There is only one metric that is contractual, predictable and repeatable again and again and that's fees. And this is why we have SPIVA scorecards for active funds versus passive indexes like this for the past 15 years of returns from 7/1/2004 - 6/30/2019:

I'm not saying active funds don't matter and no managers have skill. They do or I wouldn't be here. But low fees like D&C's funds have should never be discounted and are a contractual predictable edge they have over other competing active funds. Regarding comparing DODFX, an international stock fund, with VFINX, a U.S. stock fund, I'm not sure why one would do that--apples and oranges. Comparing DODFX with HFQIX, a global fund holding U.S. stocks, doesn't quite work either, although that's better than VFINX.

SD=volatility is just the first thing I look for. I pay a lot of attention to Sharpe, Sortino, Max Draw and more.
Let's look again at D&B compared to "my" funds.
I already proved that A 5 years analysis(link) shows that DODFX has over 40% more volatility while performance is equal to 3.7% while HFQIX peformance is equal to 5.1% with much lower volatility. Another great way is to look at Sharpe+Sortino and HFQIX numbers are much better.
For 15 years DODFX vs VFINX (link) shows that VFINX has better performance, SD, Sharpe, Sortino.
If you changed it to 10 years (link) The results are similar, VFINX has better SD, Sortino and Sharpe in the last 10 years. This is after 2008-09 debacle.

DODBX vs PRWCX (link) same as above. PRWCX is a much better fund.
If you change it to 10 years starting 12/2009 PRWCX still have better performance, SD, Sharpe, Sortino. This is after 2008-09 debacle.
Most investors have a choice of what to use in a taxable account. I would use US stocks indexes and munis because of their lower taxes. I use only Hy Muni funds in my taxable account.
I don't use many funds. I typically use up to 7 but mostly 5 funds. Research shows that the more funds you have the more you regress to the mean and you will make more trades and more trades lead to lower returns.
Cash flow? I generate cash flow primary from bond funds, after all, funds like PIMIX, IOFIX, PUCZX, VCFIX are paying over 4.5% which should be enough for most retirees. If you want more I would use PCI (CEF) with distr > 8% and much better risk/reward than the SP500. HY Munis funds ORNAX,NHMAX pay over 4% with Fed tax-free. I also can and do sell shares if I need to but I do it on my term when I need and based on market conditions.
As I said earlier, D&C is a good shop but I was always able to find better risk/reward funds than D&C.

@dtconroe -
I have a second suggestion also. Your discussion post "Bond OEF investing for more conservative investors" is a fine, fine post and holds a great deal of interest for many of the visitors to the MFO discussion board, me included. However, you will note that one must now move through 5 (at last count) pages to read the whole thing. Might I suggest that in the future you initiate new discussion topics such as your "Bank Loan/Floating Rate OEF's", "Non Traditional Bond OEF's" and "Muni Bond Investing" as entirely new discussion threads rather than as one continuous stream as they are now situated. I recognize that they are all about bond OEF investing but I also think it's easy for folks to get lost as more comments are posted along the way in attempting to discern which of the introduced topics the comment pertains to. Just a thought.

That's a good suggestion. Most threads begin to suffer from drift after three pages. Sorting out the back and forth between posters becomes more tedious. And it's not like threads are being rationed.

@dtconroe - there, now we have a start. You said "At M*, the Discussion section is divided into various subcategories, called Investing Forums."
MFO has such a thing although it is not as sharply separated as you seem to prefer. When you login to the site if you look under your name you will see a number of categories. If you click on them
"My discussions" will present you with a list of all the discussions that you have started.
"My bookmarks" will do likewise for all of the discussions that you bookmark.
Moving down to the bold CATEGORIESsection:
"All categories" is obvious. There have been 47K discussions posted to date.
"Fund discussions" subtracts out the off topic, technical and bullpen discussions.
"Off topic" discussions may be financially related but usually not pertaining to mutual funds specifically.
"The Bullpen" is for discussions which were posted but have had no followup comments. They may/may not be fund related. They are the ones which tend to clutter up the "all categories" list.
I would suggest that you select one of the above categories and see if they are more to your liking.
I have a second suggestion also. Your discussion post "Bond OEF investing for more conservative investors" is a fine, fine post and holds a great deal of interest for many of the visitors to the MFO discussion board, me included. However, you will note that one must now move through 5 (at last count) pages to read the whole thing. Might I suggest that in the future you initiate new discussion topics such as your "Bank Loan/Floating Rate OEF's", "Non Traditional Bond OEF's" and "Muni Bond Investing" as entirely new discussion threads rather than as one continuous stream as they are now situated. I recognize that they are all about bond OEF investing but I also think it's easy for folks to get lost as more comments are posted along the way attempting to discern which of the introduced topics the comment pertains to. Just a thought.

Mark: "I'm not trying to be snarky (I know, I'm shocked along with everyone else here who knows me) but you responded like a politician. I asked specifically about your 'discussion board' comment which you mostly if not entirely dodged around. I'll wait until you're ready.
As for the rest of your response, MFO doesn't even pretend to offer all of the things you find appealing about M* so yes, comparing the two sites on that basis is apples to oranges."
Mark, I have been out for a few hours and just got back home. I am sorry my absence has led to your conclusion that I somehow have "mostly if not entirely dodged around", and somehow you are calling my response "like a politician". I am a bit confused by your choice of words and the tone of your response.
At M*, the Discussion section is divided into various subcategories, called Investing Forums. When you start a thread, you go to the appropriate Investing Forum, that fits your Thread Topic. So, if I want to start a thread, or read someone else's thread, associated with Bonds, then I simply go to that section of the Discussion section, and I can avoid threads associated with other Investing Forum topics, not related to Bonds, that I have no interest in. Among the many Investing Forums, where you can focus your posting and reading interest, include: Dividend and Income Investing, Investing in Retirement, Mutual Funds, Fidelity Funds, Vanguard Funds, Off Topic discussions, Market Insights, etc. etc. etc.
At MFO, there is only one Discussion section, with no subcategories. Every conceivable thread topic gets introduced daily and goes to the beginning of the Discussion Section. Older threads get buried under an avalanche of new threads, with many thread topics that I have no interest in. There is one particular poster, John, who introduces about 4 or 5 or more new threads every day, that goes straight to the beginning of the Discussion section. I have a few Bond related threads, in addition to the one I started, that I try to find, but they are often on the 2nd or 3rd page of the Discussion Section, buried under a large number of new threads I have no interest in.
I simply like the M* platform, because it is kind of like a newspaper, divided into a variety of sections, found in the newspaper index on the front page. In the newspaper, I don't have to go through massive sections of the newspaper I am not interested in, to ultimately find the section I am interested in. If I want to read the Sports section of the newspaper, I can find where that is by just looking at the index to find where it is located. At MFO, you have no subdivision of similar thread topics---you have to dig through all the other stuff, to hopefully find what you are interested in.
I hope this explanation meets your criteria for directness and clarity!

The Leland Reuters Family consists of three funds: Thomson Reuters Venture Capital Index Fund, Thomson Reuters Private Equity Buyout Index Fund, and Real Asset Opportunities Fund.
We’ll focus on the first of these.
Objective and Strategy
It’s complicated.
First, the TR Venture Capital Research Index looks at 22,000 U.S. firms and all of the VC/PE deals that occurred over the previous quarter, analyzes them, and places them in the seven sectors that comprise the index to see how these companies are performing and estimates their value using data stemming from IPOs, stock buybacks, and surveys.
Then, the TR Venture Capital Index (TR VC Index) seeks to replicate that risk/ return profile of the TR VC Research Index by using the same process to identify a set of publicly listed assets that when properly weighted replicate the returns of the TR VC Research Index.
Rather than investing in venture capital/private equity companies directly, the TR VC Index seeks to replicate the industry’s returns by constructing a portfolio of liquid, U.S. large cap, listed equities, (e.g., Apple, Dow Chemical, Berkshire Hathaway Inc.).
This portfolio is designed to mirror the characteristics and returns of the VC/PE markets, which is tracked and calculated by Refinitiv in the Venture Capital Research Index.

Additionally, it uses economic factors and market indicators to calculate optimal asset weights and modifies the portfolio over time to reflect changes in the venture capital universe. Small leverage is commonly used so that the tracking portfolio’s risk loadings match those of the VC/PE industry in aggregate.
The Leland Thomson Reuters Venture Capital Index Fund acquired all of the assets and liabilities of the MPS Thomson Reuters Venture Capital Fund (the "Predecessor Fund") in a tax-free reorganization on September 24, 2015. (SAI)
Adviser: Good Harbor® Financial, LLC develops and manages a comprehensive suite of investment solutions designed to fit into a wide range of portfolios for institutions, private investors and their financial advisors. Based in Chicago, the firm provides actively managed access to a broad range of global capital markets.
Managers
Neil R. Peplinski, CFA. Managing Partner, Good Harbor Financial LLC, worked as a portfolio manager for Allstate Investments overseeing a $400 million portfolio of collateralized debt obligations. Neil earned his MBA with High Honors from The University of Chicago Booth School of Business. He also holds a MSEE in Electromagnetics from The University of Michigan, and a BSEE in Electromagnetics from Michigan Technological University where he graduated summa cum laude.
David Armstrong, portfolio manager. He is primarily responsible for working with advisory firms and investors to understand tactical asset allocation as they assess Good Harbor and its investment strategies. With 28 years of professional experience, David’s previous companies include Honeywell, RR Donnelley and Oracle. Prior to joining Good Harbor, he was a director of research conducting analysis on the nature and structure of competition in the credit card market for financial firms. David earned his MBA from the University of Chicago Booth School of Business and a BA from Knox College.
Yash Patel, CFA, Chief Operating Officer, has served as a Portfolio Manager since March 2010 at Good Harbor Financial and also serves as its Chief Operating Officer. Yash brings 14 years of professional experience to the firm. His responsibilities include the management and leadership of operations, technology, trading, and portfolio management. Prior to joining Good Harbor Financial, Yash was a quantitative equity analyst for Allstate Investments, developing and implementing model-driven trading strategies. Previous to that, he worked and consulted for hedge funds including Bridgewater Associates and Citadel Investment Group. Yash earned an MBA with Honors from The University of Chicago Booth School of Business and a BS CSE from The Ohio State University.
Managements stake in the fund
As of 9/30/18 (the latest available), Mr. Peplinski owns between $100,001-500,000 amount of the VC fund; Mr. Armstrong $10,001-50,000; Mr. Patel $1,000-10,000.
None of the five trustees own shares of the fund.
Opening dates
LDVIX 10/2/2014; LDVAX Class A 10/2/2014; LDVAX w/load 10/2/2014; LDVCX 9/23/2015
Expense ratios LDVIX 1.51; LDVCX 2.51; LDVAX 1.76
Minimum investment
LDVIX $250K Regular, IRA; LDVCX Regular $2,500, IRA $1,000; LDVAX Regular $2,500, IRA $1,000
The funds have limited brokerage availability. All are NTF at TD; Fidelity LDVAX TF;
Schwab LDVIX Institutional Class $100K Regular, IRA; LDVAX $100, Regular, IRA
Other Facts
As of 12/31/19, the AUM of the Leland Thomson Reuters Venture Capital Index Fund was $122,987,322. According to M*, the fund currently has $141.7M in assets.
The firm reports turnover for the Leland Funds on a fiscal year basis (9/30). For FY ending 9/30/2019, the turnover for the Leland Thomson Reuters Venture Capital Index Fund was 115%. It was 47% in 2018 (9/30).
The prospectus states that typically the TO is over 100%.
AUM at the firm on 9/30/19 was $280.4M EOY, a decline from $440M from the previous EOY.
The overall AUM decline is mostly due to outflows in their Good Harbor Tactical Core US strategy (both in the mutual fund version and SMA). There have also been outflows in the Leland Real Asset Opportunities Fund as well.
Here is the link of the fund’s holdings that seek to track the Index.
http://www.lelandfunds.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/2019_12_Leland-TR-VC-Index-Fund-Holdings.pdf
Performance information of the Index:
https://www.refinitiv.com/content/dam/marketing/en_us/documents/fact-sheets/venture-capital-index-fact-sheet.pdf
Comments
The gentleman who asked about the fund mentioned the three-year performance of LDVAX, a 5.75% load fund.
I’ve chosen to cite the I class LDVIX and C class LVDCX and the Primecap POAGX, the aggressive mid-cap fund with a stellar record since its inception in 1984 and currently closed with $6B in assets. Like the Leland funds, POAGX is concentrated in tech and healthcare.
Also, he also owned POAGX but sold it in 12/2018.
How have these funds performed?
As of 1/16/20, the dollar value of LDVIX is $24,670, LDVCX $23,979, and POAGX $15,709 at M*.
As of 1/16/20, LDVIX has gained 9.56%, LDVCX 9.57%, and LDVAX 9.59%. All have 5* ratings for overall performance at M*.
While these funds have some significant headwinds, their performance to date has managed to overcome them. Additionally, if one looks at MFOP for the three-year metrics that the gentleman cited ending 12/31/19, you'll see this:
LDVIX MAXDD 12/18 -23.1; Recovery Rtg. 1 (Best) 7 mo.; Sharpe Ratio 1.38 5 (Best); Martin Ratio 5.13; Ulcer Index 6.3
LDVCX MAXDD 12/18 -22.3; RR 1 (Best) 7 mo., SR 1.33 1.33 (Best); MR 4.85; UI 6.4
POAGX MAXDD 12/18 -22.3; RR 5 (Worst) 16+ mo.; SR 0.73 (Worst 1); MR 1.69; UI 8.1
The overall success of these funds may result primarily from the ability of the managers in the alternative class space to match the performance of their bogy with well-chosen public companies.
I do not own this fund and won't be buying it.
I researched this fund because a board member asked for information about it, I had already been researching it at MFOP, and because he had received no replies, I wanted to
contact him.
I’d like to thank everyone who participated in the search for this gentleman and hope that what I have written may be of some value.

DODFX vs HFQTX depends on whether you're investing in a tax-sheltered account (where you're losing the benefit of the foreign tax credit) or in a taxable account.
In a taxable account, one pays a cost for the Janus fund's frenetic trading (142% turnover ratio).
Comparing the tax adjusted returns for HFQIX (a lower cost, longer lifetime share class) with DODFX:

       DODFX    HFQIX
1 yr   21.06%   18.12%
3 yr    6.76%    4.11%
5 yr    2.88%    2.63%
10 yr   4.95%    4.46%

All figures as of 12/31/19
http://performance.morningstar.com/fund/tax-analysis.action?t=DODFX
http://performance.morningstar.com/fund/tax-analysis.action?t=HFQIX

First, I don't have to invest in a taxable account. Most investors have much more money in their IRA.
Second and important, M* numbers are way off. It depends on one's tax brackets and most household filing jointly have a max rate of 22% ($168.4K)
Third, A 5 years analysis(link) shows that DODFX has over 40% more volatility while performance is equal to 3.7% while HFQIX peformance is equal to 5.1% with much lower volatility. Another great way is to look at Sharpe+Sortino and HFQIX numbers are much better.

WABAC: "The useful features at M* are free. I have found the data here worth paying for.
And you can create portfolios and watch lists here that are useful compliments to the ones at M*. The risk information that is easily filtered on, and displayed, here goes well beyond that which is available at M*. OTOH this site does not track daily share movements, so doesn't display what percentage of your portfolio an asset is. You have to set your portfolio according to the target percentage. Portfolios are also limited to 25 tickers. That worked well enough for my wife's IRA, but not at all for a collector like me."
There are so many websites, that offer an array of valuable information. I use to run portfolios, with varied portfolio details, at M*, CNBC, and Yahoo finance. I did not have to pay anything for those available options. However, I found I had to continually update the portfolios, and decided I would just choose the best portfolio manager option. I decided to use M* for that portfolio management information, as I can set up watch lists with all kinds detailed information, that is continually updated there--total return performance data, ER information, Credit rating information, duration, standard deviation, and all kinds of data that would overwhelm a portfolio monitoring screen. M* provides the information that is most valuable to me without a cost. I was a premium subscriber at M* for many years, but found that I did not get anything additional that I found valuable enough to pay for. I also use the Research section of Schwab, which offers some data details, that I cannot easily access at M*. Of course, you can also to the websites of various fund companies, and you can gain additional details there, as part of your due diligence investigations. At any rate, I have not found a compelling reason to pay for information, that is available without cost at other sites.
However, discussion forums are different. I have not found many that are popular enough to get sufficient poster input, to make them useful. However, the platform for providing discussion, varies greatly. The process of moderating and ensuring civil and non-contentious posting, varies greatly. Again, it is all apples and oranges, with pros and cons, at each site. I will continue to evaluate MFO, compared to M*, and other sites, and eventually determine how much to participate in discussion at each site, but for me, I have not formed a strong final opinion, about the discussion forums available.

I have not completely left M*. I greatly value its Portfolio section, where I have numerous watch lists of funds, in which I can set up a large array of fund components,that I monitor on an ongoing basis. The Portfolio section provides easy access to a large amount of fund analytical data, and comparative capabilities, which I use extensively in due diligence processes. I do believe that changes in the M* platform, have made it more difficult to access data that I previously valued, but even with many flaws there, it still is very valuable to me.

The useful features at M* are free. I have found the data here worth paying for.
And you can create portfolios and watch lists here that are useful compliments to the ones at M*. The risk information that is easily filtered on, and displayed, here goes well beyond that which is available at M*.
OTOH this site does not track daily share movements, so doesn't display what percentage of your portfolio an asset is. You have to set your portfolio according to the target percentage. Portfolios are also limited to 25 tickers. That worked well enough for my wife's IRA, but not at all for a collector like me.
Here are the data the site tracks: https://www.member.mfopremium.com/definitions/
Here is a small sample sans formatting in the original. So it looks a little rough:

Here are the specific Capture Metrics:
Upside Capture compares the positive return of a fund, comprised of positive month ending returns, to one of four indexes, over evaluation period specified, measured in percentage. So, compared to SP500, an Upside Capture of 120% means the fund retuned or "captured" 20% more positive return than SP500 over the evaluation period specified.
Downside Capture compares the negative return of a fund, comprised of its negative month ending returns, to one of four indexes, over evaluation period specified, measured in percentage. So, compared to SP500, a Downside Capture of 80% means the fund retuned or "captured" only 80% of downside that the SP500 over the evaluation period specified.
Capture Ratio is simple the ratio of Upside To Downside Capture. Values greater than 1.0 means that a fund capture more upside than downside compared to its reference fund ... a good thing!
Up Months is simply number of months with positive returns of index over evaluation period specified.
Down Months is simply number of months with negative returns of index over evaluation period specified.

https://news.yahoo.com/10-best-etfs-buy-2020-175104228.html
10 Best ETFs to Buy for 2020
Jeff Reeves
U.S.News & World ReportJanuary 15, 2020, 11:51 AM CST
A variety of ETF choices.
Based on the 29% returns for the benchmark S&P 500 index of large U.S. stocks in 2019, chances are that last year was very good to your investments. However, what worked previously on Wall Street often does not continue to work tomorrow. That means it's important to take an objective look at your goals instead of being complacent and sticking with the same holdings. If you're looking to make a change or simply looking to reinforce an existing investment strategy, here are the 10 best exchange-traded funds, or ETFs, for 2020 that collectively offer a wide variety opportunities.
Best ETFs to buy for 2020:
-- SPDR S&P 500 ETF (SPY)
-- iShares Russell 1000 Growth ETF (IWF)
-- Vanguard Value ETF (VTV)
-- Schwab U.S. Dividend Equity ETF (SCHD)
-- iShares Edge MSCI Minimum Volatility USA ETF (USMV)
-- Vanguard FTSE Developed Markets ETF (VEA)
-- Vanguard FTSE Emerging Markets ETF (VWO)
-- iShares Core U.S. Aggregate Bond ETF (AGG)
-- iShares iBoxx $ Investment Grade Corporate Bond ETF (LQD)
-- SPDR Gold Trust (GLD)

If you are willing to take on a slight interest rate risk, you can consider Vanguard Short-term treasury index, VSBSX.

https://investor.vanguard.com/mutual-funds/profile/VSBSX

Duration is 1.9 years, SEC yield 1.56% and ER 0.07%.
Certainly there is less credit risk as compares to corporate debts.

I've used two for some time now, MGGPX a world fund and GLFOX a sector fund mentioned by WABAC which M* categorizes as a US Infrastructure fund but it's mostly not. I would love to hear the logic behind that placement.

It's mostly foreign, and classified as an infrastructure sector fund based in the US, just as MGGPX is a US Fund World Large Stock fund, i.e. a US based global fund.

What types of firms do infrastructure funds invest in?
Infrastructure funds primarily invest in energy, industrial, utilities, and telecom firms that hold long-duration assets that generate stable cash flows. Examples include toll road operators, pipeline firms, airports, cell tower owners, and electric and gas utilities.
What are the general traits of infrastructure funds?
Prior to the creation of the infrastructure category, most of the funds were classified as world-stock funds. Typically, these funds have about a 30% to 50% allocation in U.S. stocks with the remainder invested in firms domiciled in the developed world. These funds, on average, tend to exhibit lower beta relative to the market.

https://www.morningstar.com/articles/751882/growing-fund-choices-spur-4-new-categories

DODFX vs HFQTX depends on whether you're investing in a tax-sheltered account (where you're losing the benefit of the foreign tax credit) or in a taxable account.
In a taxable account, one pays a cost for the Janus fund's frenetic trading (142% turnover ratio).
Comparing the tax adjusted returns for HFQIX (a lower cost, longer lifetime share class) with DODFX:

       DODFX    HFQIX
1 yr   21.06%   18.12%
3 yr    6.76%    4.11%
5 yr    2.88%    2.63%
10 yr   4.95%    4.46%

All figures as of 12/31/19
http://performance.morningstar.com/fund/tax-analysis.action?t=DODFX
http://performance.morningstar.com/fund/tax-analysis.action?t=HFQIX

D&C is a good shop but I never used their funds because I found better choices. They also take an extra risk and when markets don't do well they lose more.
DODLX vs PFORX (chart)
DODBX vs PRWCX (chart)
DODGX vs VFINX (chart)
DODFX vs HFQTX (chart)

Like Ben, I hold ARTJX MGGPX and MIOPX... take a look at MFAPX too which has the best risk adjusted returns for international over last 3 and 5 and 7 years

At the 4 brokerages I reviewed HICOX was either not available, redemptions only or carried a sales charge(4.5% or 4.75%).

@davidrmoran, Thanks, I got in incognito. I’ve considered subscribing to Barron’s, but time-wise and money-wise it would mean cutting out the FT. Tough decisions.
Excellent article by Lewis. Yes, DODLX sports above average returns and a below average ER (.45%). Like all D&C funds, it’s essentially managed by a committee. Article quotes Lucy Johns, one of the fund’s seven managers: “ ‘It’s truly a collaborative culture and not a star system.‘ “ Other points to take away: Like DODIX, this fund adheres to a shorter bond duration (3.3 years) than other funds in its peer group. (D&C has long been cautious about current low interest rates.) Article notes the 20% restriction on junk bonds and the fund’s small selective exposure to EM. By and large, this fund hews toward investment grade paper.
I love D&C, although I have more invested with TRP. The two houses’ approaches are quite dissimilar: TRP is publicly owned. D&C is privately owned. TRP offers well over 100 funds. D&C offers just 6. While Price doesn’t “trumpet” star managers, it doesn’t exactly eschew the practice either (David Giroux being one example). To me, D&C has always represented “stodgy and boring.” I kind of like it that way,

@dtconroe
Regarding Tax Cost Ratio (TCR), I don't recall what tax rate / bracket M* uses to calculate the value. The definition M* provides is silent on the topic. For munis, with a TCR of 0% the issue is moot. Perhaps I don't understand TCR fully, but for taxable bond funds, the tax impact is tied to one's specific tax situation / tax rate and whether they are close to a breakpoint in tax brackets. The tax impact of interest / dividends for someone in the 15% tax bracket is different than for someone in the 22% bracket or higher. State and local taxes also need to be considered to get a full picture. Seems like TCR is more a relative vs. absolute measure and one needs to do further due diligence to get the full picture for their particular situation.

This M* widget at the dinky linky seems to be designed for comparing individual bonds, but I don't see why it wouldn't work for funds. It allows you to enter your Federal and State tax rates. I used the latest

SEC yields for the funds I was comparing when I looked into adding a taxable bond fund to my taxed account.
dinky linky.

Sec yield is not an accurate number.
Example: PIMIX sec yield for a couple of years is under 3.5% and PIMIX continues to pay about 5.5% annually.

@dtconroe
Regarding Tax Cost Ratio (TCR), I don't recall what tax rate / bracket M* uses to calculate the value. The definition M* provides is silent on the topic. For munis, with a TCR of 0% the issue is moot. Perhaps I don't understand TCR fully, but for taxable bond funds, the tax impact is tied to one's specific tax situation / tax rate and whether they are close to a breakpoint in tax brackets. The tax impact of interest / dividends for someone in the 15% tax bracket is different than for someone in the 22% bracket or higher. State and local taxes also need to be considered to get a full picture. Seems like TCR is more a relative vs. absolute measure and one needs to do further due diligence to get the full picture for their particular situation.

This M* widget at the dinky linky seems to be designed for comparing individual bonds, but I don't see why it wouldn't work for funds. It allows you to enter your Federal and State tax rates. I used the latest SEC yields for the funds I was comparing when I looked into adding a taxable bond fund to my taxed account.

dinky linky.

@WABAC: Yes, that calculator works for many situations. It does not account for Qualified Dividends which are taxed at a lower rate than ordinary dividends (0% for lower tax brackets). Some taxable bond funds hold assets which qualify for Qualified Dividend tax treatment but that info is not readily available nor factored into most calculators. While I have used the M* calculator or similar ones, for my situation, I have often found the best assessment is found by doing what if scenarios in tax software, like TurboTax, or one of the many tax estimators available online because there can be many moving parts and interactions in the tax calculations that the simple calculator does not address. At least that has been the case for my situation. As always, your mileage may vary.
Also, using SEC yield vs distribution yield in the calculator will provide quite different results because they are calculated differently. This investopedia article discuss the differences between the two ways of calculating yield.
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/d/distribution-yield.asp

@VintageFreak - while not specific to HICOX you might find this Schwab article of interest.
When to Choose Munis From Outside Your Home State