linter, I have been an investor in AKREX/AKRIX for about three years and it has rewarded my very well. It is "low" risk and it's metrics are outstanding.
Just curious, why would you sell out of it now? It has held up fairly well, and remember it is not a typical "LCG" fund.

Howdy folks,
Raised a bit of cash yesterday as I'm fading this rally. Slightly reduced intl equity holdings and traded up for quality in the miners.
Best estimate I've seen has the pandemic lasting for years even if we get a vaccine and life will never be the same.
Good luck all. Stay safe.
And so it goes
Peace and Flatten the Curve
Rono

Thanks JohnN. I can’t believe stocks are cheap, what will be the P/E when there is no E? But I seem to have been less than enthusiastic about the equities for years.
From the link in the OP, Just to reemphasize, Nomura’s managing director, cross-asset macro strategy, Charlie McElligott Says:
*Summer could bring “hard economic data collapsing like we’ve never seen before, terrible corporate guidance, stories of pending bankruptcies,”
*second wave of layoffs that will hit the white-collar sector
*Rising trade-war rhetoric from the White House as a presidential election campaign heats up could present more risk
*folks are getting ready to hit the wall again, with this idea we’ve moved out of stabilization and now we’re back into the harsh reality of what this is,” without having a Federal Reserve boost and no more stimulus checks until things get a lot worse, he said.

The difference in ERs between institutional class shares and A shares at PIMCO is on the order of 0.3% - 0.4%. So just subtract that from the performance figures. Admittedly, these are larger difference than the 0.25% 12b-1 fee difference one finds at most fund families.
Total Return Fund share classes
Income Fund share classes
PMDRX is only available in institutional class shares.
A shares are indeed the equivalent of retail, no load. They're where all the D share investors were moved. More generally, I don't think that A shares should be load adjusted for several reasons:

• Most people buying the shares on their own are not getting charged the load (as noted)
  
• People buying these shares with a load with the help of advisors are receiving value for that payment - the services of the advisor. (One can debate whether this "value" has any value, but that's a different question.)
  
• People who buy these shares themselves with a load perhaps do need an advisor; they should get what they pay for.
  
• There is no clear amortization period for the load. Just because we're looking at five year returns doesn't make five years the correct length of time.

With respect to C shares, they are automatically "load adjusted", because the load is embedded in the ER and thus in the performance figures. Using the logic above (that this is a fee for advice, not a cost of running the fund), I respectfully suggest that the load portion of the ER be backed out when evaluating the performance of the fund itself. Though as David observed, this gets to be an absurd exercise with dubious benefit.
Finally, with respect to 5 years being arbitrary and skewed by recent performance. It is certainly arbitrary. I've commented in a few other posts about how a recent sharp downturn can skew even long term figures, especially with more aggressive and/or volatile funds.
That said, I didn't add the comment in my post above because at least for vanilla bond funds, YTD performance is positive and in line with long term performance. Of course, the more one moves away from vanilla, the greater the skew:
Intermediate Core: YTD: 3.27%, 5 year 3.22%
Intermediate Core Plus: YTD 1.17%, 5 year 3.15%
Multisector: YTD -6.61%, 5 year 2.13%
High Yield: YTD -9.98%, 5 year 2.09%

There are various strategies for asset allocation that seem to work out about the same. Consequently, I honestly think the choice comes down more to what feels right than to a real difference in outcome or even overall risk.
To the extent that I invest in dividend paying stock funds, I do that to diversify my equity portfolio, not for a cash stream per se. ISTM that what matters when investing in a company is how profitable the company will be. Whether it retains its profits (because it feels it can put the cash to good use), or pays them out to me as divs, doesn't matter.
At a macro level, what works for me with cash is allocating enough to "real cash" to last a couple of years, to "near cash" for 1-2 more. I also maintain a secondary liquid cache (see below). Along with a modest bond buffer that sits between cash and equities I can wait out almost any equity downdraft. Essentially I can bury my head in the sand until it all blows over. Which is one's natural inclination anyway - not to look at figures that are down 30% or more :-)
I think the micro level is what you're asking about - how am I splitting up that cash and near cash. In my mind, cash is something that's available for immediate use without fluctuation in value.
Right now I do like no-penalty CDs since they give me that flexibility and better rates than MMAs (let alone MMFs). Until recently, something like Vanguard's Treasury MMF did better on an after-tax basis (state tax exempt). I do keep a few months cash in MMAs. They pay not much less than the CDs (though I expect MMA rates to fall), and they're a bit easier to deal with than the CDs. When one cashes out a CD, it's all or nothing. So I pay a small amount (in lost interest) with the MMAs for a small added convenience.
Moving up the scale, I use both taxable and muni "near cash" funds. I've written before that one expects these to do better over a span of a couple of years, though they could underperform cash (or even lose a penny or two) over shorter periods of time.
I also have a second level "cache" - mostly older I-bonds. Liquid, no penalty, state tax exempt, tax-deferred, and aside from tax benefits competitive with MMAs. Not replaceable - there are limits on how much one can buy in a year, they have penalties for five years, and the fixed rate on new ones is now 0%. If I need to wait out a long market decline, these are available as backup.
So long as rates are stable or dropping, I don't expect to move money from cash (MMA, MMF, no penalty CDs) to "near cash" (short term and/or short duration funds). I'd rather have the rate lock on the CDs. When rates take a sharp jump up, I'll see what vehicles are offering the best yields.
Overall, while this is a conservative cash strategy, it lets me be more aggressive with equities, both in percentage allocation and in the type of equities. For other people, a traditional 60/40 portfolio provides a greater level of comfort and they don't have a cash drag from a significant cash allocation. Or, they can be more aggressive with their cash. Different paths to hopefully the same positive results.

Here's a rough approximation of an answer, responding to Lewis's concern about the skew created by institutional shares. I searched the MFO database for all PIMCO funds with a five-year record and an investment minimum of $10k or less. Basically, the "A" and "C" share classes of each fund.
113 results, pretty much half "A" and half "C." EM Currency and Short-Term Investments doesn't report a "C" class, which is why the number is odd rather than even. So, 57 "A" share classes.
Of the 57, 35 (61%) have peer-beating absolute returns, 3 exactly match their peers, 19 lag.
If you switch to Charles's MFO Rating, a risk-adjusted return metric that uses the more conservative Martin Ratio rather than the Sharpe ratio as its basis, 20 of 57 funds have four or five star (above to much above average) ratings and another 21 have three star (just a bit above or below average) ratings. One fund, a money market doesn't have a rating. So, 72% "okay to excellent" over the past five years.
- - - - -
What unites the real stinkers? Mostly the word "real." PIMCO created a series of inflation-proof funds with the word "real" in their names. They incorporate hedges like TIPs, commodities and so on. Absent inflation, they've really sucked.
Also "Dividend and Income," for reasons I haven't explored.
- - - - -
But remember: five years is an arbitrary period based solely on the number of fingers and toes we possess (rolls eyes) and the measurement in question ends in the midst of a massive downturn which skews the results.
On whole: relatively few strategies have been soaring over the past five years, and many of them ignore traditional virtues like valuation, income-production and diversification. That would make me cautious of using them for a guide.
For what that's worth,
David

In 2015, 10 year treasuries yielded 2.14%, in 2016 it was 1.84%, then 2.33% (2017), 2.91% (2018), 2.14% (2019), and 1.17% (annualized) so far this year. So just looking at yield, one might have hoped for a tad north of 2%/year.
https://www.macrotrends.net/2016/10-year-treasury-bond-rate-yield-chart
IEF, an ETF of 7-10 year maturity Treasuries has an average duration of 7.6 years.
https://www.ishares.com/us/products/239456/ishares-710-year-treasury-bond-etf
Let's figure that over five years rates dropped by around 1% and duration was around 7.6 years So applying some back of the envelope calculations, appreciation was around 7% (allowing for some convexity) giving us maybe 1.3%/year annualized appreciation over five years.
Keep in mind these are all very crude estimates. Still, that adds up to around 3.5%/year over the past five years for the intermediate treasury market. Non-treasuries yield more but may not have had the same appreciation.
VFITX (intermediate treasury) has returned 3.26% annualized over the past five years.
VSIGX (interm treasury index) has returned 3.39%
VISCX (intermediate corp index) has returned 4.22%, and its benchmark index is at 4.41%
(All Vanguard data from Vanguard's site.)
Disregarding junk and securitized debt (categories that have done worse), one expects an intermediate term fund to have had returns falling somewhere between these figures. So PTTRX (3.89%), PIMIX (3.85%), even PMDRX (3.24%) seem to have held their own.
Over five years, PTTRX is 0.67% above its category, 0.04% above its index.
PIMIX is 1.58% above its category and matching its index.
PMDRX is 0.02% above its category, though 0.61% below its index.
(Data in this paragraph is from M*)
The record that seems "unbelievably bad" is not PIMCO's but that of the market. PIMCO has done fine with bonds. Arnott is a completely different story.

Lipper rates Janus small cap value as a "core" fund. And it has spent most of the last five years in M*'s "blend" box.
It currently holds nearly as much in mid value as in small value
I don't think "style-drift" is unusual for a low-turnover fund.
I own it as a small cap value in my IRA.

Good point. I'd never have thought to express it that way. We are so far from where "fundamentals" would put us, it's insane. We are light years from a supply-and-demand Market. Everything not only being propped-up, but well-greased. Of course, coronavirus lockdowns and the effects could not be predicted.

The pandemic could not have been predicted. I think I read somewhere that the transmission rate has been greater than was experienced during the Spanish flu.
But the level of corporate debt was well known. And there are several indicators out there telling us that the market has been in thin air for some time.
Maybe there could have been some sort of "normal" correction if there had been some other trigger. But one of the major reasons for stocks' ascent has been easy money fueling stock buybacks. And the money just keeps getting easier . . . for some.

Good point. I'd never have thought to express it that way. We are so far from where "fundamentals" would put us, it's insane. We are light years from a supply-and-demand Market. Everything not only being propped-up, but well-greased. Of course, coronavirus lockdowns and the effects could not be predicted.

I would rather not have to set up another account, especially a retirement account to buy Marcus CDs. While FDIC guarantees work ( I lost two CDS during the 1980s housing crisis) it does take some time to get your money back so there is some opportunity cost.
1.5% after taxes will not beat inflation, unless you think there is a massive deflation coming. There are a number of 1 year A+ bonds paying up to 2.5% from companies that are highly unlikely to go bankrupt in the next year ie, Kimberly Clark, Home Depot, Wells Fargo. If a good analyst knows what they are doing I think they can avoid bankrupcies and make more than that with longer duration bonds.

Certainly moving money around in IRAs is more difficult. In a post I made on another board I acknowledged that. Here, it just didn't occur to me that the question concerned IRAs. You're right that they're more problematic.
I used to work with someone who had taken delight in putting money into the most shaky Texan S&Ls in the early 80s. He said that he had gotten his money back a few days after each institution failed. Apparently your mileage did vary :-)
I am curious about the bonds you're looking at. I did a search on Fidelity's site, expanding the parameters to look for corporate bonds with maturities through Nov. 2029, and S&P or Moody's rating of at least BBB+/Baa1 respectively. Fidelity showed an inventory of 1139 bonds. When sorted by YTW (highest to lowest), the highest yielding WF bonds I found were:
94974BGL8, 2.922%, BBB+/A3, 7/22/27
94974BFY1, 2.558%, BBB+/A3, 6/3/26
95000U2D4, 2.497%, A-/A2, 1/24/29 (call 10/23/28)
95001D6P0, 2.314%, A-/A2, 4/17/28 (call 4/17/22)
949746SH5, 2.181%, A-/A2, 10/23/26
949746RW3, 2.108%, A-/A2, 4/22/26 (and callable)
94974BFN5, 1.975%, BBB+/A3, 8/15/23
94974BGP9, 1.940%, A-/A2, 9/29/25
No other Wells Fargo bonds yielding at least 1.92%. The bond I bolded comes closest to what you were describing - it should be called in two years (not quite a one year bond) and it is rated just a couple of notches below your A+ or better requirement.
Corporates rated A+ or better that I can find with YTW over 2.5% that may be redeemed sometime in 2021 are premium bonds callable next year. One expects premium bonds to be called, so I would count these as 1-1.5 year bonds; at least until problems prevent them from being called. So some possibilities do exist, albeit with liquidity risk (they may not be called, and there are added trading costs to sell rather than wait for redemption).
They're largely from health companies and banks - BP Capital, Credit Suisse, Barclays, UnitedHealth, Merck, etc. But no Wells Fargo, no Home Depot, no Kimberly Clark. The Schwab screener lets you look for issuers, and the only bonds it shows for these three companies are generally rated A-/A2 for Wells Fargo, or A/A2 for the others.

I saw one video talking about the speed of this downdraft and bounce back was so fast he may not have had time to make some deals... many variables. Also in the video they said ..hey, he's 89 years old!!

Hi again @Old_Joe.
Thus far this year ... and, I'm thinking that the only money I'll pull from the investmets is the required RMD from the retirement accounts and some of that will get repositioned back into investments. What I'm doing with most of the income that is generated from the investments is to increase my acreage by buying more shares of good funds. In this way, there will be a greater number of base shares to build from when the rebound comes (continues). Currently, wife and I live pretty well off of our SS checks, wife's school pension, and my contract work with my former full time employer before I retired from full time work. For us, life is good since we are debt free.
But, I also understand where you are coming from with how you are governing as well. 20% was a sizeable sum of our portfolio for us to hold in cash since it was paying next to nothing and losing to inflation. So, I over weighted my sleeve of good dividend paying equity funds in the growth & income section of my portfolio. Firured over the next five years or so I'd do ok with this strategy and grow my principal thus offsetting inflation and collect the dividend.
Much like a company if you are not growing principal and income then you are simply not progressing.
But, each of us on the board has to do what we feel is best. And, what I do might not be right for others. I understand that. But, I also understand, income has never gone out of style.

To be rated above average, a fund must be in the top 32.5% of its category (but not in the top 10%).
PRIDX came close to above average performance, but didn't make it over 3 years (38th percentile) or 10 years (33rd percentile). Shift that 10 year performance a little and the 10 year star rating should move up to 4 stars, bringing the overall weighted average rating also up to four stars.
It looks like this has happened. Take performance rankings through today (April 26). 10 year moves up to 27th percentile, 5 year drops slightly from 14th to 17th percentile, and 3 year moves up to 29th percentile. All above average performances.
So one should expect the star rating to move back to 4 stars when it's recalculated unless the fund stumbles in the interim.

It is now (May 5th) rated four stars.

Sold a few odds and ends I picked up in March after locking in some short-term cap gains that more than cover upwards of 1-2+ years of dividends.
I originally planned those purchases to be long-term holds but I'm having second thoughts about that @ the moment and moving to control exposures/risk.

My personal favorite is WAMCX. Great and consistent long term performance and a good manager who’s been at the helm for 8 years. Thanks for the suggestion of JSCVX @LewisBraham. Looks interesting. It has held up well previously in down markets. What hurt the fund this year and why do you like it now?

BUT, all this info will not be accurate true in the next 10 years since rates are so low now. As they say...past performance isn't a guarantee of future returns.

@dsuttr
The below chart offers a small example of VFINX vs WHOSX, 1999 to present date.
***Note: both charts are total return, meaning all distributions included.
Chart
This period covers, with a little extra; the 20 year period of the article. The line chart is a bit busy at the right edge. For an easy read, at the far left edge of the "days" section at the bottom of the chart, click the green and red icon to present a bar graph with percentages. Stock charts will not allow me to travel longer into the past. Perhaps this is available with a full membership.
@bee , thank you for your presentations.
Now, the ultimate return possibility is for one to study your favorite SP500 fund, etf or index (or other growth investment); and a chosen fund as WHOSX, an index or etf that represents long term government bonds. With these two sectors in mind, discover their trend patterns; based upon what is taking placing in the investment world. Either maintain a 50/50 mix or adjust as needed to favor one over the other for "x" time. Run your mix as a personal allocation fund, balanced more to one side from time to time.
'Course, we all know that the common words for investors when asked the question: "Where are you invested in the stock market?" More often than not, I reply that currently we're invested in bonds and some equity. A blank, questioning look appears upon the face of the one asking the question, "bonds?". The local tv and radio commentators never state that the bond markets closed today at......,eh?
IMHO, debt (BONDS) is the blood that flows through the veins of equity, and obviously; governments (large and small). Regardless, I don't like the fact of how much debt exists; be it government or corporate. But, this is where the game lays at this point. It is perhaps just as easy to state that too many corporations have stock prices that are inflated, too. Same game, eh?
Note: This discussion is about government AAA rated bonds, backed by the full faith of the U.S, government. Not BBB or similar corporate bonds that may be on the edge of "good junk".
The widely invested etf's in this space; are: TLT, EDV and ZROZ. TLT generally lags a bit in performance to the other two.
Ten year chart of the three, limited by inception date.
You'll likely discover more funds and indexes in this area with a search.
Lastly, at least for the time frame of the article, is the general long term, positive performance in many bond areas that have offered a lot of support to the performance of moderate and conservative allocation funds. Give a thank you to the mangers who have helped you have a decent return over the years in this area.
Ok, I'm past my time limit, chores call. :)
Catch

re: FD 1000 comments
l agree that results with TLT are very different from those engendered with BND.
When i inputted TLT into Market Watch, Fund. Comparison it will only yield for me 1 year return so i tried the comparison with Stock Charts, Performance
Charts and I compared for ten years TLT and SPY. The results show SPY at +194.7% and TLT +153.1%
I then went to Chas. Schwab Research on ETF page and compared ten year annualized returns. I found different values but still SPY at +153.58 % outperformed TLT at +74.9%
Interesting how two reliable firms get similar but not identical results. I guess numbers are fungible and can be maneuvered to prove anything, as I am sure our NY Times corespondent is aware.

Yes, LT bond did better but also VWINX (2/3 bonds) did better but also SD=volatility was better too. (link)
But in the last 10 years TLT+EDV have similar performance to the SP500 too (link)