I've had regional bank fund JRBAX for about 18 months, and have vacillated back and forth on whether I have too many sector bets (health, tech, consumer staples, banking, medical devices) and each time I get close to thinking about reducing or selling , they seem to either rally or start to inch back up. I did sell my utilities, and of course they started to rally, but I was overweight in that sector anyway. As some of you know, I tend to take a barbell approach to my portfolio. Solid dividend growth, S + P 500 and E + I funds make up the largest part of portfolio, and sector funds and intl and emerging markets to fill in on the edges. Im 67% stocks, rest bond and cash, Been adding to emerging and global lately.
Think I will hold onto this fund and see what happens.

may this be so
https://www.vox.com/2018/4/10/17215440/deficits-rising-congressional-budget-office-ceo-debate

Is it more realistic that Congress will make further tax cuts on top of the current law, than leave the tax law as it stands?
The reason I ask is that the Barron's column (linked to by Ted) describes making more tax cuts as "CBO’s more realistic 'Alternative Fiscal Scenario'" It never actually tells you that by "alternative scenario" it is referring to more tax cuts. You have to read the CBO report directly and match up the numbers to figure that out. (See p. 1 of ch. 4 of the CBO report.)
Personally, I do not consider that a more realistic scenario, but that's neither here nor there. My point is that there are many ways to subtly introduce bias. How many people glossed over this description and not only took the "more realistic" description as factual, but never wondered what that alternative scenario was?
The "alternative fiscal scenario" discussed in the CBO report (which it never called more realistic) supposed that the tax cuts and spending increases scheduled to expire were continued. It's certainly true that some people considered this more realistic:
"Republicans ... downplayed the impact of sunsetting the individual tax cuts, offering assurances that lawmakers in the future won’t allow them to go back up, at least not for the middle class. "
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/11/republicans-slap-an-expiration-date-on-middle-class-tax-cuts/545996/
But that was then (when the tax bill was passed). This is now:
"House GOP pushes back plans to vote on making individual tax cuts permanent ... Republicans are worried about the optics of voting for potentially costly new tax cuts shortly after the Congressional Budget Office projected that the national debt will nearly equal the nation's GDP by 2028."
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/04/12/house-gop-pushes-back-plans-to-vote-on-tax-reform-phase-2.html

Looking for information on FRITZ
Personal Information
Education
Connecticut College Graduated
Instituto de Estudios Superiores MBA
Instituto de Estudios Superiores de Administración
School
The Instituto de Estudios Superiores de Administración is a private non-profit Venezuelan business school with campuses in Caracas, Maracaibo and Valencia. It was founded in 1965. It has its own publisher, Ediciones IESA.
Wikipedia
Founded: 1965
This is the end of my research
Gary

Well, what do I know?
http://www.keyt.com/news/congress-could-give-bank-shareholders-a-53-billion-gift/730415862
Have a fine remainder. :)
Catch

Will or Matt, I'm not about to knock or critique anyone's buy/sell decisions but currently the fund is priced only about $1 over it's 52-wk low and is marked at twice the discount of its 3-yr average. And then of course there is that attractive yield. I also like that they include the oil majors and mlp's in their mix. Bottom line though is that everyone has to do what's right for them.

With so much in PONAX I do fret rate hikes. But except for the 12/15 one, when its time to recovery was three months (if I am reading things right), all of the others (12/16, three last year, one a month ago) have had trivial effect.
Performance since mid-Jan has not been great, for whatever reasons, but still better than a variety of other bond funds, vanilla and not (FSICX, AGG, FAGIX, FTBFX, DODIX, MWTIX, PYACX). So I have not yet diversified out of it.

I know a few people who are paying 1% - some are getting a good amount of help with their financial situations (i.e. are getting reasonable value for their money), some are getting investment help and some long term planning (IMHO not in itself worth the 1%, but these people also seem to derive value from the personal handholding).
If, as it sounds here, all you're looking for is investment selection and management, I agree with Lewis that something like Vanguard Personal Advisors (a hybrid robo/human offering) or a pure robo advisor would fit the bill.
Regarding PONAX and other bond funds: PONAX is NTF (no fee, no load) at many brokerages now. If you're investing at least $25K, it's worth paying a transaction fee to buy the cheaper PINIX shares, especially if you're looking to buy-and-hold. Vanguard has a $25K min, most other places require at least $100K.
Most people here seem to be enthusiastic about the fund. I'll be the wet blanket. The manager is excellent and I doubt over any long period of time the fund would be a poor choice. But it's focused on asset backed securities(ABS) - a few years ago on mortgages (a form of ABS), more recently on non-mortgage ABS. These have their own risks and rewards; the fact that they have done well does not mean they will continue to do so. See these columns:
http://www.morningstar.com/articles/834221/is-pimco-income-the-new-total-return.html (how PONAX did well with mortgages, but that market's risk/reward has worsened), and
https://www.housingwire.com/articles/39045-morningstar-heres-the-impact-of-rising-interest-rates-on-mortgage-backed-securities (unique risks in mortgage backed securities that may manifest with rising interest rates)
Non-mortgage ABS are yet again different from vanilla bonds. (See investment characteristics in this page.) So again, the behavior may not be what one expects.
Thus I agree again (at least partially) with Lewis that you might benefit from adding a more vanilla bond fund, something like a short to intermediate term corporate. (IMHO index funds are too heavily weighted toward lower yielding, though higher quality, Treasuries.)

FYI: Reaves Utility Income’s John Bartlett seeks stocks that can deliver 5%-7% growth—and he’s not afraid to stretch out to do it.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.cetusnews.com/business/A-Utilities-Fund-That-Offers-More-Than-Just-Safety.Sk884fM2M.html
M* Snapshot UTG:
http://www.morningstar.com/cefs/XASE/UTG/quote.html
Lipper Snapshot UTG:
https://www.marketwatch.com/investing/stock/utg

FYI: (Click On Article title At Top Of Google Search)
Two participants in Home Depot Inc.'s 401(k) plan have sued plan executives alleging that excessive fees and poor-performing investments represented a breach of their fiduciary duties under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act.
The participants also sued Financial Engines and Alight Financial Advisors, both providers of investment advice to the plan, alleging ERISA violations.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.google.com/search?source=hp&ei=iFPUWoyZAcnHjwSXkY24Dw&q=401(k)+plan+participants+sue+Home+Depot+over+alleged+fiduciary+breaches&oq=401(k)+plan+participants+sue+Home+Depot+over+alleged+fiduciary+breaches&gs_l=psy-ab.3...3574.3574.0.4916.3.2.0.0.0.0.64.64.1.2.0....0...1.2.64.psy-ab..1.1.108.6..35i39k1.108.1I3RNFRcoXU

You're right, @Old_Skeet. One of the trusts I am lucky enough to be beneficiary to is 100 years old (will be terminating, FINALLY, in 2 years). A couple of the stocks invested in then (or in the last 50 years) are still around. Thousands percentages gains in those (and a couple of them lost majority of the gains due to being held under any or all circumstances by USB). But it's NOT a step-up, so the cap gains rate will be enormous. Still, I certainly can't complain about the regular income and the remaining amount.
So, investing JUST A LITTLE as early as possible can really add up over a few decades.
Cathy
P.S. You're also right about so-called "professionals" who have little, if almost no, knowledge of mutual funds, or even basic investment knowledge. I've found that out way too often with TDA reps when I've called or emailed.

in case it has not been clear for decades
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/15/opinion/democrats-fiscal-responsibility.html

yeah, that's one; it depends
one recent writeup
The neutral (or natural) rate of interest is the rate at which real GDP is growing at its trend rate, and inflation is stable. It is attributed to Swedish economist Knut Wicksell, and forms an important part of the Austrian theory of the business cycle.
The neutral rate provides an important benchmark for policymakers to compare with the market rate. When interest rates are neutral the economy is on a sustainable path, and it is deviations from neutrality that cause booms and busts. For example if the market rate is pushed artificially below the neutral rate (for example through monetary expansion) then people receive a false signal to invest in more interest-sensitive projects. It is by separating interest rates from their market clearing level that central banks have the potential to create monetary instability.
Because the neutral rate is a hypothetical construct we cannot observe it. Economists tend to believe that it is around 5 per cent ....
or
https://www.frbsf.org/economic-research/publications/economic-letter/2003/october/the-natural-rate-of-interest/

@Starchild: what LewisBraham said! No need to pay 1%. That advisor will not like it if you pull out, but you are correct: that 1% adds up! Steel yourself toward his reaction, and get out from under that 1% arrangement. Do your own homework. You can do this yourself, as long as you don't do anything radical and "screw the pooch."
https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=screw the pooch
You've told us that you can let this money work for you for a long time. So a long-term view of things will be appropriate. Don't let day-to-day ups and downs concern you. Most of your stuff ought to be in well-performing stock funds, and if you want to do it, a smaller portion in bonds. Be aware that bonds are facing headwinds, but it's not the end of the world. All this stuff is cyclical. If you want to "set it and forget it," buy into a "balanced" fund which holds both stocks AND bonds. But they all hold a different AMOUNT of each. No two are the same. I'm most familiar with T Rowe Price, so I'd have you look at RPBAX. But there are dozens and dozens of others, too. RPBAX includes some offshore holdings, too. That's another piece worth thinking about. But don't go "whole hog" into foreign stuff.... I found that it's very helpful simply to get familiar with a lot of the professional financial jargon. ("What do you MEAN, 5 basis points???" Why don't you just say, 5 percent?!) A link: Investopedia. https://www.investopedia.com/
A basic book for you:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Intelligent_Investor
Graham taught Warren Buffett and Charlie Munger, by the way.

Thanks @crash! You guys are awesome!

But .05 is still 5%. Ork?

Pentagon Federal Credit Union
TERM DIVIDEND RATES APY
6 Month 1.65% 1.65%**
12 Month 2.05% 2.07%
15 Month 2.10% 2.12%
18 Month 2.20% 2.22%
2 Year 2.30% 2.33%
3 Year 2.35% 2.38%
4 Year 2.40% 2.43%
5 Year 2.65% 2.68%
7 Year 2.70% 2.73%
$1000 minimum but early withdrawal penalties are not as nice as they once were. I think you can join with just a small donation to their military charity if you aren't a fed/military.

Hi @Crash
You noted previous: "I found that it's very helpful simply to get familiar with a lot of the professional financial jargon. ("What do you MEAN, 5 basis points???" Why don't you just say, 5 percent?!"
---A basis point is the smallest measure used in quoting yields on fixed income products. Basis points also pertain to interest rates. One basis point is equal to one one-hundredth of one percentage point (0.01%). Therefore, 100 basis points would be equivalent to 1%.
Regards,
Catch

I wonder and would also calculate how much of your total portfolio is held in this fund along with whatever other bond funds that you might be holding. As a 31-yr old when you started you should have had 5-10% at most unless you are extremely risk adverse. Even now at 43, 10-15% seems like a lot but again I have no idea about your tolerance for risk, what else you hold and what your overall portfolio plan looks like. I will say this - when Warren Buffett leaves his fortune to his 80-something year old wife his instructions are to have 90% in an S&P 500 index hund and 10% in a total bond fund. YMMV.

I was a renegade at 31 Mark, all individual stocks lol! In all honesty, there wasn't a whole lot in it. Luckily, they worked out. Now, I'm with you, index funds all the way.

Navy Federal: 7 year CD offers 2.65%.
...Just thought I'd mention it, for comparison.

FWIW, Navy Fed has relaxed its familial membership requirements a bit. Now, you just need to be related (up to grandparents, down to grandchildren) to someone who at some time was affiliated with the military. Even if that person is deceased and never joined the CU (or Navy).
https://www.depositaccounts.com/blog/2017/02/military-veterans-family-members-eligible-join-navy-fed.html
They're currently offering a 32 month IRA CD at 2.75% APY. If I recall correctly, their last special a few months ago was an 11 month CD yielding 2%. Not quite sure about either of those figures, though. A place worth watching for specials.

I wonder and would also calculate how much of your total portfolio is held in this fund along with whatever other bond funds that you might be holding. As a 31-yr old when you started you should have had 5-10% at most unless you are extremely risk adverse. Even now at 43, 10-15% seems like a lot but again I have no idea about your tolerance for risk, what else you hold and what your overall portfolio plan looks like. I will say this - when Warren Buffett leaves his fortune to his 80-something year old wife his instructions are to have 90% in an S&P 500 index hund and 10% in a total bond fund. YMMV.