https://finance.yahoo.com/news/much-contribute-traditional-ira-2020-195814096.html
How much you can contribute to traditional or roth ira 2020
Unfortunately for retirement savers, the maximum amount that can be contributed to a traditional IRA in 2020 remains the same as it was in 2019. Let's hope the limit is increased for 2021.
IRA Contribution Limits for 2020
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.

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.

This post is about Bank Loan/Floating Rate bond oefs. This category of bond oefs is being mentioned more often for a 2020 investment, after a good 2019 performance. Typically these funds perform very well in rising interest rate and flat rate markets, and so the 2019 market was supportive, and 2020 is projected to be a flat interest rate period. They generally get punished in a falling interest rate environment. This is a sector of HY Bond funds, with the average fund in this category will have a credit rating of B and about 7.5% of its total portfolio in investment grade categories. The average standard deviation in this category is about 2.77, and the risk level in this category is highly correlated with how much yield the fund earns, with the assumption that junkier bonds pay higher yield. With that background, one might wonder if there is any bond oefs in this category, that might appeal to a more conservative investor. I did some searching in this category and I found 3 funds that a conservative investor might be interested in. The following 3 funds are offered for consideration for the conservative investor:
1. RCRIX/RCRFX: This fund has a standard deviation of 1.0, almost 1/3 of the category average, has a portfolio with a credit rating of BB compared to the typical B rating, has 21.4% of its portfolio in investment grade assets compared to the typical 7.5%, and in the strong downmarket of 2018 this fund was in the top 2% percentile of performance.
2. MWFLX/MWFRX: This fund has a standard deviation of 2.18, has a portfolio with a credit rating of BB, has 24.2% of its portfolio in investment grade assets, and in the 2018 downmarket it was in the top 15% percentile of performance.
3. FRSAX/FFRSX: This fund has a standard deviation of 2.34, has a portfolio with credit rating of B, has 24.7% of its portfolio in investment grade assets, and in the 2018 downmarket it was in the top 22% percentile of performance.
I use to invest in this category quite a bit in the past, but exited this category early in 2018. I have thoughts about re-entering this category in the future, when rising interest rates look more likely, but have considered a small investment in 2020 because of a projected flat market. RCRIX and MWFLX are 2 funds I would consider due to their strong performance history in downmarkets,their portfolios having a higher credit rating of BB, and because they have over 20% of their portfolios in investment grade assets.

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.

Hi @hank, I have some memories of that time too in the manufacturing world. That quote from US businesses and schools, “I don’t get it”, was exactly the reason Japan was beating the sox off US manufacturing at the time. Toyota was heads and tails better at making reliable, less expensive cars than General Motors, Ford or Chrysler and Dodge in the '70s and '80s. Fuji proclaimed that they would destroy Kodak and take our lucrative film business (I remember that well. We laughed at first). Electronics, TVs, stereos and such were all made cheaper and better in Japan. RCA became a looser, Zenith was a looser to Japan. Why, because Japan manufacturing adapted religiously to a manufacturing system taught to them by American statisticians after WW2. Edwards Deming led the way in the '50s to teach Japan what American CEOs once knew but were to fat, dumb and happy to implement themselves, Lean Manufacturing and Statistical Process Control (SPC). The Toyota Production System is synonymous to Lean Manufacturing, the bible for LM in fact.
Japan's economic rise is understood. Their mediocrity since is less, but likely due to poor government economic policy and the rest of the world catching up with outsourced labor costs and more efficient technology.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrapoza/2020/01/10/best-countries-for-fixed-income-in-2020/?ss=markets#5b37112930d2
Best Countries For Fixed Income In 2020
Forbes
That means the passive index funds will basically be mandated to buy. More money flowing into China bonds pushes up bond prices
Unless you’re happy with junk bonds and 2% yield on ten-year Treasury debt, then the best place for fixed-income investors is outside of the advanced economies. That’s always been the case, but they have been avoided, for the most part, due to risk and the fact that quantitative easing made the U.S. the only game in town since 2009.

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.

The expense ratio for PONAX is 1.45%.
Sebi, in its board meeting on September 18, 2018, anounced changes in the total expense ratio (TER) of mutual funds. It made the changes to bring in transparency in appropriation of expenses, and reducing mis-selling and churning. (link)
The above means that since 2018 Total expense ratio are more accurate, with that in mind, Pimco Income funds had to report their real expense.
Basically, if you own PONAX you will pay 1.45% and not 0.9%

@ Crash
The HY title for this fund is actually a misnomer. It has a few below investment grade bonds but it really is an investment grade fund with an average bond rating of BBB. I do not know why Vanguard calls it HY. That said you could call it a very conservative HY fund. M* does a great review of it by analysts. This analysis is available with their premium product. I get it for free from our local library. Yes 50k minimum generally, but as I noted this is available to me for $0 minimum. VWALX and VWAHX which is available for 3k have incredibly small ER's. You would have to compare all the metrics of funds side by side to know what best for you and what risk you can tolerate.

Thank you. THAT helps to clarify. :)

@dtconroe - please read my post. An investor will be charged more than 1.45%.
From the Semi-annual report, dated Sept 30, 2019: "The Fund's total annual operating expense ratio in effect as of period end were .... 1.45% for Class A shares."
Note that the summary prospectus (July 31, 2019) says that the "Other Expenses" component of the ER "include[s] interest expense of 0.55%. Interest expense is borne by the Fund separately from the management fees paid to ... PIMCO." It goes on to say that if one backs out these interest expenses (which the fund pays), the ERs would be lower. That's how M* gets the adjusted ER.
Fee waivers have nothing to do with the ER adjustment for PONAX. The prospectus says that
"PIMCO has contractually agreed, through July 31, 2020, to reduce its supervisory and administrative fee for the Fund's I-3 shares by 0.05% of the average daily net assets attributable to I-3 shares of the Fund." There is no similar fee waiver and/or expense reimbursement for PONAX (class A shares) to subtract.
Finally, the reason why I say that investors are charged more than 1.45% is because in addition to the stated ER expenses borne by the fund, the fund also pays transaction costs on trades.

"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.

Hi @Gary1952,
Welocme to MFO.
Thank you for your question.
This should help provide an understanding of how I govern my portfolio along with how the pieces fit into a master portfolio. The hybrid income sleeve is a big part of my portfolio and is detailed below.
Consolidated Master Portfolio & Sleeve Management System ... Last Revised on 12/31/2019
Now being in retirement here is a brief description of my sleeve management system which I organized to better manage the investments held within mine and my wife's portfolios. The consolidated master portfolio is comprised of two taxable investment accounts, two self directed retirement accounts, a health savings account plus two bank savings accounts. With this, I came up with four investment areas. They are a Cash Area which consist of two sleeves ... an investment cash sleeve and a demand cash sleeve. The next area is the Income Area which consist of two sleeves ... an income sleeve and a hybrid income sleeve. Then there is the Growth & Income Area which has more risk associated with it than the Income Area and it consist of four sleeves ... a global equity sleeve, a global hybrid sleeve, a domestic equity sleeve and a domestic hybrid sleeve. Then there is the Growth Area where the most risk in the portfolio is found and it consist of five sleeves ... a global growth sleeve, a large/mid cap sleeve, a small/mid cap sleeve, an other investment sleeve plus a special investment (spiff) sleeve. The size of each sleeve can easily be adjusted, from time-to-time, by adjusting the number of funds held and their amounts. By using the sleeve management system I can get a better picture of my overall investment landscape. I have found it beneficial to Xray each fund, each sleeve, each investment area, and the portfolio as a whole quarterly for analysis. All my funds with the exception of those in my health savings account pay their distributions to the Cash Area of the portfolio. This automatically builds cash in the Cash Area to meet the portfolio's disbursement needs (when necessary) with the residual being left for new investment opportunity. Generally, in any one year, I take no more than a sum equal to one half of my portfolio's five year average return. In this way principal builds over time. In addition, most buy/sell transactions settle from, or to, the Cash Area with some net asset exchanges between funds taking place. My rebalance threshold is + (or -) 2% of my neutral allocation for my Income Area, Growth & Income Area and Growth Area while I generally let the Cash Area float. However, at times, I can tactically position by setting a target allocation that is different from the neutral weighting to overweight (or underweight) an area without having to do a forced rebalance. I do an Instant Xray analysis of the portfolio quarterly and make asset weighting adjustments as I feel warranted based upon my assessment of the market(s), my goals, my risk tolerance, my cash needs, etc. I have the portfolio set up in Morningstar's portfolio manager by sleeve, by each area and the portfolio as a whole for easy monitoring plus I use brokerage account statements, Morningstar fund reports, fund fact sheets along with their annual reports to follow my investments. In addition, I use my market barometer and equity weighting matrix system as a guide to assist me in throttling my equity allocation through the use of equity ballast, or a spiff position, when desired. I also maintain a list of positions to add (A) to, to buy (B), to reduce (R), or to sell (S). Generally, funds are assigned to a sleeve based upon a best fit basis. Currently, my investment focus is to position new money into income generating assets. The last major rebalanced process was started during the 4th Quarter of 2018 and was completed in the 1st Quarter of 2019 along some sleeves being reconfigured along with the movement to a new asset allocation.
Portfolio Asset Allocation: Balanced Towards Income ... 20% Cash, 40% Income, 30% Gr & Inc and 10% Growth
CASH AREA: (Weighting Range 15% to 25%, Neutral 20%, Target 15%, Actual 14%)
Demand Cash Sleeve ... Cash Distribution Accrual & Future Investment Accrual
Investment Cash Sleeve ... MMK Funds: AMAXX, TTOXX, PCOXX, CD Ladder & Savings
INCOME AREA: (Weighting Range 35% to 45%, Neutral 40%, Target 40%, Actual 39%)
Income Sleeve: BLADX(A), FLAAX(B), GIFAX, JGIAX(A), LBNDX, NEFZX, PGBAX, PONAX & TSIAX
Hybrid Income Sleeve: APIUX(A), AZNAX(A), BAICX, CTFAX, DIFAX, FBLAX, FISCX, FKINX, FRINX(A), ISFAX, JNBAX & PMAIX
GROWTH & INCOME AREA: (Weighting Range 25% to 35%, Neutral 30%, Target 30%, Actual 32%)
Domestic Equity Sleeve: ANCFX, FDSAX, INUTX(A) & SVAAX
Domestic Hybrid Sleeve: ABALX, AMECX, HWIAX & LABFX
Global Equity Sleeve: CWGIX, DEQAX, DWGAX(A) & EADIX
Global Hybrid Sleeve: CAIBX, TEQIX & TIBAX
GROWTH & OTHER ASSET AREA: (Weighting Range 5% to 15%, Neutral 10%, Target 15%, Actual 15%)
Large/Mid Cap Sleeve: AGTHX, AMCPX & SPECX
Small/Mid Cap Sleeve: AOFAX, NDVAX & PMDAX
Global Growth Sleeve: ANWPX, NEWFX & SMCWX
Other Investment Sleeve: KAUAX(A), LPEFX & PGUAX
Equity Ballast & Spiff Sleeve: No position held at this time.
In addition, my all weather asset allocation might be of some interest to you as well. Below is my blurb arbout it.
Old_Skeet's All Weather Asset Allocation.
My all weather asset allocation of 20% cash, 40% income and 40% equity affords me everything necessary to meet my needs now being in the distribution phase of investing. The benefit of this asset allocation is that it provides sufficient income, maximizes diversification, minimizes volatility, and provides long-term returns.
The 20% held in cash area provides me ample cash should I need a cash draw over and above what my portfolio generates plus it can provide the capital necessary to fund a special investment position (spiff) should I choose to open one during a stock market pullback. In addition, cash helps stabilize a portfolio during stock market volatility. Example of investments held in this area are cash, money market mutual funds and CD's.
The 40% held in the income area provides me ample income generation to meet my income needs in retirement. It is a well diversified area that incorporates a good number of income generating type funds. Some examples of investments held in this area are ISFAX, PONAX & PGBAX.
The 40% held in the equity area provides me some dividend income along with some growth, that equities generally provide, that offsets the effects of inflation over time. Some examples of investments held in this area are NEWFX, SVAAX, SPECX
Generally, for my income distributions, I take no more than a sum equal to what one half of my five year average total return has been. In this way principal grows over time.
@Gary1952 ... Thanks again for your question. I'm thinking the above information will provide the answer(s) you seek (or might seek) about me (going forward) as to how I govern.
Old_Skeet

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.

PONAX pays 0.55% in expenses to use leverage. (This figure is the difference between the prospectus stated ER of 1.45% and Morningstar's "adjusted" ER of 0.90% that backs out some leveraging expenses.)
A reason to use leverage is to borrow money for less than you can make with it. Still, it costs something to borrow that money. That cost is included in the 1.45% figure.
According to M*, these leveraging costs are incurred by "6% of all U.S. mutual funds and exchange-traded funds, as of the end of July [2018]. Most of the affected are alternative strategies that use shorting as a regular part of their process, but some bond funds that use certain instruments are also affected, as are a handful of equity funds."
So this use of leverage is not a common strategy of funds in general and bond funds in particular.
https://www.morningstar.com/articles/876536/a-fee-methodology-update-makes-some-funds-fees-appear-to-swell
In that column, M* claims that ignoring these leveraging costs provides a more apples-to-apples comparison. If you subscribe to that line of reasoning, you should look at the 0.90% figure. If you feel that the cost of boosting returns (one hopes) by leveraging is nevertheless a real cost of the fund, you should look at the 1.45% figure.
That column analogizes these leveraging costs to trading costs. Trading costs aren't counted in any fund's ER. Personally I view the exclusion of trading costs as deficiency in the reporting of what funds spend, not as a positive feature.
The word M* uses is "philosophically". That pretty much sums it up. It's however you want to view these costs.

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.

The usual suspect. These articles are published for investors to read with minimal ideas.
Let's take an example of just one sentence "We've had a nice reversal in Q4 where it's risk back on again," said Peter Palfrey, vice president and co-manager of $7.5 billion Loomis Sayles Core Plus Bond (NERNX). "For the first nine months of the year, it was just a world of worry."
Let's see the reality. In the first 9 months of 2019, the SP500 made 20+%, BND (US bond index) made 8.6%...mmm...I didn't have any worries. It looked to me it was excellent.

@ Crash
The HY title for this fund is actually a misnomer. It has a few below investment grade bonds but it really is an investment grade fund with an average bond rating of BBB. I do not know why Vanguard calls it HY. That said you could call it a very conservative HY fund. M* does a great review of it by analysts. This analysis is available with their premium product. I get it for free from our local library. Yes 50k minimum generally, but as I noted this is available to me for $0 minimum. VWALX and VWAHX which is available for 3k have incredibly small ER's. You would have to compare all the metrics of funds side by side to know what best for you and what risk you can tolerate.

I stopped to look at VWALX. It's "High Yield," and $50,000 just to get in. But the monthly dividends are about the same as the ones I get from my PRSNX which is a global multi-asset bond fund, without trying to be "high yield." (a bit more than 3 cents per share.) Also, the Performance Trust Muni-fund PTIMX offers lots better monthlies. Is Vanguard just pretending when it labeled that fund "high yield?" (The alternative share-class is PTRMX, but carries a load, so I wouldn't even think about that particular flavor.)