Mentioned above is a global bond fund. DINDX is a Morgan Stanley Global Fixed Income Opportunity Fund with a long track record. It is classified as multi sector bond.
In November this mutual fund will be converted to an Eaton Vance ETF. Hopefully with a lower expense ratio. Over the years have had good success with Eaton Vance and Morgan Stanley bond funds.

Thanks for the info. 3 of the 4 fund managers of DINDX, who have only been with the fund since May of this year, are also the same fund managers for ESIIX (which I mentioned earlier in the thread and is one of my favorite bond funds). It will be nice to have this in an ETF format, and it would be interesting to see how closely it might track ESIIX.

Mentioned above is a global bond fund. DINDX is a Morgan Stanley Global Fixed Income Opportunity Fund with a long track record. It is classified as multi sector bond.
In November this mutual fund will be converted to an Eaton Vance ETF. Hopefully with a lower expense ratio. Over the years have had good success with Eaton Vance and Morgan Stanley bond funds.

I respectfully submit that which national guards (or regular army) occupy areas is irrelevant.
As to the economic impact on the only state occupied so far (California), by federalized units of the California national guard, here's what the government of California had to say:

the number of people reporting to work in the private sector in California decreased by 3.1% — a downturn only recently matched by the period when people stayed home from work during the COVID-19 lockdown.
... a ripple effect – the state’s economy is likely to contract later this year due to fallout from global tariffs and immigration raids in Los Angeles and other cities that have rattled key sectors, including construction, hospitality, and agriculture, according to a UCLA Anderson forecast.
Mass arrests, detentions and deportations in California could slash $275 billion from the state’s economy and eliminate $23 billion in annual tax revenue. The loss of immigrant workers, undocumented and those losing lawful status under the Trump administration, would delay projects (including rebuilding Los Angeles after the wildfires), reduce food supply, and drive up costs. Undocumented immigrants contributed $8.5 billion in state and local taxes in 2022 — a number that would rise to $10.3 billion if these taxpayers could apply to work lawfully.

https://www.gov.ca.gov/2025/07/31/nearly-all-national-guard-soldiers-in-los-angeles-are-demobilizing-governor-newsom-demands-those-remaining-be-released/
The links embedded in that piece are worth following, for their greater depth, their figures on how other states could be affected, and their multiple additional citations.
Here is the link for the UCLA Anderson report. While it focuses more on tariffs than on labor disruptions, it does note that deportations are playing into construction labor shortages. This in turn means lower construction projections and that "the prospect of the private sector building out of the housing affordability problem over the next three years is nil."
https://newsroom.ucla.edu/releases/ucla-anderson-forecast-u-s-california-economies-slow-amid-persistent-economic-geopolitical-uncertainties
P.S. Regarding rebuilding LA after the fires, the NYTimes Magazine has a piece I'm just reading now about the environmental and environmental justice issues in disposing of the waste from the fires. "That is more than the entire city of Philadelphia produces in a year [without] even account[ing] for all the charred vehicles and trees. " Maybe the national guard from those other states could lend a hand?
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/08/24/magazine/landfill-calabasas-los-angeles-wildfire-ash.html

Here's a BrandywineGlobal paper from 1½ years ago discussing convexity and securitized debt, along with market conditions at the time and risks involved in four types of securitized debt.
Riding the Convexity Wave in Securitized Credit

Thank you for the link. Yet another reason I try to minimize exposure to securitized debt is because I don't understand things like the following from the link cited:

Risks: If the job market worsens significantly along with a hard landing, subprime auto ABS bond defaults may increase sharply. However, we believe the potential credit losses should be absorbed by the cushion provided by credit enhancements and the fast deleveraging of the deal structure.

"Fast deleveraging of the deal structure" sounds like Repo Man II: The Action Movie to me. But I know I don't know what I'm talking about. :).

With securitized debt borrowers typically have some control over payment schedules. See "prepayment risk" and "extension risk" in prospectuses. The bottom line is that this affects convexity, often leading to negative convexity (especially for longer term debt) that can make bonds behave badly at the worst times.

With normal bonds (positive convexity) as interest rates increase, prices decrease but at a decelerating rate (tempers bad effect of rising rates). And when rates decrease, prices increase at an accelerating rate. But bonds having negative convexity exhibit the opposite behavior. As interest rates increase, prices decline at an accelerating rate. And as interest rates decrease, bonds usually still appreciate but at slower and slower rates.
This negative convexity is one reason why securitized debt tends to yield a bit more than other forms of debt. And like investing in general, risk tends to be rewarded over time if you wait long enough. But in the interim, one can take severe hits. That's what makes me nervous. So I'll consider multisector bonds where the manager has the flexibility to adjust allocations as seem appropriate, but I don't invest in securitized debt funds.
Here's a BrandywineGlobal paper from 1½ years ago discussing convexity and securitized debt, along with market conditions at the time and risks involved in four types of securitized debt.
Riding the Convexity Wave in Securitized Credit

It would be a good idea to examine drawdown periods as @Obervant1 noted with various multi-sector funds and ETFs for their risk. Using MFO Premium, one can compare these funds for their MFO rating and Risk over 3 years and 5 years period. In general, MS funds carry higher risk than that of investment grade bonds. I have short term investment bonds to compliment my MS and high yield bonds.

Thanks @msf for the update. Two years ago there were fewer Vanguard funds available. There must be additional agreement made to be on Fidelity shelf space.

@Mark is correct with D&C at Fidelity’s mutual fund supermarket. Years ago they were listed.
Vanguard is listed today, although it limited only to a handful of OEFs and not the entire lineup.
We consolidated to Fidelity several years ago. Few Vanguard funds remained and others are their ETFs.

Just be aware with securitized (MBS) funds.....SYFFX lost -31% in 1Q 2020, as many of these funds were crushed at the time. That's why I don't hold more HOSIX.
It's not that history will repeat, but it can.

Good observation. I normally don’t look further than 5 years (and place more emphasis on 3 year returns), and don’t look at individual quarters that far back. so I probably would have missed that. That is also something to consider.

@Observant1, why did you sell River Canyon Total Return Bond Fund RCTIC?

Not Observant, but I also used to own RCTIX. It underwent manager changes a few years ago, the performance started to suffer, and there seemed to be some uncertainty. So I sold it. It later improved and recovered. The fund is 55% securitized. When I was thinking about getting back into the fund, I saw that SYFFX, a securitized fund, was outperforming RCTIX. SYFFX outperforms RCTIX at every trailing period I look at. So if I when considering RCTIX, which has more than 50% exposure to the securitized sector (a sector I was underexposed to), I thought that I might as well go with a dedicated securitized fund that has performed better.

Grantham has been wrong for over 15 years.
Hussman and Arnott have been wrong for as long.
These people forgot that markets collapse many times based on special conditions/situations.
2008-MBS
2018-Fed raised rates 3-4 times within a year.
2020-Covid
2022-Inflation made the Fed raise rates very rapidly.
Valuation models aren’t gospel. They’re frameworks, often rigid ones. Markets don’t “obey” a PE ratio, a CAPE model, or any single metric. They move based on flows, positioning, liquidity, sentiment, and risk appetite — none of which those “experts” fully capture.
Articulation ≠ expertise. Some people build reputations on talking smoothly on CNBC or writing clever papers. But if you look under the hood, their track records are mediocre or not disclosed at all. A true expert has numbers behind them, not just words.
Macro talk rarely drives short-term results. Tariffs, inflation debates, and political narratives — they sound convincing, but the link between those stories and stock prices in the next 1–12 months is weak. Liquidity and momentum can swamp those factors.
The real experts are rare. They don’t talk much because they’re too busy managing money. They know the limits of prediction and don’t oversell their opinions.
So, how can anyone listen or invest with these guys?

He was on a episode of the Compound with Josh Brown and Michael Batnick. I was super impressed with Grantham and his ability to speak intelligently about markets, the past, future estimates. But I still can't get around how poorly he's navigated the past 15 years.

From Markets A.M. newsletter by Aaron Back.
On this day in 1787, John Fitch launched the first successful steamboat run
in U.S. waters when his 45-foot boat smoked and boomed up the Delaware River.
But he never got costs under control, so Robert Fulton—whose own steamboat launch
came 20 years later—is instead remembered as the father of the steamboat.

Bengen's definition of "safe" means that an investor can maintain a certain withdrawal rate
over a 30-year timeframe regardless of market performance.
In a worst-case scenario (very low probability), the portfolio would be depleted after 30 years.
For those interested in leaving a legacy, they may wish to decrease the withdrawal rate accordingly.

Jeremy's next big prediction after getting the real estate fiasco correct was to begin heavily divesting from us markets and focusing on emerging markets. He has basically reiterated that stance for 15 years. since then, emerging markets have been 4X'ed by the US market. So eventually they'll be right. but to the normal investor who invests some in international, its going to take quite a correction to make up for 15 years of garbo returns in VWO.
signed person who overweights EM in his international allocation and has for 7 years.

It's worth noting that Bengen's "rule" assumes a 30-year time horizon and that the portfolio is emptied just as the investor takes her last breath. Most people don't want to cut things that close. They want a measure of safety in the event they last longer than 30 years, and most want to leave a legacy, perhaps a good-sized one. These additional factors militate in favor of a lower withdrawal rate (or a longer work life) and Bengen is up front about that.

@PopTart- Yes, both parties gerrymander. That's why I voted for California's independent redistricting commission, which I believe has worked very fairly. And now our governor wants to "temporarily" shut down the commission for five years to offset Trump's work in Texas. "Nice guys" just can't win.

[snip]
According to an article in today's NYT, "The Democratic Party is hemorrhaging voters long before they even go to the polls.
Of the 30 states that track voter registration by political party, Democrats lost ground to Republicans in every single one between the 2020 and 2024 elections — and often by a lot.
That four-year swing toward the Republicans adds up to 4.5 million voters, a deep political hole that could take years for Democrats to climb out from. The stampede away from the Democratic Party is occurring in battleground states, the bluest states and the reddest states, too ..."

The Financial Times recently published their Business Book of the Year 2025—the longlist.
The following book was on the list.
In Outclassed: How the Left Lost the Working Class and How to Win Them Back, Joan C Williams looks
at the US left’s failure to challenge the rise of Trump, through the lens of workers and the working class.
She aims to explain how that happened and how the Democratic elite might use economic and political tools
to recover support.

From Markets A.M. newsletter by Aaron Back.
On this day in 1982, the stock market finished a week of shattering records,
with the Dow Jones Industrial Average up 10.3% in five days.
Just days earlier, most investors had thought a bull market was still months, even years, away.

I owned OTCFX, in taxable and tax-deferred, for a couple decades. I sold it a few years ago when it started to underperform. I am assuming that a lot of investors did same.
Despite talk of a resurgence in small caps lately, the fund is only up 3% YTD. I did not buy it to diversify, rather to beat the S&P. Both 2023 & 2024 were underwhelming, as well. Though. by then I had sold.