Recent discussion here decried the absence of online Category Kings on the WSJ site. Today the compilations appeared in the "Investing in Funds" monthly section, albeit with only 5 entries per category. Hiding at #2 in Multicap Core we find the Van Eck Morningstar Wide-Moat OEF, MWMZX. Don't rush out to buy it unless you have $1M or can avoid the restricted status. I wonder why it exists and why the WSJ can't do a better job of bringing us funds we can actually buy. The leading performing fund this month is a Fidelity fund almost no one can access. The Van Eck OEF appears to be a clone of the very successful MOAT ETF that I have mentioned here before. MOAT has outperformed the SPY over 3 and 5 year periods and it has also clocked the favorites of a couple of board members, DSEEX and DSENX over almost any time period.
I have not researched this comparison, but my conclusions are that the M* wide-moat strategy is by far the most successful of those affiliated with an investment publication. I looked at Barron's BFOR, the MotleyFool funds, the ValueLine funds, and Eddy Effenbien's Crossing Wall Street. There must be others I don't know of. The MOAT ETF strategy has spawned MOTI, DURA, and GOAT, although the latter three have not attracted many investors. I'd suggest the global GOAT to any member who is reeling from poor NCAA bracket choices. BTW, am I indeed the only MFO discussant to own MOAT? For the record, I also hold DSENX and CAPE.

FYI: What a difference three months can make in the world of top-performing mutual-fund managers.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.wsj.com/articles/and-the-no-1-stock-fund-manager-is-11554689520?mod=article_inline

FYI: The classic minimalist portfolio consists of three funds: one broad-market U.S. stock index fund, one broad-market international-stock index fund, and a total bond market index fund. Such a portfolio, the likes of which I wrote about last week, is cheap, well-diversified, and low-maintenance.
But as effective as it is, such a portfolio is not necessarily tax-efficient, especially for investors in higher tax brackets who have significant allocations to bonds and hold the funds in a taxable (that is, nonretirement) account.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.morningstar.com/articles/922631/3-taxefficient-bucket-portfolios-for-minimalist-re.html

@johnN: The link below will take you to a December 2015 post that I made about my asset allocation. It seems, I was at this time just moving to about 20% cash, 30% income, 35% growth and income and 15% growth asset allocation. Prior to that, based upon my recollection, I was at about 15% cash, 25% income, 40% growth & income and 20% growth asset allocation. Most likely, I was at an asset allocation of about 10% cash, 20% income, 40% growth & income and 30% growth during the time span you inquired about (2009-2010).
https://www.mutualfundobserver.com/discuss/discussion/24926/old-skeet-s-new-portfolio-asset-allocations-2016#latest
I'll keep looking and if I come up with something else I'll post it.
And, here is something else that I came up with that dates back to March of 2012 as how I went about adjusting my asset allocation. Perhaps, it will be of some interest.
https://www.mutualfundobserver.com/discuss/discussion/2501/a-system-i-use-to-adjust-my-asset-allocation#latest
As you can see through the years; and, as I have aged, I have reduced my allocation to equities and raised my allocation to income while cash has stayed about the same except when I was positioned for the 2009-2010 stock market rebound. Back then cash was at about 10%. One reason that I hold excess cash is that it provides me the opportunity to open special equity spiff positions form time-to-time should I feel this is warranted. This is something that I have done for a good number of years ... and, I still do form time-to-time. However, I did not put a spiff in play during the last market swoon (4th Quarter of 2018) as I was in the process of rebalancing and reconfiguring my portfolio. Howerver, I did leave myself +5% equity heavy during this last rebalance process to tactically overweighting equities from my newely established asset allocation of 20% Cash, 40% Income, 30% Gr & Inc and 10% Growth. With this, my Growth Area is now +5% heavy while my Cash Area is -5% light from their neutral positions due to this tactical overweight positioning in equities.

@_MikeM
Hi sir
Ted has PFF since late ~2010s and sold it I believe few yrs back since cutting back in equities
I still have pff and use if almost like a corp bond mainly for incomes... The do pay nicely div every month. They have bunch of equities and varieties of vehicles... More risky than bonds for sure.. Fee us reasonable for pff.. More diverse than using just Corp bond ETF. Maybe inversely related to interest rates
If company tank or bankrupt they will pay bonds owner first (if, companies have bonds) then preferred owners then lastly stock owners
https://etfdailynews.com/2018/06/27/dont-ignore-preferred-stock-funds-in-your-portfolio-pff/
https://www.etf.com/PFF#overview
Https://seekingalpha.com/article/4207114-pff-avoid-preferred-stocks-interest-rate-tightening-cycle

In addition, REITs are now somewhat more attractive to own outside of tax shelters, because they get a Section 199A 20% reduction in taxes. That is, whatever income they pass through, you get to deduct 20% of that. So if you're in the 22% tax bracket, you'll owe a net 17.6% (80% x 22%).
Still higher than the 15% cap gains rate, but not by very much. Something to consider if you're looking to generate income, or if you've already filled your IRA with bonds that are taxed at a higher rate.
http://www.2ndmarketcapital.com/reits/reit-benefits/ (quick and dirty summary)

https://www.azcentral.com/story/money/business/consumers/2019/04/07/how-manage-investments-and-reduce-your-tax-bill-same-time/3337426002/
How to pay less in taxes by making smart investment decisions
Several equities & bonds mentioned

https://www.etftrends.com/core-etf-channel/preferred-etfs-beckon-buying-opportunity-after-pullback/
Preferred ETFs Beckon Buying Opportunity After Pullback
By Todd ShriberonApril 3, 2019
Twitter Facebook LinkedIn Google+ Email
Preferred stocks and related exchange traded funds retreated along with other income-generating assets as U.S. yields spiked in response to the Federal Reserve’s tighter monetary policy, but the asset category may offer an attractive buying opportunity after the pullback.

I’m doing it all wrong.
First, I’ve allowed my Roths to outperform my Traditional IRAs over the years. Roths now comprise over 65% of IRA assets. Worse yet, if I need $10,000, I take $5,000 from the Traditional and $5,000 from the Roth. This leaves an immediate tax liability on $5,000 (instead of $10,000).
But always willing to learn something from the links board.

Interesting short read. The rally is fun while it lasts and certainly a relief after quarter four of last year. The two largest holdings in my portfolio each have about 50% in stocks with the balance in bonds and other diversifying stuff. Everything seemed to click for them in quarter one. RPGAX was at +9.1% and GDMZX was at +8.8%. (A head shake followed by a triple check of the end of quarter numbers confirmed that's what happened.) I can not imagine it will be smooth sailing for the entire balance of the year. But this was a welcome start....

Again, thanks to Ted for linking to the Barron's article via Marketwatch.
Worth repeating: Recommended portfolio size for investing in individual bonds:
Treasuries only: "'We would recommend starting with a minimum of $50,000, with at least 10 bonds in $5,000 increments,' says Brian Therien ...at Edward Jones."
Corporates: "Investors interested in venturing into slightly riskier bonds that offer better yields—though it’s best to stick with AAA-rated municipal bonds or corporate bonds—will [have a] ... minimum investment for a laddered portfolio ... closer to $250,000."

Who is benefiting is obvious even without reading this WSJ editorial.
State tax-free income became more valuable to those who could no longer deduct state income taxes (SALT limitations), i.e. the very high earners in low income/low property value states and the middle class and above in high income/high property value states.
Consequently, states have to pay somewhat less interest on the bonds. This allows them to borrow more, but also benefits these taxpayers who ultimately bear the cost of state expenditures.
----
Muni bond investors likely know that two of the NRSROs (Moody's and Fitch) "recalibrated" their muni bond ratings in 2010. That is, they changed the curve on which they graded muni bonds, because AA muni bonds tended to be as safe as AAA corporates. So formerly AA munis were changed to AAA and so on.
This editorial challenges the recalibration, asserting that this lowered rates on muni bonds. Of course interest rates dropped. If a bond looks safer buyers demand less interest. However, nowhere does the editorial suggest that the recalibration was inaccurate.
My question is, given this professed concern by the Editorial Board in the accuracy of NRSROs, where was the WSJ back in 2007 when CDOs were all getting great ratings?
https://www.mercatus.org/publication/brief-history-credit-rating-agencies-how-financial-regulation-entrenched-industrys-role
----
Side note: I'm reading the column online at home courtesy of the library at a university in which I'm registered as a student. Registering and not sitting in on classes is actually less expensive than subscribing (not that this is why I sign up for classes - free access is just an added benefit.)

FYI: Which way are interest rates headed? Retirees have been asking this question for the better part of a decade—and that conundrum continues. Just when it seemed that rates were finally moving higher, the Federal Reserve turned dovish in late March, sending bond markets into a tizzy.
Price fluctuations are a source of angst for investors who trade in and out of bonds, or own them in mutual funds and exchange-traded funds. But for investors who own bonds to maturity, it’s no big deal. As long as an issuer doesn’t default, which is pretty rare, investors who own bonds until their expiration dates can count on getting back their initial investment, plus the interest they earned along the way.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.marketwatch.com/articles/retirement-income-bond-ladders-51554500911?mod=barrons-on-marketwatch

FYI: As an investor, it’s easy to blow it. You could sell too early, buy too late. Bet on a loser or pass over a winner. But often the most damaging mistake has nothing to do with the selection or timing of investments—it is carelessness when it comes to managing a portfolio for taxes. This is particularly important when you’re planning how you’ll take withdrawals for retirement income.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.marketwatch.com/articles/have-multiple-retirement-accounts-use-them-in-this-order-51553425225?mod=mw_latestnews

Relative to the funds in the article (and the additional funds mentioned here), RPHYX doesn't look so impressive these days. It has an SEC yield of 2.10%. Clearly it's having difficulty meeting its objective of beating the 1 year Treasury (currently 2.4%, as noted by Lewis) by 200 - 400 bps.
Currently, Treasuries are essentially flat from 1mo to 7 years. With that sort of curve (actually dipping in the middle), it makes little sense to me to try to eek out yield by going longer than ultrashort. Also, buying a one year CD or Treasury could serve as a hedge against rates dropping in the short term.
https://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/data-chart-center/interest-rates/pages/textview.aspx?data=yield
Instead of keeping day-to-day money in a low/no interest checking account, one can keep money in Fidelity's SPRXX (2.25% SEC yield) or FZDXX (2.37% SEC yield) and write checks/pay bills directly from that fund. (Fidelity automatically sells the MMF if you have no cash in your core/transaction account.) Every penny helps.

The Muni-Bond Mania
Look who’s benefiting from the limit on state-and-local tax deduction.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-muni-bond-mania-11554422302

FYI: For investors who followed a “sleep-easy” portfolio balanced between stocks and bonds, the twin-barreled rally in both assets in the first quarter of 2019 has delivered close to double-digit returns.
Yet market participants say these gains have led equities and debt yields to send wildly contradictory signals over the U.S. economy’s health, with the rise in equities indicating the recent slowdown will only remain a soft patch, even as the rise in bond prices and slide in yields imply a more pessimistic outlook for the rest of the year. This divergence between equities and yields goes against textbook finance theory, drawing questions of how long this benign environment for both risk and haven assets can last.
“The truth could be somewhere between what stocks and bonds are saying. But it’s unsustainable,” Franck Dixmier, head of global fixed-income at Allianz Global Investors, told MarketWatch.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/will-an-unsustainable-rally-in-stocks-and-bonds-extend-a-soaring-quarter-for-sleep-easy-portfolios-2019-04-06/print

All ratings have been updated on MFO Premium site, including MultiSearch, Great Owls, Fund Alarm (Three Alarm and Honor Roll), Averages, Dashboard of Profiled Funds, and Fund Family Scorecard. The site now includes several analysis tools, including Correlation, Rolling Averages, Trend, Ferguson Metrics, Compare, Calendar Year and Period Performance.

Yes, I too have seen the recent flattening, but no big drops fortunately.
Like Junkster said, this past month it rebounded quite well:

Up 2.3% YTD. Hard to complain.
Still 5% div.
I don't see the move away from RMBS Crash mentions.
@ MikeM. Yes, it's lumped in with MultiSector, but it's all about RMBS.
Tom Miner remains (a jewel). And Garrett. And Brian. And Jonathan.
Seems like nothing has changed in their thesis ... just the opposite I'd suggest, but I've not checked-in directly in a while (obsessed with making premium site priceless).
I remain heavy IOFIX. (FWIW, I was once heavy FAAFX!)
Hope all is well.
c

@msf: I finally found what you were talking about. I will also C&P the whole paragraph as with the disclaimer it reminds me of the old saying. Believe nothing you hear & only half of what you see.
Except as noted below, all data provided by Morningstar, Inc. All rights reserved. The information contained herein is the proprietary information of Morningstar, Inc., and may not be copied or redistributed for any purpose and may only be used for noncommercial, personal purposes. The information contained herein is not represented or warranted to be accurate, correct, complete, or timely. Morningstar, Inc., shall not be responsible for investment decisions, damages, or other losses resulting from use of the information. Morningstar, Inc., has not granted consent for it to be considered or deemed an "expert" under the Securities Act of 1933. Charles Schwab Investment Management, Inc. and Charles Schwab & Co., Inc. are separate but affiliated companies and subsidiaries of The Charles Schwab Corporation.
Thanks for your time, Derf