FYI: Bitcoin exhibited its trademark volatility Wednesday, plunging back toward $9,000 just hours after topping the $11,000 milestone for the first time.
A single bitcoin BTCUSD, -0.94% changed hands in recent action at $9,428.54, according to tracking site CoinDesk, a decline of 4.1% from Monday.
Earlier, bitcoin traded as high as $11,377.33. The move came just a day after the cryptocurrency hit $10,000 for the first time, adding to a rally that saw its year-to-date gains briefly exceed 1,000%. It’s still up sharply from its 2016 finish just below $1,000.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/bitcoin-within-touching-distance-of-11000-just-one-day-after-taking-out-10000-milestone-2017-11-29/print

? Not quite following the misapprehension, but:
- Yes, I am saying that Fido says one cannot buy DODIX for other than a $75 TF.
- And yes, I am saying that Fido says one cannot buy BCOIX for other than a $50 TF, and moreover with a 25k min except for self retirement accounts, where the min is $500.
- No, I have had nothing other in mind all along.
- And yes, I have reported (my "technique") that one who purchases DoubleLine NTF / higher-ER class shares at Fido can get them reclassified for free at DoubleLine to the lower-ER class once above a certain $ amount.
- This last procedure has nothing to do with anything else.
As for transferring TF fund shares from one brokerage to another, I don't know much about that, never having bought (rightly or wrongly) TF fund shares. I don't know anything about other ways to escape TFs. I think someone here posted that the receiving brokerage sometimes pays one's fees of that sort. Certainly some give plain bonuses for transferring, though not Fidelity except in the form of lower-commission or some free trades. ML otoh pays serious moneys for transferring, depending on amounts.
HTH.

Are you saying that you have no way, outside of using an institution new to you such as Vanguard, to initiate a position in DODIX at Fidelity for less that $75?
I recognize that you already said that you wouldn't use Vanguard for this purpose, and strongly suggested that you wouldn't use any other new institution: "Have never used Vanguard, have been trying to simplify and reduce holdings and institutions"
What point were you trying to make about Baird Core Plus?
"BCOIX is $50 TF at Fido, but it says $25k min (self retirement accounts $500)"
That seemed to communicate that one couldn't get around the $50 fee. You probably had something else in mind, given that you now mentioned a technique that you've used (or plan to use) yourself at Fidelity for this purpose.

DODIX costs $75 to buy at Fido, with no DoubleLine-like way around it so far as I can see, which is a consideration for someone possibly not holding for the long run.
Yeah, I guess this is settled.

And yet Vanguard doesn't offer an HSA to individuals.
https://personal.vanguard.com/us/whatweoffer/overview/healthsavings
They just refer you over to Health Savings Administrators, that charges you $45/year plus the equivalent of a 12b-1 fee (0.25%/year) to invest in Vanguard funds:
https://healthsavings.com/vanguard/fees/
or to Health Equity that charges $36/year plus virtually the equivalent percentage fee, here 0.24%/year.
https://healthequity.com/indexinvestor/
These aren't even the cheapest ways to get Vanguard funds in HSAs through third parties. For example, The HSA Authority, like Health Equity, offers 17 vanguard funds (not all the same), for $36/year. Rather than charge 0.24%/year, the share class it offers (often Admiral) may charge a couple of basis points more than the Institutional class shares that Health Equity offers for a few of the funds. Still cheaper all-in at HSA Authority.
https://hsainvestments.com/fundperformance/?p=TBH (HSA Authority fund list)
https://healthequity.com/indexinvestor/ (Health Equity Vanguard fund list)

BCOIX is $50 TF at Fido, but it says $25k min (self retirement accounts $500). PONDX, arguably better than any of these, is free, or, as noted if you're sure you're going to hold for the long run, PIMIX.

>> It looks like you may be forgetting things. Here's your own post on how to circumvent that fee at Fidelity:
https://mutualfundobserver.com/discuss/discussion/comment/77431/#Comment_77431
?? It is unlike you to misunderstand or misread something so. Unless of course I'm mistaken again. Changing class within Doubleline shows how to avoid or reduce TF on DODIX? Can you share the exact steps to achieve this wrt D&C? I am missing something. Unless conceivably you did.

What you missed is what you last posted - transaction fees on Baird Core Plus and PIMCO Income Funds' institutional class shares. This shows why I suggested that if you want to talk about other funds outside of DODIX, it would be a good idea to do that in a different thread. Everything gets mixed together and confused in this DODIX thread.

As for the heart of PONDX, check its top sectors at M*. (As of midyear.)

For the sake of argument, let's grant your implication (that I was mistaken about PONDX being built around MBS). That doesn't diminish the other concerns I raised regarding this fund.
When I see people ask whether they should invest in a multisector fund or a short term fund or a core fund, one of the first questions that comes to mind is "what are you looking for", since these serve different functions and behave differently. They are simply different animals.
If one's objective is to goose yield, one can buy a leveraged fund. Most of those are closed end funds, so that's a good starting place. People seem to be happy with the boost they get from the leverage until they get burned, if they get burned. ("Industry studies show that over a long period of time, the benefits of leverage outweigh the drawbacks.") One can also buy OEFs that use leverage, like PONDX.
That gets us to your snapshot in time glance at its portfolio. Comparing the March 2015 annual report data with the 2017 annual report (from the M* site), one sees a big shift that comes in two parts:
- borrowing heavily:
   $1.9B liabilities vs. $46B assets(2015) compared with $27B liabilities vs. $106B assets (2017),
- using that debt to buy government bonds ($0 Treasuries in 2015, 25.2% Treasuries in 2017).
That's almost a dollar for dollar pairing. Honestly, I'm surprised the numbers work out that way. Nothing in real life is supposed to be that neat. But it seems that that the fund is continuing to focus on securitized debt for its core investments. Leverage is being used on the side to boost returns.
You're comfortable with increased leverage in a rising interest rate environment. I'm not. Sometimes it can still work, depending on how the yield curve moves - how fast and how the slope/curvature changes. Sometimes you can get badly burned. Best of luck.

@msf May I ask which (if any) bond funds you own?

Good question @expatsp. I’ll be interested in @msf’s response as well.
Another thought here ... Where does one draw the line in classifying a fund as a bond fund? I think that’s more than academic and results in a lot of confusion among investors. I guess, technically, an ultra-short like TRBUX is a bond fund. Yet, its risk/reward profile is markedly different from a long-term treasury fund, an intermediate-term muni, or a high yield fund. All are bond funds - but quite different.
FWIW - I own DODIX, but actually count it along side my cash positions. D&C doesn’t even offer a money market fund. They call DODIX an income fund. Of course it invests in bonds. Another I own and puzzle over is RPSIX. It may correctly be termed bond fund. But due to the very diverse mix of bond funds it holds, along with as much as 15% or more in a dividend paying stock fund, it displays a much different type of behavior than an intermediate or long-term corporate or treasury fund. In a bond rout, I’d feel safer holding RPSIX than a plain vanilla bond fund.
Too long winded here - In a nutshell: Should we distinguish between bond funds and an income fund like DODIX?

Hi @MikeM,
Wishing you the very best in your coming retirement.
If my memory is correct from viewing the now removed whoops portfolio the yield was at about 1.56% per my Instant Xray analysis; and, it was geared towards growth over income. Since, I am in retirement myself the yield is a little low for me. I take no more distribution than 1/2 of what my five year average return has been. In this way, my portfolio grows over time. In addition, you can (I believe) get your broker to set your account to where you can take all mutual fund distributions (interest, dividends and capital gains) in cash. This should raise your portfolio's income stream and prevent you from having to, perhaps, sell securities (piecemeal) to raise cash. I have found Morningstar's portfolio manager a good way to track a consolidated portfolio of multiple accounts. And, I have found it to be most reliable in tracking long term investment performance. Sure, it may have some short term glitches but overall it has been a good investment management tool.
Again, wishing you the very best as you approach retirement.
Old_Skeet

It looks like you may be forgetting things. Here's your own post on how to circumvent that fee at Fidelity:
https://mutualfundobserver.com/discuss/discussion/comment/77431/#Comment_77431
Regarding PONDX: It's different, not comparable and so not better (or worse). As already noted, such investments may make sense if all one cares about is raw performance, though past performance yada yada.
- Taken to the extreme, comparing it to DODIX (as you did originally) or to BCOIX is somewhat like comparing a junk bond fund to a Treasury fund
- PONDX is at its heart an MBS fund, which will usually do better (due to risk premium) over full cycles
- it appears to be heavily leveraged (-48.57% net short term duration investments; see Excel cell AQ18 here) which entails another set of risks; and
- The fund owes much to having been in the right place at the right time; time is up and there are no other right places. See this M* column. It's a good column touching on several points, that apparently got little attention here, as it is sitting in the bullpen.

@Puddnhead
I just found this...it may provide some information.
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1105128/000160900617000066/scoutfunds485b10272017.htm
I just found this under Carillon (Eagle Series Trust) in the Edgar database. It was filed 11/20.
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/897111/000089843217001084/a497.htm

tu2bits. I know that as 25 cents, or 'a shave and a hair cut - 2 bits' for those old enough to remember the saying.

?? $75.
BCOIX is $50 TF at Fido, but it says $25k min (self retirement accounts $500). PONDX, arguably better than any of these, is free, or, as noted if you're sure you're going to hold for the long run, PIMIX.

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1217286/000119312517353626/d450598d497.htm
497 1 d450598d497.htm 497 TRUST I
JPMORGAN TRUST I
JPMorgan Tax Aware Income Opportunities Fund
(All Share Classes)
JPMORGAN TRUST II
JPMorgan Tax Free Bond Fund
(All Share Classes)
Supplement dated November 28, 2017
to the Summary Prospectuses, Prospectuses and
Statements of Additional Information dated July 1, 2017, as supplemented
Merger Proposal
At a meeting held on November 15, 2017, the Board of Trustees of JPMorgan Trust I (“Trust I”), on behalf of JPMorgan Tax Aware Income Opportunities Fund (the “Acquired Fund”), and the Board of Trustees of JPMorgan Trust II (“Trust II”), on behalf of JPMorgan Tax Free Bond Fund (the “Acquiring Fund” and together with the Acquired Fund, the “Funds”), approved the merger of the Acquired Fund with and into the Acquiring Fund. The merger will only be completed if approved by the Acquired Fund’s shareholders. This merger was recommended by the Funds’ adviser, J.P. Morgan Investment Management, Inc. (“JPMIM”), based on the belief that the Acquired Fund has limited opportunities for future growth and, as a result, the proposed merger has the potential to take advantage of operational and administrative efficiencies that may result from the reorganization of the Acquired Fund with and into the Acquiring Fund. After determining that (1) participation in the merger is in the best interests of the Funds and (2) the interests of each Fund’s existing shareholders would not be diluted as a result of the merger, each Board of Trustees approved the merger.
Operating expenses vary between the Funds and distribution and service fees differ among share classes. In connection with the proposed merger, JPMIM and JPMorgan Distribution Services, Inc. (“JPMDS”), the distributor for the Acquired Fund and the Acquiring Fund, have contractually agreed to waive their fees and/or reimburse the expenses of the Acquiring Fund, as needed, in order to maintain the total annual fund operating expenses after fee waivers and expense reimbursements (excluding acquired fund fees and expenses other than certain money market fund fees, dividend and interest expenses related to short sales, interest, taxes, expenses related to litigation and potential litigation, and extraordinary expenses) of each class of shares of the Acquiring Fund at or below the level in effect immediately prior to the merger for the corresponding class of shares of the Acquired Fund. These contractual fee waivers and/or reimbursements will stay in effect until May 4, 2019 for the Acquiring Fund. There is no guarantee that such waivers and/or reimbursements will be continued after May 4, 2019. The expenses of the Acquiring Fund’s classes may be higher than disclosed if the expense limitation expires after May 4, 2019.
It is anticipated that the merger will qualify as a tax-free reorganization for federal income tax purposes. Prior to Closing, any net investment income and/or net realized capital gains will be distributed to shareholders of the Acquired Fund and may be distributed to shareholders of the Acquiring Fund in order to seek to avoid any negative tax impact to any of the Funds’ shareholders as a result of the reorganization.
Completion of the merger is subject to a number of conditions, including approval by the shareholders of the Acquired Fund. The merger is not contingent upon the approval of any other merger of JPMorgan Funds. Shareholder approval will be sought at a special meeting of shareholders expected to be held on or about March 28, 2018. If you own shares of the Acquired Fund as of the record date for the special meeting for shareholders, you will receive (i) a Proxy Statement/Prospectus describing in detail both the proposed merger and the Acquiring Fund (including, among other things, any differences in strategies, risks and fees between the Acquiring Fund and the Acquired Fund), and summarizing each Board of Trustee’s considerations in recommending that shareholders approve the merger and (ii) a proxy card and instructions on how to submit your vote.
If the merger is approved by the shareholders of the Acquired Fund, each holder of a class of shares of the Acquired Fund will receive, following the transfer, on a tax-free basis for federal income tax purposes, a number of full and fractional shares of the corresponding class of shares of the Acquiring Fund having an aggregate net asset value equal to the aggregate net asset value of the shares of the Acquired Fund held by that shareholder as of the close of business of the New York Stock Exchange, usually 4:00 p.m. Eastern time, on the closing day of the merger. The merger, if approved by shareholders, is expected to close after the close of business on May 4, 2018 or on another date as the parties to the transaction shall agree.
SUP-TAIO-1117
The foregoing is not an offer to sell, nor a solicitation of an offer to buy, shares of the Funds, nor is it a solicitation of any proxy. The Proxy Statement/Prospectus will be available for free on the Securities and Exchange Commission’s website (www.sec.gov), once it is available. Please read the Proxy Statement/Prospectus (when available) carefully before making any decision to invest in the Funds or when considering the merger. For additional information relating to each Fund, please refer to the Fund’s prospectus, which is available by visiting www.jpmorganfunds.com or by calling 1-800-480-4111.
INVESTORS SHOULD RETAIN THIS SUPPLEMENT
WITH THE SUMMARY PROSPECTUSES, PROSPECTUSES AND
STATEMENTS OF ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FOR FUTURE REFERENCE

The $5 is for each investment, not reinvestment. Automatic reinvestments at Fidelity, as at most brokerages, are provided as a free service. (I've recently seen a brokerage where ETF reinvestments cost money, so there is a reason for this clarification.)
Fidelity requires you to have an existing position to use their automated $5 investment service. But Fidelity doesn't require you to plunk down $75 to create that initial position, so long as you come up with the shares in your account. I believe you're already set up to bootstrap a new position for twenty bucks using existing accounts.
At the risk of repeating myself, only you can say whether paying $20 while not expanding the institutions you use (e.g. not going to Vanguard) is too high a cost for you. You have already made it clear that holding the shares at no monetary cost directly with D&C is too high an operational cost for you.

Fido says $75 TF to plunk down for DODIX, $5 each reinvestment if auto, for small outperformance (and depending on time period) at twice the size and way less turnover. Right, for some aspects anyone can research preferability.

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/105563/000093247117005685/mergefinal.htm
Vanguard U.S. Multifactor Fund Admiral Shares
&
Vanguard U.S. Liquidity Factor ETF Shares
Vanguard U.S. Minimum Volatility ETF Shares
Vanguard U.S. Momentum Factor ETF Shares
Vanguard U.S. Multifactor ETF Shares
Vanguard U.S. Quality Factor ETF Shares
Vanguard U.S. Value Factor ETF Shares

This is a thread about DODIX. If you want to talk about another fund in a different context, i.e. that fund's performance/investment strategy without comparing it to DODIX's, that is irrelevant to DODIX. There's always the option of starting another thread.
At least in this last post, you got back to asking about why one would prefer DODIX over fund X.
What you wrote was not bald preferring, it was preferring within a context unstated at that point - that you won't plunk down $5 to get a comparably performing (superior on a risk-adjusted basis) fund, or complicate life by simply buying (not even holding) something "for free" elsewhere (outside of Fidelity). Unless that elsewhere is ML.
You make tradeoffs between simplification, costs, and performance that are personal to you. You're the only one who can address those.
I don't want a fund that is required to keep its duration on a leash. Not simply by using its benchmark as a starting point to inform (i.e. as "guidance"), but by keeping it close ("similar"). I'll repeat that this isn't just my interpretation but M*'s as well. However, M* also misread the prospectus - a fact I missed the first time.
The analyst wrote: "Ford O'Neil and the management team aim to keep duration close to their bogy, the Bloomberg Barclays U.S. Aggregate Bond Index. They avoid duration bets ..." The prospectus does name the Aggregate Bond Index as one of two fund benchmarks (as reflected in its average annual returns table), the other being the U.S. Universal Bond Index. It is the latter, not the former, to which the fund must keep duration close ("similar").
For a variety of reasons, including its relative duration inflexibility, FTBFX isn't a fund high up on my list to research (it's lower than most of the other 2016 M* fixed income manager finalists).
That said, bond portfolio management isn't rocket science. There are lots of different attributes that one can adjust. For instance, even a cursory look at FTBFX's portfolio reveals how it is playing the yield curve while keeping its duration within its required window of similarity. Whether that particular decision has helped or hurt the fund (or had no effect), you can research yourself. Same with average credit quality and credit distribution among holdings, sector selection, etc.
All deviate from the US Universal Bond Index. At least some of them must accounti for the fund's higher risk relative to DODIX, without adding to performance. As the saying goes, past performance does not guarantee future results.

A nod for High Yield in a Rising rate environment:

https://invesco.com/pdf/HYBRR-FLY-1.pdf
Where's @Junkster when you need him...probably kneeing up a High Yield mountain trail.
Another nod for High Yield:

high yield bonds have historically not only provided investors with solid returns during periods of rising interest rates, but have also dramatically out performed its investment grade counterpart. While we do not expect to see a rapid rise in rates (again see our article from last week for our take on rates), we do believe that the high yield bond market provides a compelling fixed income opportunity for those concerned about rising rates.

https://seekingalpha.com/article/2499395-high-yield-in-a-rising-rate-environment-a-perspective-on-historical-performance

@catch22,
Thanks for the response and links. I like the dynamic visual effect "the 2326 day slider" feature provides the viewer. Cool tool.
What are your impressions of the impact rising rates will have on this fund and other RE funds that derive income from bonds or from REIT that pay dividends?
The Fidelity fund review page states,

Hold securities with a low asset-weighted average credit rating and a low sensitivity to interest rate changes as defined by the fund's effective duration, both according to Morningstar's rating system.

yet I worry about its almost 50% weighting to High Yield.

Shoot, I should have anticipated more hairsplitting: 'The excess return of an investment relative to the return of a benchmark index is the investment's alpha.' And more insulting, now irrelevance in addition to silliness.
What I wrote was not bald preferring, just that it was 'hard to see' why one would want DODIX, per the article. I thought it was an interesting question given the Fido lower rating. Why do you think one would or should want D&C instead? Second, why do you suppose FTBFX outperforms IUSB? The funds' names are 'income' and 'total'. Nothing about short or intermediate durations. Money/USN notes this:
This fund’s ability to venture into high-yield and emerging-market debt differentiates it from more typical corporate bond funds. ... [As for its index] Here, too, fund performance has bested that of the [Barclays U.S. Universal Bond] index.
So I thought you might have more interesting things to say about this lower-rated fund. Almost 2y ago the manager was interviewed:
https://www.barrons.com/articles/morningstar-talks-fidelitys-fixed-income-outlook-for-2016-1455898972
Since then he was named M* FI MoY, it says.
I guess I will see if this last-January interview of him and Pohl (DODIX) reveals anything:
https://www.cnbc.com/video/2017/01/25/meet-morningstars-best-bond-fund-and-asset-allocation-fund-managers.html
Edit: Not all that much, except for the usual Fidelity touting of their specificity of bondpicking, more than any macro guidelines.