The DoubleLine Shiller Enhanced CAPE®, [is] an investment strategy pairing Shiller Barclays CAPE® with an active fixed income strategy (DoubleLine Short-Intermediate Duration Fixed Income, or SHINT. ...

Introducing DoubleLine Short-Intermediate Fixed Income Strategy (“SHINT”)
To construct portfolios across multiple sectors of the fixed income universe, including SHINT portfolios, DoubleLine applies a macroeconomic framework, led by portfolio managers and analysts who look across the spectrum of different asset classes. ...
SHINT is a diversified fixed income strategy that, at present [April 2019], targets duration of one to three years while pursuing a yield of 3% to 4%. That yield target appears feasible in the current market environment, allowing the investment team to take a measured approach to both interest rate and credit risks. Freedom to allocate across multiple sectors of the fixed income universe also allows the team to construct a diversified fixed income portfolio with what DoubleLine believes to be the most attractive investments on a reward-to-risk basis. The two-pronged approach of coupling top-down macroeconomic views with bottom-up security selection provides potential benefits from both risk management as well as return-seeking opportunities.
Actively managing the credit risk [non-AGG bond sectors] and interest-rate risk [IG bonds] of the portfolio is a key element to the asset allocation process. DoubleLine tilts the portfolio in the direction of one risk versus another based on the investment team’s macroeconomic forecasts and views on return and risk prospects within the sectors. ...
Sector rotation of SHINT portfolios has tended to be gradual, due to the gradual shifts in the macroeconomic landscape.

https://doubleline.com/dl/wp-content/uploads/DoubleLine-CAPEinRisingRateEnvironments-March2019.pdf
That contains a lot more, including a graph of the bond sector allocations over time.
DSENX tracked CAPE until March, when it underperformed by about 6%. The gap has held steady since then. This suggests that the bond component was fairly flat (neither helping nor hurting) through February, and also after March. But that it dipped 6% in March.
We've seen funds that have not recovered well, notably junk securitized debt. But those also fell much harder than 6%. So without peeking, I'd guess that DoubleLine had a mix of low grade securitized bonds and enough higher grade bonds to temper the dip. Taking more credit risk would also be consistent with trying to maintain that 3%+ yield while keeping a short duration.. Strangely enough, the bond fund I find with the closest match for that 2020 performance is TPINX. The portfolio is consistent with my guess: BBB credit rating, 2 year duration.
Looking at the linked doc on the Enhanced CAPE strategy, it seems that DoubleLine missed a macro call in 2019. The doc is entitled: A Potential Solution for Investors in Rising-Rate Environments.

Given indications that yields on the 10- and 30-year Treasuries put in a durable bottom in 2016, ending of the 35-year bull market in government bonds, investors have good reason to think about how to position portfolios for the next regime in fixed income. The investment team at DoubleLine is not calling for the advent of a secular bear market in fixed income. ... However, DoubleLine sees numerous fundamental factors presaging a rise in interest rates over the long run. Investors should study strategies that may not need the tailwind of declining rates to provide positive returns and perhaps have the potential to outperform in the face of rising rates.

Finally (and why I was curious about this fund), M* started classifying it as a blend fund in 2019. Not all that surprising, since CAPE rotates among sectors that are most undervalued relative to their own prior valuations, not relative to the market. So it can easily rotate into more "growthy" sectors.

Donna
As you say, your grandson will begin to learn the ropes pretty quickly (once he has skin in the game). So you're not trying to select a fund that he'll have to keep forever.
He's young and has time on his side, so he can be adventurous. QQQ or a technology oriented fund would be appropriate.
This strikes a chord with me -- this week my 15-year old grandson called wanting advice about stocks (he had inherited a little money from his other grandparents). We talked about possibilities, but he made his own decisions. Of course, as soon as something went up a dollar, he wanted to sell it! My strongest recc. was SMH (semiconductors ETF). Volatile ( he had to look up this word) but will probably beat the market in the long run. I've had FSELX, the Fidelity semiconductors (managed )Select Semiconductors fund in my IRA and in my wife's Roth IRA for years and it has been very strong (especially recently).
Are you providing his initial investment (which is perfect as long as he has actually worked and earned some money)? My grandaughter just graduated from college and started working; I told her I'd match what she wanted to put in a Roth IRA. It turned out that she'd made about $6000 working last year, so she could open a Roth for that much -- my 3K and her 3K. My real goal is to get her engaged in the investment process.
This will be fun; let us know what you grandson decides.
David

Hi Donna!
I suggest you buy him some good books also. Seems like so many 21 year old men think they can “discover” half a dozen gems, ride them for a couple of years and retire at age 30. And of course, that’s just not realistic. My suggestion would be William Bernstein’s “If you Can”. https://etf.com/docs/IfYouCan.pdf
I may be only thinking of a data set of one (yours truly) but when I was 22 a broker called singing the praises of Data I/O and convinced me to open a margin account.

Hi @Donna,
Not a suggestion ... Just what I'm doing for my grandaughter. However, this concept might be of some help.
I have my 18 month old granddaughter in AMECX, CAIBX, ANCFX and SMCWX at American Funds, The min. for each fund is $250.00. I make quarterly gift contributions to her account splitting the money evenly. Her mutual fund distributions pay to AFAXX which is a money market fund to accumulate until they become invested into ABALX which is a balanced fund. In this way she will have an awarness of just how much interest, dividends and capital gain distributions play in the overall sucess of investing. I'm thinking over time ABALX will become larger that the first four starting funds by the time she becomes 21 (age of majority).
Even though this is invested conseratively it is up better than 8% over the past rolling year. At her age and with the many years she has ahead I feel a conserative steady as you go approach is the wise one over an agressive growth portfolio that will have, at times, some good volatility associated with it. This might lead one into trading over staying invested for the long term.
I became an investor as a teenager at age 12 (1960). I started investing with some money my great grandparents gifted to me. And, it was put into Franklin Income (FKINX). My father's broker told me that this fund will give you some exposure to income generation (put a little gingle in your pocket if you wish) and also give you exposure to both stocks and bonds as well. It will be a good fund for you to build a base from and help you to understand the facets of investing. My next fund that I ventured into was American Funds Income Fund of America (AMECX) during my early twenties as I was learning don't put all you eggs in one basket, by this time. Today, these two funds are my largest holdings within my portfolio now just short of fifty funds split among twelve investment sleeves. I went the conserative route in the beginning and branched out from there. Now stock market volatility is viewed, by me, as a buying opportunity. While some run and sell ... I am a buyer even at the age of 72. I bought during the past market swoon and now that stocks have recovered I have been selling into the now present market strength.
If you wish to view how the asset allocation, of my grandaughter's portfolio bubles, or any of the other suggestions that has been made, below is a link to Morningstar's Instant Xray analysis tool. It's a good tool to learn how to use.
https://www.morningstar.com/instant-x-ray
Just enter the ticker symbols and amount invested in each fund then press Xray and the Portfolio Xray analysis will appear. For my granddaughter, I felt it wise to mix some income generation funds on the income side with some value and growth stocks funds on the equity side. Sometimes, with the income generation that protfolios produce keeps folks invested. My late father had a saying ... "Income never goes out of style." Thus far, in my lifetime, he has been correct.
Your grandson can follow his portfolio through M*'s portfolio manager which is another tool I use.
My best wishes to you and your grandson in starting this endeavor. It is something that he can begin small and build upon through his lifetime. In the years to come he will remember ... this is something my grandmother got me started me on. And, give thanks that you did.
Old_Skeet
edited on 7/23/2020

Dear friends,
I wanted to share the sad news of passing of Dowe Bynum (1978-2020) last Friday. Dowe, half of Cook & Bynum, was diagnosed with brain cancer about three years ago. (I still remember standing in the Cedar Rapids airport one evening, and taking a call from David Hobbs who wanted to share the diagnosis with us. They knew, even then, that it was very serious.) As you might imagine, his illness deeply affected his family, his friend and partner, and their firm. I have extended our condolences, through the folks at Cook & Bynum, to Emily and their three children.
I wish them, and you, peace.
David

@WABAC, hope this thread helps your headache. Your retirement income needs will come from SS, maybe a pension, maybe part time work, maybe a portion of your personal retirement accounts (RMDs or other withdrawals).
If considering an annuity run some withdrawal scenarios with a fund like VWINX which may provide a similar withdrawal rate to an annuity and still allow you to have full control over it.

Not too worried about headaches at the moment. Aside from market performance, we are saving cash every month under the current conditions. This has been an interesting stress test.
Used to spend 135$ a month filling up the cars. Now, one car, or the other, gets filled up every third month,
The little numbers might be small for what some folks here may need. But they add up quick for our situation.
While I have "enjoyed" the accumulation stage. I'm not so sure I want to manage the RMD stage. We're still 7-8 years out from that. And I don't have to sort it out today.
But it's something to think about so long as we can entertain the idea of relying on our retirement accounts, without tapping into taxable accounts.
The recent changes in the way inherited retirement accounts are treated by the IRS has influenced my thinking.

@Sven: I am bombarded by upgrade offers from Quicken even though I haven’t used it in years. I can’t entirely cut the cord from Intuit, however, because I’m a TurboTax subscriber.

Chapter I -Too complex for me. Fortunately I purchased the DejaOffice App at Apple around the time I retired. It has proven highly reliable and very versatile for creating various files and keeping backups. Updating the most recent backup to all devices (weekly) works reliably. So I have basic records of just about everything related to investing since retiring 20+ years ago. Annual returns, additions from other sources, withdrawals by year, total withdrawals to date, total gains to date, Roth conversion dates and amounts, etc. etc. I also record every fund exchange, transfer or sale I make, but normally discard those files after 3 years. The thought of having to maintain all that garbage in some type of paper file (as might have been common 25 years ago) is daunting to say the least.
Chapter II - I don’t worry too much about any overarching plan. Looking at those detailed records gives me some degree of confidence I’m heading in the right direction. We’ve skated around the related issue in the past of whether it’s better to keep a 3-5 year cash reserve to smooth out those market shocks or to just pull what you need from the overall blend of assets. The former allows for a more aggressive investment approach of course (but with fewer dollars). Good arguments both ways. I’m in the minority here as I believe in not maintaining a separate cash reserve. However, am quite conservatively invested,
Chapter III - In terms of how much and when to withdraw? Depends on needs. Pull substantial amounts for a new car or home renovation maybe every 5 years. Lesser amounts for other years. If worried about market levitation I do a 6 month “advance” by transferring the next year’s anticipated needs into cash still within the tax-sheltered domain. I did that mid-way through 2019. Not planning on doing that this year. Politicians have gone spending crazy in an election year. A trillion here ... a trillion there ... Hell to pay some day. But I expect the markets to hold at least until November. As far as those drawdowns for major purchases go ... if the market’s sucking air and your investments are way down, postpone whatever you’d intended. Wait for a better time. I suspect that in that regard the human brain is better enabled to make the decision than would be MonteCarlo or any other computer simulation.
Chapter IV - Can’t quite get my head around the popular notion of “spending down” assets. My invested assets have increased (in nominal terms) during retirement. I expect them to continue to increase. (That’s after whatever withdrawals were taken.) There’s something to be said for having an increasing “net worth” at any age. In fact, it seems counterintuitive to me to be “investing” (presumably for growth) while at the same time planning how to divest oneself of said assets. Maybe it’s because I have a decent pension. Don’t know. But it’s a real brain stopper for me.

@zenbrew,
There is nothing wrong with sleeping on it. Most time with big decisions I think through for about three days as I have made impulse choices before that were just not the best.
Years back I would try to get too much out of a position just to see my profits vanish from a pullback. Then the question is do you sell the decline? Or, hold for an uptick? For me, I like to sell into strength. Generally, I aveage in with equity ballast (and, or spiffs) during market declines (not trying to pick a bottom) and then I average out when the rebound comes and sell into strength (not trying to pick the top to exit). With this, I have preplanned my entries and my exits with some flexability built in of course and my barometer is an aid in me doing this. Thus far, it has worked fairly well. Not perfect but well enough to coninue with it.
At the end of the day ... we have to govern as what works best for each of us.
With this ... however, you choose to invest ... I wish you success.
Old_Skeet

This might be a very strange post.
I had a new electrician over my house the other day. A real sharp guy with 50+ years of experience & a streak of the philosophical. My house which was built in the 1970s is a landmine of aluminum & copper wiring. Typically I handle most of the wiring myself but for this I needed a professional. I was mentioning that it was sort of like detective work trying to figure out where the short was when while standing on the ladder looking at the wiring issue, he turned to me & said "you know this might sound really weird but I do my best problem solving when I'm sleeping". I didn't think it was weird at all.
Which brings me to this post.
I really respect & appreciate someone like Old_Skeet's barometer postings which lays out a very robust systematic way of investing using numbers.
However, that's not how I roll even though I have at times tried. I've most likely left good money behind in the process but fortunately also avoided any major blow-ups along the way. I have tried to put as much on auto-pilot regarding finances as I can & have tried to idiot-proof the process along the way (to guard against my own bad decisions).
The encounter with the electrician (who is now my go-to electrician for me when needed) crystallized how I do approach investing as with most of my life. My best problem solving & subsequent decisions come to me while either on a walkabout (hike of some sort) or sleeping. Not very scientific but has worked out extremely well for me throughout my life. I have been out on my own since I was 16 & have done okay. I also have done either yoga or tai chi throughout my life which I find helps immensely in clearing my mind. The more I consciously think about investing, the worse decisions I generally make. I tried rule-based investing for stocks for a short time, but wasn't very successful. Yikes, I sold Amazon at $400.
I do try to stay stay informed & am not data-phobic. Information gathering (from a multitude of sources including here at MFO) is important & helps the unconscious processing.
This process also is helped if one does not carry a lot of expectation. One has to be okay with the unknown.
Why 'Sleeping on It' Helps
So that's my strategy for investing.
Any thoughts or comments?

@zenbrew, I am impress with your organized approach. Good idea to use Quicken. Mine is over 20 years old.

The PIMIX assessment was based solely on PIMIX previous years. In 2018 it was at 18% in its category but making 0.6% is pretty low when PTIAX made 2% and SEMMX made 3.9%.
Possibly the comparison with PTIAX alone was deemed not sufficiently persuasive. Regardless and for whatever reason, the ringer SEMMX was tossed in - a fund that isn't a multisector fund (per M*). Which begs the question: why stop with just the third best nontraditional fund of 2018?
Instead of cherry picking SEMMX, a 1* fund with a tarnished reputation, one could have cherry picked CLMAX, a 5* fund. Its 2018 performance of 7.58% not only nearly doubled that of SEMMX, but it made PTIAX look anemic.
==========
Argentinian fiasco? PIMIX had just a 2% exposure to bonds that dropped in value to 71¢ on the dollar.
https://www.pionline.com/markets/pimcos-bet-argentine-bond-paying-75-rate-hit-peso-rout
As that column noted: "PIMCO's profits or losses on the bonds would depend significantly on the extent to which it hedged its foreign-exchange exposure." PIMCO stated that half of PIMIX's position (i.e. 1%) was dollar-denominated.
The proof is in the pudding. In August, PIMIX dropped 1.11% vs. the category's 0.83% gain. It made up that 1.94% underperformance in the remainder of the year by outperforming monthly by 0.65%, 0.40%, 0.36%, and 0.50%. (Data from M*)
Interesting how attention is called to some some black swan events with small impact, while others are disregarded ("You can't look at PIMIX YTD and compare it to BND (high rated bonds) when we had a black swan")
========
PDBAX is not a M* Multi category fund but a Intermediate core plus fund
People here generally understand that M* categories are not the be-all end-all (see, e.g. RPHYX). I mentioned PDBAX specifically because M* does not calls it multisector, writing:

I ...suggest[] again to take a look at core plus funds. Generally core plus funds carry a bit less credit risk than multisector funds, though there's a fair amount of overlap between the most aggressive core plus and the more tame multisector funds. ... For example PDBAX.

The data I presented and that you quoted supports that thesis. What was your point?
FWIW, ADVNX is not a Lipper multi-sector income fund but a flexible income fund.
=========
2) SD(volatility) lower than 5
3) Morningstar return above average or high
These are effectively the same test. Since standard deviation is a second moment, a single outlier will skew the calculation. If a fund's SD is not distorted by March's performance figure, then March's performance must not have been an outlier. This in turn virtually mandates that the fund's return be relatively high (i.e. without a significant dip).

@Old_Skeet, "Nope, I just spent less and lived within my means saving some along the way plus I have been a good prudent investor and grown my wealth through the years." I totally agree with that plan."
.......Ditto.

Schwab seems to have most of the information I need for planning & reporting purposes. I even have my external accounts located there so I can get a sense of aggregation, but they don't allow you to count those accounts in any calculations such as monthly income. The monthly income tab for my Schwab accounts is a very handy & easy way to see the monthly income generated. Schwab will also generate a retirement plan for me at least once a year, maybe as often as I'd want as I seem to get a lot of emails asking me to do so. They are good at working with me regarding changing any variables (such as inflation, rate of return, etc) to see how it might impact the future. I'm sure they would like to get my accounts under management but they have not been pushy at all. Overall, I'm very pleased with Schwab & at some point might transfer my wife's Roth IRA & a small Roth of mine from TRP there.
The retirement plan that Schwab generates is the most comprehensive that I've used. It shows a year-by-year cash-flow analysis which includes annual income, withdrawal of assets, & taxes due plus more. I've also used TRP's FuturePath Tool too. I've looked at the OpenSocialSecurity tool as well as neither my wife or I have taken social security yet.
I also still use Quicken which is helpful for budgeting but most of that is on autopilot which is how I like things set up. I would still refer to my account statements vs Quicken for any exact information that I would need.
I like a bucket approach not so much that I think it generates the best results but it's easy for me to wrap my head around as well as makes it easy for me to leave my equity portion alone.
Next year will be the first year that my wife & I will need to take from our retirement accounts but we actually have the cash so that we won't need to take much. I retired at the end of 2016 due to health reasons but was fortunate enough to have taken out a personal disability policy. It was equally fortuitous that I had been paying for it out of our personal funds vs through my corporation. The money has been tax-free (with multiple benefits beyond the obvious). I would strongly recommend for anyone getting a personal disability policy that if you can afford to, pay for it out of personal funds.
@Old_Skeet, "Nope, I just spent less and lived within my means saving some along the way plus I have been a good prudent investor and grown my wealth through the years." I totally agree with that plan.

Looking for usenet files that I've got scattered all over the place in backups of backups of backups, I ran across a posting of Ed's that I saved, from mid 1999. We can reasonably figure that I moved to FundAlarm some time early this century.
That post (after stripping headers):

Mike Roberts wrote:
> Please tell me which funds for the next 1,3 5, and 10 years will outperform
> the S&P 500 Index. What's that - I'm waiting............
Hi Mike,
I'm not Sal, but here's a list:
FSPHX, FSDCX, FSCSX, FSPTX, FDLSX, FDCPX, NTCHX, VGHCX, JAMRX, JAOLX,
JASSX, JAVLX. Do you need more?

The S&P 500 (as represented by VFIAX) dropped 19% over that span. Half of the six Fidelity Selects did better, half worse over 5 and 10 years. Only two did better over 3 years. Here's a graph for the Fidelity funds.
As for the Janus funds:
JAMRX was Janus Mercury at the time (it was renamed around 2006)
JAOLX was Janus Olympus at the time, and was merged into Janus Orion JORNX in 2006; this in turn was renamed Janus Global Select (with a new, global investment policy) in 2010.
JASSX was Janus Special Situations, which barely survived three years; it was merged into JSVAX Janus Strategic Value and renamed Janus Special Equity, which was renamed Janus Contrarian in 2004.
JAVLX was Janus Twenty, which was merged into JACTX Janus Forty in 2017.
Between the dot com bust and the 2003 timing scandal, Janus did not have a happy turn of the century.
As for the non-Fidelity, non-Janus funds, I think people know that VGHCX has always been a great performer, though it slowed down a bit in the past decade. NTCHX underperformed the S&P 500 in all timeframes in question.

PIMIX was a great fund until the beginning of 2018. PIMIX is still a decent fund
I would go with PTIAX. LT good record + good downside protection. 2 more option are TSIIX and ADVNX
2018 returns:
PTIAX: 2.01%
TSIIX: 0.68%
PIMIX: 0.58% (still top quintile)
Multisector bonds: -1.52%
ADVNX: -1.99%
Typo? 2019 perhaps?

These 3 funds are based on the following(which I post already):
1) 3 year average annually over 4.3%
2) SD(volatility) lower than 5
3) Morningstar return above average or high
4) Morningstar risk low/below average.
The PIMIX assessment was based solely on PIMIX previous years. In 2018 it was at 18% in its category but making 0.6% is pretty low when PTIAX made 2% and SEMMX made 3.9%. PIMIX was unique investing more in MBS but in the last years diversified to more global and HY but kept the distributions high. I used to own a very high % in PIMIX for years but sold in 01/2018. In 08/2019 we found out about the Argentinian fiasco bonds PIMIX had.
===============
PDBAX is not a M* Multi category fund but a Intermediate core plus fund (you can maybe called it Multi light because it has about 20% below IG per M*).
It's more global with over 30% abroad
It has 18.9% derivatives.
===============
Basically, PIMIX used to be the easiest fund to recommend but it's getting harder and why I trade :-)

@bee, Thank for your your question about what funds I might benchmark my portfolio against. One, the benchmark must be a hybrid fund and have a yield generation of about 3.5%. Not to many hybrid funds achieve this as they are geared more towards growth than income generation. Two funds that I own that come close to the required yield are two widely held American Funds. They are Income Fund of America (AMECX) with a yield of about 3.4% and a ten year average return of 8.5%. The other one is Capital Income Builder (CAIBX) with a yield of 3.6% and a ten year average return of 6.8%. Overall I am at a yield of about 3.4% with a ten year average return of better than 9 percent.
I'm thinking the main reason that I am doing a little better than these funds comes from me being active within my portfolio and my use of special investment "spiff" positions when I feel it warranted. From a yield perspective I pair up better to AMECX and from an asset allocation perspective I pair up more towards CAIBX. Performance wise, again, I have done better than either of these two funds.
My top five funds owned (size wise other than my MMK funds) when combined account for about 25% of my portfolio are AMECX, FKINX, ISFAX, CAIBX & JNBAX.
On your other comment about living below one's means. I feel blessed that both my principal residence and 2nd home are both paid for and have been for a good number of years. Living below my means for a good number of years has helped us (wife and me) get ahead along with good prudent investing.
I have had high school buddies (at reunions) that were indeed much higher wage earners that I ... ask ... I know I made more than you through the years; and, now you have a great deal more than me. How did you do it? Win a lottery? Nope, I just spent less and lived within my means saving some along the way plus I have been a good prudent investor and grown my wealth through the years.
Besides, it cost to much to keep up with the Jones that live off credit cards and are mortgaged to the hilt.
Again, bee ... Thanks for asking. Now you know.
Old_Skeet

MIAQX looks promising. But, its interesting it is classified as a multisector fund. A quick credit quality/duration comparison to Diamond Hill High Yield (DHHIX) which I own suggests the two funds are close cousins. Anyway, I plan to check into MIAQX some more.
I have owned PONAX for several years and plan to continue to hold it. My suspicion is its short duration and heavy securitized weighting have recently hampered performance. But I continue to trust its management team for the long term. I own it, RCTIX, and PTIAX in about equal amounts.

@Old_Skeet Thanks! I've looked at MIAQX before. I put it on hold for 3 reasons
1. short term record only,
2. I already own American Funds' target date funds and am concerned about putting too much bond money in AF's hands, even though managers may be different
3. I seem to remember reading that this fund has some unusual quirk to it, possibly assumes too much credit rating and/or duration risk
@FD100 I owned PTIAX before, but sold it. Don't remember why, but I think it may have been because its record is erratic (does well in the multi-sector arena, but has a few pretty bad years in there) Maybe I should take another look.

I considered investing in PIMIX a while ago. In the multi-sector bond category, PIMIX had generated top-decile trailing returns with below average volatility. The fund's non-agency mortgage sector investments accounted for much of the strong performance after the financial crisis. However, the non-agency mortgage sector is much smaller today. Yet, Pimco refuses to close PIMIX which currently has ~ $120 Bil AUM. Matter of fact, I don't believe that PIMCO has ever closed a fund because it grew too large. This compaoblony policy is not in an investor's best interest.

The above is a good encapsulation of M*'s latest analyst review (not paywalled):
https://www.morningstar.com/articles/986480/why-pimco-income-remains-among-the-best
With the better financial reporting, "trust but verify" is good practice. (With much financial reporting, the "trust" part isn't justified.)
Jacobson writes that "Pre-financial-crisis supply in the [nonagency residential mortgage] sector has been shrinking." Those securities are often referred to as legacy RMBS (i.e. securities issued pre-financial crisis). And the statement's correct. However, the post GFC RMBS 2.0 sector (with stricter borrower guidelines) is growing. Though it is still minuscule; I don't want to suggest otherwise.
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/credit-suisse-and-citigroup-join-other-major-banks-in-mortgage-bond-revival-with-a-twist-2019-08-20
In late 2017 Jacobson (along with lead writer Miriam Sjoblom) was making the same point about a shrinking supply, describing the post GFC years as "a once-in-a-career opportunity. " They also commented even back then on the fund size (more on that below).
A bit concerning is Jacobson's statement that "Pimco still likes the sector for its return potential and modest volatility: ... they totaled 37% as of March 2020." This seems to be overstated.
According to M*'s portfolio page (old-style version) non-agency RMBSs amounted to 8.57% (out of 120% bond exposure) of the portfolio. The largest sector was agency MBS pass throughs at 40.58% (out of 120%), followed by asset-backed securities at 33.63% (out of 120%). All as of March 31, 2020.
According to the fund's annual statement, summary section, non-agency MBSs constituted 19.5% of assets (out of 100%), and asset backed securities constituted 12.8%. We report, you decide :-)
PIMCO says that securities (substantially all are bonds) constitute 154.5% of assets. And it reports non-agency MBSs constituting 30.3% of assets. So the non-agency RMBS percentage of securities (out of 100%) is, according to PIMCO, 30.3%/154% = 19.6%, or about what was reported in the annual statement's summary.
Regarding size: current size is $120B according to PIMCO ($117B according to M*). Jacobson made the same complaint about bloat in his 2018 analyst report (free) entitled "Is PIMCO Income Getting Too Big". According to that year's annual report, the fund's assets (all share classes) totaled $112B, or about the same size as now. But it had grown from about $69B the year before.
Mitigating that, Christine Benz (M*) comments that (at least with respect to vanilla bond funds):

managers who use derivatives to express their market outlooks may be able to successfully manage more girth than managers who focus more on bond-picking to make a difference. PIMCO Total Return and its various clones, for example, were able to deliver peer-beating returns for many years even though the fund grew too large for bond-picking to make a significant difference in its returns. At its peak, PIMCO Total Return had nearly $300 billion in assets, and Gross managed various pools of money in that same style for other entities, too.

PIMCO's funds have their issues, but so far they seem to have handled them better than I would have expected. I might put the fund on a watch list for more problems. But as I wrote above, if I had reasons before for liking the fund, I would examine those reasons before jumping ship.