@dtconroe,
Here’s what PRWCX manager David Geroux said recently about IG bonds as an investment:
“What I would tell you about rates today is that the risk/reward on Treasuries or IG [investment grade] is so poor, it gets a situation where if rates stay static, you make very, very low returns. If rates revert back to more normalized levels, you lose a lot of money. And if rates go down, you don't have a lot of room for rates to go down … So, it's a really negatively skewed risk-adjusted return … As a result of that, we have a very short duration in our fixed-income portfolio, probably the shortest duration we've had since I've been running this strategy. Our duration today is 1.5 years” LINK
Your attempts to immunize the thread from mention of PRWCX or manager David Geroux’s views on the question “Why do you still own Bond funds?” sounds to me a bit cocoonish. Why would your view, or my view, or that of anyone else here on the question supersede that of Mr. Geroux as both verbalized by him publicly and as practiced thru his management approach?
-
“David Geroux is a five-time nominee and two-time winner of Morningstar's Fund Manager of the Year award in the allocation category. David’s fund has also won 15 "Best Fund" awards 2 from Lipper. “ LINK

Hey hank, posters have flexibility to take threads in any direction they choose. My point is simply that this thread is about "Bond Funds", not "Allocation Funds". When you introduce Allocation Funds into the discussion, then it inevitably involves a mix of many assets, generally anchored by the % of equities that the allocation fund historically uses. That can lead to a comparison of completely different kinds of allocation funds, who use all sorts of alternative assets, in conjunction with their equity exposure. So if you look at funds like FPACX, VWELX, and PRWCX (moderate allocation funds), those 3 funds have very different philosophies, from very different companies, but all heavily linked to various asset classes, as offsets for equities, and all attempting to "preserve investors principal" over a period of many years. I guess it all has value to a poster/lurker, and they can extract whatever value they want out of the comments in the thread.
I choose to take the thread at its face value--discussions about varying types of bond funds, and depending on what kind of investor you are, those bond funds can be used in many different ways. Clearly, you can use bond funds as ballast options, as complements to your equity exposure. Others can use bond funds in other ways for their portfolios, and there are a few investors like me, who use varying types of bond funds exclusively, without an equity component.

I have 22 investments. 8 mutual funds and 14 ETFs.
There is one fund in my not real large IRA.
There are 3 mutual funds in my somewhat bigger Roth.
My taxable, which is 2/3 of my stash has 4 mutual funds and 14 ETFs.
These are all held in 3 companies, the largest being Vanguard.
I use spreadsheets to keep track of the holdings along with the cost basis in taxable holdings. There is a spreadsheet for my expenses and one more for income for any money that crosses my doorstep that ends up on the 1040.
I keep turnover fairly low to moderate my taxes (12% bracket).
My current spend rate is about 1% of my portfolio. My AA is 70/30.
Since I stopped working 14 years ago, my stash has doubled.
I'm 71yo with not much else to do.

Too much for me to digest tonight. But I trust ProPublica. On YouTube, I've run into a guy who runs a business geared for the ultra-wealthy. He helps them strategize about how to hide money from the tax man. It can get extreme. He mentions that there are countries around the world that SELL citizenship, for a donation into a "National Fund." Alternatively, you could buy and hold real estate for at least 5 years. Then, after 5 years, you could apply for citizenship there. (Until then, you're granted a 5-year "golden visa," residency permit.) St. Lucia. Vanuatu. Dominica. Granada. Trinidad & Tobago. Serbia. Montenegro. Portugal. Ireland. (Got that one covered.) Even Egypt.
This guy recently RENOUNCED his US citizenship. THAT will take care of the higher US tax in a big way..... He chose St. Lucia.

Thinking about the original question, I've tried to take a step back and reformulate the question a bit: what is a bond, and why would one own a bond (or in the aggregate a bond fund)?
From a business finance perspective, a bond is a way to raise cash without selling part of a company. Funds are characterized as bond funds if they hold these financial instruments; not if they behave like traditional bonds. This is an important distinction because it affects what we mean when we talk about bond funds.
From an investor perspective, a traditional IG bond is a way to get a better return than in a bank. In exchange, one takes on a modest amount of risk, some of which can be diversified away in a fund. IG bonds preserve nominal principal, though inflation gradually reduces their value over time.
One diverges (slightly) from this traditional perspective of bonds as pure income streams when one starts trading bonds in an attempt to increase total return. This began in the 70s, largely with Bill Gross and total return funds. These funds take on a measure of equity characteristics, especially as they add junk bonds. At this point, ISTM one is at the edge of crossing over from "bonds" to "allocation" funds, in behavior albeit not in name.
Moving on, multisector bond funds behave significantly like allocation funds. But because they're still bond funds from a finance perspective, people can feel good about eating their vegetables - investing in "bonds" while getting better returns.
Here's Portfolio Visualizer's correlation matrix of a "pure bond" (albeit leveraged) multisector fund PDIIX, a multisector fund with a 13% equity kicker RPSIX, and a rougly 40/60 allocation fund (disregarding cash) FTANX. The five year time frame I selected is the period covered by PDIIX's current management team including Ivascyn.
They're all pretty well correlated. Further, annualized standard deviations are quite close together, ranging from 5.62% to 5.84%. In terms of risk and performance these multisector funds feel like hybrid funds.
I do own a multisector fund (none of the funds here), but I expect it to behave like a hybrid fund. It's just another way for me to get that risk/reward profile.
To the extent that I use IG bond funds, they're there to serve as the last bastion before dipping into equities should stocks swoon for several years. On the short end, I use short/ultrashort funds as backup to pure cash - a bit more return in exchange not drawing upon them monthly in case of hiccups.
I've no bond funds for a traditional, widows and orphans, monthly pension type cash flow.

“PRWCX was a very conservative balanced fund years ago … Giroux has produced stellar total return, but it does not fit very well into a "bond" thread…”

I was merely responding to this sentence from FD-100 (same thread): “PRWCX performance since 2000 shows that it made more money than the SP500 with lower volatility.”
Of course PRWCX’s not a bond fund. I do like stepping on sacred cows now and than (like PRWCX) - even though I own the fund myself. As far as bonds, Giroux in the last year has described them a very poor investment which he avoids - except for a few of the high-yield and convertible types. (Perhaps that qualifies him for inclusion in this thread?)
As far as risk, Giroux asserts in his most recent fund report that he thinks he can preserve investors’ principal over a 3-year time horizon. That, I think, remains to be proven. Yes - a more aggressive fund today. Exposure to tech and large caps has hurt his performance recently. However - I wouldn’t bet against this guy.

I try to structure my portfolio into three buckets.
Bucket 1 - Cash / Bond Funds (for Income)
I hold a cash or bond positions with each account I have. Presently this bucket has 17% of my portfolio and represents 3-5 years of income (I may need to spend in retirement).
Bucket 2 - Asset Allocation Funds (for Capital Preservation)
I hold 3 AA funds and they make up 35% of my portfolio. These funds attempt to outpace inflation, reduce downside market risk, and achieve moderate growth.
Bucket 3 - Sector / Category Funds (for Growth)
I hold 10 funds here. These tend to be buy and hold positions and represent 48% of my portfolio. My plan is to periodically sell shares to replenish/enhance bucket 1 (Cash / Bonds) especially when these "Bucket 3 funds" capture above normal gains. I am more actively evaluating these funds for consistent performance, manager risk/reward, and trend momentum.

I would recommend reading each quarterly fund commentary from their website going back 1-1.5 years. I remember one of those commentary briefly discusses reducing their risk.

I find very little value anymore in the M* category criteria, or its star ratings. I have to look at performance charts, risk criteria, and a series of more specific fund characteristics, to find funds that fit a particular role I have for them in my portfolio categories. I use the M* information to evaluate and select funds for "my varying portfolio categories" which are different than M*, and I establish watchlists to monitor funds performance, but I pretty much ignore M* medal and star ratings. So, for example, I have a taxable account, which has a portfolio objective of being very conservative, to preserve principal, and to produce a total return of 2% to 3%, with very low volatility. I have 3 bond oef funds in my taxable account--a short term bond oef that M* has given 3 stars to, a HY corporate bond fund which M* has given one star to, and a nontraditional bond oef that has not received any stars because it is not 3 years old. On my watchlist for this taxable account, I maintain short term investment grade Munis and HY Munis, nontraditional bond oefs, short term bond oefs, HY corporate bond oefs, etc. which I have used in the past or would consider using in the future. I put funds on the interactive M* performance charts, to see how they performed in the past, during various market conditions, with a particular focus on performance in market corrections and recessions to get a picture of how well they preserved principal in downmarkets.
I have very different bonds in my tax exempt IRAs, in which I take more risk, assume more volatility, and seek to produce higher total return than in my taxable account. Again, I ignore stars and medal information, in selecting those differing funds, from a wider array of M* categories.

You were close @hank, -37.4 % !
Derf

Thanks @Derf. Unfortunately, I’d edited down the post for brevity before seeing your remark. But yes - I had speculated earlier that PRWCX had probably fallen more than 30% peak to trough during the ‘07–‘09 market debacle.
One wonders how many of the recent converts to Giroux (who wasn’t around in 2008) would stand pat with a drawdown of that magnitude? It’s a much different fund today. No longer a “sleepy” overly cautious fund for older and less aggressive investors willing to settle for

“half a loaf”. The extent of recent money inflows (potential outflows) on bear market performance is yet to be seen.

PRWCX was a very conservative balanced fund years ago, before Giroux assumed the role of fund manager for it. It then turned into a much riskier, tactical allocation fund, that was much more volatile, only using bonds, when they were better ballast options than treasuries and cash. Giroux has produced stellar total return, but it does not fit very well into a "bond" thread--I consider it a "value" oriented equity fund, that builds up cash and safer nonequity assets, when equities are overvalued. Giroux and TRowe were very smart in restricting access, so this value oriented equity strategy can carry out its portfolio objectives.

Hi Guys,
Unless I missed It, there was no acknowledgement of the historic Longest Day in US history in these discussions. Of course, I’m referring to June 6, 1944. Indeed it is not necessary to remind anyone that that is the day US forces stormed the European beaches that marked the beginning of the end for the German military forces in WWII.
It was definitely not a sure victory. The victory or defeat on that eventful day hung in the balance of uncertain responses to unpredictable events. I suppose that is much like investing decisions. We all act on incomplete or sometimes wrong information. Given these conditions, luck is a major factor in the outcome. I’m sure we don’t like to admit it, but many outcomes in our lives depend on unpredictable and uncertain luck. So, good luck to all of us, and please remember those brave men who stormed the beaches so many years ago. I remember and salute them all.
You guys might be interested in the music that celebrates that eventful day. Here is a link to one of many versions:

Enjoy!

Another Article:

Roger Bootle: “It is the start of a sea change, I have to say. That’s not to say that we’re going to go back to the strong inflationary conditions of the 70s and early 80s. But at the very least, I think we are at the end of the crypto-deflationary period that we’ve been in for the last few years.
“The danger of deflation has passed, and the risks have definitely tilted in the other direction. How high inflation will go, and for how long, that’s debatable. But I’m not in much doubt myself that there’s been a sea change.”

inflation-outlook-economist-roger-bootle-sees-consumer-prices-surge-after-covid?

@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/