The spousal Roth IRA has been discussed here previous; but I'll add this again, as many remain unaware of this provision.
From personal experience, I've helped 12 married couples discover this little known provision. Obviously, a married couple needs to have the financial resources to fund a spousal Roth IRA; but even a few hundred dollars annually makes a difference going forward. The common circumstances I encountered were: one spouse retires several years earlier than the other, or one spouse has a temporary or permanent job loss.
"Generally, you need earned income to contribute to a Roth IRA. For married couples, there is an exception. You can contribute to an IRA for a non-working spouse, up to the maximum annual limit. A spousal Roth IRA isn't a joint account, but can be an effective way for couples to double their retirement savings."
Aside from the IRS link below, do a broad search for spousal Roth IRA to discover more details.
IRS pub. here .....read Spousal IRA section
As always, remain curious,
Catch

@hank I also remember doing a 15-year catch-up provision with my 403 b provider based on the following information and Link

To qualify for the 15-years of service catch-up (if the employer’s plan includes this provision) the employee must have 15 years of service with the same eligible 403(b) employer. The limit on elective deferrals to the participant’s 403(b) account may be increased by up to $3,000 in any taxable year (lifetime employer-by-employer limit of $15,000) if the employee has at least 15 years of service with the same employer in a:
public school system,hospital,home health service agency,health and welfare service agency,church, orconvention or association of churches.

https://irs.gov/retirement-plans/403b-plan-fix-it-guide-an-employee-making-a-15-years-of-service-catch-up-contribution-doesnt-have-the-required-15-years-of-full-time-service-with-the-same-employer

Many nearing retirement seem unaware of the IRS “Catch-up“ provisions. Appears current law allows persons over 50 who were unable to fully fund their retirement plan in prior years to make generous catch-up contributions later on in addition to the current yearly limit. I’m unclear whether it pertains to IRAs, but it appears that at least in some cases it does. My experience more than 2 decades ago (with a 403-B) may no longer be representative. But in my case the “catch-up“ came in darned handy in shoring-up earlier insufficient contributions as retirement neared.
Quick search pulled up 3 reads:
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/catchupcontribution.asp - Invesropedia / general description
https://www.irs.gov/retirement-plans/401k-plan-catch-up-contribution-eligibility - IRS / 401K
https://www.irs.gov/retirement-plans/plan-participant-employee/retirement-topics-catch-up-contributions - IRS / mentions IRAs - but I’m unsure of types and amounts.
PS - I should have read John’s article first: “ The maximum amount you can contribute to a traditional IRA for 2020 is $6,000 if you're younger than age 50. Workers age 50 and older can add an extra $1,000 per year as a "catch-up" contribution, bringing the maximum IRA contribution to $7,000. You must have earnings from work to contribute to an IRA, and you can't put more into the account than you earned.”
Perhaps my added emphasis may be helpful to some. :)
From Simon - “Inflation (Consumer Price Index) was up 2.1% in 2019 as of last November” -
While that sounds trite in the face last year’s near 30% return on the S&P, it really depends on perspective. A 2% rise in cost of living (if you believe the numbers) would look quite different following a 30% decline in equities, especially if bonds languished or fell in value. And even at 2% a year, over 5 years you’re looking at well over a 10% increase in COL. (Remember that inflation compounds in a manner similar to how interest does.)

As I have previously posted, Muni bonds have a strong seasonality factor that has been written about. January is one of the stronger periods of performance historically:
The Four Seasons of Muni Bond Investing
FEBRUARY 14, 2019 BY SAGE ADVISORY
Timing is everything. For a municipal bond investor, annual seasonal trends can provide great entry and exit points, if executed properly. There are four distinct seasonal periods that occur annually due to structural factors inherent in the municipal bond market. If timed correctly, municipal investors can increase their probability of successfully trading these markets and reap the reward of better returns.
The four seasonal periods that affect the municipal market on an annual basis are January Reinvestment, Tax Season, June/July Redemptions, and the Holiday Season Slowdown.
January Reinvestment
Although not the heaviest period of bond maturity and coupon payments, January 1st does experience an elevated level of cash that needs to be reinvested. In addition, the lingering effects of the Holiday Season Slowdown contribute to a limited amount of new issue supply, as well as diminished levels of secondary supply offered by broker/dealers. This strong technical environment tends to last anywhere from a few weeks to well into February, depending on the direction and magnitude of market flows. For investors who can time liquidity needs, January represents one of the most advantageous times of year to raise funds.
Tax Season – late March through April
From late March until the end of April, the municipal bond market tends to see both a reduction in demand as well as a heightened level of selling to fund tax payments. (Selling tax-exempt municipal bonds to fund personal federal and state tax liabilities remains one of life’s great mysteries.) Regardless, tax season provides an attractive entry point for investors, as limited demand and improving new issue supply tend to push valuations to more attractive levels.
June/July Redemptions
The heaviest period of maturing bonds and coupon payments is during these two months and represents anywhere from 40% to 60% of annual redemptions. Typically, municipal issuers come to market during this time, which offsets the demand pressure from reinvestment. Unfortunately, over the past several years, municipalities have been paying down debt and reducing debt issuance, which has created a net negative supply environment. As long as new issuance remains below the long-term averages, municipal bonds will remain supportive during June and July and provide investors an opportune time to rebalance portfolios (such as reducing credit risk).
Holiday Season – late November through year-end
Thanksgiving should indicate a warning sign to investors regarding optimal liquidity and ample supply. During the week of Thanksgiving, the markets may be open; however, the focus of the market is limited. The last week of November and the first two weeks of December represent the final opportunity for investors to efficiently trade before the market essentially shuts down for the year. Junior traders and reduced staff remain the norm during the last two weeks of the year. Market making and risk taking are severely restricted and a noticeable liquidity premium on bonds is apparent. Fortunately, for those investors looking to put cash to work, the ability to purchase bonds from forced market sells offers the opportunity to add exposure at discounted levels.

A couple more factoids:
- M* rates it bronze; though I have my doubts about how much intelligence there is in M*'s artificial "intelligence" ratings (done by machine, not analyst)
- Its 165% turnover rate is not a mere artifact of being a bond fund. 90%+ of the cap gains it has distributed in the past four years are short term. On the other hand, it distributed no cap gains in two of those four years (losing years, perhaps?)
The fund did well out of the gate, for its first two years, but has been essentially flat over the past three. My guess is that the star rating will nevertheless go up in a couple of weeks when the fund hits the five year mark. The way M* calculates stars is to compute a weighted average of a fund's three year rating, its five year rating (if available), and its ten year rating (if available). The two good years of the fund aren't getting counted because the fund is just short of five years. In a couple of weeks that will change, and those good years will be included.
To continue the fund description that Lipper quoted from T. Rowe Price:
The fund also uses interest rate futures, interest rate and credit default swaps, and forward currency exchange contracts, primarily to manage interest rate exposure and limit the fund's overall volatility.
If I'm going to buy a nontraditional fund that uses these techniques to manage interest rate risk and volatility, I'll buy one that does it well: FPNIX. It doesn't seek high current income, just the opposite (though it still sports a very similar SEC yield of 2.59% vs. 2.69% for RPIEX). Slow and steady wins the race.
Here's a chart comparing their performance over the lifetime of RPIEX.

I agree that alternative funds have been lagging badly in down cycles, thus I don't see them for drawdown protection. Once you subtract the high fees (typically 2% or more), the results are pretty sad. No wonder those who manage these expensive products are doing very well in their paychecks.
I think in today low yield environment, there is always a demand for better yield products. The recession fear drives these alternative products. I am not surprise of T. Rowe Price is offering this bond fund. Vanguard offers a Market Neutral fund, VMNFX ($50K min and ER 1.80%) , and the 3-years, 5-years returns and 10-years return are -4.71%, -1.32% and 1.08%, respectively.

Re: RPIEX - T. Rowe Price Dynamic Global Bond Fund. Just discovered this one. Price appears to classify it as an it as “alternative” investment. It comprises about 2% of RPGAX - so many of us have some exposure to it.
From Lipper: “The Fund seeks high current income. The Fund invests at least 80% of its net in bonds, and seeks to offer some protection against rising interest rates and provide a low correlation with the equity markets. It invests at least 40% of its net assets in foreign securities including securities of emerging market issuers.” Inception Date: 1/22/15.
M* gives it 1 star. Lipper ranks it 1 (lowest) for total return. Max Funds awards it 19 out of 100.
It appears the fund engages in short selling of bonds to hedge against (anticipated) rising rates. That probably explains a lot, as the Fed and other CBs seem to be doing everything in their power to hold the lid on still very low rates. Many alternative investment funds have struggled and disappointed. But it eludes me how what appears to be a bond fund from such a good house can be off 0.67% over 3 years.
I post only as a possible intellectual exercise for those so inclined. Not seriously considering owning this one.

"BigTom">RCRIX has a small AUM. I wouldn’t be comfortable knowing the top 10 securities make up 49% of the portfolio in floating rate space (75% in junk) but that’s just me..
BigTom, very understandable. The category of Bank Loan/Floating Rate is basically a subsector, of the broader HY Junk Bond category. For an investor, especially a conservative bond oef investor, to be willing to invest in junk bonds, is an important question that each investor should answer. The Bank Loan/Floating rate bond oef, that I would most likely invest in, is MWFRX/MWFLX. It is from a stable of bond oefs, offered by Met West, and it has an established history of being managed very conservatively, at least "conservative" for a sector HY bond category.
RCRIX/RCRFX is from a smaller investment company, but a company that has offered some very good bond oefs, with a very conservative approach to investing. But on a confidence/comfort level, many investors will choose to only invest in a larger fund, from a more well known company.
I offered this topic to just offer a topic of discussion for a category of bond oefs, that has been around for many years. In general Bank Loan/Floating Rate funds, are considered a bit more conservative way of investing in junk bonds, at least from my experience. Of course some Bank Loan/Floating Rate bond oefs can vary greatly in risk, with many having much higher volatility, much worse performance in downmarkets, and focusing on much riskier types of bank loan assets.

Thanks, John.
Inflation (Consumer Price Index) was up 2.1% in 2019 as of last November, so it's not surprising that IRA contributions would remain the same for 2020. Some years (in fact most years) I struggle to find the max to contribute anyway!
IRA contribution limits last increased by $500 for tax year 2019. With inflation so low I wouldn't bank on another increase for 2021. The increase for 2019 was the first since 2013.

FWIW, Schwab lists PONAX with a net exp ratio of 1.45% It also shows it has a 12b-1 expense of .25%. So I have know idea what you would end up paying. But, I haven't owned it for a few years so don't care.

PONAX exp ratio is 1.45%. This includes 12b-1 fees, management fees, administrative fees, operating costs, and all other asset-based costs incurred by the fund.
It doesn't include transaction costs as a result of trading of the fund's assets but this is very small.
The most important is the fact that performance is after all costs and risk attributes (SD=volatility, Max Draw, Sharpe, Sortino...) are correct too.

I'd thought I make a second comment about this months edition of Dr. Madell's newsletter.
I find it interesting that Dr. Madell chose five year periods for his study to determine what the next five years might offer investors. This is because I use a rolling five year period to determine what my portfolio's distributions will be. What I do is take (up to) a sum equal to what one half of my five year aveage returns have been as a retirement distribution and I have also found that principal grows over time by leaving the other half for capital formation. This is the way I ran my parents money years back (when they were retired) and it worked well for them growing their principal over time while providing them income to live off of. With this, I figured well if it "aint" broke why try to fix it. Thus, I do the same for me and my wife.
Thank you Dr. Madell @tmadell for writting about your five year study concerning capital formation as I found it to be extremely interesting.
Cordially,
Old_Skeet

Linked chart might shed some light. Compares returns (both stocks and bonds) among different countries since 1900 (but ends with 2014). Clearly, U.S. stands out as leader when it comes to equities.
https://monevator.com/world-stock-markets-data/
Some things to keep in mind:
- U.S. benefitted over the century from many unique cultural, societal and political advantages (including a strong regulatory, legal, judiciary framework and strong educational stystem).
- It costs more to invest abroad for a variety of reasons - some related to the above.
- The chart may not reflect the impact of currency fluctuation. I’ll take a 0% market return over a 10% market return if the currency of the former appreciated 20% while that of the latter declined.
- The world has changed dramatically over the past century. Namely, industrialization and technological innovation are far more widespread across the globe today than just 50 years ago.
- Assuming outperformance by the U.S. continues for decades more (a big assumption) an investor might still want to dampen year-to-year volatility by spreading out across the globe.

You know, just as an example, for the past few years everyone has been saying "go short term" for bonds, but the "long term" bonds have done better. Theory and Practice are two different things.
I often wonder if "you will do better in emerging markets" is more a low-risk prediction game given recent history rather than any fundamental intellect from those who keep saying it.
Specifically, everyone has been beating the drum on "emerging value". If you look at PRMSX to PRIJX comparison, has not quite played out that way. I have basically given up on trying to grow a brain realizing that's what most people who put ideas in print are doing.

FWIW, Schwab lists PONAX with a net exp ratio of 1.45% It also shows it has a 12b-1 expense of .25%. So I have know idea what you would end up paying. But, I haven't owned it for a few years so don't care.

I was working on increasing foreign exposure in my portfolio after the last few years run up in the US market. Using Portfolio Visualizer, increasing international exposure lowered CAGR, Sortino, and Sharpe numbers. Since PV is backward looking data that made sense to me as US has been much stronger than Foreign. I then started using earlier start dates to minimize the recent results but I ran into same numbers being lower the more foreign exposure I increased. This writer finds similar results.
https://fortunefinancialadvisors.com/blog/the-global-portfolios-rough-three-decades/
(dated Mar 2019)
He's not saying not to invest outside the US but he writes:
"It seems that no matter how one looks at the data, the last few decades have not been friendly to the global equity portfolio when viewed through the lens of an American equity investor. However, I do not want readers to come away thinking that I am opposed to investing abroad. Far from it! As I have argued previously, there is no compelling reason to own everything in the foreign equity universe. Similarly, foreign equity portfolios with factor tilts such as momentum and minimum volatility offer value to investors. In addition, investors may find better value in foreign small caps as I have discussed here and here. So, by all means, diversify your portfolio not just sufficiently, but also prudently".
He had also written previously that US Tech and Health Care sectors may also have been a major reason for US out performance as well.

"Simon">From my own perspective I've hugely enjoyed reading and digesting this thread. I've learned a great deal and have researched almost every fund mentioned. Thanks to every contributor and dtconroe in particular for starting the discussion and for his exceptionally well informed comments.
My personal circumstances are such that when it comes to bond funds (both mutual and ETFs) all I am looking for is a greater overall return than an online savings account. Let's say anything above 1.8% APY. Preservation of principal is absolutely paramount because I may need to withdraw money on very short notice for my wife's medical expenses due to a back injury. (We both have high deductible plans.) Therefore, I have money in ultrashort duration/ultrashort maturity funds like TRBUX, SEMRX, DLSNX, MINT, and just this week I have opened a position in JPST. All of these I consider cash alternatives with little to no risk to principal. These are in taxable accounts separate from our retirement plans.
The wife and I work for the same employer and we are both around 80% stocks/20% bonds in each of our 401K plans - with 20 and 12 years to go until full retirement respectively. That allocation will of course change as retirement nears. The single bond fund we use (out of a grand choice of only two) is WAPSX. Both of our Roth IRAs are 100% in equity mutual funds because we are very bullish for the coming decade and are prepared to weather the inevitable volatility.
As so many have rightly said - everyone's circumstances are different.
Simon, I appreciate your describing your unique circumstances, and your investing approach to address those circumstances. There are many of us who can identify with your description, and many of us who choose to adjust our investing decisions to accommodate our spouses and their wishes/needs. My wife does not have health issues, but in our joint taxable account, about half of it came from my wife's inheritance of her deceased parents estate. She is very conservative and has made it very clear to me what her risk tolerance is--very very conservative, with very low volatility as a key component of what is chosen for her inheritance and her personal IRA monies. That leads me to trying to find funds that she is comfortable with, not funds I try to force on her.
Best wishes on your investment choices.

"Carefree">My 401k provider offers PONAX -Pimco Income A- in the plan, but the expense is 1.45. Thoughts avoid because of the expense is so high or buy it? The only other bond fund is BHYAX BlackRock High Yield. I’m 55 years old and I appreciate your thoughts.
Carefree, you are quoting Gross Expense Ratios. You have to look at the Adjusted Expense Ratios for the actual ER you will be charged. The Adjusted Expense Ratio shows the ER after loads and other expenses are waived. When you do that, you will see the Adjusted Expense Ratio for the 2 funds are about the same, around .90. PONAX and BHYAX are 2 very different kind of bond oefs--BHYAX is a sector HY bond fund in which almost all assets held are below investment grade. PONAX is a multisector bond fund, with a small portion in junk bonds, some in Emerging Market, but the bulk in mortgages. When you chart the 2 funds, you will see the performance pattern for PONAX is much smoother compared to the higher standard deviation of BHYAX. PONAX has become a huge AUM fund, with over 130 billion AUM, but overall it appears to be a much less risky bond oef than BHYAX. BHYAX will correlate much more closely to equities than PONAX, so if you are looking for some level of ballast with a smoother ride, PONAX will probably fill this role a bit better and offer you more diversification than BHYAX. Good luck with your decision.

If that's your only 2 options I would buy PONAX because it's more of a ballast fund than BHYAX. I would start making adjustments to your asset allocation gradually 5-7 years before retirement.

As so many have rightly said - everyone's circumstances are different.

Is it really true that everyone's circumstances are different? can it be that 2 investors with similar situations invest completely differently and both be correct?
Examples:
1) I played tennis with a guy that sold his company for 15 million 25 years ago and put all his money in Munis.
2) I helped several ex co-worker all their twenties around 2009-10 with their 401K, one was scared and invested it at 30/70, the other selected 90/10.
3) Two ninty years old guys each with savings to cover the next 20 years. One invests at 20/80. The other invests at 80/20 because he knows he will have enough and his money will go to the kids.
4) In the last 5 years I read hundreds of posts where investors use MM,CD and funds like MINT and made less than 2% while many bond funds made a lot more and several of them with extremely low volatility.

Hello Carefree. My opinion is "why have a bond fund when you are 55 years old", unless you are planning to retire in a couple of years. I was 100% equity until 2 years before retiring at 67. Having said that my 401k had PIMIX ("I" shares), which I used for the last 1-1/2 years before retiring. I also owned BHYAX (BHYSX at Schwab, load waived) in my TIRA account as one of my first bond OEFs. Both are good funds IMHO.
Some will not buy PONAX/PIMIX due to the high ER. High ERs don't bother me in bond OEFs (or equity OEFs as well) as long as the returns justify them. One thng about PONAX/PIMIX is that Pimco keeps the income the same each month. Most bond OEFs do not.