+1 hank

+1 fd1000 I sold all my shares of CTFAX after that change. The only reason I bought it was its ability to limit stock holdings at 10% during market tops. Now it's just another 50-70% allocation fund or tactical allocation fund !

Thanks For your replies @msf and @Vegomatic. I am not at all familiar with portfolio Visualizer... I will dig in and try to learn. I am primarily looking at international multi cap - relying on the managers to choose the best spot moving forward on map size. VDIGX and VIG,SCHD are both of interest, I am screening them also - but not as replacement for international allocation . According to MFO Premium screen HEFA & Prcnx are good candidates - both lower MAXDD ( primary importance) .TBGVX was great for a long time - (still lower volatility and standard deviation - but zip on the upside and the recovery ) but of late has even underperformed other hedged funds, so it cant be just due to the hedging. I am looking at some large cap gains in my taxable account - so I sold it to harvest the loss - I can of course get back in after 31 days - all advice welcome - many thanks

I think "Best" is only relevant to each individual investors portfolio criteria for what purpose/role an individual investor is attempting to fill in their portfolio. Portfolio criteria can vary widely, based on age, risk metrics, total return metrics, etc.

Yeah - That was my reaction as well. While an interesting discussion here, the topic is a little “nuts-o” when you think about it. The topic narrows it down only to “taxable” bond funds. :)
The chart is cool and gets specific. I’ll confess to generally being fog-bound with regards to bond funds anyhow. RPISX is probably listed as a bond fund, but I beg to disagree owing to its 5-25% allowable weighting in an equity fund. Also, its “bond” holdings, ranging from EM to Treasuries are so diverse as to demand a more specific moniker than simply “bond fund.”
Another consideration in the overall equation here: Some investors find value in sticking with only one or a few houses. In that case, they may be “comfy“ in settling for only “third best” or “fifth best” fund in any particular category of fund. And, as has no doubt already been mentioned, various economic forces at work at any one time can greatly lend favor to or create havoc for virtually any bond fund, regardless of name, management or style.
FWIW - I closed out long held RPSIX today. Not only has it stunk up the joint in recent years, but its diverse holdings no longer fill my perceived portfolio needs. I’d rather today hold generally short term and / or high quality bond holdings as a stabilizing influence in the portfolio rather than seeking growth or high income with such a broadly diverse “income“ fund. The small remaining amount was moved into their .25% ER index bond fund PBDIX, which I’ve held for about a year. Why bonds over cash? IMHO they would act more like a hedge against rapidly falling equity prices - if only temporarily.
Out of tax considerations I also decided to take a modest 2020 distribution from the Traditional side, even though that was not required in 2020. Didn’t need the money. So it went into Price’s PRIHX - a “limited term“ HY muni fund that I think is probably a better fund than M* and the others currently rate it. It appears almost stable enough to use as a cash alternative (not recommended however).
Part of my thinking on munis - No matter which side wins the election, municipalities and states will eventually get some federal help. (But still waiting for my official “Oracle“ license to arrive in the mail.) :) As to the tax considerations, I’d rather write the IRS a check next April 15 than have to wait in line for a tax refund. Building up the non-IRA assets may prevent having to take an unwanted withdrawal from the Roth someday (which is now near 70% of invested assets).

Roth IRA. As long as you meet the income limits , you can also contribute up to $6,000 (or $7,000 if you're turning 50 or older this year) to a Roth IRA. (If you exceed the income limits, you can still use a "backdoor " approach to contribute.) As with the Roth 401(k), all withdrawals from the Roth IRA become tax-free after you've had the account for at least 5 years and you're over age 59 ½. FROM FORBES

@BenWP
Ditto MGGPX which closes to new investors Dec. 31.

I don't look at M* ratings by category (Medal ratings) as a significant criteria for determining "Best" Bond funds. I think "Best" is only relevant to each individual investors portfolio criteria for what purpose/role an individual investor is attempting to fill in their portfolio. Portfolio criteria can vary widely, based on age, risk metrics, total return metrics, etc. and you may reach a different conclusion if you are a trader, a buy and holder, and how important longer term total return performance is likely to repeat itself going forward. I am a preservation of principal investor in my retirement years, but I do look for enough total return to offset RMDs annually, and to hopefully increase my overall principal amount each year. I am on the sidelines right now, with a nominal positive year in total return, but I choose to wait and see how this election is going to play out, how this Covid 19 pandemic will be addressed, and then sort through total return and risk information in the latter part of 2020, and early part of 2021, and build back my portfolio going forward. M* medal ratings will have minimal importance to me in my investing decisions.

Charles Schwab to Cut 1,000 Jobs in TD Ameritrade Integration
The move will trim the combined workforce by about 3%, San Francisco-based Schwab said Monday in a statement. The cuts are part of an effort to reduce “overlapping or redundant roles.”
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-10-27/charles-schwab-to-cut-1-000-jobs-in-td-ameritrade-integration?srnd=premium&sref=368neHRO

CTFAX looks good. Important to note new management since 5/2018. Performance since 5/2018 has been stellar. I am seeing an increase in 30/50 fund of funds in the last 5 years. 49% equity allocation.

New management has done well but earlier this year they changed the fund’s asset allocation rules. Stock allocations can now never go below 50% whereas during its period of outperformance, it was allowed to hold a lower percentage of assets in stocks. Too early to tell what impact this will have on its long term performance going forward.

CTFAX looks good. Important to note new management since 5/2018. Performance since 5/2018 has been stellar. I am seeing an increase in 30/50 fund of funds in the last 5 years. 49% equity allocation.

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/10/26/ant-group-to-raise-tktk-billion-in-biggest-ipo-of-all-time.html
"Ant Group would raise $34.5 billion in its dual initial public offering after setting the price for its shares on Monday, making it the biggest listing of all time.....The Chinese financial technology giant previously said it would split its stock issuance equally across Shanghai and Hong Kong, issuing 1.67 billion new shares in each location.....the largest IPO of all time, putting it ahead of previous record holder Saudi Aramco, which raised just over $29 billion.....Ant’s valuation based on the pricing would be $313.37 billion, larger than some of the biggest banks in the U.S., including Goldman Sachs and Wells Fargo....."

VIX closed over 30 means I got to sell some, so I sold 50% of my portfolio which was in IOFIX. If VIX goes back under 30 I will buy it again.
It's probably just a temporary spike but I have got very little to lose. I'm already at 15% for 2020 + only one down week at -0.3% (I write down weekly results every weekend).

Hi, Crash.
My dirty take: https://www.mutualfundobserver.com/2020/10/harbor-global-leaders-investor-hggix/.

I believe the age for distributions has been moved up. I got screwed again !

Not as much as you think.
Someone born between Jan and June in 1951 would have been required to start their RMDs in 2021 (age 70.5). Now they can start in 2023 (age 72). Two years grace. Same two year grace for anyone born between Jan and June in years after 1951.
Someone born between July and Dec in 1950 would have been required to start their RMDs in 2021 (age 71). Now they can start in 2022 (age 72). That's only one year's grace. Same one year grace for anyone born between July and Dec in years after 1950.
Someone born between Jan and June 1950 would have been required to start their RMDs in 2020. Now they can start in 2022 (age 72). That's still two extra years, though one of those is coming from the fact that no one has to take RMDs this year.
Someone born between July and Dec 1949 would have been required to start their RMDs in 2020 (age 71). Now they can start in 2021 (age 72). So they're also getting one year of grace, though that is coming from the 2020 waiver, even without the age extension.
Someone born before July 1949 gets a year of grace (2020) not because of the change in RMD age but because everyone is excused this year. So they're also getting one year of grace.
In short, these "oldsters" get a one year break. That's the same amount as those born between July and December of any year from 1949 on, and just one year less than the two years anyone born between Jan and June from 1950 on get.
People born late 1949 are the ones who should be complaining. They're covered by the extension to age 72, but that doesn't get them even a single year extension.

>> One withdraws 4% of the original portfolio (here 4% of $1M, or $40K), and then adjusts that fixed amount for inflation.
ah
>> Bengen has not found any historical 30 year period, including ones with low inflation and richly priced markets, where a starting withdrawal rate of 4.5% did not survive 30 years.
amazing to contemplate with big drops in a given year

The inflation rate is critical in the calculation when future value or purchase power declines every year. For now the assumption is 2% annual inflation. Can you imagine it gets larger in the future? An amount of $1M is not likely to last 30 years.

Or worse, 4% of the balance plus an additional 2% of the balance purportedly to "adjust" for inflation.

Thus the return rate must be higher than 0.1% (4.1%- 4.0%) and that may not be easily accomplished every year.

My commentary (middle block of quotes above) was a distraction about the inflation adjustment. The key point I was making was one does not withdraw 4.0% each year.
One withdraws 4% of the original portfolio (here 4% of $1M, or $40K), and then adjusts that fixed amount for inflation. What percentage of the portfolio balance that withdrawal represents each year is not fixed, but depends on the real return of the portfolio.
For example, if the portfolio doubles in the first year, i.e. grows by 104% (100% after adjusting for 2% inflation), then the $40,800 would constitute only 2% ($40,800/$2,040,000) of the year end balance.
As to what return rate is needed assuming a constant rate of return and a constant inflation rate, Rekenthaler wrote:

The break-even point for portfolios with real withdrawals is the sum of 1) the withdrawal rate [4%] and 2) the inflation rate [2%]. In this portfolio’s case, that means 6%. That conclusion seems trite. But it did not strike me as obvious when I first approached the topic.

So a nominal rate of return of 6% or better means that the portfolio will last forever.
A nominal return rate of less than 6%, e.g. 4.1%, would lead to the portfolio ultimately being exhausted. But for this portfolio, that would still take 36 years. Here's a PV calculation illustrating this, where all figures are in terms of real dollars. One starts with $1M and $40K withdrawal (both real), the portfolio grows at a 2.1% real rate of return (4.1% - 2% inflation), and the withdrawal amount is a constant $40K (real).
The assumptions are simplistic. Rates aren't constant. So matters are more complex. Still, Bengen has not found any historical 30 year period, including ones with low inflation and richly priced markets, where a starting withdrawal rate of 4.5% did not survive 30 years.
People can always say "this time is different". Perhaps that is the only thing that isn't different. People are always saying that "this time is different."

@catch22 ...A 3 or 4 year plan to rebuild a house on the cheap, in the Philippines, on the lot my wife's family owns. Her cousin and brothers will get it done. The lion's share of everything we have invested has always been in T-IRA. The allocation and location of the money (taxable or tax-sheltered accounts) has never been ideal. The initial amounts were dropped in my lap, unscheduled, at the passing of family members, while I was still working. So, I dumped the money in T-IRA and grabbed the deduction, at the time. So, the plan is to take only profit, not bite into the balance in the T-IRA, and redeploy it in a taxable account, in order to grow it, over that 3 or 4-year time period. We are in the 10% bracket and don't have to worry about taxes on cap gains/dividends, as long as we are not stupid with the money. Wife still works, under the table. I get decent retirement income. Spacing the withdrawals seems the way to go. We won't have to face the taxes this way, and the $$$ will grow in the new account, hopefully. Right now, the Fed is backstopping everything. I appreciate your interest. :)

The inflation rate is critical in the calculation when future value or purchase power declines every year. For now the assumption is 2% annual inflation. Can you imagine it gets larger in the future? An amount of $1M is not likely to last 30 years.

Or worse, 4% of the balance plus an additional 2% of the balance purportedly to "adjust" for inflation.

Thus the return rate must be higher than 0.1% (4.1%- 4.0%) and that may not be easily accomplished every year.

By happy coincidence, John Rekenthaler had a column a couple of weeks ago in which he provides similar year-by-year calculations for the same reason as I did above, viz. that seeing all the details year by year helps to understand what is going on.
https://www.morningstar.com/articles/1004651/the-retirement-income-puzzle
Here's his table of a million dollar portfolio over five years where the nominal growth rate is 4.1% (I used -10%), and inflation rate of 2% (I used 0%). Note that even though he says that the withdrawal "rate" is 4%, what he is actually doing is what Bengen described: starting with 4% ($40K on $1M), he adjusts this fixed amount for 2% inflation annually. He is not withdrawing 4% of the balance annually. Or worse, 4% of the balance plus an additional 2% of the balance purportedly to "adjust" for inflation.He also cites a recent interview with Bengen that answers @davidrmoran's question:

Michael [Kitces]: And so, what do you think about as the number in the environment today?
Bill [Bengen]: I think somewhere in 4.75%, 5% is probably going to be okay. We won’t know for 30 years, so I can safely say that in an interview.

Worldwide/Global "Leaders." Harbor. HGGIX. Does anyone care to offer a quick and dirty evaluation of this fund for me? I earlier asked about Seven Canyons because it was featured... I'm not picky about the category, but the money will be for a medium-term goal: 3-4-5 years. Only 138M AUM in HGGIX, but its performance vs. peers looks good to me. Thank you.