What Schwab says when placing a test order:
1. This BUY order will be executed 01/13/2020.
2. This buy order does not have a transaction fee.
3. This buy order will be subject to a short term redemption fee if redeemed within 90 days.
4. This fund has a 1 % redemption fee if sold within 60 days.
A wild guess, with nothing to substantiate it, is that perhaps it is not marked as NTF because the fund is not paying Schwab the full fee it charges for NTF/OneSource marketing. But it is still paying Schwab some amount for shelf space, and Schwab for whatever reason is still selling it without charging a transaction fee.

Linked chart might shed some light. Compares returns (both stocks and bonds) among different countries since 1900 (but ends with 2014). Clearly, U.S. stands out as leader when it comes to equities.
https://monevator.com/world-stock-markets-data/
Some things to keep in mind:
- U.S. benefitted over the century from many unique cultural, societal and political advantages (including a strong regulatory, legal, judiciary framework and strong educational stystem).
- It costs more to invest abroad for a variety of reasons - some related to the above.
- The chart may not reflect the impact of currency fluctuation. I’ll take a 0% market return over a 10% market return if the currency of the former appreciated 20% while that of the latter declined.
- The world has changed dramatically over the past century. Namely, industrialization and technological innovation are far more widespread across the globe today than just 50 years ago.
- Assuming outperformance by the U.S. continues for decades more (a big assumption) an investor might still want to dampen year-to-year volatility by spreading out across the globe.

@MikeM - Thanks for the injecture. While I didn’t necessarily intend sarcasm with my “I don’t get it” reference, I agree that U.S. manufactures were lazy and inept at responding to the Japanese manufacturing challenge - particularly the quality issue. I owned a couple new U.S. cars built in the 70s that were both poorly put together and prone to frequent breakdown. In short - nicely stylized junk.
The only issue I might have is that looking at this question in such a simplistic manner leaves out a lot of contributing factors. Japan’s industrial base had been devastated during WW II. So they were ramping up production at brand new state-of-the-art plants, while U.S. plants were more dated. Japanese cars at first were smaller and more fuel efficient - able to profit from the (unexpected) 1970s OPEC Oil Embargo. Prior to that game-changer, fuel in the U.S. had been plentiful and relatively cheap. And, we haven’t even gotten around to the question of labor unions (like the UAW) that sought and received living wages and generous fringe benefits for workers, putting the U.S. at a disadvantage to Japan where labor was cheaper. You’re right. U.S. politicians and auto execs didn’t “get it” at first.
My brief (quoth) remark pertained to one public school educator from an excellent system here in the U.S. who visited Japan in the late 80s (about the time the Nikkiei was peaking). By than Japan was all the rave. Japan could do no wrong. He sought to compare classroom experiences of Japanese students than with those of the system where he worked. He did not observe a significant difference. If anything, he reported that the students he observed in Japan appeared less attentive and more prone to arriving late / leaving early than in the system where he worked. I must caution that was just one person’s limited experience and may not have been representative of Japanese schools at large. Equally likely, the school where he worked wasn’t representive of all American schools.

1) Anyone has insider info on what happens if fund is NTF at TDA but not at Schwab?
2) TDA has 6 month holding policy on NTF funds or you have to pay fee. Does this apply to reinvested dividends. To be safe, I just turned them off.
3) Anything else?
I have an IRA. Wanted to make sure all fund I own in TDA account transfer over nicely to Schwab. BIVRX is my only holding Schwab does not offer NTF.
Thought would start this thread NOW rather than wait till the end.

Answer to original poster's title.
Good Health - Every thing else will take care of it's self !!

+1

https://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrapoza/2020/01/10/best-countries-for-fixed-income-in-2020/?ss=markets#5b37112930d2
Best Countries For Fixed Income In 2020
Forbes
That means the passive index funds will basically be mandated to buy. More money flowing into China bonds pushes up bond prices
Unless you’re happy with junk bonds and 2% yield on ten-year Treasury debt, then the best place for fixed-income investors is outside of the advanced economies. That’s always been the case, but they have been avoided, for the most part, due to risk and the fact that quantitative easing made the U.S. the only game in town since 2009.

FWIW, Schwab lists PONAX with a net exp ratio of 1.45% It also shows it has a 12b-1 expense of .25%. So I have know idea what you would end up paying. But, I haven't owned it for a few years so don't care.

The expense ratio for PONAX is 1.45%.
Sebi, in its board meeting on September 18, 2018, anounced changes in the total expense ratio (TER) of mutual funds. It made the changes to bring in transparency in appropriation of expenses, and reducing mis-selling and churning. (link)
The above means that since 2018 Total expense ratio are more accurate, with that in mind, Pimco Income funds had to report their real expense.
Basically, if you own PONAX you will pay 1.45% and not 0.9%

I was working on increasing foreign exposure in my portfolio after the last few years run up in the US market. Using Portfolio Visualizer, increasing international exposure lowered CAGR, Sortino, and Sharpe numbers. Since PV is backward looking data that made sense to me as US has been much stronger than Foreign. I then started using earlier start dates to minimize the recent results but I ran into same numbers being lower the more foreign exposure I increased. This writer finds similar results.
https://fortunefinancialadvisors.com/blog/the-global-portfolios-rough-three-decades/
(dated Mar 2019)
He's not saying not to invest outside the US but he writes:
"It seems that no matter how one looks at the data, the last few decades have not been friendly to the global equity portfolio when viewed through the lens of an American equity investor. However, I do not want readers to come away thinking that I am opposed to investing abroad. Far from it! As I have argued previously, there is no compelling reason to own everything in the foreign equity universe. Similarly, foreign equity portfolios with factor tilts such as momentum and minimum volatility offer value to investors. In addition, investors may find better value in foreign small caps as I have discussed here and here. So, by all means, diversify your portfolio not just sufficiently, but also prudently".
He had also written previously that US Tech and Health Care sectors may also have been a major reason for US out performance as well.

You’ve got a seriously deficient 401K plan if those are the only two bond funds. Most investors would consider a high quality intermediate bond fund, total bond or bond plus fund to be the starting point for the income allocation in a portfolio. That said, I agree that PONAX is the better choices the two funds you listed. However, I wouldn’t want all of bond money invested in just PONAX.

@dtconroe - please read my post. An investor will be charged more than 1.45%.
From the Semi-annual report, dated Sept 30, 2019: "The Fund's total annual operating expense ratio in effect as of period end were .... 1.45% for Class A shares."
Note that the summary prospectus (July 31, 2019) says that the "Other Expenses" component of the ER "include[s] interest expense of 0.55%. Interest expense is borne by the Fund separately from the management fees paid to ... PIMCO." It goes on to say that if one backs out these interest expenses (which the fund pays), the ERs would be lower. That's how M* gets the adjusted ER.
Fee waivers have nothing to do with the ER adjustment for PONAX. The prospectus says that
"PIMCO has contractually agreed, through July 31, 2020, to reduce its supervisory and administrative fee for the Fund's I-3 shares by 0.05% of the average daily net assets attributable to I-3 shares of the Fund." There is no similar fee waiver and/or expense reimbursement for PONAX (class A shares) to subtract.
Finally, the reason why I say that investors are charged more than 1.45% is because in addition to the stated ER expenses borne by the fund, the fund also pays transaction costs on trades.

"Simon">From my own perspective I've hugely enjoyed reading and digesting this thread. I've learned a great deal and have researched almost every fund mentioned. Thanks to every contributor and dtconroe in particular for starting the discussion and for his exceptionally well informed comments.
My personal circumstances are such that when it comes to bond funds (both mutual and ETFs) all I am looking for is a greater overall return than an online savings account. Let's say anything above 1.8% APY. Preservation of principal is absolutely paramount because I may need to withdraw money on very short notice for my wife's medical expenses due to a back injury. (We both have high deductible plans.) Therefore, I have money in ultrashort duration/ultrashort maturity funds like TRBUX, SEMRX, DLSNX, MINT, and just this week I have opened a position in JPST. All of these I consider cash alternatives with little to no risk to principal. These are in taxable accounts separate from our retirement plans.
The wife and I work for the same employer and we are both around 80% stocks/20% bonds in each of our 401K plans - with 20 and 12 years to go until full retirement respectively. That allocation will of course change as retirement nears. The single bond fund we use (out of a grand choice of only two) is WAPSX. Both of our Roth IRAs are 100% in equity mutual funds because we are very bullish for the coming decade and are prepared to weather the inevitable volatility.
As so many have rightly said - everyone's circumstances are different.
Simon, I appreciate your describing your unique circumstances, and your investing approach to address those circumstances. There are many of us who can identify with your description, and many of us who choose to adjust our investing decisions to accommodate our spouses and their wishes/needs. My wife does not have health issues, but in our joint taxable account, about half of it came from my wife's inheritance of her deceased parents estate. She is very conservative and has made it very clear to me what her risk tolerance is--very very conservative, with very low volatility as a key component of what is chosen for her inheritance and her personal IRA monies. That leads me to trying to find funds that she is comfortable with, not funds I try to force on her.
Best wishes on your investment choices.

"Carefree">My 401k provider offers PONAX -Pimco Income A- in the plan, but the expense is 1.45. Thoughts avoid because of the expense is so high or buy it? The only other bond fund is BHYAX BlackRock High Yield. I’m 55 years old and I appreciate your thoughts.
Carefree, you are quoting Gross Expense Ratios. You have to look at the Adjusted Expense Ratios for the actual ER you will be charged. The Adjusted Expense Ratio shows the ER after loads and other expenses are waived. When you do that, you will see the Adjusted Expense Ratio for the 2 funds are about the same, around .90. PONAX and BHYAX are 2 very different kind of bond oefs--BHYAX is a sector HY bond fund in which almost all assets held are below investment grade. PONAX is a multisector bond fund, with a small portion in junk bonds, some in Emerging Market, but the bulk in mortgages. When you chart the 2 funds, you will see the performance pattern for PONAX is much smoother compared to the higher standard deviation of BHYAX. PONAX has become a huge AUM fund, with over 130 billion AUM, but overall it appears to be a much less risky bond oef than BHYAX. BHYAX will correlate much more closely to equities than PONAX, so if you are looking for some level of ballast with a smoother ride, PONAX will probably fill this role a bit better and offer you more diversification than BHYAX. Good luck with your decision.

Hi @Gary1952,
Welocme to MFO.
Thank you for your question.
This should help provide an understanding of how I govern my portfolio along with how the pieces fit into a master portfolio. The hybrid income sleeve is a big part of my portfolio and is detailed below.
Consolidated Master Portfolio & Sleeve Management System ... Last Revised on 12/31/2019
Now being in retirement here is a brief description of my sleeve management system which I organized to better manage the investments held within mine and my wife's portfolios. The consolidated master portfolio is comprised of two taxable investment accounts, two self directed retirement accounts, a health savings account plus two bank savings accounts. With this, I came up with four investment areas. They are a Cash Area which consist of two sleeves ... an investment cash sleeve and a demand cash sleeve. The next area is the Income Area which consist of two sleeves ... an income sleeve and a hybrid income sleeve. Then there is the Growth & Income Area which has more risk associated with it than the Income Area and it consist of four sleeves ... a global equity sleeve, a global hybrid sleeve, a domestic equity sleeve and a domestic hybrid sleeve. Then there is the Growth Area where the most risk in the portfolio is found and it consist of five sleeves ... a global growth sleeve, a large/mid cap sleeve, a small/mid cap sleeve, an other investment sleeve plus a special investment (spiff) sleeve. The size of each sleeve can easily be adjusted, from time-to-time, by adjusting the number of funds held and their amounts. By using the sleeve management system I can get a better picture of my overall investment landscape. I have found it beneficial to Xray each fund, each sleeve, each investment area, and the portfolio as a whole quarterly for analysis. All my funds with the exception of those in my health savings account pay their distributions to the Cash Area of the portfolio. This automatically builds cash in the Cash Area to meet the portfolio's disbursement needs (when necessary) with the residual being left for new investment opportunity. Generally, in any one year, I take no more than a sum equal to one half of my portfolio's five year average return. In this way principal builds over time. In addition, most buy/sell transactions settle from, or to, the Cash Area with some net asset exchanges between funds taking place. My rebalance threshold is + (or -) 2% of my neutral allocation for my Income Area, Growth & Income Area and Growth Area while I generally let the Cash Area float. However, at times, I can tactically position by setting a target allocation that is different from the neutral weighting to overweight (or underweight) an area without having to do a forced rebalance. I do an Instant Xray analysis of the portfolio quarterly and make asset weighting adjustments as I feel warranted based upon my assessment of the market(s), my goals, my risk tolerance, my cash needs, etc. I have the portfolio set up in Morningstar's portfolio manager by sleeve, by each area and the portfolio as a whole for easy monitoring plus I use brokerage account statements, Morningstar fund reports, fund fact sheets along with their annual reports to follow my investments. In addition, I use my market barometer and equity weighting matrix system as a guide to assist me in throttling my equity allocation through the use of equity ballast, or a spiff position, when desired. I also maintain a list of positions to add (A) to, to buy (B), to reduce (R), or to sell (S). Generally, funds are assigned to a sleeve based upon a best fit basis. Currently, my investment focus is to position new money into income generating assets. The last major rebalanced process was started during the 4th Quarter of 2018 and was completed in the 1st Quarter of 2019 along some sleeves being reconfigured along with the movement to a new asset allocation.
Portfolio Asset Allocation: Balanced Towards Income ... 20% Cash, 40% Income, 30% Gr & Inc and 10% Growth
CASH AREA: (Weighting Range 15% to 25%, Neutral 20%, Target 15%, Actual 14%)
Demand Cash Sleeve ... Cash Distribution Accrual & Future Investment Accrual
Investment Cash Sleeve ... MMK Funds: AMAXX, TTOXX, PCOXX, CD Ladder & Savings
INCOME AREA: (Weighting Range 35% to 45%, Neutral 40%, Target 40%, Actual 39%)
Income Sleeve: BLADX(A), FLAAX(B), GIFAX, JGIAX(A), LBNDX, NEFZX, PGBAX, PONAX & TSIAX
Hybrid Income Sleeve: APIUX(A), AZNAX(A), BAICX, CTFAX, DIFAX, FBLAX, FISCX, FKINX, FRINX(A), ISFAX, JNBAX & PMAIX
GROWTH & INCOME AREA: (Weighting Range 25% to 35%, Neutral 30%, Target 30%, Actual 32%)
Domestic Equity Sleeve: ANCFX, FDSAX, INUTX(A) & SVAAX
Domestic Hybrid Sleeve: ABALX, AMECX, HWIAX & LABFX
Global Equity Sleeve: CWGIX, DEQAX, DWGAX(A) & EADIX
Global Hybrid Sleeve: CAIBX, TEQIX & TIBAX
GROWTH & OTHER ASSET AREA: (Weighting Range 5% to 15%, Neutral 10%, Target 15%, Actual 15%)
Large/Mid Cap Sleeve: AGTHX, AMCPX & SPECX
Small/Mid Cap Sleeve: AOFAX, NDVAX & PMDAX
Global Growth Sleeve: ANWPX, NEWFX & SMCWX
Other Investment Sleeve: KAUAX(A), LPEFX & PGUAX
Equity Ballast & Spiff Sleeve: No position held at this time.
In addition, my all weather asset allocation might be of some interest to you as well. Below is my blurb arbout it.
Old_Skeet's All Weather Asset Allocation.
My all weather asset allocation of 20% cash, 40% income and 40% equity affords me everything necessary to meet my needs now being in the distribution phase of investing. The benefit of this asset allocation is that it provides sufficient income, maximizes diversification, minimizes volatility, and provides long-term returns.
The 20% held in cash area provides me ample cash should I need a cash draw over and above what my portfolio generates plus it can provide the capital necessary to fund a special investment position (spiff) should I choose to open one during a stock market pullback. In addition, cash helps stabilize a portfolio during stock market volatility. Example of investments held in this area are cash, money market mutual funds and CD's.
The 40% held in the income area provides me ample income generation to meet my income needs in retirement. It is a well diversified area that incorporates a good number of income generating type funds. Some examples of investments held in this area are ISFAX, PONAX & PGBAX.
The 40% held in the equity area provides me some dividend income along with some growth, that equities generally provide, that offsets the effects of inflation over time. Some examples of investments held in this area are NEWFX, SVAAX, SPECX
Generally, for my income distributions, I take no more than a sum equal to what one half of my five year average total return has been. In this way principal grows over time.
@Gary1952 ... Thanks again for your question. I'm thinking the above information will provide the answer(s) you seek (or might seek) about me (going forward) as to how I govern.
Old_Skeet

As so many have rightly said - everyone's circumstances are different.

Is it really true that everyone's circumstances are different? can it be that 2 investors with similar situations invest completely differently and both be correct?
Examples:
1) I played tennis with a guy that sold his company for 15 million 25 years ago and put all his money in Munis.
2) I helped several ex co-worker all their twenties around 2009-10 with their 401K, one was scared and invested it at 30/70, the other selected 90/10.
3) Two ninty years old guys each with savings to cover the next 20 years. One invests at 20/80. The other invests at 80/20 because he knows he will have enough and his money will go to the kids.
4) In the last 5 years I read hundreds of posts where investors use MM,CD and funds like MINT and made less than 2% while many bond funds made a lot more and several of them with extremely low volatility.

Hello Carefree. My opinion is "why have a bond fund when you are 55 years old", unless you are planning to retire in a couple of years. I was 100% equity until 2 years before retiring at 67. Having said that my 401k had PIMIX ("I" shares), which I used for the last 1-1/2 years before retiring. I also owned BHYAX (BHYSX at Schwab, load waived) in my TIRA account as one of my first bond OEFs. Both are good funds IMHO.
Some will not buy PONAX/PIMIX due to the high ER. High ERs don't bother me in bond OEFs (or equity OEFs as well) as long as the returns justify them. One thng about PONAX/PIMIX is that Pimco keeps the income the same each month. Most bond OEFs do not.

PONAX pays 0.55% in expenses to use leverage. (This figure is the difference between the prospectus stated ER of 1.45% and Morningstar's "adjusted" ER of 0.90% that backs out some leveraging expenses.)
A reason to use leverage is to borrow money for less than you can make with it. Still, it costs something to borrow that money. That cost is included in the 1.45% figure.
According to M*, these leveraging costs are incurred by "6% of all U.S. mutual funds and exchange-traded funds, as of the end of July [2018]. Most of the affected are alternative strategies that use shorting as a regular part of their process, but some bond funds that use certain instruments are also affected, as are a handful of equity funds."
So this use of leverage is not a common strategy of funds in general and bond funds in particular.
https://www.morningstar.com/articles/876536/a-fee-methodology-update-makes-some-funds-fees-appear-to-swell
In that column, M* claims that ignoring these leveraging costs provides a more apples-to-apples comparison. If you subscribe to that line of reasoning, you should look at the 0.90% figure. If you feel that the cost of boosting returns (one hopes) by leveraging is nevertheless a real cost of the fund, you should look at the 1.45% figure.
That column analogizes these leveraging costs to trading costs. Trading costs aren't counted in any fund's ER. Personally I view the exclusion of trading costs as deficiency in the reporting of what funds spend, not as a positive feature.
The word M* uses is "philosophically". That pretty much sums it up. It's however you want to view these costs.

Ah @FD1000, 'Mark' said none of that.

My 401k provider offers PONAX -Pimco Income A- in the plan, but the expense is 1.45. Thoughts avoid because of the expense is so high or buy it? The only other bond fund is BHYAX BlackRock High Yield. I’m 55 years old and I appreciate your thoughts.

From my own perspective I've hugely enjoyed reading and digesting this thread. I've learned a great deal and have researched almost every fund mentioned. Thanks to every contributor and dtconroe in particular for starting the discussion and for his exceptionally well informed comments.
My personal circumstances are such that when it comes to bond funds (both mutual and ETFs) all I am looking for is a greater overall return than an online savings account. Let's say anything above 1.8% APY. Preservation of principal is absolutely paramount because I may need to withdraw money on very short notice for my wife's medical expenses due to a back injury. (We both have high deductible plans.) Therefore, I have money in ultrashort duration/ultrashort maturity funds like TRBUX, SEMRX, DLSNX, MINT, and just this week I have opened a position in JPST. All of these I consider cash alternatives with little to no risk to principal. These are in taxable accounts separate from our retirement plans.
The wife and I work for the same employer and we are both around 80% stocks/20% bonds in each of our 401K plans - with 20 and 12 years to go until full retirement respectively. That allocation will of course change as retirement nears. The single bond fund we use (out of a grand choice of only two) is WAPSX. Both of our Roth IRAs are 100% in equity mutual funds because we are very bullish for the coming decade and are prepared to weather the inevitable volatility.
As so many have rightly said - everyone's circumstances are different.