBALX for a solid 30%- 50% alloc fund.

I did quickly, and while the equity part of WBALX may be "solid", I question the performance of the bond portion in the current rising interest rate environment. It makes up 42% of the fund's portfolio, and of that 67% consists of short term US Treasuries and AAA bonds. It's the only balanced fund I have come across where the SEC dividend yield is negative, according to M*.
The majority of the fund's bonds may actually be a detractor from its future performance, unless management makes a change. Holding cash instead may actually be a better choice in the current environment.
My other question is why a "solid" fund like WBALX has accumulated only $223 million in assets over the past 18 years? What am I missing?
Fred

Something between refusal and incapacity --- denial, shrug, actual forgetfulness abetted by or aligned with great sloth and increasing casualness about all things.
I am so hoping it turns out that I am misinferring / misinterpreting some of the grim details as I understand them now.
One of their children will be calling TIAA presently, and yes, you might think with millions in an account there would be some sort of heads-up, at least after a couple of misses. But that assumes human examination / monitoring / advising in the first place.
Oh, there will be no leniency.
No Roths involved, of course, all tax-deferred, and this case 'overdeferred' ... I don't know what this 403b allows in its beneficiary regs (reading Dan Moisand on possibilities), but it's a moot point for now, as they may have several more years to live.
I suppose it could be worse. I have helped w taxes w other older relatives, while they could still locate or point me toward records, and never postmortem.

A lot depends I think on how fast rates rise and how much. A gradual increase probably won't hurt bonds much. A rapid increase would. In a scenario where 10-year corporates yield 3% and new issues suddenly yield 6% because of an inflation or default panic, existing bonds yielding 3% would I believe crash hard. But if corporate bond rates gradually increased over a period of years to 6%, the bond market would have more time to adjust to the shift via the income it is already paying to counteract bond price declines and the gradual increase of higher yielding issues in the outstanding bond mix.

The State of MI retired teachers healthcare premiums have actually declined over the last couple of years, but the deductibles and out-of-pocket costs have risen, very substantially. Items like urgent care or ER visits are very costly now, and the drug prices we pay at the pharmacy have risen plenty. It’s much harder to get approval for prescriptions as the insurers constantly force the doctors to rejustify use of a drug the patient has been taking for years. My doctor says his staff spends hours a week talking to retired docs hired by the insurance companies to just say “no” whenever a prescription renewal is presented.
Our Part D provider sends us countless ads urging us to use mail order for refills. One had best read the fine print because there is a $40 minimum charge, even if the Rx is for a month’s supply of Lisinipril, a drug we pay $1.75 for when we buy it at the local pharmacy. If the doctor orders a 90-day supply of the same drug, the pharmacy is required by the insurer to charge us $16. We go in every month because we have always been thrifty.

No telling where this all ends up by YE, but for now...
...with earnings rolling in, futures are UP nicely this AM, and S&P will likely have its 50dma of 4,364 in its crosshairs today/tomorrow (maybe even at today's OPEN).
If it overtakes it, its previous high of 4,537 will come into focus and be the next target on the UP side.
Having done this successfully several times since the 2020 crash, I again BOT this Dip/Diplet. At this stage of the process I wonder if I didn't BUY enough.
Just curious...If you SOLD the Dip/Diplet, what'd'ya do now?
FWIW, I've been there a few times years ago using my old strategy that was driven by capital preservation/loss avoidance, and EACH TIME failed to respond quickly enough. And it cost me.

...Medicare will eat it anyhow.

There's a lot of that notion going around. Let's walk through that.
I did this relatively quickly - please check my math. Also see Disclaimer below.
Looking ahead...
If your gross SS is $15,000 annually, a 2022 5.9% COLA increases your gross by $885. If SS is $20,000, an increase of $1,180.
No definitive word yet on the Medicare Part B increase for 2022.
Looking back...
In 2020, Part B increased 6.72% to $144.60 monthly from $135.50. Annually that was a $109 increase.
In 2021, Part B increased 2.70% to $148.50 monthly from $144.60. Annually that was a $47 increase.
So...
IF the past two years are any indication, it is very unlikely, barring an extraneously high Pt B increase for 2022, that anyone grossing $15K-$20K annually will not be in a better net position is 2022.
NOTE: Part D premiums are NOT considered here but would also affect net, if applicable, as would other variables, increase in Pt B penalty, etc.
Disclaimer: Data provided by long-since retired auditor type whose calculation accuracy rate may or may not resemble his stellar rate from back in the day. Just sayin'.

...And yet, I just read that Medicare will eat the increase. Should have remembered.

There's a lot of that notion going around. Let's walk through that.
I did this relatively quickly - please check my math. Also see Disclaimer below.
Looking ahead...
If your gross SS is $15,000 annually, a 2022 5.9% COLA increases your gross by $885. If SS is $20,000, an increase of $1,180.
No definitive word yet on the Medicare Part B increase for 2022.
Looking back...
In 2020, Part B increased 6.72% to $144.60 monthly from $135.50. Annually that was a $109 increase.
In 2021, Part B increased 2.70% to $148.50 monthly from $144.60. Annually that was a $47 increase.
So...
IF the past two years are any indication, it is very unlikely, barring an extraneously high Pt B increase for 2022, that anyone grossing $15K-$20K annually will not be in a better net position is 2022.
NOTE: Part D premiums are NOT considered here but would also affect net, if applicable, as would other variables, increase in Pt B penalty, etc.
Disclaimer: Data provided by long-since retired auditor type whose calculation accuracy rate may or may not resemble his stellar rate from back in the day. Just sayin'.

Had given up on many of the funds listed in this string. But I stayed with HMEZX, despite Nexpoint having a questionable partner history (via Highland Capital - J. Dondero). It is a red flag for many.
But HMEZX has been a solid "steady eddy" performer. Returns are bond-like, and it has outperformed other merger-arb funds. If not for that 1 red flag, I would own a lot more.
Another interesting vehicle is HRSTX, which converted a few years back to an options-based fund. Very steady, with great performance during negative market periods since its 2018 conversion.

Good for you. I consolidated tax-deferred accounts in the last several years. VGWAX is a solid fund to compliment PRWCX, a growth-oriented allocation fund.

Here’s a clip of what Ed said re cash:
“So, back to asset allocation – obviously have enough cash reserves to fund at least two years of living expenses, in insured certificates of deposit. There is a market to be shopped there in smaller banks and credit unions, with nine to twelve month certificate yields running between 35 and 45 basis points. In terms of currencies, if your liabilities are dollar-denominated, your investments also should be. The exception is using international funds that do not hedge back their foreign currency exposure to dollars. In terms of bonds, favor those with maturities of less than a year, generally using some of the ultra-short bond funds available from Vanguard or Northern Funds.“
@bee Good point on oil. It’s taught me the value of patience and sticking to your guns, as most of us abandoned our oil positions way back and watched its price fall into negative territory (early 2020). Yet - here it is at near $83. I remember T Boon Pickins predicting this price rise a few years ago. T. Boone had it right. Unfortunately he died in 2019.

I used to own this fund years ago. Then declining returns forced my exit. I wonder if Aronstein is still spewing his arrogant pompous market commentary !

@ron - PRFDX is a stock fund. Back from the death because it had several lousy years before dividend paying stocks started to shine. ALAAX is one I owned briefly, I really like the approach but fees are too high and some of the underlying funds are suspect. That said, they’re only running 30-40% stocks compared to near 100% for PRFDX. So … maybe a fund that is similar to ALAAX, but with lower fees. Actually, many of the 40 / 60 funds might be what you’d tolerate. I use PRSIX. TRRIX is similar and equally fine. However, these do not focus only on dividend paying stocks - so I did not raise them earlier.
Good luck
Here’s your original question: Large Cash vs bonds or dividends? Nothing wrong with cash for older investors. It won’t keep up with inflation, but certainly helps sleep better. There’s been quite a bit of discussion here over whether the equity / commodity markets are valued rationally.

”See Ed Studzinski's commentary this month.”

Interesting commentary. Ed seems of the opinion we’re facing hyper-inflation. (But please read it yourself and draw your own conclusions.) He doesn’t much address ron’s question if I understand what ron is asking (kind of vague).
But, yes, as I think Shostakovich observes, Ed recommends staying very short on your fixed income duration - out to only a year or two. He points to 2 funds he likes that do that. Since “dividends” usually refers to stocks, not bonds, I gather that ron is contemplating some type of fund that invests in dividend paying companies. Hmmm … Tough call because these types of funds have run up a lot (ie PRFDX) this year and I never like buying high. But, what do I know?
A fund like like RPSIX will provide maybe 15-25% exposure to stocks while still playing mainly in the fixed income area. Not a bad choice - however, the bond duration is likely longer than Ed recommends. And there are combo funds like ALAAX that carry a slightly higher equity content - while still focusing on the income producing type stocks.
Real estate is sometimes included in that area, but it’s had a great run up this year. I’d be loath to buy a REIT at these levels. I’m thinking a utilities fund might be a better value if seeking dividend paying companies.
Full disclosure: I’m using a lot of GNMA funds in my fixed income portion. They’re on the relatively shorter end of the duration curve presently (for the type of fund) - only out 3-5 years, but still much farther out than Ed deems prudent. I like that they’re of a higher quality credit than corporate bonds and I don’t mind loosing a bit of $$ on them as long as the equity / risk-asset areas keep climbing.
No easy answers.
Here’s 1 out of many articles on using dividend paying stocks or funds. I haven’t had time to read it closely, but it appears something ron might find of interest - if only to encourage him to do more research on the subject. Here

Maybe not the most eloquent link on taxes, but I believe it was @stillers who mentioned that he pays nothing in taxes...
@stillers mentioned:

haven't paid a dime in taxes since 2012, and may not pay them for 5-10 more years.

A more accurate list on taxation would point out that we all pay many "everyday" taxes well beyond income tax.

LMAO.
So sorry. I forgot to include the word "INCOME" taxes. Spent a lifetime of tax planning to ensure we would be able to pay personal income taxes when WE wanted to pay them, which may turn out to be not until the time of RMDs at age 72 or 75, depending on how that all shakes out in DC.

Wouldn't it be more honest if people who boasted of not paying taxes also boasted of the consequences such as saying "I've stiffed soldiers, police officers, firemen, teachers, etc. of their salaries since 2012 and I found a way to keep stiffing them for 5 to 10 more years," even though I've benefitted from their services? Or "I found a way to avoid helping children and the elderly have healthcare or to avoid helping the hungry get fed or helping the roads I drive on every day get repaired."

Maybe not the most eloquent link on taxes, but I believe it was @stillers who mentioned that he pays nothing in taxes...
@stillers mentioned:

haven't paid a dime in taxes since 2012, and may not pay them for 5-10 more years.

A more accurate list on taxation would point out that we all pay many "everyday" taxes well beyond income tax.

I like Vanguard Tax-Managed Small Cap (VTMSX) for taxable accounts.
The fund attempts to tracks the S&P 600 index while minimizing taxable gains.
VTMSX has performed well vis-a-vis small blend funds since my initial purchase approximately 10 years ago.