@johnN, I don't know about this warmer weather thing. Panama has daily temperatures in the low 90s excluding the highlands. It is a country of 4 million people. Today, they went to a full day curfew in an attempt to flatten the curve. 440+ cases, up from 345 Monday, and 8 deaths.
Mona

Take a look at the historical returns for high yield and floating rate funds in 2008 and 2009. Most of them lost big in 2008 but had huge gains in 2009, in some cases as much as stock funds. However, there are no guarantees that history will repeat for stocks or bonds.
In a somewhat related matter, muni bond funds and high yield munis also lost big recently (and in 2008). Muni funds had huge increases today — 3-5% — which is unheard of for munis. Personally I think most of the recent bond fund drops were due to liquidity issues from traders selling bonds, after stocks dropped so much, and overwhelming the markets.

Hi Sir @_Old_Joe, I am always wrong in terms of market timing, hope to stay that way. We are indeed 4-6 weeks behind China, so hopefully by next month, warmer weather at least in Southern States/less virus transmissions, things maybe more Rosy. I read 85% of structures very similar to SARS, may not to do well in warmer weather/viral loads significantly reduced and unable to stay around in hot /sunny surface much longer. Hope this horrific virus go away in few months. Of course few patients with immuno-compromised states may still get problems even in [summer flu]. Hope curve significantly flattened soon.
Interesting article about current market conditions from marketwatch:
Stock market’s historic bounce may signal ‘near-term bottom,’ but remember what happened in 1987 and 2008
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/stock-markets-historic-bounce-may-signal-near-term-bottom-but-a-retest-of-the-low-like-1987-and-2008-is-still-a-possibility-2020-03-25?siteid=yhoof2&yptr=yahoo

This excerpt seemed worth noting:

My back-of-the-envelope calculation shows that a 60/40 stock/bond portfolio in mid-February has now become a 51/49 portfolio, entirely on the basis of market action. This is very large drift in a very short time. Given the many trillions of dollars in assets that follow some sort of multi-asset class approach, the coming rebalance could well be in the range of a few hundred billion.

Automatically re-balancing (selling bonds that appear to be getting hammered right now as well) doesn't seem so helpful to one's portfolio.

In the article, he talks about government bonds which are usually Treasury bills, (there are Treasury notes, and Treasury Inflation-Protected Securities (TIPS))
For YTD treasuries are up nicely. IEI(iShares 3-7 Year Treasury Bond ETF) is up 5.5%.

This excerpt seemed worth noting:

My back-of-the-envelope calculation shows that a 60/40 stock/bond portfolio in mid-February has now become a 51/49 portfolio, entirely on the basis of market action. This is very large drift in a very short time. Given the many trillions of dollars in assets that follow some sort of multi-asset class approach, the coming rebalance could well be in the range of a few hundred billion.

Automatically re-balancing (selling bonds that appear to be getting hammered right now as well) doesn't seem so helpful to one's portfolio.

LQD today ...
https://twitter.com/EricBalchunas/status/1242892634907185152?s=20

So because he's losing money he's agitating to let the "Chinese Virus" decimate the US?
And his poll numbers have gone UP !!! some 5% this week??? If this isn't Alice in wonderland it's certainly as close as one can get.

What 45 is saying is really "I need my money so let's get out there so the COVID-19 virus can do it's work." Although he would never say COVID-19.

I "love" the conclusion

My conclusion from all these indicators is that, unless we are heading into another Great Depression (unlikely in my view with $4 trillion of helicopter money on the way), these extremely negative breadth readings are more consistent with a market in which the bulk of the declines have already occurred, as opposed to one where they are yet to come. That doesn't mean the lows are in by any means.

He just stated the obvious, after a 35% decline in the Dow, it's highly likely "the bulk of the declines have already occurred" and just to cover his AXX he added, "doesn't mean the lows are in by any means." :-)

Don't know 'bout you, but I think I'm gonna take a nap and check again at 4:15 pm, EST.
Broad based, real time overview of major ETF's in all market sectors.

Hi David, You noted:

Long-Term Treasuries have both returned more in four weeks than they normally would in an entire year.

Chart, SP500, TLT, EDV, ZROZ starting Nov. 4, 2009 (limited by fund inception date) through March 24, 2020.
TLT, EDV, ZROZ returns chart , Jan. 2 -March 9, 2020. March 9 is the initial date when Treasury issues began to be "non-normal" in pricing relative to the whack down in the equity markets.
QQQ versus EDV crossover points. One may drag and slide the 3,090 day line at the bottom area of the chart, from the left (oldest date) to the right towards the current date to find many other crossover points. EDV and QQQ generally perform inverse to one another.
Ok, away to listen to Bolero and then meditate.
Take care,
Catch

In review of some of my mutual fund holdings I was surprised that PRMTX "has only" fallen 12% (-11.82%) YTD. Compared to my conservative fund, VWINX (-12.86%) and my two moderately allocated, PRWCX (-18.35%) and BRUFX (-17.45%); I was pleasantly surprised.
Any surprises in your holdings?

I thought it might help to gather some investing resources to share. If you have a few... share.
Here is a nice way to track the S&P 500 PE Ratio (along with other charts S&P 500 CAPE, 10 yr treasury, & others):
https://multpl.com/s-p-500-pe-ratio
Global Stock Valuations:
https://starcapital.de/en/research/stock-market-valuation/

Hi, expatsp!
I remain comfortable with RPHYX. It's doing what I anticipated. The manager continues finding opportunities, some reportedly remarkable.
Mr. Sherman has never compared his fund to an insured savings account. He's also said that it comes with risks but that he thought the risks were definable and manageable. He's allowed that the fund might be underway for six-nine months but was comfortable that investors would be made whole in something like that time. (Might it be nine months this time? Maybe. Don't know.)
That roughly aligns with the fund's history: the historic recovery period for RPHYX has been seven months, MINT has been six, ZEOIX has been five. ZEOIX tends to fall harder and rebound faster.
- - -
I would be very thoughtful about what I compared my investments to. When people celebrate the success of "plain vanilla bond indexes," what they might actually be seeing is the performance of the Treasury component of indexes. What has succeeded over the past month have been the panic-purchase investments. The only Vanguard bond indexes above zero over the past month are Treasuries (or GNMA which is government-backed).
Vanguard Short-Term Treasury (VFISX) yields 0.8%, costs 0.2% and has risen 1.47% in four weeks. That's equivalent to 10 months of its normal (5 year) annual returns. Currently the yield on one-year Treasuries is 0.25%; deduct the 0.2% and you're yielding 0.05% a year.
Intermediate and Long-Term Treasuries have both returned more in four weeks than they normally would in an entire year.
If you look at the Vanguard bond index returns, the longer the term on Treasuries, the higher the four-week return. If you look at the Vanguard corporate bond indexes, all are substantially negative and the longer the term, the greater the loss.
- - -
I entirely understand folks' concern. I'm with ya 100% - maybe 150%; some days, 162.4%. We all want to look at see green somewhere. I would have felt all warm and fuzzy if RPHYX, at least, was above water. That was my feeling in 2013 when RPHYX was up 3.4% while the Total Bond Market was down 2.3% and Long-Term Treasuries, today's heroes, were down 13%. As is, I'm merely calm and patient.
For what that's worth,
David

Different people have different expectations and risk can mean different things to them.
There's a difference between expectations and certainties. Stocks had a dismal decade in the 2000s. "Investors would have been better off investing in pretty much anything else, from bonds to gold or even just stuffing money under a mattress."
https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748704786204574607993448916718
Stuff happens. It doesn't mean that rather than investing in stocks one should stuff a mattress. It means that sometimes one's expectations are not met; that's the nature of risk.
Personally, if a fund like RPHYX underperformed VMMXX over a period of several years, it wouldn't bother me, so long as the margin of underperformance was within my tolerance range. I'm willing to accept the possibility of underperformance for extended periods, given the expectation that over time I'll outperform. Meanwhile, I can live with the small losses. But each person is different.
With that in mind:
1) Yes, RPHYX is supposed to be more risky than VMMXX. Especially now that the government has once again put its thumb on the scale to reduce the risk to VMMXX.
2) As I noted in my post seven years ago, Strong had recommended a time frame of 1-2 years for its Advantage fund. I felt then and continue to feel that this is a reasonable recommendation. Over this period of time one expects to do better than a MMF, but that is different from saying it will always happen.
3) As I tried to show above, taking on any risk means that sometimes things don't work out. That's true whether it's investing in a MMF that could break a buck or in stocks for a decade. One takes on the risk because the anticipated, the hoped for reward is sufficiently high to compensate for the occasions when outcomes are worse than anticipated.
Each individual weighs risks and rewards differently. It's personal and there's no single right decision. YMMV.

I am also looking at what to prune and what to add. Two global growth funds, MGGPX and BGAFX, have held up amazingly well. I own the former, but consider the latter to be its equal. As of last night neither fund had lost more than 15% YTD, with the Baron fund at around -9%. All this could change in an instant, but I could see jettisoning APFDX and cutting back on DSENX in favor of one or both of MGGPX or BGAFX. Kind of surprised the Baron fund is not a Great Owl.

@Sven - Why do you think I started this post :-). I know it's bad.
My problem is when I see "floating rate", I don't look at portfolio. What I hear is that it will yield me the prevailing interest rate.
Now if someone is selling me an S&P 500 Index fund, I'm not going to look at the portfolio to see if it is stocked 50% with small cap stocks. I just wouldn't think about ding that.
In any case, my question goes beyond portfolio of TRP. Isn't a "floating rate" fund supposed to be less risky than a "balanced" or "allocation" fund which can invest 60% odd in equities? What is the risk / reward equation from here going forward?

In this crash, it [RPHYX] has underperformed both vanilla bond funds like MWTRX and Vanguard's bond index fund, VBMFX ...
It was supposed to offer minimal downside. As it turns out, in this stress situation, it has offered more downside than a total bond market index fund ...

RPHYX is supposed to offer a more steady ride, not outperform over mid- to long-term. In that, it has succeeded.
Here's a graph plotting the 3 month performance of these three funds. The "crash", or "downside" begins for the vanilla bond fund VBMFX and the core plus bond fund MWTRX (and the average intermediate core plus bond fund) begin around March 8th.
Here's the graph comparing their performance from March 8th on.
Average core plus: -8.2%
MWTRX: -5.3%
VBMFX: -4.4%
US bond index: -4.1%
RPHYX: -2.3%
Not quite the steady eddy one might have hoped for, but half as much loss on the downside. As others have pointed out, there's a difference between cash and any fund not pegged to a $1.00 NAV. RPHYX is not a checking account. It is best used for the cash portion of one's asset allocation, not for daily expenses.

Thank you; most kind.
https://www.newsday.com/long-island/obituaries/alan-finder-obituary-1.43423378
Complete coincidence that we both trained to be academics and teachers, argued about history of ideas (and politics) 50+ years ago, and were teachers for a while, and then each separately wound up in journalism and editorial work forevermore. It is shocking (literally) to have someone in good health die like this. I sure am hoping everyone here is able to stay mostly safe and scrubbed and more or less isolated even in their declining wealth.

The old $10k-growth quote graphing from M*, which is not up to date tonight yet for many of these, shows that since 2/21 CAPE is right in the middle of, well, not its peers, but other ones I follow and think 'I should have done instead' ... NOBL, OUSA, DVY, VIG, SCHD, SPLV.
So there seems no particular or new reason to jettison CAPE, whether you understand it or not.
Certainly the DSE_X bond sauce has failed to add value for some time now.
It is remarkable to see (for this short, monthlong span) DVY do a full ~9% worse than VIG and OUSA, since the first two are so widely touted.
Of course it is mindblowing to see everything down like 26% in ~31 days, even after today's pop.
Wait'll this new state gets really serious. I just had a college friend die last night of covid19, healthy, 72, took ill 2w ago, on ventilator 12 days in a highly regarded NJ hospital, best care, seemed to be rallying, cardiac arrest in the middle of the night. One of the 780 US deaths thus far. His family and friends are stupefied and (of course) worse. Alan Finder helped me unpack my cartons of LPs and whiskey 55y ago into our freshman dorm.
Wait till we are discussing all this in a month or three or six, following the "president"'s Easter goal and back-to-work order.