Often it seems like pure laziness and indifference to one's shareholders to me, but sometimes it's because managers will post quarterly or even monthly commentaries on their web sites instead of in the semiannual report. There is also less frequently I think a case where some managers are super-paranoid about saying anything publicly to shareholders for legal reasons. For instance, here you can find monthly commentaries from Invesco and Oppenheimer posted on their web site: https://invesco.com/us/literature?NavItem=Mutual%20Funds&activeItem=f2a435e8-f3a8-4105-9414-0aabe8658a1c

https://seekingalpha.com/article/4310950-retirement-why-reits-are-good-bond-replacements
Retirement: Why REITs Are Good Bond Replacements
Summary
Historically low – and even negative – interest rates are making it harder than ever to retire.
REITs are a viable alternative to retirees and other income investors who desire greater income without having to take significantly more risk.
Our method enables us to earn high and stable income from real asset backed investments.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/finance.yahoo.com/amphtml/news/stock-market-news-december-12-2019-131542591.html
Stocks surge to record highs after Trump says US, China 'getting very close' to big trade deal
President Trump's tweet turned the stock market around

Thanks for the SEC links and comment. I’ve tried to chop the pertinent text down a bit (below) without distorting the intent too much. Since it appears funds may provide the required information in tabular or graphic form, it appears Invesco may be in compliance. That last sentence, however, suggests that manager must comment on the fund’s recent performance. And, somewhere in the report is a brief sentence comparing the fund to its benchmark. Still leaves me baffled why a fund like this doesn’t offer some fuller perspective in the form of a multi-page narrative. That omission’s even more remarkable when one goes back and looks at the lengthy detailed narratives Borre used to submit under Oppenheimer.
“The Securities and Exchange Commission is adopting rule and form amendments under the Securities Act of 1933, the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and the Investment Company Act of 1940 ... The amendments will require a registered open-end management investment company to include in its shareholder reports disclosure of fund expenses borne by shareholders during the reporting period. The amendments also will permit a registered management investment company to include a summary portfolio schedule of investments in its reports to shareholders ... In addition, the amendments will require a registered management investment company to include a tabular or graphic presentation of its portfolio holdings in its reports to shareholders ... Finally, the amendments will require a registered open-end management investment company to include Management's Discussion of Fund Performance in its annual report to shareholders.”
This link to Invesco works as long as one clicks on semi-annual report from the menu on top. (The last annual report was released under Oppenheimer and contains a lot of manager commentary.) http://hosted.rightprospectus.com/Invesco/Fund.aspx?cu=00143W719&dt=P&ss=mf
I’ve looked again and will acknowledge the semi annual report’s a bit more complete than I surmised last evening. But per my original gripe, it contains no manager narrative . The charts, lists, etc. do an adequate job of showing what the fund holds (in this case some substantial “short” positions). A perceptive chart reader may possibly discern what changes occurred in the fund’s positioning. But missing are the “Whys” “Hows” and “Whens“ of the changes that occurred. Perhaps I’m the only investor that misses the detailed global perspective as to why they are invested the way they are? (Note: While this is a high expense fund, it’s those short positions that add to the cost.).

Some recent Shows:
Part 1:

Part 2:

Hello
Placed a new position for vanguard life-cycle 2040 fund and safeway bonds [cusip 786514BA6] YTM 6.6% today....

That article may be older than you think. Here's an SEC Final Rule, adopted in 2004 that reads in part:

We are adopting, as proposed, a requirement that a mutual fund, other than a money market fund, include MDFP in its annual reports to shareholders. Currently, a mutual fund is required to include MDFP in its prospectus unless the fund includes the information in its latest annual report to shareholders

https://www.sec.gov/rules/final/33-8393.htm#IIC
Just this year, the SEC proposed extending this MDFP rule to closed end funds:

registered closed-end funds would have to provide management’s discussion of fund performance (or “MDFP”) in their annual reports, similar to requirements that currently apply to mutual funds, exchange-traded funds, and business development companies.

https://www.sec.gov/news/press-release/2019-39
Proposed CEF rule: https://www.sec.gov/rules/proposed/2019/33-10619.pdf
Comments received by SEC: https://www.sec.gov/comments/s7-03-19/s70319.htm

Updated Vanguard estimates (as of Dec 10th), including income divs:
https://advisors.vanguard.com/iwe/pdf/FA117420.pdf

sounds alarming
https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2019-12-10/retirement-crisis-six-charts

Around 12/30/19 per this link:
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/924727/000110465919067277/a19-16887_6485bxt.htm
Was previously 11/30/19.

" And we know what happened to the ACA"
I wonder. Every time I look at provisions of the ACA, I go, oh yeah, I'd forgotten about that. For example, the tax on insurers. No one knows what's going on with that:

The health insurance tax was in effect from 2014 through 2016. Congress approved a one-year moratorium for 2017, and the tax resumed in 2018 at a cost of about $14.3 billion. Congress suspended the tax once again in 2019. If not further delayed, it will be collected again beginning in 2020.

https://www.healthaffairs.org/do/10.1377/hblog20190910.985809/full/
Regarding who owns munis: Munis were never great investments for much of the middle class. Most of the time, if you were below the 31% tax bracket, you'd have been better off investing in taxable bonds. This is reflected in the statistic that even 30 years ago (1989) fewer than 1 in 20 owned munis.
Rational middle class investors have been getting pushed further out of munis for a long time. Obama made the Bush tax cuts permanent for the middle and lower classes, making munis less attractive. Then the GOP moved even more middle class taxpayers into a 24% or below tax bracket (ordinary taxable income below $160K [single] / $321K [MFJ]).
One can't have it both ways - advocating lower middle class marginal rates and simultaneously bemoaning the fact that munis consequently become less attractive. So long as taxpayers in the highest brackets keep buying munis, states will continue to be able to borrow at lower rates and fund needed work on century-old infrastructure systems.

pipes can range from 15 to 100 years old depending on conditions, although some older northeastern cities operate with pipes that are 200 years old.

America's Aging Water Infrastructure

Point taken @msf. And we know what happened to the ACA. The following numbers are a bit dated (2013), but I think they’re still relatively valid today and serve to make my point:
“ A smaller fraction of Americans owns state and local government bonds today than 25 years ago (2.4% in 2013 vs. 4.6% in 1989), and that ownership is more heavily concentrated among the very rich (the top 0.5% of Americans by wealth held 42.0% of all municipal bonds in 2013 vs. 23.8% in 1989) ...” . https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-front/2016/08/18/a-smaller-share-of-americans-owns-municipal-bonds-does-that-matter/
The substantial majority of hired-guns occupying Senate seats have no incentive to take away the tax break on munis - or remove the tax-free status of Roths, for that matter. Many would disown their own mother first. Some day, after enough jello hits the fan, the tune might change - but not in the foreseeable future.

Treasuries are, at least on paper, less risky than CDs. The former are directly backed by the full faith and credit of the US Treasury which issues the bonds. CDs are issued by banks that can fail, and are usually insured (within limits) by the FDIC. Though it is the "sense of Congress" that the FDIC has the full faith and credit backing of the Treasury, this has not been tested.
Treasuries went up significantly in the 08_09 crash. As I suspect CDs did, if they were marked to market (though perhaps not). See chart comparing S&P 500 and Treasuries here. (S&P 500 down 43%, Treasury bonds and VUSTX up 9%.)

An Ad for T. Rowe Price. Basically filling the page. Title may be misleading. While the funds may be appropriate for long term investing, they are not designed for those in retirement as title seems to suggest. (Examples: TRBCX, PRHSX).
The recommendation for their 2030 fund seems especially out of place, since it’s geared for someone 10 years from retirement. Doesn’t seem to fit with their long-term focus; but it isn’t designed for someone already in retirement either. They recommend PRWCX without noting it’s closed to new investors. One of their stated criteria is cost. Yet there are much lower cost providers than T. Rowe if that’s what you’re seeking.
A sham job by U.S. News .
@JohnN - Why did you think it imperative to bump this over to the Discussions+ section of the board? Are you normally accustomed to “discussing” matters with yourself? Kindly refrain from doing so here.

*Like*

When is the last time Congress enacted a law which imposed a higher tax burden on the upper 10% while reducing the overall tax bite for low and middle income wage earners?

An Ad for T. Rowe Price. Basically filling the page. Title may be misleading. While the funds may be appropriate for long term investing, they are not designed for those in retirement as title seems to suggest. (Examples: TRBCX, PRHSX).
The recommendation for their 2030 fund seems especially out of place, since it’s geared for someone 10 years from retirement. Doesn’t seem to fit with their long-term focus; but it isn’t designed for someone already in retirement either. They recommend PRWCX without noting it’s closed to new investors. One of their stated criteria is cost. Yet there are much lower cost providers than T. Rowe if that’s what you’re seeking.
A sham job by U.S. News .
@JohnN - Why did you think it imperative to bump this over to the Discussions+ section of the board? Are you normally accustomed to “discussing” matters with yourself? Kindly refrain from doing so here.

To me, a premium bond is a bond selling above face value. Often a good investment as some investors are loathe to pay a premium for what would yield at least as much as a par bond.
However, it seems that in the UK premium bonds are glorified lottery tickets. Instead of getting interest on the bond, you get entered into lotteries.
So I agree with the headline, at least in part. Forget about UK lotteries. If you want to play a lottery, at least toss your money toward a US state lottery where the proceeds often fund education (however inefficiently): "Lottery revenues are allocated differently in each state, with determinations made by state legislatures. In many states, the money goes to public education, but some states dedicate it to other good causes."
https://abcnews.go.com/US/mega-millions-lottery-lottery-money-states/story?id=58661412
Besides, I suspect Uncle Sam will have something different to say about those supposedly "tax-free £1m" prizes. And after all is said and done, is a lottery ticket, UK or otherwise, something that anyone here really cares about?

https://www.fool.co.uk/investing/2019/12/10/forget-premium-bonds-id-prefer-my-chances-with-this-ftse-250-stock/
Forget Premium Bonds! I'd prefer my chances with this FTSE 250 stock
Motley Fool UK
It's easy to see why Premium Bonds pull in so many investors. A chance to win a tax-free £1m certainly grabs your attention, especially when it seems .

The Hartford link above is broken, they must have moved it. Hartford funds are paying out on Wed. 12/11/19 and Wed. 12/18/19. Here is the new Hartford Funds link:
https://www.hartfordfunds.com/dam/en/docs/pub/funddocuments/regulatorydocument/Tax Center/capgainsdistributions/2019 Hartford Funds Capital Gains Estimate.pdf

If tariff goes up on 15th Dec, market will drop-drop-drop. Act if you can?