https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1040612/000104061220000057/mfcorebondr6closeprosupp.htm
(There is a table. It is better to view the table via the link)
Madison Funds®
Supplement dated April 15, 2020
This Supplement amends the Prospectus and the Statement of Additional Information of the Madison Funds dated February 28, 2020,
and the Summary Prospectus for the Madison Core Bond Fund dated February 28, 2020.
Madison Core Bond Fund - Closing Class R6 Shares and Converting to Class Y Shares
On March 6, 2020, the Board of Trustees of Madison Funds approved the termination of the Class R6 share class of the Madison Core Bond Fund (the “Fund”), which it deemed to be in the best interests of the shareholders of the Class R6 shares of the Fund.
Effective immediately after the close of business (4:00 PM EST) on May 28, 2020 (the “Closure Time”), Class R6 shares of the Fund will be closed to all investors and will no longer be available for purchase, including purchases by exchange. As of the Closure Time, each Class R6 shareholder’s outstanding Class R6 shares of the Fund will automatically convert to a number of full and/or fractional Class Y shares of the Fund equal to the aggregate net asset value to the shareholder’s Class R6 shares of the Fund determined as of the Closure Time (the “Class Y Conversion”). There will be no change in the overall value of a Class R6 shareholder’s Fund holdings as of the Closure Time resulting from the Class Y Conversion. Investments in Class Y shares of the Fund after the Closure Time will be subject to the fees and expenses applicable to Class Y shares as disclosed in the current prospectus and referenced below...

@FD1000 What in your view do the last ten years of data have to do with the 1929 - 1954 period return? I already stated twice that dividends matter, although those numbers for large blend from the Depression are almost certainly wrong and subject to survivor bias. Also, while dividends do matter, the reinvestment of dividends was not automatic in 1929 and I suspect most did not or could not or would not reinvest those dividends while the Dow was falling over 80%. Try calling a bankrupt broker in the 1930s to reinvest them. Total returns as normally calculated do not exist without dividend reinvestment. And even a 14% dividend reinvestment would not bring the Dow’s Depression decline anywhere close to what Morningstar is reporting for large blend funds’ total return for that period if they were 100% pure stock portfolios.

@Old_Skeet
You pretty much covered everything I mentioned already

In your analysis you reference CTFAX's inception date being 2012. This is wrong.

In your previous post you mentioned 2 funds CFTAX + CTFAX.

CTFAX's investment strategy is entirely different than VWINX. My point in using it was to reflect during the recent market volatility that CTFAX was the better performer and a way for a retail investor like myself could play market volatility.

I know that and why I mentioned numbers since inception but also the last 5 years + YTD

Below is my performance findings using Morningstar's performance numbers as of 4/14/2020

Correct, M* is up to date on performance BUT I look deeper at SD, Sharp,Max Draw,Sortino and these numbers are monthly one. I can easily find funds with better performance which is one criterion, what about the rest? I also look longer term because a fund can be great for 1-3-6 months but not 3-5-10 years. An investor who wants to hold long term these numbers are important.
When I checked CTFAX long term, it handled YTD amazingly and did a pretty good job for 3 years. If you look further VWIAX had better volatility, in 2008 Max draw for VWIAX was -18.7 while CTFAX -42.55
So, I'm guessing they changed the formula which is great because it's a good option.
BTW, COTZX is not available at Fidelity and Schwab which are 2 major discount brokers.
Here is my bottom line: CTFAX risk-adjusted performance for YTD and for 3 years are very good.

I presume this statement is relative to investment markets and not society.

Come fall I'm looking for things to pick up.

I remain to the thought that the glide path to "happy time" from a societal aspect is not close at hand. This circumstance is going to continue to impact various sectors of investments, due to consumer confidence and/or ability; or willingness, to spend.
Aside from daily data regarding COVID, remains the confidence of the public to become fully involved in "normal". From a northern perspective, is the great winter season migration to points south for several months. I suggest this area will provide a decent indicator of what is taking place.
I know several folks who own near beach front condos. They stay for several of the winter months, and then rent to in-state folks for the summer months for vacation time. Many of their neighbors don't stay at their own units during the winter months, but rent the unit for the winter season. These condo's are part of their investment portfolio.
All of the owners, from about 1 month ago; have all summer rental reservations cancelled. What remains to be seen is how many reservations will be placed and/or cancelled for those who need to plan ahead to the coming winter season of 2020.

The numbers DO NOT represent TOTAL RETURN which includes distributions. The only thing that matters is total return.
I also proved the last 10 years and we have all the data for it.
So, which is accurate, the Dow numbers or DIA(+SP500 which is close)?
Can you please answer this simple question?
I bet you won't answer it. I let other posters decide which one is accurate.

“The market sentiment is quite clearly don’t fight the Fed. The analytical sentiment from talking to individual companies is very different,” said Dan Fuss, vice chairman of Loomis, Sayles & Company and manager of the flagship Loomis Sayles Bond Fund LSBDX, +0.64% , which manages $8.7 billion of assets.

https://marketwatch.com/story/disappointment-on-corporate-earnings-could-undermine-hopes-for-fed-to-rescue-markets-says-warren-buffett-of-bonds-2020-04-15?mod=home-page

Here's an economics pop quiz:

Your job pays you $10 per hour. Today you get the great news that your boss is bumping your wage up to $14 per hour. (Congratulations!) At the new wage, do you want to work more hours or fewer hours each week?

If you answered that you'd work more, then you'd likewise work less if we reversed the question: What would you do if your net pay dropped from $14 to $10/hr? That is another way of observing that you'd work less if your $14/hr were taxed at 28% (netting $10/hr) than if you weren't taxed at all.
Right off the bat, we can ignore graduated taxes. Consider just a flat tax rate. If you're taxed at some fixed rate, you're leaning toward working fewer hours because of the tax. Now raise the flat tax rate. You're even less inclined to work long hours.
A graduated tax rate has almost nothing to do with this propensity. The only effect it has is that as your wages go up, your tax rate goes up, amplifying the effect. But your reluctance to work more hours exists regardless of whether the tax rate is progressive.
Here's the trick in the original question: There is no correct answer. Different people will respond differently. Some people will choose to work fewer hours if they can make the same money, while others will choose to work more hours because they are being paid well for those extra hours.
The exact question above was part of a quick survey given in the labor economics class I'm currently taking. FWIW, the class polled 1/3 for fewer hours, 2/3 for more hours.
That helps to illustrate the somewhat obvious fact that higher wages will increase labor supply in the aggregate, even though some people will choose to work less.

Yes, @catch22, I'm thinking that the S&P 500 Index's earnings will be in the mid 120's while S&P has them projected in the mid 130's. With a 5% earnings yield this equates to a valuation for the Index somewhere in the 2500 to 2700 range through summer. Naturally, it can certainly trade outside of this range. Come fall I'm looking for things to pick up.

The bullet points follow:
Signs that the coronavirus pandemic is easing drove stocks higher on Tuesday, even as the first batch of quarterly earnings showed the outbreak is taking a toll on corporate profits. The Dow climbed about 560 points, helped by Johnson & Johnson, Microsoft, and Apple which rose 4.5%, 4.9%, and 5%, respectively. The S&P 500 also registered a significant gain, rising more than 3%.
The market rallied on the idea that “maybe the worst of the economic freefall is over” and talk about reopening the economy, Charles Schwab’s Jeffrey Kleintop told CNBC’s “Squawk Box Asia” on Wednesday morning Singapore time. But Kleintop, who is chief global investment strategist at Charles Schwab, warned that “the stock market may have a tougher time from here.” He said one unknown is the possibility of a second wave of infections as lockdown measures lift.
New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s optimistic tone about the outbreak in his state, the epicenter of the pandemic in the United States, also boosted investor sentiment. He said Tuesday deaths related to the virus in the state are leveling off.
Still, the dismal earnings ahead from U.S. companies grappling with the coronavirus shutdown could spook investors. Analysts expect S&P 500 earnings growth to decline 10.2% in the first quarter year-over-year, according to Refinitiv.
Generally, bank earnings came in well below expectations on Tuesday due to the economic impact of the coronavirus. However, JPMorgan’s trading division also posted a 32% increase in revenue to a record $7.2 billion.
For the first quarter, 88 negative earnings pre-announcements have been issued by S&P 500 corporations, according to Refinitiv. A wave of major companies has already withdrawn their full-year guidance.
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/04/14/stock-market-futures-open-to-close-news.html

@FD1000. In your analysis you reference CTFAX's inception date being 2012. This is wrong. The fund's inception date is 2002. Going back to 2002 takes into account the Great Recession. Why is this important because when stocks are cheap CTFAX loads equities and when they are expensive it holds less of them. CTFAX's investment strategy is entirely different than VWINX. My point in using it was to reflect during the recent market volatility that CTFAX was the better performer and a way for a retail investor like myself could play market volatility. I was pointing out that you had CTFAX's fund inception date wrong in your analysis. Again, the correct date is 2002 rather than 2012 which you used in your analysis. I'm thinking using the correct date will change things a good bit within your analysis. Within the past year its equity allocation has ranged from a low of 15% on upwards, most recently, towards 70%, perhaps more. Morningstar has it currently classified as 15% to 30% equity allocation fund. This could change and I think worth watching.
In addition, if one were to use a different share class COTZX rather than the A share version that I referenced this changes things a good bit performance wise as CTFAX performance since 2002 is 6.85% while it lower er cousin (COTZX) is 7.12%.
My reasons for owning the fund are listed below.
Takes advantage of market shifts. Follows a disciplined approach to adapt to market changes.
Rebalances automatically. Aims to buy low and sell high by adjusting equity exposure based on the price level of the S&P 500 Index. Pursues risk-adjusted returns.
Your analysis is interesting; but, it is not fully reflective of the CTFAX's performance since it's inception date is inaccurate and differs from my own alalysis which is detailed below.
Below is my performance findings using Morningstar's performance numbers as of 4/14/2020. Three month advantage CTFAX +8.02% vs VWIAX -3.31%, YTD advantage CTFAX +8.44% vs. VWIAX -2.99%, 1 Year advantage CTFAX +17.75% vs VWIAX +5.74, 3 Year advantage CTFAX +28.82 vs VWIAX +19.11, 5 Year advantage CTFAX +35.24% vs VWIAX +31.99%, 10 Year advantage CTFAX +108.70% vs VWIAX +105.51%.
Again, what I was communicating in my opening comment was that to play stock market volatility that CTFAX was a better choice over the widely followed, and touted by some, VWIAX. I'm thinking I just now provided the support, through the above analysis, necessary to posture my opening comment even on out through a 10 year period.
I'm still with my plan to increase my position in CTFAX with it soon to become one of my top five holdings due to its strong recent and time tested performance.
One can learn more about CTFAX through the below link.
https://www.columbiathreadneedleus.com/investment-products/mutual-funds/Columbia-Thermostat-Fund/Class-A/details/?cusip=197199755&_n=1
Skeet
Note: CFTAX was a typo error it should have read CTFAX.
In a comparison of CTFAX vs. PRWCX ... CTFAX betters PRWCX up to and through three years but trails in the 5 year and ten year comparison.

@FD1000 In other words, the numbers for the Dow from 1929 to 1954 in the articles were not "way off" as you claimed and you don't have a leg to stand on. Meanwhile, you are busy quoting stats for the Dow and S&P that have nothing to do with the 1929 to 1954 period. The 100 year link you provided pretty much echoes the articles already cited for that period, only makes it seem worse than described, taking even longer than until 1954 to recover, probably because it is monthly price data as opposed to daily. As I've stated the Morningstar data for the "Large Blend" category back then is inaccurate as there is survivor bias, plus the funds that did survive almost certainly held bonds of some sort or the numbers are off. When stocks fall more than 80%, there's no way a 100% large-blend fund falls only 55%. Heck, Morningstar didn't even exist back then and there was no such thing as a "large blend category." Funds were free ranging and were not constrained by style boxes or even prospectus mandates like they are today. The Invesment Company Act of 1940 hadn't even passed yet restricting their activities. The dividend argument is an accurate one and would've reduced the recovery period assuming one had the courage to reinvest those divideds as stocks went into free-fall, but otherwise there is no case here.

Interesting. However, I am finding that CTFAX's inception date is 2OO2. I wonder how this would change things. For me, CTFAX is not a complete investment strategy. I am using it to play stock market swings automatically rather than doing it manually. For me it seems to be the better fit.

In your previous post you mentioned 2 funds CFTAX + CTFAX. I guess we are talking about CTFAX.
PV (link) has data since 2003 and shows that both VWIAX+PRWCX were a better risk-adjusted choices than CTFAX but in the last 5 years (link) CTFAX was the better choice because YTD (chart) was great.
Your manual changes are a personal choice and what works for you.
Most investors can't/won't switch funds and I don't blame them, it's much harder.
VWIAX is a great LT, and low ER fund with a great management for most retirees.
I do trades all the time but I check it too. My LT goals are to make over 6% annually with SD < 3 and never lose more than 3% from any last top. Schwab calculates annual average performance + SD. My portfolio performance is higher than 6% and SD < 2(actually 1.71) and I never lost more than 1% from any last top in about 3 years.

I don't have a direct Dow with distributions but I already proved with M* chart that includes distribution I'm correct.
How about you prove I'm wrong.
Since I know you will not find it I will do my best. This is a 100 years DOW (chart). That chart shows similar numbers as your previous post.
BUT
If you look at the DOW prices (here) 10 years, you will find the DOW went from 11019 to 23949. This means it made 129% in 10 years.
If I look at M* for VFINX+DIA(which is the Dow ETF) for 10 years (chart) you will see that VFINX (SP500) and DIA are close.
In 10 years DIA made 168% which is higher than the above 129%.
Maybe the numbers are not very accurate but enough to make my point and I'm not going to spend more time on that.

There are two rules (that I know of) in CARES regarding $100K distributions from traditional IRAs. If one could combine them, one would have a fantastic loophole on Roth conversions. I don't think it works, though.
First, the basics. As catch noted, no RMDs for 2020. So the rule that "RMD amounts are not eligible to convert to a Roth IRA" doesn't apply this year since there are no RMDs. So you're free to convert any or all money you take out of a traditional IRA this year.
There never is an early withdrawal penalty for doing a Roth conversion.
One of the $100K CARES rules is that instead of being forced to do a rollover within 60 days, you can make an IRA withdrawal and then take up to three years to put the money back into a tax-sheltered account. Even better, you can put it back in parts, e.g. take out $100K, put $50K back in a year, and $50K back two years after that.
CARES Section 2202(a)(3).
I haven't been able to interpret this rule as allowing one to withdraw money from a T-IRA and take three years to put the money into a Roth (i.e. do a 60 day Roth rollover conversion). But I'm not an authority.
The second of the $100K rules says that if you don't put the money back into into a tax-sheltered account: a) you don't pay an early withdrawal penalty, and b) you get to declare the income over three years, 2020, 2021, 2022 ($33.3K/year).
Section 2202(a)(1) - no early withdrawal penalty
Section 2202(a)(5) - spread income over three years
Since there wouldn't be a penalty for a Roth conversion, all that might matter is the ability to spread income over three years. As with the rollover rule, I have a hard time seeing how it could be applied to Roth conversions.
But if you could apply both of these rules to a Roth conversion, you could take $100K from a traditional IRA, play with it for up to three years, deposit it into a Roth, and spread the taxes over three years, 2020-2022. Sweet deal if the law actually allowed that.

I measure portfolios with max 60% in stocks against my 2 long term funds.
For a portfolio of 30-40% stocks, I use VWIAX.
For 1 portfolio of 60-65 stocks, I use PRWCX.
So VWIAX VS CFTAX shows that VWIAX was a better choice since inception in 2012 (link)
CAGR...VWIAX 5.85%...CFTAX 5.67%
SD.........VWIAX 4.49%...CFTAX 5.1% (lower is better)
Worse year + Max draw...VWIAX leads by a lot
Sharpe+Sortino...VWIAX leads
CFTAX ER=0.69%...VWIAX ER=0.16%
BUT
If you test it for 3 years CFTAX comes ahead (link) with similar performance but only about half of the SD=volatility.

I do not understand why folks think that past a bracket point their taxes will leap in a stair step fashion. In fact the tax you pay advances smoothly along with taxable income. You can verify this by looking at the tax tables. For example, for one who is married filing jointly, there is a bracket change at $78,950. Just below this, your overall rate is 11.5%. Just above this, your rate is 11.51%. So why does everyone get tied up in knots about tax brackets? I must be missing something?

@FD100, but what the idea is is to stay invested in a diversified balanced portfolio through the good years and exit automatically when a black swan event unexpectedly pushes you into some place you don't want to be, 20-25% loss. I don't think many retirees want to take more than a 10-15% loss on retirement money in an unexpected occurrence. With minimizing the loss you may not have any long term affect on your life style.
I agree though that if done, it should be a % of the total. But maybe a substantial %.

You can do the above. Suppose your portfolio is 50/50 and you invested 20%(out of the 50%) in SPY with a trailing stop market at 10%. It means that as long as SPY goes up the trailing stop follows but when SPY starts going down and eventually hits it SPY will be sold at 10% (could be higher if the market is moving really fast) loss and now you will have only 30% in stocks.

In a recent thread a contributor indicates they don't want to increase their income if it raised their marginal tax rate,I can sort of understand not wanting to work harder doing physicaL LABOR OR WORKING MORE HOURS and have the govt take more money from you but when it comes to investing I don't get it.If the govt takes a bigger share but you make and take home more money are you not better off?

......I'll chime in: we are in a hybrid situation. I'm retired, wife still works. Personal circumstances matter a lot. We could not live HERE in the 50th State without:
a) giving up some privacy
b) effectively getting a subsidy from extended family, who live with us. Rent, food. gas. We share all of that.
We don't want to bump ourselves into a higher tax bracket. For several years, on our tax returns, we have come out OWING ZERO TAX. If we had not very much more income to report, it might negatively affect our ability to even do the little bit of investing we do, for heirs as well as for ourselves. And the dividends and capital gains we get are non-taxable for us, in the lowest bracket.
We've paid-in for years and years. It's time the rules worked to OUR advantage, rather than the billionaires and millionaires: every bit of ALL of my earnings have always been subject to Soc. Tax. For them? They pay-in only until their income reaches the legal upper limit. These days, it's something like $127,000. (Hey, politicians! REMOVE THE CAP!) The crisis with SS is manufactured.

Can anyone, I mean ANYONE, take $100K out of their IRA, not pay penalty, but just taxes, and roll over that money to Roth IRA? Something on Yahoo Finance about this, so wondering if there's a play to be made here.
I do have two separate IRAs, I could take one of them and make it a Roth, assuming it makes sense to do so.

I think of net income in terms of total return. Investment gains are often part of taxable income. Marginal tax brackets do increase the drag on total return or better said marginal tax brackets diminish total return.
Most of us need a certain income to afford our life style. Recent data shows that ninety percent of income earners spend more than 100% of their earning so they need to take on additional debt as a means of affording their lifestyle. That math doesn't work.
Income graph:
https://screencast.com/t/rUJS2IeZ6ah
To your second point:
I remember having a conversation with a colleague who couldn't understand why I chose to retire early. My point to him was that he was working for the difference between what he would make (his work income) and what he would receive in retirement (pension income). I further pointed out that he could go elsewhere and work another full time or part time job making his total return (net taxes) much higher. Obviously by staying with his job he was adding years of service to his pension making his eventual pension income higher.
I consider taxes with regard to tax loss harvesting, Roth conversions, and potential qualifications for various benefits (HSA contributions, ACA Insurance subsidies, etc)
Taxes and tax brackets do have many nuisances (tax rules) beyond the marginal taxes brackets. I have always thought a simple flat tax would level the playing field.