the most widely owned bond fund category, intermediate term funds, often called "core" funds, have generally averaged more than 6% annualized over the last two years. Not bad, especially as compared to money market funds which barely returned more than 1%.
But just as for stocks, future bond fund performance is very hard to predict. Therefore, rather than trying to guess which way interest rates will now be headed, it makes sense to merely try to invest in the best bond funds one can find based on a variety of important criteria. But searching out such bond funds can be tedious. So, in this article, I have done my best to simply the process for investors.

Interest rates have been negative in Europe for years. But it took the flood of savings unleashed in the pandemic for banks finally to charge depositors in earnest.
Germany’s biggest lenders have told new customers since last year to pay a 0.5% annual rate to keep large sums of money with them. That is creating an unusual incentive, where banks that usually want deposits as an inexpensive form of financing, are essentially telling customers to go away.
The pandemic has changed the equation. Savings rates skyrocketed with consumers at home. And huge relief programs from the ECB have flooded banks with excess deposits. Banks also have used the economic dislocation of the pandemic to make operational changes they have long resisted.
According to price-comparison portal Verivox, 237 banks in Germany currently charge negative interest rates to private customers, up from 57 before the pandemic hit in March of last year. Charges range between 0.4% and 0.6% for deposits beginning anywhere from €25,000 to €100,000.
The ECB’s deposit rate, which it charges banks, is minus 0.5%. The central bank has signaled it is unlikely to change that level anytime soon.
Banks in Germany are particularly hit by negative rates because Germans are big savers. About 30% of all household deposits in the eurozone are in Germany, according to the ECB. Last year, deposits in the country rose 6% to a record €2.55 trillion as people became wary of spending under the pandemic or simply had nowhere to spend, with restaurants closed and travel restricted.
In Denmark, where interest rates were cut to below zero two years before the eurozone, banks have gone from charging wealthier clients to smaller ones over the past year. The Danish central bank estimates about a quarter of the country’s depositors are currently being affected.
Nordea Bank Abp recently lowered the deposit threshold for a 0.75% charge to 250,000 danish krone, equivalent to $41,000, from 750,000 danish krone as the pandemic will likely prolong the era of negative rates.
The flip side for customers there, is that in some cases, while they pay to deposit money, they don’t have to pay anything to borrow. Nordea in January started offering 20-year mortgages at 0%.

“Bonds are not the place to be these days,” Buffett said. “Fixed-income investors worldwide – whether pension funds, insurance companies or retirees – face a bleak future.”
Buffett noted that the benchmark 10-year Treasury yield had fallen drastically to 0.93% at the end of 2020 from 15.8% in September 1981. Meanwhile, investors earn a negative return on trillions of dollars of sovereign debt in Germany and Japan, he added.

“Whoa. A lot to unpack there” - Not really. It’s just one of a half-dozen different market takes Barron’s typically presents from a variety of different sources in a small section of the magazine each week. More, I think, to give a flavor of the kinds of questions advisors are batting around (to borrow your spring training metaphor) than to provide any definitive or accurate point of view.
“But I hear the GOP wants to position itself ... ” - OK

I want to know what the young man who was running the fund was exactly doing? Was there malfeasance? Or did he really believe the 3rd party model was incorrect and there was a "tweaking" for good reason? He's obviously lawyered up. Who else knew and who challenged him on his actions? Wasn't there a compliance/risk officer? What was he doing/not doing/getting paid for?

REPORT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM
To the Board of Trustees of Trust for Advised Portfolios and the
Shareholders of Infinity Q Diversified Alpha Fund
Opinion on the Financial Statements
We have audited the accompanying consolidated statement of assets and liabilities of Infinity Q Diversified Alpha Fund, a series of shares of beneficial interest in Trust for Advised Portfolios, and Subsidiary (the "Fund"), including the consolidated schedule of investments as of August 31, 2020, and the related consolidated statement of operations for the year then ended, the statements of changes in net assets for each of the years in the two-year period then ended, the statement of cash flows for the year then ended, and the financial highlights for each of the years in the three-year period then ended, and the related notes (collectively referred to as the "financial statements"). The consolidated financial highlights for the years ended August 31, 2017 and August 31, 2016 were audited by another independent registered public accounting firm whose report, dated February 1, 2018, expressed an unqualified opinion on those consolidated financial highlights. In our opinion, the financial statements present fairly, in all material respects, the consolidated financial position of the Fund as of August 31, 2020, the consolidated results of their operations for the year then ended, their cash flows for the year then ended, the changes in their net assets for each of the years in the two-year period then ended, and financial highlights for each of the years in the three-year period then ended, in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America.
Basis for Opinion
These financial statements are the responsibility of the Fund's management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on the Fund's financial statements based on our audits. We are a public accounting firm registered with the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States) ("PCAOB") and are required to be independent with respect to the Fund in accordance with the U.S. federal securities laws and the applicable rules and regulations of the Securities and Exchange Commission and the PCAOB.
We conducted our audits in accordance with the standards of the PCAOB. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material misstatement, whether due to error or fraud. The Fund is not required to have, nor were we engaged to perform, an audit of its internal control over financial reporting. As part of our audits, we are required to obtain an understanding of internal control over financial reporting but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the Fund's internal control over financial reporting. Accordingly, we express no such opinion.
Our audits included performing procedures to assess the risks of material misstatement of the financial statements, whether due to error or fraud, and performing procedures that respond to those risks. Such procedures included examining, on a test basis, evidence regarding the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements. Our procedures included confirmation of securities owned as of August 31, 2020, by correspondence with the custodian, prime broker and third-party counterparties. Our audits also included evaluating the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall presentation of the financial statements. We believe that our audits provide a reasonable basis for our opinion.

12% cash???? That might very well account for the lagging performance.

The Chief Investment Officer of Infinity Q has been relieved of his duties, effective February 21, 2021.

According to the SEC’s Order, the Fund learned on Thursday, February 18 that the Chief Investment Officer of Infinity Q had been adjusting the methodology for obtaining certain asset valuations, and that the resulting valuations may not have accurately reflected the fair value of those assets.