I just noticed, since someone mentioned elsewhere PRBLX performance blah blah, that two hoary funds which one probably wanted to be in since mid-Feb '20, which are huge and neglected in this forum and abandoned / disdained as to gogo sex appeal and so on, are (wait for it) FCNTX and FLPSX. Baboom.
DSnowball once wrote years ago (during yet another FLPSX doldrums period, surely) that he'd never sold FLPSX and not regretted it ultimately.
I wonder what the dates are of the last MFO mentions of these two.
Anyway, live and learn --- I did not own them this round. Danoff and Tillinghast, man.

@AZRph : A very good point you've made !
@royal4 : Thanks for reporting back. Gal PAL had a hard time selling condo about 1 1/2
years ago for in the $165 K range. About 6 weeks ago it sold for $215 K. !!
Enjoy the summer, Derf

hank's keen observation about non-stop flights into TVC tells a story about money and locations.
The Traverse City area and other shoreline communities to the north along Lake Michigan have a long past with wealth. From about 100 years ago, the vast amount of monies spent in these areas for property and houses arrived from an industrial based wealth class from Chicago and Detroit. A summer play land for the wealthy.
In the mid through late 1980's we vacationed in this area for a variety of reasons....besides being a magnificent area that is easy on the eyes and the cranium.
One of our observations when driving the "old" wealth communities (Harbor Springs, NNE of Traverse City and others) and the houses, is that one could view several auto license plates in the driveways.......Illinois, Florida and Michigan plates. The cars, generally speaking; were not baseline Chevy's or Ford's.
Likely 3 generations of an old money family on vacation for the entire summer, in particular the Florida plates, and folks escaping the Florida summer heat.
This observation revealed its own story, of course, IMHO.
Northport, N of Traverse City; has a current listing for 2.31 acres of vacant land, which has 814 feet of shoreline. At $2.6 million, the result is $3,300 per foot of shoreline. This may be one of the most expensive for the Michigan side of Lake Michigan; but it is not uncommon the expect to pay $2,000 per foot of shoreline for undeveloped property.
However, leaving the wealth side of things; a wonderful family vacation may be had in all of these areas, including great state parks alone the shoreline.
We've driven many of the county and state roads along these shorelines.
Traverse City and other larger locations are "busy" in the summer, but one may travel the shoreline a bit farther north and enjoy relative "quiet" and much beauty.
Good Hart and Cross Village sat. map
Traverse City and surrounds map
Thanks, @hank; for pulling the memories.
If there were a MFO class reunion, this area would be my pick. 'Course, the real draw would be my paying for the lodging for participants.

Bought for 460k 12/2019 now asking 625k and they'll get that or probably more....crazy times.

I looked at one (advertised) in northern MI that 5-6 years ago would have carried a asking price under $200,000. Today they’re asking $375,000. That’s an older 3 BR ranch w walkout basement on an average lot.
Many year-round locals can’t afford housing. Problem - wealthy individuals from distant locations are buying up everything to serve as a 2nd or 3rd part-time residence or for speculation. Community leaders are looking at incentives to make housing more affordable - but seemingly intractable problem.
A relatively small local airport (TVC) now has daily non-stop service to / from NYC LGA. (Late afternoon / early evening flights which gives you an idea who the prime users are.) Much as I love NYC, I suspect that if those high heeled individuals are buying northern Michigan homes for second or third residences, the year-round locals won’t be able to compete on price with the NYC real estate market.

Hilarious headline: "Petrostates See Dire Consequences If World Rejects Oil Too Fast." Companies like Exxon have known about the threat anthropogenic fossil-fuel driven climate change posed for over 40 years: https://scientificamerican.com/article/exxon-knew-about-climate-change-almost-40-years-ago/ Now the drill baby drill companies are claiming we're moving too fast.

Totally out of control... I think people are making up outrageous numbers when they put their houses on the market now from what I've seen and unfortunately they are getting those crazy prices and more. Last one I looked at they only owned for 1.5 years and are now asking 165k more than they bought it for....they'll probably get it. crazy.....

Would it be an over simplification to say that you own bond funds if you are afraid that you might panic and sell if there is an equity crash? Is that the primary reason? The market watch article says you own bond funds for safety and not return.
Ignoring the definition of a bond fund for the moment… as PRWCX (an AA fund with a LOT of equities) and HY (junk) bonds are not the same as an FXNAX. Those that held mostly or a large percentage of bond funds in their portfolio in Feb or March 2020 were probably very happy. How did they feel at the end of 2020 when measuring their bond returns vs equities or the S&P Index?

My investment style broke several myths because I don't follow simple rules and indexes.
Myth1: own bonds for ballast, it's about 10 years now that I own bond funds for performance too, starting with PIMIX in 2011.
Myth2: there is no free lunch. I had a free lunch for over 20 years. Anytime a portfolio Sharpe is higher than the index, it's usually free lunch. PRWCX performance since 2000 shows that it made more money than the SP500 with lower volatility. PIMIX in its glory days (2011-2017) made more money with lower SD than many allocation funds 30-40% in stocks.
Myth3: Momentum and trading don't work. It worked for me.

In terms of general tax efficiency, it's like any other short term bond fund - the divs are ordinary income and share price fluctuates mildly.
My approach to handling cost basis with short term bond funds is:

• Send divs to a MMF or bank account (do not reinvest) - to avoid creating a monthly small lot nightmare
• Set the account to use specific lot identification - for full control, to optimize recognition of cap gains
• Sell as needed in mid size blocks and use MMF or bank as buffer - to avoid a nearly daily stream of tiny transactions; identify lots appropriate for your cap gains objective
• Purchase in larger blocks - simplifies identifying lots when selling

P.S. I haven't seen you posting in years. Welcome back.

I think we are at the tail end of early adoption phase. I think all major manufacturers will be getting into this thread as supporting side industries emerge. I own a VW Passat and this year VW stopped selling Passat in the US in favor of their new EV. They still keep Jetta as their high volume gas/diesel vehicle but transformation is happening. It will probably take another 10-15 years before EV become dominant type on the highways. It will need a lot more infrastructural changes (charging stations) all over US.

The landscape for actively managed mutual funds will be increasingly competitive.
Prerequisites for most of the remaining open-end funds (OEFs) will include low costs and good returns.
Some OEFs will continue to exist since corresponding ETFs are not available (this may change in the future).
The shifting landscape will take years to unfold.
Although many mutual funds will be liquidated or merged into other funds, a sizable amount will remain.
I'd argue this is a good development since many unnecessary mutual funds exist.
Investors seeking exposure to a particular asset class or category can analyze OEFs, ETFs, and CEFs to determine the best solution.

Would it be an over simplification to say that you own bond funds if you are afraid that you might panic and sell if there is an equity crash? Is that the primary reason? The market watch article says you own bond funds for safety and not return.
Ignoring the definition of a bond fund for the moment… as PRWCX (an AA fund with a LOT of equities) and HY (junk) bonds are not the same as an FXNAX. Those that held mostly or a large percentage of bond funds in their portfolio in Feb or March 2020 were probably very happy. How did they feel at the end of 2020 when measuring their bond returns vs equities or the S&P Index?
I admit I don’t know enough about bonds and that was the purpose of this post. I read with interest FD’s take: “ Many retirees I know who have enough, including me, don't care as much about performance as they care about volatility.”… Here is my ignorant question… Wouldn’t the superior performance or returns from equities vs. bonds over 2-3 years far outweigh the “safety” and less volatility from bonds? Caveat: If one is relying on living only on their portfolio gains or returns and do not wish to touch the principal from their investments… I can clearly see the need for ballast and low volatility. However, if you can weather a “crash”…and recovery as has always been the case- why wouldn’t you just stay invested in equities? The longest collapse in history was 1929 and lasted 2.8 years. The 2007 recession lasted 1.3 years. I suppose I am obsessed with performance but perhaps there will come a day when I’m not and it will be all about preservation. In full disclosure, I own 2 bond funds and some AA. The bond funds are PONAX and FXNAX but are a very small portion of port.
Note: Coincidently, I wrote this before seeing FD’s post on selling when market crashes and @hank funny response. Thanks @Crash - yes I meant PRWCX -corrected

It's a matter of personal comfort. I used the phrase simply to mean that many of the funds on the list, by design, include more than a de minimis amount of equity. Yes, I'm just substituting one expression for another here without defining them.
Consider the conventional wisdom: everyone including retirees should have some money invested in equity, at least 20%. Taking that literally, that 20% allocation to equity is being viewed as a significant amount that affects the behavior of the portfolio.
Take something like BLADX that has around 15% in equities. YTD VCSH (same bond style box as BLADX) is up 0.08%, and VOO is up 12.74%. Assuming no rebalancing (I'm lazy tonight), a 15% weighting in equities would give a total return of:
85% x 0.08% + 15% x 12.74% = 0.07% + 1.91% = 1.98%
BLADX's YTD return is 2.74%. A little higher than the calculation above, but the figures give you a pretty good idea of where that return is coming from. Nearly all from equity.
In years when bond and stock returns are not that far apart (say, 5% bond vs 7% stock), a modest amount of equity isn't going to make a big difference. But in years like this one, where bonds are returning nothing or are even losing money (BND is down 2.65% YTD), a 10% equity stake can mean the difference between losing 1% on the year and breaking even.
That may not sound like much. Remember though that we're talking about bonds and bond funds, where yields are under 3%. In that environment, a 1% improvement can feel like a lot.

The spread has been slightly higher within the past decade (2.57% in early Oct 2012 and in mid March 2013), and hasn't dropped below 1¼% since then. The non-inflation-adjusted portion of the TIPS yield in that time frame was similar to today's -0.8%. So while we're close to extreme values, this isn't something we haven't seen before.
Given that negative yield, if one is willing to forgo short term liquidity, ISTM I bonds would be the better investment. They are never sold with a fixed rate under 0%. After a year, you can redeem and forfeit 90 days interest. After five years, you can redeem for the full value.
They're more like CDs than bonds - aside from forfeiture of interest, you won't lose money. That differs from bonds where early "redemption" means selling on the secondary market where you could lose principal. Like CDs, you can ladder I-bonds to generate an income stream. That's something you almost have to do because you're limited to $10K/year/SSN and $5K/year/tax return (joint or individual).
Here's the Fed graph from the Investopedia piece, with the 10 year Treasury yield curve and the 10 year TIPS yield curve overlayed. The original curve (the spread) is just the difference (height) between the two overlaid curves.
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/fredgraph.png?g=EmIE

Sorry - I can’t make a prediction like that. Thought you might find this article of interest.
From the WSJ: May 26, 2021
“Ford Motor Co. shares rose to their highest level in nearly five years after the auto maker outlined a tech-centric strategy to electrify much of its vehicle lineup …
“Ford said it plans to boost spending on electric-vehicle development to $30 billion by 2025, roughly one-third more than it forecast earlier this year. The increase in spending—a total that includes some money spent in the past few years—is driven by Ford’s plans to eventually begin manufacturing its own batteries, including at two future U.S. battery-cell factories …

“Ford executives told investors during a virtual presentation that they expect 40% of the company’s global sales to be fully electric by 2030 … Shares rose 8.7% to $13.92 in trading Wednesday, their highest level since at least mid-2016.”

It used to be that Vanguard provided access to institutional class shares of several funds at lower mins than at other brokerages. That's still true for Columbia funds. But other things have changed.
Vanguard offers Pimco institutional class shares (e.g. PDIIX) with a $25K min. This used to be better than other brokerages. Schwab used to require $100K. But now Schwab requires only $2.5K ($1K for IRAs).
Consider TIBIX. It has a $2.5M min,. That's what Fidelity requires in taxable accounts. But Fidelity sells it to IRA investors with a $2500 min. Schwab requires that same $2500 in a taxable account and just $1K in an IRA. Vanguard's mins are $100K (taxable and IRA).
For several years Fidelity has been making institutional shares of many funds available for low mins in IRAs. That's not documented - you have to ask or set up test trades to find the funds. More recently, Schwab lowered mins on many funds including some institutional class shares.
For the most part, the trend at brokerages is for more choices at lower cost/mins. Beyond that, it's hard to generalize about one brokerage vs. another, as they're always in a state of flux.

Vanguard has a good deal on availability of Pimco's cheapest institutional shares (I as opposed to I-3). That was the only semi-regret I had when I moved out of Vanguard several years back.

@Crash, yes and no. Someone can do pretty well with minimal changes. I held PIMIX about 7-8 years. I held one HY Muni for 3 years. In the last several years I invested mostly in HY Munis + special securitized bond within Multi/NonTrad.
So, I babysit it because I love it and it works pretty well but someone can make 1-2 changes annually and still do well. Many have no problem trading stocks/ETF/CEFs many times annually but somehow it can't be done with bonds or believe that bonds have only one category.
Bonds are the true simple mainstream ballast to stocks and when you go deeper into several bond categories you will find they can do even more and have different correlation too.
Sure, I used to be many years in stock funds at 85-100% but as I got older and especially in retirement I learned a lot more about bonds.

My usual comments:
Not all bonds are higher-rated bonds. Bonds have several unique categories with different ballast, volatility and market conditions.
Treasuries are a great ballast but terrible in rising rates. Bank loans are much better in rising rates. Munis are not as "safe" as treasuries but behave differently + give you Fed free tax. HY Munis is another option. Several Leveraged CEFs have similar risk/reward to stocks. Then you have Multi sectors funds where the managers MAY maneuver market condition better. So why all/most analysts/articles talk about treasuries is beyond me.
On the other hand stocks globally are correlated a lot more.
Many retirees I know who have enough, including me, don't care as much about performance as they care about volatility.
So, it depends on what you want to achieve and your style/goals. My portfolio is mostly bonds all the time except quick stocks/CEFs trading, something like 10/90. My portfolio performance in the last 3 years exceeded our need by 3 times with SD=2.42. I never lost more than 1% from any last top for at least 3-4 years.
Easy example: for 6 months...VBTLX(US Index) lost -2.3%...NVHAX(HY Muni shorter term) +7.55%...NHMAX(HY Muni longer term) +8.8%.
Bottom line: when someone tells you bonds are bad, they obviously don't know enough about bonds.

I am with both TDA and Vanguard for many years. Assuming TDA NTF funds will also be available at Charles Schwab, it is better than Vanguard as far as funds availability, especially NTF funds. For example, Artisan funds are TF funds at Vanguard, whereas they are NTF at TDA.
Of course, I hear the argument TF does not make much difference if you have a large portfolio and do not make changes to your asset allocation very frequently.

Many small investors are beating Wall Street pros at their own game.
“A basket of stocks favored by individuals has outperformed the broader market since March of last year, according to Vanda Research. This group, which includes behemoths like Apple Inc. and Tesla Inc. alongside electric-vehicle maker NIO Inc. and digital-payments company Square Inc., has gained 68% since the beginning of March 2020 through Monday, far outpacing the S&P 500’s roughly 36% climb.
“And meme stocks popular with individual investors have been on a tear again. Shares of movie-theater operator AMC Entertainment Holdings Inc. jumped 36% Thursday, continuing a string of double-digit gains that pushed them to $26.52, their highest close in four years. The recent rally in AMC shares has catapulted them above levels recorded during the initial retail-driven frenzy in GameStop Corp. and other stocks this January. On Thursday, AMC was the most actively-traded stock in the U.S. market, according to Dow Jones Market Data.
GameStop has advanced 46% this month, far outpacing the S&P 500’s gain of 0.5%. Shares of Hertz Global Holdings Inc. have nearly tripled in May. Short sellers who bet against GameStop, Hertz and AMC—a group targeted by many smaller investors who have favored these stocks—have lost almost $9 billion this year, according to data provider S3 Partners.”
The Wall Street Journal - May 28. 2021