PRWCX didn't make the cut because its cost isn't much below average. But TRAIX's is, and it is available to individual Summit Preferred Services customers at T. Rowe Price with a $50K min. ("Must be a share class accessible to individual investors with a minimum investment of no greater than $50,000.")
Mr. Kinnel made a point that he was screening share classes: "strict screens to narrow a universe of 15,000 fund share classes down to a short list ranging between 25 and 50. It’s purely a screen; I don’t make any additions or subtractions. "
Why was VPMAX subtracted out?
Ignoring these minor glitches, the real problem is with the requirement that the funds must be 100% covered by analysts. IOW, only the usual suspects.

The PRWCX expense ratio is 0.71% which lies in the Moderate Allocation category's average fee quintile.
The fund's expense ratio would need to be below 0.50% (cheapest fee quintile) to be eligible for inclusion.
Mentioned in the 2020 "Thrilling 36" exercise:
"T. Rowe Price Capital Appreciation PRWCX actually wasn't on the list
last time, either, but because I always get a lot of questions about it:
The fund missed the expense ratio screen by 4 basis points.
Don't worry, we still rate it Gold."

Russel Kinnel from M* applies strict screens to narrow down the mutual fund universe to 25 - 50 funds.
Mr. Kinnel's screens are:
• Expense ratio in the Morningstar Category’s cheapest quintile
• Manager investment of more than $1 million in the fund
• Morningstar Risk rating lower than High
• Morningstar Medalist Rating of Bronze or higher
• Parent Pillar rating better than Average
• Returns greater than the fund’s category benchmark over the manager’s tenure for a minimum of five years
• Must be accessible to individual investors with a minimum investment no greater than $50,000
• No funds of funds
• Funds must be rated by Morningstar analysts
Six funds were added this year while two funds were removed.
Vanguard [8], American Funds [7], Fidelity [6], Dodge & Cox [5], and Baird [5] dominate the list.
https://www.morningstar.com/funds/thrilling-36-2

Covered calls are something that intuitively sound good. Also, they're one of the few things about options that my father taught me, and parents always know best (unless you're a teenager :-)).
But they may not work well as long term investments. If you write covered calls that never get exercised, they boost returns (let's say, 1%/year) while not reducing volatility. That's because if you shift your entire performance line up by 1% it's still got the same jiggles, just 1% higher.
Actual volatility is reduced by lopping off peaks when the market jumps and the calls are exercised. That's the exact opposite of the way you want to reduce volatility. Think Sortino ratio, that measures downside volatility only.
And those lost returns from lopping off peaks? They cost a lot more than the relatively small income stream one gets from writing the calls. Here's a graph from Finominal showing how this strategy loses in a rising market. And markets tend to rise over the long term.

Writing calls does generate a certain income stream, which many investors look for. Though as the writer of the article accompanying the graph says:

Any investor can create income by simply selling a small stake of their portfolio, which is also favorable from a taxation perspective as capital gains tend to have lower tax rates than income.

https://caia.org/blog/2024/02/24/covered-call-strategies-uncovered
That's a sentiment I agree with and why I focus more on total return than divs with bond funds. YMMV.

Nothing fancy here. We have been increasing total bond index fund since spring. Now shifting some floating rate bonds and high yield to BND and other investment grade intermediate term bonds. It is time to dial down the risk in case things get ugly, i.e. more geopolitical risk.

I haven't paid attention recently to my primary bond fund - DOXIX.
I was pleasantly surprised by the fund's trailing 12 month return.
01 mo. - +3.35%
03 mo. - +5.91%
YTD__ - +4.90%
12 mo. - +10.66%

yes sirs. options tradings are extremely bipolar. You can get severely high returns w market tops [up to 50% - 70% even 100% returns in on 6 12 months], but when it crashes your porfolio dig deeper dives for sure. I limit option trading now, limit option spreads these critters definitely can kill your porfolio, lucky got out few wks back near all time high all portfolios. prob do what I did best past 15 yrs - dca buy index /target date funds and more corp bonds. Only sell cash secure puts /cover calls w vehicles I am willing to own long term or happy w/ strike prices to be carried away.
for portfolio definitely add more corp bonds.
Next 3- 7 months: Not sure if SPY to 570 comes first or Spy 550 levels [lol].

Vanguard mutual funds cost $75 to purchase at Fidelity.
If 'twere only so.
Effective June 3, 2024, the transaction fee for Vanguard and Dodge & Cox mutual funds will increase from $75 to $100 per purchase.
https://www.mutualfundobserver.com/discuss/discussion/62254/fidelity-raising-fees-on-vanguard-and-dodge-cox-several-etfs-on-06-03-24
But be of good cheer. They're still only $74.95 at Schwab.
https://soundmindinvesting.com/articles/schwab-increases-transaction-fees-for-vanguard-and-fidelity-funds

@Crash @MikeM et al
BAGIX vs IGIB chart from January, 2007 to date (total returns)
IGIB is a corp. bond etf, with 99% exposure; whereas BAGIX has a 36% exposure to corp. bonds. BAGIX is mostly gov't and gov't related issues;; with the 63% shown as a percent of all holdings in the fund that are AAA, with the next 5 numbers representing the credit quality areas and 100% of the totals. IGIB doesn't have gov't. bond exposure. Below %'s are rounded.

IGIB     AAA     AA     A     BBB     GOV'T
0%     5%     43%   52%      0%
BAGIX   63%    3%     12%   22%      27%     CORP = 36%

My guess is to attract new asset with ETF wrappers since they can be traded in many brokerages outside of Vanguard. Vanguard mutual funds cost $75 to purchase at Fidelity. These new Vanguard ETFs are not clones of their equivalent OEFs. Thanks @msf.

@johnN, good to see you posting again. Bonds are low hanging fruits - say 5-7% total return with low to moderate risk. Stocks are richly valued right now. Swings between recession and euphoria may offer long term opportunities.

Long, long ago, Buffett ceased being a diehard value investor, seeking instead what he regarded as great companies at good prices. It is not for me to say whether he currently owns great companies (aside from See’s, that is). But their prices are certainly moderate. Were this a fund, Morningstar would classify its portfolio as large (or possibly mid) value.

Article:
berkshire-hathaway-mutual-fund-disguise
A previous MFO discussion (2020) on the topic:
https://mutualfundobserver.com/discuss/discussion/57318/is-berkshire-more-like-a-mutual-fund-than-a-stock/p1

nice summary, msf.
many here have been marching up daily last few months regardless of S&P500 ups\downs.

I am more focused on the short term fund and I did a little comparing already. Vanguard has three short-ish muni funds: VMLUX, VTES, and VWSUX.
Vanguard comparison page
New funds' prospectus (draft)
VTES is passively managed. VSDM (Short Duration Tax-Exempt ETF) is actively managed.
VWSUX was until a year ago named Short-Term; it's now Ultra-Short-Term. I haven't checked whether the fund actually changed its portfolio then or just its name. It's a bit higher grade than VDSM. At least 75% in A range, at most 20% Baa and 5% junk. In comparison, VDSM can invest up to 20% in junk. Maturities are different. VWSUX shoots for 1-2 year average. VDSM is longer at 2-7 years. VDSM doesn't yet say what its expected duration will be.
VMLUX invests the same way as VWSUX (higher quality), just with longer maturities: 2-6 years. So in comparison, VDSM is lower quality and perhaps slightly longer maturities (2-7 years).
That makes VDSM higher risk, both credit risk and interest rate risk, than existing Vanguard actively managed muni funds. It's also slightly more expensive, with a 0.12% expense ratio compared to 0.09% for the existing funds' Admiral shares and 0.07 to VTES's cost.
Benefits? That's for you to decide, whether you want to go out a little further on the risk spectrum.
Likewise VCRM (Core Tax-Exempt ETF) looks to be more junky than existing funds, though its average maturity will be in the 3-10 year range.
Vanguard comparison page for VTEI, VWIUX
Same comments apply. VTEI is passively managed, and both existing funds are cheaper than VCRM's 0.12% ER.
What you get with these new funds is active management in an ETF wrapper. That's new for Vanguard.
If one wants to go even shorter, Fidelity offers FMNDX with an average maturity of 1 year or less, same quality as Vanguard's existing funds (up to 20% junk), higher ER (0.25%), and no frequent trading restrictions.

"Our Alpha Analyzer tool suggests the Russell 3000 Index as the most appropriate benchmark, but we select the S&P Growth Index given the focus on large-cap growth stocks and similar tracking error and correlation. We observe that VPMCX generated significant outperformance between 2001 and 2006, but none thereafter."
M* placed VPMCX in the Large Growth category from 2014 through 2020.
From 2021 through YTD the fund resided in the Large Blend category.
Prior to 2014, I believe VPMCX was often classified as Large Growth by M*.
It's not unusual for this active fund to experience bouts of underperformance.
The fund's prospectus includes the S&P 500 Index for comparison.
VPMCX calendar year returns for 2019 - 2021 lagged VFIAX & IVW returns.
The fund handily outperformed VFIAX from 01/03/2007 to 08/22/2024
while its overall performance was similar to IVW during this timeframe.

Portfolio Backtester

Ken Leech, co-CIO, began a leave of absence after receiving a Wells notice from the SEC.
John Bellows (head of broad markets team) suddenly left Western Asset on 05/01/2024.
These are substantial developments regarding key personnel at Western Asset.
https://www.morningstar.com/funds/sudden-exit-ken-leech-western-asset

Shooting for 7% returns over time, but with very low volatility (SD). I am considering the following allocation:
PHEFX 15%
FMSDX 15%
CBLDX 15%
SWHFX 10%
PVCMX 10%
HMEZX 10%
HELO 10%
PRPFX 5%
LCORX 5%
RSIVX 5%
Can you do better? Please share your ideas.

As my CDs mature, I am considering the following low volatility allocation for my retirement portfolio :
HELO 10%
ICMUX 25%
PRCFX 25%
QQMNX 15%
RCTIX 25%
Two of the funds are fairly new, HELO and PRCFX, but they are run by excellent and very experienced managers.
Available PV data over the past eight months is as follows:
Total Return = 9%
Std Deviation = 2.8%
Sharpe Ratio= 2.8
Sortino Ratio = 4.8
Can I do better, JD? I don't know, just sharing my ideas.
But, good luck.

IOW, undo the Boeing/McDonnell Douglas merger.
The European Commission in reviewing the merger considered " potential spillover of benefits from the McDonnell Douglas defense business to the Boeing commercial airplane business"
https://boeing.mediaroom.com/1997-07-23-Boeing-McDonnell-Douglas-Merger-Gains-a-Positive-Opinion-from-the-European-Commission
Up through1996, " McDonnell Douglas [had been] the leader in defense aircraft for many years", while "Boeing had not received lead military program contracts for over 40 years."
" McDonnell Douglas' commercial aircraft division, Douglas Aircraft Company (DAC), no longer exerted a competitive influence in the worldwide market for commercial aircraft. [FTC conclusion regarding merger]"
https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/56358984.pdf
You can spin off MD, but can you take 25 years of culture out of BA? It's been pervasive.
--------------
From the NPR article: " NASA has decided to reconfigure things so that this capsule has two seats free and available for Williams and Wilmore to catch a ride home."
What the NPR piece didn't mention was that they'll be sending up spare spacesuits since Starliner's aren't compatible with SpaceX's.
"NASA and SpaceX currently are working several items before launch, including reconfiguring seats on the Crew-9 Dragon, and adjusting the manifest to carry additional cargo, personal effects, and Dragon-specific spacesuits for Wilmore and Williams."
https://www.nasa.gov/news-release/nasa-decides-to-bring-starliner-spacecraft-back-to-earth-without-crew/

I see this Edgar/SEC filing dated 8/21/24 announcing these changes for Ben KIRBY and Jeff KLINGELHOFER. They were managing several Thornburg funds. Their bios appear on Thornburg website. Kirby was also managing $13.8 billion TIBAX / TIBIX and Thornburg's only CEF TBLD ($542 million).
"Effective August 20, 2024, Matt Burdett has been named Head of Equities and Christian Hoffmann has been named Head of Fixed Income of Thornburg Investment Management, Inc. (“Thornburg”), replacing Ben Kirby and Jeff Klingelhofer who will conclude their service as Co-Heads of Investments of Thornburg on September 30, 2024."
Burdett and Hoffman are already part of TIBIX and TBLD teams. In TSUMX, they will be REPLACING Kirby and Klingelhofer.
May be retirement? Moving on? Scandal?
Someone who is keeping tabs on Thornburg should comment on these developments.
Edgar/SEC https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/816153/000199937124010454/tbit-497_082124.htm
Ben Kirby https://www.thornburg.com/people/ben-kirby/
Jeff Klingelhofer https://www.thornburg.com/people/jeff-klingelhofer/
Matt Burdett https://www.thornburg.com/people/matt-burdett/
Christian Hoffmann https://www.thornburg.com/people/christian-hoffmann/

And now? FEBRUARY. And they'll return to Earth via SpaceX, not the Boeing Starliner.
https://www.npr.org/2024/08/24/nx-s1-5087892/nasa-starliner-astronaut-return-iss-spacex

It's beautiful country up there. I visited a few years ago.
Unfortunately, this is what kept running through my mind: