Also, the examples provided didn't go back prior to 1986. (I find the reasoning for this--that some fixed income categories didn't exist prior to 1986--a bit dubious, but nevertheless.) I believe most of the rate increases after that period were gradual and modest ones allowing fixed income to catch up with its yield payments to compensate for losses. The real test would be a period of rapid rate and inflation increases like in the 1970s--what is known as a "rate shock." I doubt Wellesley income or many funds to be honest would hold up too well in such a period. Also, because rates are so low now, as has already been pointed out, a small increase actually can be more significant. Going say from a 0.25% rate to 0.50% is actually a doubling of rates. That is more uncharted territory. Also, income-oriented stocks that Wellesley owns might do particularly poorly in a rate shock environment because unlike bonds they essentially have an infinite duration as they never mature. Then again, they could do better if they have a growth component to compensate for rising rates. It's hard to predict how it would do. Yet here is some useful information: https://sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/105544/0000893220-95-000089.txt
If you go to page 6, you can see how Wellesley performed in the 1970s. Other than 1973 and 1974, it held up pretty well. So there's that. I wonder how it would do in a rate shock today when we're starting from such low rates.

Try this link instead:
https://www.icmarc.org/x3333.html?RFID=W1582&usg=AOvVaw2I9Vd-WRuW_zIiwp1pxMzJ
A solid piece, pretty much textbook (longer duration = greater loss with rising rates, junk = less sensitive to rates).
A few curiosities:

• It is interesting to note that contrary to conventional wisdom, all fixed income sectors experienced positive returns during the four rate hikes.
  I thought conventional wisdom said that historically NAV losses were more than compensated for by high coupons. Vanguard certainly makes this point in writing that buying bond funds in rising rate environments can still be profitable. (Not checking for citation now.)
  The problem is that with interest rates at historical lows, the coupons will likely not fully mitigate capital losses. The Vantage Point article alludes to this as well: "it is possible that the next upturn in rates would not result in positive returns for fixed income sectors due to unique factors, which may not have been present in the last four rate hikes."
• It gives as its rationale for not studying rising rate periods earlier than 1986 that "many fixed income sectors did not exist prior to 1986." So presumably it excludes securitized assets prior to the 1999 period of rising rates for the same reason. Yet MBSs (a major portion of secutized assets) certainly did exist then. FMSFX dates to 12/31/1984 and VFIIX got its start 6/27/1980.
• It explains that in the fourth rising rate period it studied, intermediate term bonds (actually aggregate bond portfolios) outperformed short term bonds in part because "short-term rates [rose] much more than longer-term rates, as shown by the flattening of the yield curve ". These days, there's not much more flattening to be had. Just a ¾% difference between a 3 month T-bill and a 30 year T-bond. Short term rates could again rise faster than long term rates, but that would result in an inversion not a flattening.

.

I believe (on little but circumstantial evidence) that these fees are for transfers of securities, regardless of medium. That is, the fees would be charged regardless of whether the ACAT service were used to send the securities to another institution. It's just that in nearly all cases, the securities are sent via ACATS. Hence "transfer" and ACAT are used synonymously.
For example, WellsTrade says that its "Outgoing Transfer Fee" is $95 (and that it "will display as “Termination Fee” on client statement.") It does not say that this is for a transfer via ACATS.
Third party sites often conflate account transfer and ACAT:

• Top Rated Firms:Account Transfer Out Fees At Brokers (ACAT Cost)
• BrokerageReview.com: Wellstrade Account Closing Fee (ACAT)
• Magnify Money: To transfer the assets in your account, many brokers charge you what is known as an ACAT fee.

That last page does a much better job of explaining what's going on. While calling the fee an "ACAT fee", it clarifies that the fee is "for the costs [brokerages] incur to complete the paperwork necessary to make the transaction as well as to transfer information about the purchase date, cost basis, etc., of securities in your account." I recommend this page for a clear explanation of the transfer process and fees.
Consistent with its guidance on avoiding outgoing fees, I've closed a Schwab account for free by transferring all securities out ($0 for a partial transfer), and getting a check sent for the remaining few dollars of cash left in the account.
The Investopedia page is at best imprecise. It seems to imply that the ACAT system can handle all security transfers. But it cannot handle fractional shares. I believe this is why Merrill simply will not transfer fractional shares, even of mutual funds that trade in fractions. On the other hand, Merrill will accept incoming fractional shares, which are transmitted outside of ACATS by most other institutions.
Investopedia also seems to imply that mutual fund families can use ACATS ("NCC-eligible members"). According to DTCC (which through its NSCC subsidiary runs ACATS), "Mutual Fund Service Members of NSCC are eligible to use the service on a limited basis, only as the contra-party to a transfer initiated by a broker dealer or a bank for the purpose of re-registering a mutual fund position to or from them directly."
The ACAT system is just the usual medium for transferring securities into or out of a brokerage. If you've ever transferred an account or a holding from one brokerage to another, you've made an ACAT transfer. So if you've ever closed an account by doing anything other than liquidating it and getting a check cut, you've likely used ACATS.

(
Administrative nuisances with some financial institutions
Here is a thought. Have the financial institution that you are moving the assets to use the ACAT system to make the transfer. The link below will describe how this works.
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/a/acat.asp
Old_Skeet November 30 in Fund Discussions
First I was interested if anyone here ,MFO'ers, or visitors have used ACAT ? Second question . Can anyone answer as to how much this would cost ? I checked the link & didn't find anything related to the cost. I guess I''ll google ACAT & see what shows up.
@Old-Skeet; Thanks for the link & just for the record I sold the few shares of BHF @ $3.50/ share commish& moved on.
Derf
Added:
Came up with this fee schedule , but I don't know how dated it is plus one may encounter closing fees !!
List of brokers and their ACAT fee:
WellsTrade: $95
Bank of America: $75
TD Ameritrade: $75
SogoTrade: $75
E*Trade: $60
Charles Schwab: $50
Zecco: $50
Sharebuilder: $50
TradeKing: $50
FirstTrade: $50
OptionsXpress: $50
Scottrade: $0
Fidelity: $0

https://www.google.com/amp/s/seekingalpha.com/amp/article/4310599-vanguard-wellesley-fund-exceptional-conservative-mutual-fund-hidden-in-plain-sight
vanguard Wellesley fund

@Gary I don't know how any one can legitimately argue that the old-school media outlets "have done it to themselves." :https://theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/12/post-advertising-future-media/578917/

It’s tempting to think that this is the inevitable end game of Google and Facebook’s duopoly. The two companies already receive more than half of all the dollars spent on digital advertising, and they commanded 90 percent of the growth in digital ad sales last year. But what’s happening in media right now is more complex. We’re seeing the convergence of four trends.It’s not just Facebook and Google; just about every big tech company is talking about selling ads, meaning that just about every big tech company may become another competitor in the fight for advertising revenue.Amazon’s ad business exploded in the past year; its growth exceeded that of every other major tech company, including the duopoly. Apple is building tech that would skim ad revenue from major apps such as Snapchat and Pinterest, according to The Wall Street Journal.

and:

Ultimately, however, the market might not support some forms of journalism. For example, the number of local reporters today is at its lowest point since the 1970s, despite the fact that the U.S. population has grown by 50 percent. Research has shown a direct connection between declining local journalism and less civic engagement. If local news is a public good, it may deserve public support—perhaps in the form of government subsidies. But asking for public assistance might seem like an act of pure desperation.

Pondering FAMEX, DFDPX, and YAFFX which I would buy on their distribution dates later this month. However, YAFFX has over 25% in cash and 2.5% in Macy's which has fallen 50% year to date, so I can't help but to question their judgement. I do not believe the market is overvalued by any measure whatsoever and I do believe the bull will continue for many more years, so a fund with 25% in cash is probably not for me. Yet the long term history of YAFFX is compelling.
I'm realling looking for a fund which scores highly on ESG and low on carbon. I already have Brown Advisory Sustainable Growth and am looking at the Parnassus lineup. Many tech funds qualify on ESG as well. Any other suggestions would be gratefully received.

https://investorplace.com/2019/12/5-etfs-for-oodles-of-monthly-dividends/
5 ETFs for Oodles of Monthly Dividends
Dividend ETFs can provide plenty of needed monthly income in retirement

Here's the press release:
https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/vanguard-to-introduce-total-international-bond-ii-index-fund-as-new-component-for-funds-of-funds-300970047.html
Identical to VTABX, but designed for Vanguard's funds of funds. Also, it does not offer an ETF share class. Int'l Bond I has the BNDX share class.
From the prospectus:

Share Class Overview
This prospectus offers the Fund's Investor Shares and Admiral Shares. A separate prospectus offers the Fund's Institutional Shares, which are generally for investors who invest a minimum of $5 million.

From the prospectus of Vanguard Total International Bond Index Fund (VTABX):

Share Class Overview
This prospectus offers the Fund‘s Investor Shares and Admiral Shares. A separate prospectus offers the Fund‘s Institutional Shares, which are generally for investors who invest a minimum of $5 million. Another prospectus offers Institutional Select Shares, which are generally for investors who invest a minimum of $3 billion. In addition, the Fund issues ETF Shares (an exchange-traded class of shares), which are also offered through a separate prospectus.

https://www.financial-planning.com/list/vanguard-blackrock-fidelity-mutual-funds-and-etfs-have-largest-inflows-of-2019
Funds with the largest inflows of 2019
With an eye on market volatility and rate cuts from the Fed this year, the bond fund universe has seen a surge of new money.
The 20 mutual funds and ETFs with the largest year-to-date inflows are home to more than $2.5 trillion in combined assets under management, according to Morningstar Direct. These funds, mostly index-trackers, underline the continued trend toward low-cost investing, says Greg McBride, senior financial analyst at Bankrate.

If it's an IRA I agree but if the total amount of taxable income in a taxable account is below a specific amount (around $78,750 for joint account) capital gains are zero.

A bunch of news outlets reported today or yesterday that "The Federal Reserve Bank of New York added $95.56 billion in temporary liquidity to financial markets Tuesday. The intervention came in two parts. One was via overnight repurchase agreements, or repos, that totaled $77.8 billion, and the other was via 14-day repos totaling $17.76 billion." Wall Street Journal in that case.
Two thoughts: (1) this might resonate with the concerns we reflected in our December liquidity story. (2) If you Ecosia "fed adds liquidity" - I'm experimenting with the Ecosia web search engine and figured that if that other search engine can be turned into a verb, so can these guys - it appears that a quick hundred billion is becoming a near-monthly event. Same thing was needed in November.
David

https://www.municipalbonds.com/investing-strategies/case-passive-muni-bond-funds/?utm_source=Municipal+Bonds&utm_campaign=9d27a1e944-ExpTrial_Weekly_Bulletin_Engage_05_12_2019&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_d7427882c9-9d27a1e944-48657085&goal=0_d7427882c9-9d27a1e944-48657085
The case for passive muni bond funds
Maybe another couch_ potatoes Portfolios ideas

Oh, I pay for the WSJ, WaPo, and NYT ... but prefer to pay for a quality viewing experience with less distractions and better 'flow' of articles. Ergo, I pay to provide that desired experience I use my geek-fu to deconstruct/reconstruct pages/page sections and block/enable scripts to ensure that. :) But each to our own! (I don't like reading news in apps personally)

- Add-free. I wouldn’t mind if online papers included static “print-type” ads that didn’t detract from my reading (as hard copy newspapers did for a century or more). However, invariably these ads flash, blink, flicker, change color and dance about. I cannot read text with such distractions.

Neither can I. Which is easily solved for the web using various ad- and script-blocking plugins for browsers. You can get really granular in the control ... I haven't seen a distracting ad on a news site in YEARS, and can even customize the view so that I can block entire sections of a page -- ie, 'visual' stories or large video blocks I have no desire to watch, etc. Makes life much nicer that way!

@rforno, Glad it works for you. I’ve tried assorted ad-blockers with only limited success. Currently have at least 3 on my ipads in addition to what Apple builds-in as their standard blocker. It was clear from my brief subscription directly with the NYT couple months ago that the

Times did not want me blocking their ads and was trying to circumvent the blockers. That’s a no-win for publisher and reader alike. https://www.mutualfundobserver.com/discuss/discussion/53366/best-way-to-subscribe-to-newspapers
The Kindle edition NYT is costs about $5 more monthly ($20 vs $15). Not only the distracting ads, but a smoother layout/format and less data consumed on downloads are appealing, since I’m still on a data-capped internet plan. I’m happy to pay the added cost in exchange for a better reading experience. And the higher subscription fee should allow Amazon to compensate publishers fairly.
Overall, I believe Amazon increases circulation numbers for many publications above what they would otherwise be in this day and age. Let’s face it: Newspapers face intense competitive pressures from the likes of cable news and free websites, albeit the quality of these pales in comparison. Amazon’s Kindle site serves essentially as a free marketing forum for hundreds, if not thousands, of quality publications, both domestically and globally.

- Add-free. I wouldn’t mind if online papers included static “print-type” ads that didn’t detract from my reading (as hard copy newspapers did for a century or more). However, invariably these ads flash, blink, flicker, change color and dance about. I cannot read text with such distractions.

Neither can I. Which is easily solved for the web using various ad- and script-blocking plugins for browsers. You can get really granular in the control ... I haven't seen a distracting ad on a news site in YEARS, and can even customize the view so that I can block entire sections of a page -- ie, 'visual' stories or large video blocks I have no desire to watch, etc. Makes life much nicer that way!

@rforno, Glad it works for you. I’ve tried assorted ad-blockers with only limited success. Currently have at least 3 on my ipads in addition to what Apple builds-in as their standard blocker. They work with a lot of free websites - but ineffective with major publications. It was clear from my brief subscription directly with the NYT couple months ago that the Times did not want me blocking their ads and was trying to circumvent the blockers. That’s a no-win for publisher and reader alike. https://www.mutualfundobserver.com/discuss/discussion/53366/best-way-to-subscribe-to-newspapers.
The Kindle edition NYT costs about $5 more monthly ($20 vs $15). Not only the absence of distracting ads, but smoother layout / format and less data consumed on downloads are appealing. (I’m still on a data-capped internet plan.) Willing to pay the added cost in exchange for convenience and a better reading experience. The higher subscription fee should allow Amazon to compensate publishers fairly.
Overall, I believe Amazon increases circulation for many publications above what they would otherwise enjoy in this day and age. Let’s face it: Newspapers face intense competitive pressures from the likes of cable news and free websites, albeit the quality of these pales in comparison. Amazon’s Kindle site serves essentially as a top-notch marketing platform for hundreds, if not thousands, of quality publications, both domestic and global.

I agree with everything @LewisBraham says above and thank him for the presentation. I’ll add that our marvelous free press and its investigative reporting is imperiled by factors both financial and political. Every time I curl up with a fresh copy of the NYT or other great publication, I’m reminded that we may not be so blessed in the future.
If you’re still with me ... I’m reminded of a short story, “The Portable Phonograph” by Walter VanTilberg Clark I used to use with students back in the 70s. The story depicts the existence of a few “post-civilization” survivors holed up in a cave following a devastating war. Each clings to some great literary masterpiece or other relic from the past. The title is a reference to an old man who treasures a collection of aging phonograph records:
“The records, though,” said the old man when he had finished winding, “are a different matter. Already they are very worn. I do not play them more than once a week. One, once a week, that is what I allow myself. ...More than a week I cannot stand it; not to hear them,” he apologized.
Link to brief summary of story: https://www.enotes.com/homework-help/short-story-portable-phonograph-why-author-634741
Link to complete story (5 pages):
http://www.mscruz.yolasite.com/resources/The Portable Phonograph.pdf
-
Some added thoughts re the points Lewis made so articulately.
I obtain / read all my subscription periodicals through Amazon’s Kindle service. I’d feel better sending my money directly to publishers. On the other hand, I assume they are being adequately compensated (big assumption) by Amazon or they wouldn’t agree to have their publications re-sourced. Here’s why I use the Kindle editions:
- Add-free. I wouldn’t mind if online papers included static “print-type” ads that didn’t detract from my reading (as hard copy newspapers did for a century or more). However, invariably these ads flash, blink, flicker, change color and dance about. I cannot read text with such distractions.
- Ease of starting and stopping subscriptions. Amazon allows you to cancel a subscription at any time and refunds the unused portion of any subscription amount paid. By contrast, I’ve encountered much difficulty cancelling online subscriptions from Barron’s. Once, I had to have my bank pull my charge card and issue a new one as it was the only way I could keep from being charged monthly after repeated attempts to cancel through the publisher.
- Formatting. In my opinion nobody does this better. Amazon pioneered the e-reader and remains miles ahead in providing a format (suitable for many different devices) that’s easy to access, fine-tune, read and navigate.
- One-stop billing and ease of accessing / changing account settings,
Just a few thoughts. I’d say Amazon ranks relatively low on the list of factors damaging the free press. I’d cite a continued dumbing down of the populace, addiction to internet, TV and electronic media, free-loaders who pay nothing, and attacks from the far right as more influential causes of journalism’s plight.

@Mark
I recall I'd read last year that, that December was the best time to own stocks; EXCEPT ONLY after Dec. 25.

Yahoo Finance articles have become a joke ...

Yahoo has become a joke. I recently ordered some pricey theater tickets. Rather than going through the trouble of changing my old “ymail” address with Telecharge, I left the old email standing. Guess what? Tickets were emailed, but yahoo mail has been completely off-line since some time late yesterday. Tried about 50 times. Finally phoned Telecharge today and got them sent to a more up-to-date email. :)
Yahoo was a pioneer in internet search in the 90s. How far they’ve fallen.

A few things I would note are:
1. There wouldn't be much click-bait journalism if Google/Facebook/Amazon hadn't killed journalism and basically bankrupted many publications.
2. Publications are now desperate for clicks to sustain their remaining ad revenue.
3. Readers, including--at least in the past--many on this site, assume news should be "free" with the implicit assumption that journalists don't deserve to get paid. They happily cut and paste entire articles and show other readers various means around paywalls.
4. Many pubs are now so broke they pay journalists pennies per word.
5. Shoddy click-bait journalism often exists because pubs are so broke/greedy--both, really--they hire writers who are really professionals in another industry seeking to promote their own businesses and journalism is really an advertisement for their businesses, be it financial planning or money management. Those writers come cheap because journalism really isn't their end goal when they write an article. It is self-promotion.
6. Journalists at mainstream publications generally don't write their own headlines. I know I don't. Headlines are written by a team at the pub seeking "search engine optimization" or SEO to generate clicks.
7. Investigative journalism is expensive, time consuming and often draws negative backlash from powerful interests, be they corporate or government, or both. It rarely leads to additional ad revenue for a publication. Pubs are thus less interested in doing it.
And so good journalism is dying.