Segment 1:

Segemnt 2:

Segment 3?
little help linking if you find it...thanks

Comparing VFINX to DODFX was an error, it should be VFINX vs DODGX. The link and numbers are based on DODGX. SP500 beat DODGX.
I also agree that low fees are important and if I have to select funds for the next 20 years I would only select index funds. FXAIX ER(expense ratio)=0.015 and Fidelity also introduced zero ER. This means DODGX ER is still 0.5% higher.
The only exception is VWIAX which is a great fund for retirees with ER=0.16%.
==================
DODGX doesn't only own "value" companies. They own growth companies too. If you can't beat the index claim your style is a bit different.
I always believed in investing in the index for US LC(The Bogle way). If I want to beat it I would use QQQ, after all, for several decades now high tech is where you find a lot of growth and where the biggest ones take so much more. I also prefer QQQ (for my explore part) because over 50% of the revenues come from abroad.
==================
Risk isn't volatility. That subject had been discussed for decades but Risk doesn't have an accurate definition. Volatility, Sharpe, Sortino, Martin, Ulcer, Up/Down ratio and others can help you find better funds. Sure, they are not perfect or a guarantee but you got to start somewhere. I have been using them now for about 20 years. I have used SGENX, FAIRX, OAKBX most years in 2000-2010. As I got older and prepare for my retirement I have used PIMIX and PRWCX several years since 2010.
I also found that low SD + higher performance is a quick search with a high correlation for finding great funds and great funds also have better Martin, Sharpe, Sortino. They all work together most times.
MFO also uses the above for finding better funds.
==================
As a retiree bond funds are more important to me. Stocks are "easy" just use an index. Bonds is where great managers can make more money with better risk attributes. You will never find bond funds like PIMIX,PIGIX and IOFIX at D&C and you definitely will not find much higher distributions which are very important to most retirees.
It also works better for covering expenses and rebalancing.
When stocks go up a retiree should use stocks for expenses when stocks go down use bonds for expenses and rebalancing should be a part of it.
My style was always to invest in my best ideas in order to try and get better results if you own 3 funds in every category chances are you won't.

I enjoyed the reads... very thorough, simple investment advice.
Keep it simple. DCA into VBINX...move on to other things...check back in 40 years.
7-rules-for-a-wealthy-retirement

The equally weighted oef that I like that is comprised of the top 100 US companies is VYCAX (Corporate Leaders 100 Fund). I have owned this fund off and on over the past ten years, or so, and have at times used it as one of my spiff (special investment) positions. One of the reasons I like this fund is that it usually has a good distribution yield. Last year its distribution yield was 9.3% which includes capital gain distributions. Although, it is an equity fund I consider it an income generating fund as well. Not only will it grow your principal through the years it will put some spiff in your poscket if you take all distributions in cash as I do.
Another equally weighted oef that I have used in the past as a spiff position is VADAX (Equally Weighted S&P 500 Fund). It has had some good distribution payouts as well; but, generally, lower than what VYCAX produces.

DoubleLine has an international Shiller/CAPE strategy that may be of interest to value investors. The tickers are DLEUX/DSEUX.
dinky linky

Maintain a core portfolio of debt instruments that focuses on global fixed income rotation while simultaneously obtaining exposure to the European Equity sector rotation strategy via The Shiller Barclays CAPE® Europe Sector Net TR USD Index. The Index aims to identify undervalued sectors based on a modified CAPE® Ratio, and then uses a momentum factor to seek to mitigate the effects of potential value traps. By using both a value indicator and a momentum indicator, the Index aims to provide more stable and improved risk adjusted returns. The CAPE® Ratio is used to assess equity markets valuations and averages ten years of reported earnings to account for earnings and market cycles. European sectors are equal-weighted notional long exposure to four European sectors that are undervalued. Each European sector is represented by a sector index. Each month, the Index ranks ten European sectors based on a modified CAPE® Ratio (a “value” factor) and a twelve-month price momentum factor (a “momentum” factor). The Index selects the five European sectors with the lowest modified CAPE® Ratio — the sectors that are the most undervalued according to the CAPE® Ratio. Only four of these five undervalued sectors, however, end up in the Index for a given month, as the sector with the worst 12-month price momentum among the five selected sectors is eliminated. The sectors are typically comprised of issuers represented in the MSCI Europe Index, which captures large and mid cap stocks across 15 developed market countries in Europe.

"As I said earlier, D&C is a good shop but I was always able to find better risk/reward funds than D&C."
That is figuratively and literally your bottom line. Though what you're looking at is volatility, not risk. SD is a measure of volatility. Sharpe ratio is a ratio of return to volatility (SD). Sortino ratio "measures the return to 'bad' volatility." Then there's the Treynor ratio, " known as the 'reward-to-volatility ratio'".
Sortino: https://www.morningstar.com/InvGlossary/sortino_ratio_definition_what_is.aspx
Treynor: https://www.morningstar.com/articles/384148/article
Sure, look at all of these measures, and more. Just realize that they're all variations on the same theme - equating volatility with risk. When cash flow is a concern, volatility does create risk. But you dismissed that.
DODFX vs VFINX? Yes, foreign investments have done worse than domestic for the past ten years. I'll guess that was a typo and that you meant to write DODGX.
Recognizing that DODGX is a value fund, value has likewise underperformed for the past ten years (link). The comparison says more about the relative performances of the market segments than the funds. Still, since you did mention mean regression, it might be helpful to look at a quote from an article praised in another thread:

Value stocks may finally do better than growth stocks thanks to the steeper yield curve. The thesis of owning growth stocks during a flattening yield curve and value stocks during steepening could prove true here.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/17/business/stock-market-index-equal-weight.html
Now, Try Slicing the Stock Market Into Equal Pieces
_
Index fund investing is already immensely popular. But is it time to consider funds that construct indexes differently?
Equal-weighted funds tend to be “more expensive, smaller in size and trade less frequently than the cap-weighted alternatives,” he said. The diversification they provide outweighs those drawbacks, in his view, “but they are things for investors to keep in mind.”
_

“ 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.”
That’s the way it’s supposed to work. The most recent new threads go to the top. Most who post here have a broadspread appreciation of many different facets of investing. We’ve never felt a need to compartmentalize. What you might be missing, however, is the “Discussions +” link which appears to the left side of the screen when you’re logged in. By clicking on that you can view just the threads which have received comments by others. (If you login using that saved link, it will take you directly there.) That’s the link I generally use - though it’s helpful occasionally to scan all of the threads, whether commented on yet or not. Also, you can easily bump to the top of the stack any thread farther down that you want to promote by making brief comment in that thread,
As you must be aware, we recently lost Ted Didesch “the Linkster” who for many years posted dozens of helpful links virtually every day. We all miss Ted. John it seems is trying to help compensate for that loss with some fresh threads every day. I’ll criticize his formatting or choice of topics occasionally (fair game), but I would never disparage what he’s attempting to do for the rest of us. The simple answer to “not liking” the topics that are posted is to post a few of your own.
We have (or have had in the past) some excellent posters here who also post on M* or other forums. No need for exclusivity that I’m aware of. Hopefully everyone can find a forum somewhere that they enjoy and benefit from. The Discussion board here is but a “side show” to all that MFO has to offer investors. David’s monthly commentaries are top notch - required reading IMHO for mutual fund investors: https://www.mutualfundobserver.com/2020/01/january-1-2020/ And it doesn’t stop with David. There’s over a half dozen knowledgeable / experienced investors who contribute to that publication every month, including Ed Studzinsky, former manager of OAKBX, whom I particularly enjoy reading. The research tools available here to those who want to dig deeper into funds are of high repute as well.
Best wishes @dtconroe to you wherever you eventually decide to land.

Regarding your comments, that it is better to post multiple more specific threads, as opposed to one larger thread, that is more encompassing, I found the posters on M* had varying opinions. However, it seemed that at M*, the larger and more encompassing thread, became almost a separate category of the Bond Investing Forum. I found posters quickly going to the larger thread, to see the latest discussions, as opposed to hunting down multiple more specific threads, that often disappeared for lack of interest, much more quickly.

Theoretically there is a topical limit on your post about conservative bond fund investments. Is it a good idea to drag it off topic with subjects that might die for lack of interest if they were in the cruel world on their own?
Well. There are no thread police here. And it is your thread. ;-)
I think the chances of the forum breaking down into sub-categories are nearly non-existent. The community has been operating this way since 1996. You might get an interesting explanation if you asked why.
I share your opinion about spamming the board with clickbait links. The locals seem to regard it as eccentric, but harmless. So . . .

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.

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.

First, unless all your assets are tax-sheltered, you do have assets in taxable accounts. The question is not whether you invest taxable assets, but where. Unless of course you're keeping them all in cash, which some people would still regard as a form of investment.
Certainly you don't have to invest any of your taxable assets in equities. You could always put all your taxable moneys into bonds and keep your equity investments tax sheltered. If that's what you're doing, more power to you. Several years ago T. Rowe Price had a study that showed, under certain (now obsolete) tax rate and return rate assumptions, that was actually a better strategy.
So you're right, you don't have to invest any taxable money in equities. But if you do because of tax benefits, those benefits are even greater with foreign investments.
Second, you stated that "I never used [D&C] funds because I found better choices." You positioned that as a personal decision. So it's not so much a matter of what "most households filing jointly" pay in taxes as what you pay.
Speaking generally, even if other funds are better for you, it doesn't mean that they're better for others. I suspect that people here tend to have above average size portfolios. So it isn't obvious that you're even addressing most of the readers. I don't know one way or the other.
Third, "The saying is true: You really can't eat risk-adjusted returns."
https://www.morningstar.com/articles/873910/you-cant-eat-risk-adjusted-returns-but-they-still-might-nourish
Not that I always discount volatility (which is not the same as risk, despite the oh-so-mathematical formulae suggesting otherwise). Rather, I personally care about it primarily where cash flow is important. Thus I pay attention when David Snowball points out that RPHIX has the highest Sharpe ratio of any fund. But I certainly wouldn't use that fund for a long term investment merely because of its wonderful Sharpe ratio.
For a long term equity investment, I care about long term returns. As Jeffrey Ptak documented in the cited M* column, most people don't invest that way. "It appears that higher risk-adjusted performers are easier for investors to use", despite their potentially lower returns.

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.

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.

Why would one ever mess around with VUSXX, assuming they hold an account in vanguard? The vanguard sweep account, Vanguard Federal Money Market Fund (VMFXX), yields a tick more, is just as "safe" and has no restrictions.

Neither fund is subject to gating/redemption fees.
As I wrote before, this is dancing on the head of a pin. But since you asked, many securities held by VMFXX are not backed by the full faith and credit of the US government. Substantially all securities held by VUSXX are Treasuries that do have that extra layer of security.
https://personal.vanguard.com/us/content/Funds/FixIncAgencyBondsContent.jsp
Goldman Sachs writes: "Contrary to their reputation, government money market funds are not all the same. These funds, which invest primarily in cash, government securities and/or repurchase agreements, can offer a range of risks and returns."
Government Money Market Funds are Not All the Same
The difference in portfolios can make not only a minuscule difference in safety, but a quantifiable difference in after tax returns. Last year, only 78% of the income from VMFXX was state tax-exempt. 100% of the income from VMFXX was derived from Treasuries, thus exempt in all states.
https://personal.vanguard.com/pdf/USGO_012019.pdf
Any MMF that is allowed to hold government agency paper and/or federal repurchase agreements subjects residents of California, Connecticut and New York to the risk that all of the income will be taxed by the state See, e.g. FRBXX or FLGXX.
https://www.fidelity.com/bin-public/060_www_fidelity_com/documents/taxes/2018-gse.pdf

Pimco Real Return PRRIX provides worthwhile inflation-protected bond exposure, which can help preserve purchasing power in retirement. By Miriam Sjoblom, (CFA) for M* ,Jan 16, 2020
"Despite some noteworthy team turnover, Pimco Real Return's experienced management team and extensive supporting cast of global-bond specialists continue to give it an edge in the inflation-linked bond arena. Given the importance of low fees in this competitive field, the fund's cheapest institutional share classes earn Morningstar Analyst Ratings of Silver and Bronze, while its remaining shares are rated Neutral."
Article Here

This retiree prefers to separate strategies so he sees the moving parts he's betting on -- I mean investing in.
So if I want derivatives, corporates, and securitized fare I'ld buy them separately.
Per the M* link:

It employs macro-driven strategies (driven by real growth, inflation, and country-specific analysis) and micro-driven themes (including Consumer Price Index seasonality, on-the-run/off-the-run premiums, and implied inflation volatility). Although U.S. TIPS and, to a lesser extent, other global inflation-linked bonds dominate the portfolio, the strategy can invest up to 20% in other sectors, such as corporates and securitized fare.
The approach has led to sizable off-index bets at times, a trait that distinguishes it from its more-constrained peers, including use of Pimco's bonds-plus techniques, by which the strategy gets exposure to its primary sectors via derivatives and invests the cash collateral in short-term bonds. The team may also make meaningful and swift maturity shifts, though the portfolio's overall duration has generally stayed within a year of the benchmark's. The strategy's adventurous nature can cause its performance to diverge from that of the U.S. TIPS market at times. But overall, its flexible approach, which benefits from the insights of Pimco's broad, deep bench of global-bond experts, earns a High Process Pillar rating.

But for people that don't like to own too many funds this offering from PIMCO is probably safe enough.

https://www.nasdaq.com/articles/these-unsung-funds-soared-18-pay-tax-free-dividends-2020-01-16
These Unsung Funds Soared 18%, Pay Tax-Free Dividends
-Today IaEURtmm going to show you how one lucky group of investors nailed a once-in-a-lifetime shot at a huge, tax-free dividend stream and a quick 18% gain, too!
Well, not exactly aEURoeonce-in-a-lifetime.aEUR Because this opportunity is still waiting for you todayaEUR"you just need to know how to tap it.-