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).

Thanks for the thoughts @dtconroe
You are correct that I currently tend to view bonds as ballast. Years ago I sold all my PRHYX after Price did a soft close (their 2nd in recent years). I assumed that (1) They knew something I didn’t about valuations and (2) Even if I sold 100%, the fund would reopen again eventually. Not sure about the first - but the second did not occur.
That probably had a lot to do with my current lack of interest in bonds for generating return. Like the poem - “Two roads diverged in a wood”.
Your thinking is spot-on about retirement investing. Hope your plan / methods work out for you.

hank: "I hope that better quality, longer duration bonds continue to suck air. Because if they begin to perform well in a meaningful way it means that other, riskier, markets (including junk bonds) are in a heap of trouble."
Depends on what kind of investor you are. Equity oriented investors, tend to only think of bonds as "ballast" instruments, focusing on treasuries and investment grade options. Bond oriented investors, are aware that there are a wide variety of bond oefs, that perform differently in different environments. Funds like PIMIX and DBLTX were birthed in the ashes of the 2008 crash, purchased nonagency mortgages that were out of favor, and over the following decade of equity bull market performance, those junky bond oefs became hugely popular, replacing CDs for income flow, and making great total return, without the volatility of equities.
I am not a great trader, but I have found that bond oefs move slowly enough that I can establish sell points for bond oefs, and easily switch to other bond oefs, in other categories, and still make a nice, lower stress, total return result. I did that in March 2020, when I sold my junkier bond oefs (with a small loss after hitting my sell point criteria), replaced them with some safe harbor bond oefs like GIBLX and BIMIX, and then when those junky bond oefs were once again performing well, I was able to switch back into funds like DHEAX and SEMMX, and make a nice total return. I am beyond my youthful days of heavy equity oriented investing, but have found my bond oef stage in retirement, provides a very nice total return result, allowing me to preserve what I have accumulated, and still grow the principal each year, even with the required RMD harvesting.
I am 73 years old, in retirement, with no company pensions to provide me a safety net. My preservation of principal objectives, with modest total return, fits my current investing objectives and needs. I am quite content making 4% to 6% annual total return, with minimal volatility and stress, using bond oefs.

BTW, Fidelity has added a series of zero expense index funds in recent years, and its regular classes of index funds typically have expenses as low as or lower than comparable ETFs. The only advantage of ETFs in these cases would be the potential ability to get better prices for sales or buys during the day rather than end-of-day prices. There are no guarantees that one could actually achieve better trade prices. To me, the advantage of being able to perform direct transfers of money between various Fidelity funds is a more important benefit. That way you don’t have to sell shares in a fund or ETF one day and then wait at least another day to reinvest.
I have invested in Fidelity’s zero expense total market fund (FZROX) since near its inception for our taxable savings. It’s returns have matched comparable funds and ETFs with no added expenses and it’s very tax efficient.

Good question. I’m not seeing anything near term. I prefer to call those “spec plays” anyway. As to “tactical” plays, I scale in or out slowly over months or years. So it’s a matter of portfolio weight or emphasis. I’ve lightened up a bit on the commodities / NR area just because it’s done so well. I’ll continue to lighten up there in “smigits”, but like the area too well to abandon it. BTW, I’ve plugged in PRELX as an (unlikely) substitute inside my real assets sleeve. And it’s beginning to move. A less dicey play on inflation than pure commodities.
I’m looking at what to add at Fido when I have some money there. Kinda like their utilities fund, FSUTX, which would replace some of my commodities exposure. Last evening I went back and re-read David Geroux’s December 2020 Fund Report for PRWCX. In it he makes a compelling case for utilities (which constituted 10% of his holdings at the time). I’m more convinced after reading that than ever. A real long-shot is Fido’s less than 2 year old Infrastructure fund FNSTX. At only 50 mil AUM, should it pop - you’d make out like a bandit. It’s mostly outside the U.S. Heavily in Italy and Spain for reasons unclear. (Maybe they like olives & wine?) However, that’s a pretty far-fetched gamble. It could just as easily go the other way.

OK, I’ll give an example of why I chose a mutual fund over a comparable ETF. For small cap exposure in my IRA, I had used a small cap index fund, DISSX, with an expense ratio of 0.50% for many years. Realizing that I could get slightly better returns from IJR, which follows the same index with an ER of 0.06%, I looked into switching. However, I then discovered that Fidelity has a small cap index fund (FSSNX) with an ER of 0.025% and even better returns, so I switched to it. So, in this case, the Fidelity index mutual fund had lower expenses than a comparable ETF. If your a stickler, iShares has an ETF that follows the Russell 2000, the same as FSSNX, also with a higher ER.
Other than the lower ER, I can do same-day transfers of money between FSSNX and other Fidelity funds, which is a big advantage to me, since many of the other funds in my IRA are with Fidelity.

Putting my home of 26 years in the burbs of CHI on the market next week...spent the past several weeks, cleaning, fixing, prepping...every few weeks I wait the prices in the neighborhood go up by $10k....we'll see what happens. Going with fixed fee listing, not gonna pay a realtor high 4, low 5 digits to do a few days work as the homes sell so fast. No inventory is right unless you want to buy a home for $1.5MM+, then plenty to choose from as many north shore burbs types flee the tax man of Illinois and no reason to go into downtown CHI town, crime out of control, way out of control, no thank you to the cook county state's attorney who does not do her job...you could spin whatever narrative you want, just go into the city and drive around. Drug abuse rampant. Criminal justice reform legitamcy has a point but after that point the narrative is one thing, reality is another.
Never beeen to Traverse City, been to Pentwater, South Haven...all real nice places, nice folks, looking forward to getting up to TC later this year!
Seems you get that...meaning the exporting of inflation...wealthy new yorkers sell their condo, buy somewhere else with half the money and have the other half to spend, invest etc. Meanwhile locals like the home appreciation but then can't afford the increase in tax assessments. Lot of trouble with affordable housing all across this country. Thank you to the Fed and CB...keeping interest rates too low, debasing our currency...increasing inequality across the board...
Good Luck to All,
Baseball Fan

Typically, I'm buy and hold and have made few changes in my IRA's in past 5-7 years. I like to be a little more aggresive/strategic with a % of my 401k. I purchased WOOD and GLTR in January...Previous small positions were in ARKK, FM, SLV and GLD.
Any ideas you have just for sharing purposes...

FLPSX is about 15% of my Rollover IRA.
I've let it ride since August 2011.
The total gain in a little less than 11 years is 304%.
It's been one of my "invest and don't mess with it" positions.
Ditto for FDCAX (up 421% in the same time period).
David