Why would you choose this over say BIV? or the more volatile FTBFX?

Plug the symbols into Portfolio Visualizer and you'll see why. Not only does TCW have the best returns dating back to 2007 (with no down years) but lowest SD and highest Sharp. It's not even really close.

Huh? Do you also graph them $10k growth for 10-9-8-7-6-5-4-3-2-1y-ytd? That's the first thing I do.
From 8y on in, the other two match or much more often outperform TGMLX, except for ytd.
Same 4* rating as Fido bond too.
TGMLX has rather nicer behavior last March, but that's it.
Check it out:
http://quotes.morningstar.com/chart/fund/chart.action?t=TGLMX
So I was just asking what the compelling argument is.
Good outperformance by it 2007-2011, yes. A long time ago.

if you've won the game stop playing.
Ah, the Suze Orman approach to investing (circa 2007):

Do you enjoy spending money? Oh, yes. My greatest pleasure is still flying private. I spend between $300,000 to $500,000, depending on my year, on flying private.
What do you do with the rest of your money? Save it and build it in municipal bonds. I buy zero-coupon municipal bonds, and all the bonds I buy are triple-A-rated and insured so that even if the city goes under, I get my money.

(Even Orman concedes that in this low interest rate environment she puts some money into stocks, though most is still in munis.)
I'd like to introduce the "Dumbbell portfolio"
:-)
Universal Basic Income being discussed

The idea isn’t new. As [David] Frum notes, Friederich Hayek endorsed it. In 1962, the libertarian economist Milton Friedman advocated a minimum guaranteed income via a “negative income tax.” In 1967, Martin Luther King Jr. said, “The solution to poverty is to abolish it directly by a now widely discussed measure: the guaranteed income.” Richard Nixon unsuccessfully tried to pass a version of Friedman’s plan a few years later, and his Democratic opponent in the 1972 presidential election, George McGovern, also suggested a guaranteed annual income.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/08/why-arent-reformicons-pushing-a-guaranteed-basic-income/375600/
Virtually every fund prospectuses (including those pertaining to bond funds) contains the warning: “You may lose money”.
That includes not only bond funds but money market funds, including Treasury MMFs. It's a matter of understanding what the risks are and rationally evaluating whether particular choices are worth the risks to you. (I know that sounds like motherhood; the key word is rationally.)

Advances in robotics and artificial intelligence will lead to a net increase in jobs over the next five years but the coronavirus pandemic will result in “double-disruption” for workers, according to the World Economic Forum (WEF).
That will require a significant level of “reskilling” and “upskilling” from employers to ensure staff are sufficiently equipped for the future of work. According to the WEF, half of all employees will need some level of retraining in the next five years.

how-coronavirus-could-usher-in-a-new-age-of-automation

FD,
Bottom line is the FED funds rate does not result in longer term bond fund yields rising right away and in this case the changes up and down happened too fast. If you had cited increases in intermediate bond yields to make your point (whatever it was) or said that active managers can work around rate increases by changing what they own, that would have been clearer. Of course, I don't really believe they can to the extent you seem to think they can, but opinions vary, which is fine. About half of the funds you named have little or no ability to " make changes between categories and the duration", particularly in a short time frame. (DODIX,VWIAX, BIV, VCIT) So why did they do so well? Could it be that it has little to do with active management and big changes?
As for what I hold, you are behind the curve. I do hold significant PIMIX and PSLDX and SCHD and they make up 35% of my portfolio.

Usual bilperk comments and continuation from M* for years.
The OP stated several categories with indexes + managed funds to make my point. We discussed this for years before when you dismissed PIMIX for years when it was an excellent fund and you didn't hold it while I owned a huge % in it for several years until 01/2018.
Since 2018, PIMIX isn't as good as it used to be. AUM is a lot bigger with different % in its categories and why risk/reward isn't as good as before. I'm glad you finally bought it.
Talking about "behind the curve" from you is pretty funny :-)

Hmm.
Seems to me that what is being referred to as a barbell portfolio is really Taleb's anti-fragile portfolio...don't risk at all what you need and be very aggressive with a smaller percentage...similar to the ETF DRSK.. I think this makes a lot of sense in today's investing environment. Morgan Housel in his new book, The Psychology of Money has a chapter about greed and the "goalposts never stop moving"...ala Bernstein's statement, if you've won the game stop playing. Many can't stop tinkering with their portfolio and keep chasing higher returns when they don't have to.
With tongue in cheek and no disrespect meant to anyone, I'd like to introduce the "Dumbbell portfolio". That is when you think you are smarter than the markets, keep investing in an environment where there is untested money being "printed" by central banks across the world, socio-economic class warfare, fundamentals don't matter, structure of our work force is changing, debt up the wazoo, Universal Basic Income being discussed, casino/video gambling, weed legal, sports gambling legal, concealed carry, surveillance capitalism and algorithm brainwashing, what is next? Legalized prostitution? What the heck has this country turned into?! ...and you think it is safe to put your life savings in the stock and bond markets. Who says the guy who puts 10-15% of his dough that he doesn't need to live on in Bitcoin is nutso, I'm not so sure....
Remember...there is no saying that these low interest rates are going to be here forever, sure might be 2 years, 5 years, 10 years, but maybe not.
Rule one, don't lose money...
Good Luck to all,
Baseball_Fan

I don't see a lot of options for Joe the typical investor who like to hold several funds for years.
The main problem is bond funds. Index bond funds and even conservative managed funds such as VG funds will probably make 1.5-2% on average in the next several years.
If Joe is young then he should hold plenty of stocks.
If Joe is retired and wants to lower volatility and especially if he has enough money to keep his lifestyle then he must hold a lot more bonds. It's a lot harder now than several years ago and why Joe may use Multi sector funds. A fund like PTIAX is such a fund with about 4% yield, reasonable risk/reward, a possibility to make 4% annually which is worth it in my opinion.

@bilperk

he cites FED funds rate, but his examples are all over the board intermediate bonds.

The whole point was to show that bonds have different categories and managed flexible funds can have several categories where the managers can make changes between categories and the duration. Not all the funds I mentioned were intermediate bonds, Bank loan funds, such as EIFAX have very short term duration.

three years seems to be FD's go-to for making points. Anything can happen with bond funds (or stock funds) over a three year period.

I have been posting about investing for over 10 years. I have made many posts about investing from several weeks to several decades (comparing VWINX to VWELX since the early 70"). It all depends on the subject at hand.

"bonds are doomed" does not express my feelings nor have I even heard it before. I hear a lot about bonds being a poor investment at low rates but no so much at higher rates.

Nit-picking, it's not about feeling or what you heard, that was a typical bilpek comment.

I think a good deal of the problem is that the OP is a trader, while most of us hold bond funds for stability and over longer periods than 3 years.

mmm...My OP was generic. I can't find anything in it that talks about what I do or my style. I looked at a period where the Fed raised the rate the most in the last 10 years and it just happened within the that time.
Many investors hold funds that someone like you would never hold since you only use Vanguard funds. PIMIX was a good example of a fund with a great risk adjusted returns. Not everybody holds their funds for many years, some make adjustment along the way, wait, you are one of them. Not everyone holds only bond funds for stability, some hold for higher income, some hold instead of stocks such as high yield, some use CEFs.
Basically, most articles and research about bonds talk about treasuries but managed bond funds are a lot more diverse with more options.

Actually, I have a lot more problems with the original OP than the way he said it. First, he cites FED funds rate, but his examples are all over the board intermediate bonds. Did these funds see a 2.5% rise in their yields? I don't think so. Second, three years seems to be FD's go-to for making points. Anything can happen with bond funds (or stock funds) over a three year period. Third, "bonds are doomed" does not express my feelings nor have I even heard it before. I hear a lot about bonds being a poor investment at low rates but no so much at higher rates.
I think a good deal of the problem is that the OP is a trader, while most of us hold bond funds for stability and over longer periods than 3 years.
But, hey, don't get me wrong; I love that my bonds are doing well despite low yields. I just don't believe it can continue for long.

Hi bil. The point was bonds did not get hurt too badly as the FEDs lowered rates towards 0%. IT, MS, IG etc. all did OK. He wasn't really comparing fund types to FED rate.

Actually, I have a lot more problems with the original OP than the way he said it. First, he cites FED funds rate, but his examples are all over the board intermediate bonds. Did these funds see a 2.5% rise in their yields? I don't think so. Second, three years seems to be FD's go-to for making points. Anything can happen with bond funds (or stock funds) over a three year period. Third, "bonds are doomed" does not express my feelings nor have I even heard it before. I hear a lot about bonds being a poor investment at low rates but no so much at higher rates.
I think a good deal of the problem is that the OP is a trader, while most of us hold bond funds for stability and over longer periods than 3 years.
But, hey, don't get me wrong; I love that my bonds are doing well despite low yields. I just don't believe it can continue for long.

Why would you choose this over say BIV? or the more volatile FTBFX?

Plug the symbols into Portfolio Visualizer and you'll see why. Not only does TCW have the best returns dating back to 2007 (with no down years) but lowest SD and highest Sharp. It's not even really close.

I'm less concerned than some others with the modest increase in duration of DODIX. To explain why, I'm going to have to go into why I feel that MBS durations understate risk. Negative convexity. Bear with me here.
I'll try explaining this by analogizing to a vehicle in motion. Duration can be thought of as a measure of speed. A duration of five years means that you're "driving" at 5% per 1% rate change. That is, for every 1% increase in interest rates, you lose 5% in value. That's your "speed".
If you were "driving" at a constant speed, you'd lose 5% for each 1% increase in interest rates, like driving a steady 5MPH down a road. The way vanilla bonds work, it's as though you were tapping the brakes. (A gentle tapping, nothing more, with apologies to Edgar Allen Poe.) So at the first instant, you're losing money at 5% per 1% rate change. But as soon as you start losing principal, you slow down. That's good, you don't lose money so quickly. You lose less than 5% as rates drop 1%.
With negative convexity, instead of decelerating (positive convexity), you're accelerating. You're not gradually dropping from 5MPH to 4MPH, but you're stepping on the gas, and speeding up, say to 6MPH. Instead of losing 5% as rates drop 1%, you're losing more than 5% as your losses accelerate.
One way of looking at this is that an MBS with a 5 year duration will lose more value than a vanilla bond with a 5 year duration. (So duration understates MBS interest rate risk.) Another way of looking at this is that an MBS with a shorter duration will lose just as much as a vanilla bond with that 5 year duration.
What DODIX did was shift from somewhat shorter duration MBSs to somewhat longer duration vanilla (corporate) bonds. So even though the duration looks longer than before, the expected loss if rates increase should still be comparable.

In the first six months of 2020, we established new positions in over a dozen corporate issuers at what we believe were exceptionally attractive valuations. These purchases, along with many additions to existing corporate issuers, increased the Fund’s Corporate sector weighting by 11 percentage points to 45%.
To fund these purchases, we sold certain Agency MBS and U.S. Treasuries, which now make up 31% and 8% of the Fund, respectively. We lengthened the Fund’s duration modestly through the aforementioned corporate bond purchases, though we remain defensively positioned with respect to interest rate risk.

https://dodgeandcox.com/pdf/shareholder_reports/dc_income_semi_annual_report.pdf

Great discussion. Correct me if wrong, but I think that large houses like TRP and DC with considerable expertise / resources in analyzing bond fundamentals (ie credit-worthiness)) should be able to identify pockets of value in mid and lower rated bonds. Let’s hope that’s what you’re paying a management fee for. So, I wouldn’t get too excited about DODIX ‘s BBB bond rating (technically considered “investment grade” - if only marginally).
If duration on DODIX is 5 years (as stated by @WABC), I would find that concerning as well as “odd”, since it’s no secret D&C has for many years now been erring on the side of caution - expecting interest rates to rise. That’s one thing that has dinged their equity performance. So a 5 year duration is hard to explain. One guess: They have been known to short a few longer Treasury bonds as a hedge on rising rates. That might be what allows for the longer duration on their long bond positions. Yep - I wouldn’t use a fund with a 5 year duration as a cash substitute.
I bailed on DODIX back in March after the Fed drove interest rates to near 0. I had been using it as a cash substitute for many years and felt the risk / reward had shifted. Turns out I was wrong (or perhaps just early). It’s had a great run this year. I guess it was the (yet unannounced ) Fed dalliance with the corporate bond sector that provided the added impetus.
I’ve long wondered how DODIX can turn out such splendid returns with so little volatility. I’d say that puzzles me about as much as the enduring success of PRWCX. Some things are simply beyond my comprehension.

Asking this question under two hats, one personal and the other for a non-profit organization. We both have had investments in Certificates of Deposit that have/will mature in the coming months. The question is what do we do with the available cash going forward as the interest returns on the CDs are next to nothing. Fiduciary concerns with the non-profit make investments in equity/bond funds a touchy issue, though on a personal level that is not a particular concern. My wife and I are well into our retirement years with an adequate pension and social security and willing to undertake some risk on future investments, though the current investment climate suggests staying in cash until we see what happens in the next three months or so. Your collective comments and suggestions are most welcome (from a long time reader of the MFO discussions). Thanks.

I would suggest some should be in short term bonds like BSV or SWSBX.

@little5bee- We haven't done that in many years, but it sure was a lot of fun! When we did it there was no internet and they hadn't invented cellphones yet, so just heading somewhere with no idea what might be available for lodging was sometimes quite exciting. Things are different when you're young. :)

Just mentioned in another thread, TCW Total Return Bond Fund. Turns out Gundlach did not bottle that secret sauce. 20 years of positive returns.

@WABAC
-European Banks - EUFN
-International Value (LC)
-Taiwan and India with EM space - EWT & EPI
-High Quality Cyclicals - Semiconductor - PSI
-Overweight global banks versus technology, and value versus growth, since both trades have historically been good inflation hedges. We also suggest over weighting industrials (XLI) versus retailers, and energy versus utilities.

These are all trades based on the assumption that US stocks and especially growth have done well so lets "gamble" on others. I have seen these article for several years already. With interest rates so low I would not go with banks, actually banks wouldn't be my favorite for years since there are several other industries.
But, most should just use a wide index and not try to select the next hot sector.

@msf @TheShadow: Thanks for your comments. So with all the new assets moving to QRSCVF all that is needed now is some great investments ideas. With value being knocked to the curb over the last 10 years, it may be time to invest there.
Stay Safe, Derf

If this is for a buy-and-hold or a buy-and-gradually-sell long term position, it may be cost effective to simply pay the one time fee and amortize it over years. That is, think of it as, say, a $15 fee/year for five years. Compare the fee with the how much you'll be paying in higher expense ratios of other funds and this can still come out to be your best bet.
If you're looking at investing more than $50K, you could save 7 basis points ($35/year) by buying VWIAX at Vanguard and (if you want to keep everything at Fidelity) transferring the account to Fidelity. Generally you can hold Admiral shares at Fidelity but not buy any more.
If you still want to buy a similar fund at Fidelity, you could look at HBLYX/HBLAX submanaged by Wellington. It is managed by St. John/Reckmeyer/Hand/Illfelder. St. John is the lead manager for VWESX, and Reckmeyer is the lead at VWINX. HBLYX takes a bit more credit risk than VWINX and is a bit more volatile, still generally not dissimilar to VWINX. The equity profiles are quite similar, and both funds lean toward longer durations.
The Y shares are available at Fidelity at a low min, but with the $49.95 initial fee. As discussed above, this could still save you money in the long run. (You should be able to add shares for a $5 fee via automatic investments, but that should be verified with Fidelity. I'm less certain about the ability to use automatic investments with Vanguard Investor shares, though you should check with Fidelity for VWINX also.

FPPTX has been a laggard for years since Robert Rodriguez left managing the fund. Only good news was I was able to get in the fund while Bob was still managing the fund (and pay a load) before it closed for the last time.
Also, the asset base of FPPTX is nearly double that of QRSVX. There should be a sizeable capital gain loss remaining for a little while after the funds merge.

Could you cite sources and explain your thinking? I've occasionally sold, or declined to buy, funds because I fundamentally disagreed with the manager's approach. But when investing in actively managed funds I generally take the view that I'm buying certain expertise and philosophy and rarely second guess changes.
M* calculates the weighted average credit rating of the fund's holdings (based on Sept. 30th portfolio) to be "A". M*'s methodology is not a simple average, but a weighting based on default probabilities. This gives more weight to lower graded bonds. So if anything, M*'s calculation tends to give funds lower credit ratings than the funds would appear to merit.
Of 126 distinct core plus funds for which M* reports credit ratings, it rates only 3 at AA and 19 at A, including DODIX. The remaining 104 are rated BBB or BB (mostly BBB). There are 28 unrated funds.
M* reports average duration for 122 distinct core plus funds. While DODIX's 4.8 years is not near the bottom numerically (there are a few very short duration funds), it is 21st lowest (3 way tie), i.e. in the quintile of shortest durations.
These figures raise the broader question: do you want to own any core plus fund? The comment, "I want them to be boring" suggests the answer is no. Not because DODIX is making changes that you currently disagree with, but because this is what actively managed funds generally, and core plus bonds specifically, tend to do.
My approach with actively managed bond funds is that I don't want them to be boring. That's what index funds are for. If I'm paying for active management, I want to see the managers take advantage of a variety of opportunities - in sectors, in quality, in yield curves, in economic cycles, etc. Different strokes for different folks.
Regarding the last (semi) annual report, the fund did open a new position in Exxon Mobile (sic). However, that was presented as one of sixteen new positions that represented a variety of sectors. The securities were selected individually and not based on sector. Likewise, the 2019 annual statement "highlighted ... the additions of AbbVie, Occidental Petroleum, UniCredit, and Vodafone Group over the course of the year."
That said, a closer look at the June 2020 and Dec 2019 statements does show a significant increase in energy debt, e.g. Petroleo Brasileiro SA and Petroleos Mexicanos among others.