Interesting group of funds thus far presented here. A quick and dirty review suggests SVARX has for me provided the most appealing combination of total return and downside protection from this group during its lifetime (7 years).....September saw me moving ~5% of my portfolio from bond funds to utility stocks. Will include SVARX in my thinking about possible changes among the bond funds.

Hi @shipwreckedandalone
Thank you for your time with the Stockcharts "how to".
I have used and posted here from Stockcharts for a number of years. Is it the only tool in my shed of information?....NO; but I use some of the very basic information that helps me make decisions. I'm not a member, so there are indeed other options available. I don't have enough time in my day to go further into the site. I'll link a 7 minute video that will help others have a better understanding of the areas I use. YES, it would be nice to be able to set a begin and end date, but the slider allows for establishing time frames that are adjustable. I'm not concerned that the charts do not travel backwards past Jan. 1999. I was an investor beginning in the late 1970's and have that perspective in my brain cells; and the markets evolve to a point of what caused a given event "x" years ago does not necessarily apply to "now". The "this time is different" is still in place and constantly adjusting "the new normal". COVID political outcomes, anyone???
ADD: Stockcharts question: Does the Percent Change value displayed reflect the “Total Return” for each stock?
A: In general, yes, as long as you are not using “unadjusted” ticker symbols (i.e. ones that start with an underscore).
>>> I have verified in the past that the percentage shown does include any distributions from a fund.
Lastly, a PLAY CHART. As with other charts I've linked, this chart is active for you to use and save for future use. You may simply change the ticker symbols at the very top area with your choices. So, watch the above video and have a go. NOTE: this chart starts at Oct. 2009, due to the inception date of ZROZ. You will encounter this limitation and/or not be able to chart some very young symbols.
Otherwise, you should be able to chart virtually any symbol.
ALSO, hover the cursor pointer over any section of a graph line for a bit more info.
Take care,
Catch

The problem with all/most alternative funds is...they don't sustain their risk/reward long.
Arnott with PAUIX sounded so great in 2010 just to disappoint in the next 10 years..
AQR have several funds based on their research(risk parity, futures, macro, alternative,,,) and disappointed too.
IOFIX wasn't a surprise for me. When investors want their money immediately and there are no buyers, the price will go way down, especially with niche, special holdings.
But look at IOFIX LQD is liquid high-rated Corp bond fund. Peak to through it lost over 18% until the Fed announced it will start buying these bonds. If the Fed wouldn't do it the situation would be worse.

Key Points:
° Over the last 25 years, exceptionally outstanding fund performance nearly across the board was followed 5 years later by poor performance; this happened beginning in 2000, 2007, and 2014.
° When only a small number of funds excelled after the 2007-09 bear market, all were doing poorly by 5 years later.
° In early 2015, funds that were previously among the biggest performance winners suffered sharp dropoffs by 2020; the table below shows these funds and how badly they wound up doing.
° If these trends continue, the funds I list doing unusually well right now may not be your best choices for the next 5 years.
November Edition

When I want to compare two funds in M*, I go to a legacy performance page for a fund, add other funds (one at a time), and get tabular comparisons. Not only how well each fund did over standardized periods, but how much better (or worse) the reference fund did than the other funds over the standardized periods.
For example, here's the legacy performance page for VWINX.
M* automatically provides a comparison with the fund category average and with a suitable benchmark. If I want to compare VWINX to another fund (or more) I click on "Compare" which opens a text input box. Then all I have to do is enter the fund ticker. No muss, no fuss, no need to click on a slider or link to retrieve data and generate comparisons for "all" standardized periods. Specifically, the tabular data automatically displayed includes:

1. Annual performance 2015-2019 and YTD (click on "Expanded view" for 2010 and up)
2. Trailing returns over the past 1 day, 1 week, 1 month, 3 month, 1, 3, 5, 10, and 15 years (computed to date, to end of last month, or to end of last quarter)
3. Monthly and quarterly returns over the past five years

Morningstar is designed for fund investors. StockCharts is designed for technical analysts (e.g. it defaults to price charts, not performance pages). As @Crash may have implied, M*'s new pages are, at least compared with its legacy pages, designed for no one.
That said, you found no inconsistencies. Check carefully the dates of the periods you were displaying. I'm not suggesting that the M* software is flawless, far from it. But the figures you read were correct for the dates on the graph. Lousy programming, but accurate data.
And none of this has anything to do with Premium features.

What's a SPAC?

A special purpose acquisition company (SPAC) is a company with no commercial operations that is formed strictly to raise capital through an initial public offering (IPO) for the purpose of acquiring an existing company. Also known as "blank check companies," SPACs have been around for decades. In recent years, they've gone mainstream, attracting big-name underwriters and investors and raising a record amount of IPO money in 2019. In 2020, more than 50 SPACs have been formed in the U.S., as of the beginning of August, raising some $21.5 billion.

https://investopedia.com/terms/s/spac.asp
Investments in SPACs ETFs and BDCs:

I have used M* free content for years. Never paid Premium and have no idea what it contains. Question: for those of you who have used the service what are the 3 best useful data points Premium provides that cannot be found elsewhere?

Greg Ostedgaard, president of Financial Professionals, Inc., and an MFO reader was on a conference call with Chuck Akre and the Akre Focus (AKREX) folks today. In that case, they announced that Mr. Akre is stepping away from day-to-day management at the end of December.
The Akre folks have been prepping for this day for years, and Mr. Akre seems comfortable that he's leaving his shareholders in good hands. I've attached our succession story, from February, for what interest it holds.
https://www.mutualfundobserver.com/2020/03/manager-changes-february-2020/
David

Morningstar shows tax cost ratio for funds on their "Price" tab (pun not intended). It's on the right hand side in the lower block of data.
See here.
The tax cost ratio is 0.03%, meaning that on average, over the past three years, you lost 0.03% of your assets to taxes each year. The category average is 0.02%. So I suppose that means the fund is "horrid", giving up an extra 1 basis point on average each year. Especially with so many HY muni funds giving up nothing to taxes.
FWIW, over five years, the average tax cost ratio is 0.03%, and PRIHX's 5 year tax cost ratio is also 0.03%.
If you have access to the M* premium screener, you can screen on HY muni funds. On the "Risk and Tax Cost" data display, you can see all the peers' 3-, 5-, and 10-year tax cost ratios.
0.03% is nothing. If you really insist on a TRP HY muni fund with a lower tax cost ratio, the screener shows that PRFHX's tax cost ratio is just 1/3 as much: 0.01% across all timeframes.
FWIW, PRTAX gives up nothing to taxes (tax cost ratio of 0.00%) vs. a category average of 0.04% over three years.

Some slightly contrarian contextual takes here, of high-level interest perhaps:
https://humbledollar.com/2020/10/follow-the-fed/

Interesting article
1)Employment: has nothing to do with stocks. Disregard.
2+5)Inflation + Plan for higher inflation.: I don't see any inflation coming soon. Still high unemployment, Covid, big tech improve processes, globalization. Disregard
3)Expect low yields. Of course, the Fed told us that
4)Favor the middle. intermediate term bonds are where you should be long term. Disregard
6)Rethink asset location: Same old narrative. Not all bonds are treasuries. Example: PTIAX,PIMIX pay about 4% annually.
6)Stay flexible. Keep your style and why disregard. If you are buy and hold investor and it worked for you changing isn't your strength. I'm a trader for about 20 years and why flexibility works for me.
7)Avoid gold. Sure. Most should avoid other stuff such as CEFs, risk parity and other exotic funds. KISS. Use only several funds, Core funds: wide indexes, explore funds: a few managed.

@msf. Been working on the house. So dodging the internet. Sorry I missed your post re DODIX.
At the time I wrote about DODIX I could swear it was BBB, and that the duration had crept up to five years. That's why I read their report, and discovered that they were buying some energy bonds. Today, all is back to normal. Duration under 5, credit rating A.
Don't know what I saw. Maybe it was primer fumes. All the regular paint is low VOC. But not the primer.
It may seem contrary to some, but I do not view bond index funds as boring.
The main reason I would sell bond funds in the near future is to realize some profit, and have some cash for the next opportunity.

First, I’m not trying to tout any fund. Most of my “wealth” rests with TRP for better or worse. And, heaven knows their fixed income funds don’t always shine. With munis, I didn’t see any great options to tell the truth. I do think PRIHX has potential. At this juncture, I like shorter duration bonds (lower potential gain but less interest rate risk).
“ ... its below average returns. This in turn is likely because it has one of the shortest durations of any high yield muni fund.” -
Yes - (using Yahoo) PRIHX has a duration of 4.34 years vs 7.07 years for the category average. What I want. Of course, it’s being measured against more aggressive competitors. I suspect this is a major problem in most bond rating efforts.
I don’t follow M*, but watching the Lipper scorecard, bond funds’ fortunes tend to wax and wane depending on the climate. ER - ISTM is the greatest predictor of success, all other factors being roughly equal.
“I don't see anything unwanted about Roth distributions.” -
Ahh ... Mine were all converted during retirement. There was a price paid in paying the tax as well as the hassle. To me the Roth is “the gift that keeps on giving”. All your gains remain tax free. Convert at the right time (ie: early ‘09) or goose the returns with a few good speculative plays and those untaxed gains can be considerable. Meanwhile, with a traditional IRA, not just your original (untaxed) contributions, but also all your gains - even those you’re compiling today - stand to be taxed as ordinary income at withdrawal.
Not against pulling from the Roth. But considering the trouble expended in doing the conversions and the nice tax treatment, would rather save for a rainy day.

Out of tax considerations I also decided to take a modest 2020 distribution from the Traditional side, even though that was not required in 2020. Didn’t need the money. So it went into Price’s PRIHX - a “limited term“ HY muni fund that I think is probably a better fund than M* and the others currently rate it. ... As to the tax considerations, I’d rather write the IRS a check next April 15 than have to wait in line for a tax refund. Building up the non-IRA assets may prevent having to take an unwanted withdrawal from the Roth someday

I have an inherited Roth that requires me to take unwanted distributions. The only reason why I don't want those distributions is that after sticking the money into a taxable account all the future earnings are taxable. Aside from moving money out of a tax-sheltered account, I don't see anything unwanted about Roth distributions.
It's a different question when comparing T-IRAs and Roths. There are several reasons for keeping at least some money in a T-IRA (QCDs, lower tax bracket for heirs, leave to charity, etc.) But given a choice between adding eligible money to a Roth or leaving it in a taxable account, I'm not aware of a reason to keep it in a taxable account. So I'm not clear on your thinking here.
The muni bond fund does let you escape federal taxes (it's still substantially subject to state taxes). However that comes at a cost - muni bond yields are less than taxable bond yields (which would be tax free in a Roth).
For example (this is just the first one I picked, not necessarily the best comp), RPIHX is a taxable junk bond fund with a duration of 3.58 years and an unsubsidized SEC yield of 4.94% (subsidized is 5.08%). PRIHX is a muni junk bond fund with a duration of 4.44 years and an unsubsidized SEC yield of 1.40% (subsidized is 1.84%)
Though most multi-sector funds don't hold equity worth mentioning (5%+), about 1/8 of the nearly 100 funds do. They can get a fair amount in dividends plus a small growth kicker, but at the expense of higher volatility.
When Kathleen Gaffney left Loomis Sayles, it seemed she tried to outdo her mentor Dan Fuss at LSBDX by upping the equity to 20% in Eaton Vance Bond (EVBAX). That resulted in a fund even more volatile than LSBDX.
https://www.mutualfundobserver.com/discuss/discussion/23855/wealthtrack-preview-guest-kathleen-gaffney-manager-eaton-vance-bond-fund
PRIHX appears to merit a 2* rating because of its below average returns. This in turn is likely because it has one of the shortest durations of any high yield muni fund. A problem with M*'s ranking of junk bond funds is that it groups funds together regardless of duration - no short term, intermediate term, long term breakdown. There are only five muni high junk bond funds with durations under five years. Four have 2 stars; only ISHYX which has done slightly better, has a 3* rating.

I think "Best" is only relevant to each individual investors portfolio criteria for what purpose/role an individual investor is attempting to fill in their portfolio. Portfolio criteria can vary widely, based on age, risk metrics, total return metrics, etc.

Yeah - That was my reaction as well. While an interesting discussion here, the topic is a little “nuts-o” when you think about it. The topic narrows it down only to “taxable” bond funds. :)
The chart is cool and gets specific. I’ll confess to generally being fog-bound with regards to bond funds anyhow. RPISX is probably listed as a bond fund, but I beg to disagree owing to its 5-25% allowable weighting in an equity fund. Also, its “bond” holdings, ranging from EM to Treasuries are so diverse as to demand a more specific moniker than simply “bond fund.”
Another consideration in the overall equation here: Some investors find value in sticking with only one or a few houses. In that case, they may be “comfy“ in settling for only “third best” or “fifth best” fund in any particular category of fund. And, as has no doubt already been mentioned, various economic forces at work at any one time can greatly lend favor to or create havoc for virtually any bond fund, regardless of name, management or style.
FWIW - I closed out long held RPSIX today. Not only has it stunk up the joint in recent years, but its diverse holdings no longer fill my perceived portfolio needs. I’d rather today hold generally short term and / or high quality bond holdings as a stabilizing influence in the portfolio rather than seeking growth or high income with such a broadly diverse “income“ fund. The small remaining amount was moved into their .25% ER index bond fund PBDIX, which I’ve held for about a year. Why bonds over cash? IMHO they would act more like a hedge against rapidly falling equity prices - if only temporarily.
Out of tax considerations I also decided to take a modest 2020 distribution from the Traditional side, even though that was not required in 2020. Didn’t need the money. So it went into Price’s PRIHX - a “limited term“ HY muni fund that I think is probably a better fund than M* and the others currently rate it. It appears almost stable enough to use as a cash alternative (not recommended however).
Part of my thinking on munis - No matter which side wins the election, municipalities and states will eventually get some federal help. (But still waiting for my official “Oracle“ license to arrive in the mail.) :) As to the tax considerations, I’d rather write the IRS a check next April 15 than have to wait in line for a tax refund. Building up the non-IRA assets may prevent having to take an unwanted withdrawal from the Roth someday (which is now near 70% of invested assets).

Roth IRA. As long as you meet the income limits , you can also contribute up to $6,000 (or $7,000 if you're turning 50 or older this year) to a Roth IRA. (If you exceed the income limits, you can still use a "backdoor " approach to contribute.) As with the Roth 401(k), all withdrawals from the Roth IRA become tax-free after you've had the account for at least 5 years and you're over age 59 ½. FROM FORBES

I don't look at M* ratings by category (Medal ratings) as a significant criteria for determining "Best" Bond funds. I think "Best" is only relevant to each individual investors portfolio criteria for what purpose/role an individual investor is attempting to fill in their portfolio. Portfolio criteria can vary widely, based on age, risk metrics, total return metrics, etc. and you may reach a different conclusion if you are a trader, a buy and holder, and how important longer term total return performance is likely to repeat itself going forward. I am a preservation of principal investor in my retirement years, but I do look for enough total return to offset RMDs annually, and to hopefully increase my overall principal amount each year. I am on the sidelines right now, with a nominal positive year in total return, but I choose to wait and see how this election is going to play out, how this Covid 19 pandemic will be addressed, and then sort through total return and risk information in the latter part of 2020, and early part of 2021, and build back my portfolio going forward. M* medal ratings will have minimal importance to me in my investing decisions.

CTFAX looks good. Important to note new management since 5/2018. Performance since 5/2018 has been stellar. I am seeing an increase in 30/50 fund of funds in the last 5 years. 49% equity allocation.

New management has done well but earlier this year they changed the fund’s asset allocation rules. Stock allocations can now never go below 50% whereas during its period of outperformance, it was allowed to hold a lower percentage of assets in stocks. Too early to tell what impact this will have on its long term performance going forward.

CTFAX looks good. Important to note new management since 5/2018. Performance since 5/2018 has been stellar. I am seeing an increase in 30/50 fund of funds in the last 5 years. 49% equity allocation.

I believe the age for distributions has been moved up. I got screwed again !

Not as much as you think.
Someone born between Jan and June in 1951 would have been required to start their RMDs in 2021 (age 70.5). Now they can start in 2023 (age 72). Two years grace. Same two year grace for anyone born between Jan and June in years after 1951.
Someone born between July and Dec in 1950 would have been required to start their RMDs in 2021 (age 71). Now they can start in 2022 (age 72). That's only one year's grace. Same one year grace for anyone born between July and Dec in years after 1950.
Someone born between Jan and June 1950 would have been required to start their RMDs in 2020. Now they can start in 2022 (age 72). That's still two extra years, though one of those is coming from the fact that no one has to take RMDs this year.
Someone born between July and Dec 1949 would have been required to start their RMDs in 2020 (age 71). Now they can start in 2021 (age 72). So they're also getting one year of grace, though that is coming from the 2020 waiver, even without the age extension.
Someone born before July 1949 gets a year of grace (2020) not because of the change in RMD age but because everyone is excused this year. So they're also getting one year of grace.
In short, these "oldsters" get a one year break. That's the same amount as those born between July and December of any year from 1949 on, and just one year less than the two years anyone born between Jan and June from 1950 on get.
People born late 1949 are the ones who should be complaining. They're covered by the extension to age 72, but that doesn't get them even a single year extension.

>> One withdraws 4% of the original portfolio (here 4% of $1M, or $40K), and then adjusts that fixed amount for inflation.
ah
>> Bengen has not found any historical 30 year period, including ones with low inflation and richly priced markets, where a starting withdrawal rate of 4.5% did not survive 30 years.
amazing to contemplate with big drops in a given year