PRBLX is a solid fund that held up nicely during the '08 GFC - I own it and still add to it.
For large or megacap check Bridgeway 35 (BRLIX too -- only .15 ER (cheap!) and a nice allocation/weighting of companies.

One of the articles indicated that they (Wastach) wished her will in her endeavors. I guess she decided it was time to move on. She will continue on at Wasatch until 6/30.
http://www.wandtv.com/story/32153365/wasatch-announces-portfolio-manager-changes

Instead of HDV, how about VYM? More diversified (400+ vs. 73 stocks), lower turnover (11% vs. 63% vs. category avg 34%), lower cost (if you amortize the Fidelity commission as a one time cost). They share 14 of the largest holdings (though HDV seems to weight them more than twice as heavily, consistent with its smaller portfolio).
Key stocks held only by Vanguard include MSFT, GE, T, JPM. HDV has no 1%+ holding not shared with VYM.
For value leaning LC/MC, you might consider BPAIX/BPAVX. Fits right between FLVCX (mid cap value) and LC, reasonable (0.95%) to good ER (for institutional shares, $100K min), modest turnover (33%), and seems to be somewhat overlooked ($1.3B AUM).

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/806633/000119312516613617/d202782d497.htm
497 1 d202782d497.htm WASATCH FUNDS TRUST
WASATCH FUNDS TRUST
Supplement dated June 6, 2016 to the
Prospectus and Summary Prospectus each dated January 31, 2016
Investor Class
Wasatch Frontier Emerging Small Countries Fund® - Investor Class (WAFMX)
This Supplement updates certain information contained in the Wasatch Funds Prospectus for Investor Class shares and the Wasatch Frontier Emerging Small Countries Fund Summary Prospectus for Investor Class shares, each dated January 31, 2016 as amended. You should retain this Supplement, the Prospectus and Summary Prospectus for future reference. Additional copies of the Prospectus may be obtained free of charge by visiting our web site at www.WasatchFunds.com or calling us at 800.551.1700.
PORTFOLIO MANAGERS
Effective June 6, 2016, Roger Edgley will be the Lead Portfolio Manager of the Wasatch Frontier Emerging Small Countries Fund (the “Fund”), Jared Whatcott will be a Portfolio Manager of the Fund, and Scott Thomas will be a Portfolio Manager of the Fund.
All references to Laura Geritz are hereby deleted.
PLEASE RETAIN THIS SUPPLEMENT FOR FUTURE REFERENCE
WASATCH FUNDS TRUST
Supplement dated June 6, 2016 to the
Prospectus and Summary Prospectus each dated January 31, 2016
Institutional Class
Wasatch Frontier Emerging Small Countries Fund® - Institutional Class (WIFMX)
This Supplement updates certain information contained in the Wasatch Funds Prospectus for Institutional Class shares and the Wasatch Frontier Emerging Small Countries Fund Summary Prospectus for Institutional Class shares, each dated January 31, 2016 as amended. You should retain this Supplement, the Prospectus and Summary Prospectus for future reference. Additional copies of the Prospectus may be obtained free of charge by visiting our web site at www.WasatchFunds.com or calling us at 800.551.1700.
PORTFOLIO MANAGERS
Effective June 6, 2016, Roger Edgley will be the Lead Portfolio Manager of the Wasatch Frontier Emerging Small Countries Fund (the “Fund”), Jared Whatcott will be a Portfolio Manager of the Fund, and Scott Thomas will be a Portfolio Manager of the Fund.
All references to Laura Geritz are hereby deleted.
PLEASE RETAIN THIS SUPPLEMENT FOR FUTURE REFERENCE
WASATCH FUNDS TRUST
Supplement dated June 6, 2016 to the
Prospectus and Summary Prospectus each dated January 31, 2016
Investor Class
Wasatch International Opportunities Fund® - Investor Class (WAIOX)
This Supplement updates certain information contained in the Wasatch Funds Prospectus for Investor Class shares and the Wasatch International Opportunities Fund Summary Prospectus for Investor Class shares, each dated January 31, 2016 as amended. You should retain this Supplement, the Prospectus and Summary Prospectus for future reference. Additional copies of the Prospectus may be obtained free of charge by visiting our web site at www.WasatchFunds.com or calling us at 800.551.1700.
PORTFOLIO MANAGERS
Effective June 6, 2016, Jared Whatcott will be a Portfolio Manager of the Wasatch International Opportunities Fund (the “Fund”) and Linda Lasater will be a Portfolio Manager of the Fund.
All references to Laura Geritz are hereby deleted.
PLEASE RETAIN THIS SUPPLEMENT FOR FUTURE REFERENCE
WASATCH FUNDS TRUST
Supplement dated June 6, 2016 to the
Prospectus and Summary Prospectus each dated January 31, 2016
Institutional Class
Wasatch International Opportunities Fund® - Institutional Class (WAIOX)
This Supplement updates certain information contained in the Wasatch Funds Prospectus for Institutional Class shares and the Wasatch International Opportunities Fund Summary Prospectus for Institutional Class shares, each dated January 31, 2016 as amended. You should retain this Supplement, the Prospectus and Summary Prospectus for future reference. Additional copies of the Prospectus may be obtained free of charge by visiting our web site at www.WasatchFunds.com or calling us at 800.551.1700.
PORTFOLIO MANAGERS
Effective June 6, 2016, Jared Whatcott will be a Portfolio Manager of the Wasatch International Opportunities Fund (the “Fund”) and Linda Lasater will be a Portfolio Manager of the Fund.
All references to Laura Geritz are hereby deleted.
PLEASE RETAIN THIS SUPPLEMENT FOR FUTURE REFERENCE ...

FYI: (Click On Article Title At Top Of Google Search)
Investors are buying municipal debt at a record clip, enduring low returns in exchange for the relative stability of bonds sold by U.S. state and local governments.
Municipal-bond funds had more than $632 billion in assets as of June 1, a record high, according to Lipper data going back to 1992. Investors have poured a net $22.5 billion into such mutual funds in 2016 through Wednesday, the best start to a year since 2009. They have pulled $39.97 billion from equity funds in the same time
Regards,
Ted
https://www.google.com/#q=U.S.+Municipal+Debt+Draws+Rush+of+Investors++WSJ

PYMDX is also somewhat higher up the credit quality chain, according to the literature and from the percentages by rating I got from Pimco a few months ago. Pimco doesn't publish credit quality figures for oef's, but the CSRs will give them out over the phone if you call.

I'd be interested in that breakdown, because the average credit quality computed by M* is not a straight (unweighted) average of the ratings of bonds in a fund's portfolio. Rather it is weighted by the likelihood of a default, so that what you come up with is a rating for the whole portfolio that reflects the likelihood of defaults.
For example, according to M*'s methodology paper, a B rated bond is nearly three times as likely to default as a BB bond.
So there can be a huge difference between the average (unweighted) credit quality of a portfolio, and the actual default risk of that portfolio. Case in point: OPITX.
58% A or better, 21% BBB. So nearly 4/5 investment grade. Unweighted average grade above A (somewhat less than half way to AA, depending on how one scores its 5.5% unrated bonds).
But overall, its credit risk is like a BB bond. Just because it's got 1/8 of its portfolio in below B-rated bonds.
To see the same effect with a very different distribution, there's TSHTX. No unrated bonds, just 3.88% below B, nearly 3/5 (59.5%) investment grade, yet still a BB portfolio as calculated by M*.
So a slug of higher quality bonds in and of itself doesn't make the fund a better quality risk. That's why I'm curious about PYMDX's portfolio breakdown.

Fun with numbers. NCHRX, another misclassified California muni junk bond fund, shows numbers just like VWAHX, and for the same reason - it's been tossed in with investment grade funds for comparison.
           VWAHX           NCHRX
1Mo.: 1 percentile   1 percentile
3Mo.: 1 percentile   1 percentile
YTD:  2 percentile   1 percentile
1 Yr.:  3 percentile   1 percentile
3Yr.:   5 percentile   1 percentile
5Yr.:   4 percentile   1 percentile
10Yr.: 1 percentile   5 percentile
15Yr.: 1 percentile
Also like VWAHX, it has had some lousy years (relative to its "peer" funds, not junk funds), bottoming out at 95th percentile in both 2007 and 2008, with a third bottom quintile performance in 2013, same as VWAHX.

FYI: Value investing has been in the doghouse for a decade. That's right, growth stocks have trounced value stocks for a DECADE.
Some investors are betting that it's finally value's time to shine. According to Bloomberg data, investors poured $5.5 billion into value ETFs and withdrew $6.2 billion from growth ETFs so far this year.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.investmentnews.com/article/20160603/BLOG09/160609965?template=printart

Much of the outperformance of the high yield munis, especially PYMDX, can be attributed to their exposure to tobacco bonds. Morningstar had an informative article (which I can't link) to the dangers lurking there.

PYMDX - over 15% in tobacco bonds, wow.
This may be the M* column you're talking about; I can access it without even logging in to M*:
Reading the Smoke Signals in the Municipal Markets

@MFO Members: You talk about consisent performance VWAHX track record !
Regards,
Ted
1Mo.: 1 percentile
3Mo.: 1 precentile
YTD: 2 percentile
1 Yr.: 3 percentile
3Yr.: 5 percentile
5Yr.: 4 percentile
10Yr.:1 percentile
15Yr.:1 percentile
Regards,
Ted
VWAHX Performance:
http://performance.morningstar.com/fund/performance-return.action?t=VWAHX&region=usa&culture=en_US

MMHAX and PYMDX look less risky than NHMAX because they are of shorter duration (8.6 and 7.0 years vs. 10.1 years). Neither existed in 2008 (though the institutional share class PHMIX did), which also tends to make them look better.
In the case of PHMIX, even though it existed in 2008, M* does not incorporate that data into its calcuations, because M* generally bases its combined figures on 3, 5, and 10 year figures. PHMIX has not existed for 10 years, so only its 3 and 5 year data are included (conveniently skipping 2008 for now).
The best one can do with these funds is look at 2013, the next worst year, to get some sense of risk. Again, I suggest looking at BCHYX. You'll see that these other funds fell over 5% (just a shade less than the category average), while BCHYX fell 3.17% and VWAHX was nearly a perfect match falling 3.22% for that year.
For completeness, NHMAX fell 4.69%, an impressive one year performance for a fund that on paper has more risk.

MAPOX & PRWCX = 51.7% of portf. (Both are balanced funds)
DLFNX = 2.5%
PRSNX = 11%
PREMX = 14.3%
(Not the entire portfolio.)
***************************************
M* X-RAY shows
10% Cash
43% US stocks
8% foreign stocks
37% bonds of all sorts.
.....EM bonds are flying high.
"World bonds" pretty alright, too.
I won't be adding. What I will be adding to is a utility stock, to build quarterly divs. for current income in a taxable account. I have 8.5 years before RMDs kick-in on the IRA.

@varmint &MFO Members: Varmint is correct that time is on you side, and VWAHX has a excellent long-term record. VWAHX is ranked #3 in the Muni High-Yield Bond Fund category by U.S. News & World Report.
Regards,
Ted
http://money.usnews.com/funds/mutual-funds/muni-national-interm/vanguard-high-yield-tax-exempt-fund/vwahx

That's a ranking of investment grade bonds, not high yield bonds.
This just goes to show that over the long term, if one rides out the ups and downs, junk bonds seem to do marginally better than investment grade bonds, commensurate with their higher risk.
VWAHX, with its lower risk than typical junk, would be expected to return less over the long term than typical junk bonds. Yet it did outperform the HY average over 15 years. That is because of its 2008/2009 performance (and because of its much lower expenses). Like other investment grade bonds, it fared much better in 2008 than junk. So much so that its underperformance in 2009 (relative to junk) didn't wipe out this sizeable one-time advantage.
But some good, inexpensive junk bond funds still outperformed cumulatively, even going back past 2008. BCHYX outperformed VWAHX over every time frame (though not on an individual year basis) - YTD, 1 week, 1 mo, 3 mo, 1, 3, 5, 10, 15 years. (Go to this M* page, and input BCHYX to compare.)
VWAHX straddles junk and investment grade. That's why it makes such a good entry into junk. M* calls it "conservative, and so much so, that it places in the muni-national intermediate-term category". Comparing it with either junk or investment grade, without adjusting for its distinctive mix of quality grades, can lead to wrong inferences.

http://www.municipalbonds.com/news/2016/06/01/municipal-bonds-weekly-market-report-june-1/?utm_source=Municipal+Bonds&utm_campaign=1a0c87c36b-Weekly_Bulletin6_4_2016&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_d7427882c9-1a0c87c36b-33568345&goal=0_d7427882c9-1a0c87c36b-33568345
Munibonds weekly report

FYI: Below is a look at the recent performance of various asset classes using key ETFs tracked by Bespoke on a daily basis. While the S&P 500 (SPY) closed the week up 2 basis points, we saw weakness in sectors like Energy, Financials and Telecom, and we saw strength in Consumer Staples, Health Care, Materials and Utilities. Outside of the US, Brazil and China both posted big gains this week, while Italy, Mexico, Spain, Russia and the UK fell. Oil fell as well, while natural gas saw a big move higher. Treasury ETFs rose significantly on Friday following the weak jobs report. They’re now up solidly on a year-to-date basis as well.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.bespokepremium.com/bespoke-report/the-bespoke-report-6316/

Did I read you right, that you want to use muni bonds in IRAs? Some custodians won't even allow this. For example, Fidelity does, but not online:
"The security you are attempting to trade is a tax-free mutual fund. Retirement accounts are prevented from buying or exchanging into tax-free mutual funds through the electronic channels. "
That said, given your last comment ("MUB might be the way for lowest risk"), I would also ask what you are looking for in terms of risk/reward. If you're even comparing MUB with junk bond funds, then it may be that you're not comfortable enough with junk. I find that over the long term the volatility doesn't matter (to me), but each person has his own comfort levels and objectives.
Bonds (and bond funds) are at one level pretty simple vehicles. As quality goes down, risk and reward go up. (If one wants to minimize this type of risk, one can stick with investment grade funds). As duration goes up, risk and reward go up.
Quality and duration, along with cost, are the three main levers. These levers determine the vast majority of a vanilla fund's performance. You pick the risk level and source of risk you want and then go fund a low cost fund matching that. Sure issue selection matters, especially with junk, but broad diversification can paper over a lot of problems there.
To make things interesting, let me toss in another fund - one that isn't classified as high yield - BCHYX. It's a single state junk bond fund. But given that the state's California, (with an economy approaching the size of the UK's), you still get a fair amount of diversification. Also, the fund fits midway between your two other funds.
The three funds are all BB rated by M*, with the longest duration fund (NHMAX, 10 years) having a disasterous 2008 and a spectacular 2009, not surprisingly. BCHYX's duration is in the middle (7.8 years) with 1, 3, and 10 year performance in the middle. DVHIX with its shorter duration (6 years) tends to give a smoother and more muted performance. All of these are still much longer than MUB's 4.7 years, if you're focused on minimizing interest rate risk.
I have a hard time with bond funds, especially munis, that have ERs over 0.50%. High ER and long duration would be my concerns with NHMAX. For an index fund, one hopes to do better on cost, but HYMB barely beats this target with 0.45% ER. Nevertheless it gets you higher quality bonds (BBB), albeit still with a somewhat long duration (8.2 years).
HYD does better on cost (0.35%), but still at the longer end of duration (8.7 years), and appears to have the lowest quality portfolio (eyeballing its fact sheet).
If you really want junk and also want to dial down risk, look for funds with BB or better credit and shorter durations. The obvious choice if you want to have a "high yield" muni fund with training wheels (that's not a pejorative, just a colorful description) is VWAHX/VWALX.

Added Fund Family Scorecard, which measures how well funds run by the same management company have performed against their peers since inception. We've published the scorecard yearly on MFO main site since 2014 (latest in May 2016 Commentary). The card is now published monthly on our premium site, along with a data table showing key fund family metrics. Here is sample output.

Hi Guys,
Bill Gross is a smart investor and has an impressive, but certainly not perfect, forecasting record. That’s true for everyone in the chaotic investment universe. The guru scorecards maintained by CXO Advisory Group clearly demonstrate the limited successes of the market wizards. Here is a Link to their final scorecard summary:
http://www.cxoadvisory.com/gurus/
A 60% to 70% correct scorecard range roughly defines the upper limit of forecaster’s accuracy. The overall cumulative score was slightly under 50% accuracy That doesn’t match a fair coin toss odds. Over the entire rather long time span of the study, 68 gurus were monitored. Only 8 tested at the elevated plus 60% accuracy level. That’s only 11.8% of this elite population.
Would Mr. Gross make that highest grade? I don’t know since he was not included in the study. But he most certainly would not score any higher. So his predictions are just that - simply a professional’s predictions. Seasoned investors accept the fact that wrong predictions and wrong investment decisions will be made. That’s an integral part of the investing discipline. We all do it.
The most simplistic argument that motivates the Gross forecast is the regression-to-the-mean principle. Taken over a rather extended timeframe, equity returns have been in excess of the overarching historical long term averages. Well he might be right, but he also might be wrong.
I was surprised that both the Gross analysis and the Ben Carlson column did not say much about the influence of inflation rate on market returns. Statistically, it’s an important factor in terms of adjusting nominal returns to real returns, and in terms of gross equity market rewards. Here is a Link to a Carlson article, published about a year ago, that addresses the significant impact of inflation rate on annual returns:
http://awealthofcommonsense.com/2015/08/how-inflation-affects-market-returns/
These data demonstrate that inflation rate is an important factor in propelling the equity battleship. High inflation decreases that battleships forward speed. Given today’s inflation, that’s at least one positive signal for a healthy stock market return.
Unfortunately, the market battleship is influenced by a number of other governors. The stock market will always be somewhat speculative because of a host of uncertain and interacting elements. Too bad, but the CXO guru grades consistently showed just how challenging market predictions are, even for experts. Inflation matters.
Best Wishes.

Hi heeSafe,
The English language is dynamic. I would be careful about what is and what is not acceptable usage today or even tomorrow. English in the USA is different from English in England. I sure am not an expert in this field, but some experts might take exception to your conclusion. Here is a Link to one such source:
http://www.quickanddirtytips.com/education/grammar/is-have-got-acceptable-english?page=1
From my unworthy and uninformed perspective, it doesn't matter. What did you think about my simplistic assessment of the subject?
Spike Lee has made a zillion dollars playing loose with the English language in this and a number of other movie sequels:
https://www.google.com/search?sclient=tablet-gws&site=&source=hp&q=spike+lee+he+got+game&oq=spike+lee+he+got+game&gs_l=tablet-gws.3..0l2j0i22i30.13996.25350.0.27498.21.9.0.12.12.0.62.360.9.9.0....0...1c.1.64.tablet-gws..0.21.454...0i131.jIydINizNAY#imgrc=ammZQWBqnrcM9M:
Edit: I have got to repost the Spike Lee reference. Sorry for my earlier error.
Best Wishes

Stockholder notice:
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/918942/000119312516610872/d200100d497.htm