@Joe - As noted in the Investopedia page cited by @AndyJ, these bank loan notes have fairly high recovery rates, because they are collateralized and because they are senior to other debt. That doesn't affect the risk of default, but it does mean that you can expect to lose less than "ordinary" junk when they do default. So it is reasonable to count on getting back a good chunk of principal (not interest).
You can find retail share classes of these funds in Schwab OneSource: LABAX is there, BASIX is offered, and LALDX is open as well.
Remember, BobC is a professional. Don't try his share classes at home. :-)
Thanks for the leverage note on PONDX. Its a good fund, well managed. But I remember having taken a look at it and noticing something. I'd forgotten what that something was. Here's a M* thread on the fund's risks (w/contributions by Sam Lee).

DH, I have to agree with Hank; I'm not sure why you believe I and others should known that the 10-year was going to rise from 1.78 to 2.24 in just a handful of days, now. I'm not surprised rates are moving up; just the recent velocity.

What were you watching before the rise that did not alert you to the rise?

Primer on FRs, here. Pretty good roundup, seems like.
Money quote: "A diverse portfolio of floating-rate loans should perform well when the economy is recovering and credit spreads are tightening."
Typically, they're not equivalent to junk corporates, as you sometimes hear/read: generally they have lower yields than junk corps, are higher in the capital structure, are backed by collateral, have lower default rates, and have higher recovery rates when they do default. (The Inv'pedia piece doesn't mention lower default rates that I can find, but several other sources I've read cite lower default rates as an advantage over junk corps.)
They may be overbought now, though, so even a temporary reversal in rates could be a problem. I don't think I'd be buying a significant stake at this point - probably would put new credit-FI $ into a tried and true, more all-weather option like Pimco Income - which pays out a higher yield than FRs now anyway.

"Trump adviser ... Scaramucci has compared the fiduciary rule [for IRAs, 401Ks] to the infamous Dred Scott decision, a 1857 Supreme Court ruling that denied black Americans citizenship."
Would that be because the SEC rule would hold financial advisors slaves to the truth? I'm really having trouble parsing this comment.

FYI: Money managers including Vanguard Group Inc. and State Street Corp. are remaining stoical amid speculation that President-elect Donald Trump is planning to scrap a new rule that had been expected to channel trillions of dollars into their funds.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-11-16/down-but-not-out-vanguard-says-trump-rules-cull-won-t-hurt-etfs

FYI: P assive investing is eating the mutual-fund industry, as money floods out of actively managed funds and into index funds and exchange-traded funds. “Passive” typically means two things -- diversification and minimal trading. Active funds are supposed to make money by concentrating their investments and taking advantage of good opportunities. The case for passive investing is that active investing is a losing game.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-11-16/stock-picking-pros-beat-the-indexers

Intrepid Funds
http://www.intrepidcapitalfunds.com/media/Distribution_Estimates_2016.pdf

FWIW, I ran a M* screen on taxable bond funds with duration greater than 4, and found 525 distinct funds (one share class per fund). Of these, over 40% (212) had three month returns greater than -2.0%. That's not to say that one would want to own many of these 212 funds, just that they're not hard to find if one looks at the whole universe of funds.
Reiterating what I wrote above, what matters is not what's in the rear view mirror, but what one expects going forward. If further changes in rates are moderate (albeit volatile), then one can get modest positive returns going forward without taking on additional credit risk.
One of those risks is linked with interest risk, because if rates do rise quickly that can be detrimental to businesses and thus trigger defaults. On the other hand rates can rise is response to an improving economy. In that case, risk of defaults goes down.
Why take on duration risk? Because the higher yield (especially now that rates have risen) can mitigate some of that risk. Following the suggestion of using short duration funds, I ran a second screen for funds yielding over 4% (TTM) having duration under 1.5%. Just 38 funds showed up, of which over half (20) were bank loan funds.
Five were junk bonds. Most of the rest were "nontraditional", meaning almost anything. There was also one multisector bond - RSIVX. I'm sure several people here can comment on that option.
Personally, my feeling is that in uncertain times don't just do something, stand there. Especially if you have built a well diversified portfolio.

Just a comment that we track about 85 fixed-income funds and ETFs. Of that, only 20 are positive for the last three months. And only 8 are up more than 1%. My observation is that investors should be in relatively short durations, since with few exceptions any fund with a duration greater than 4-5 is down 2-10% during the last three months. As fears of significantly higher inflation and rates ease, the picture should become clearer, but why take on duration when you can get a 4-5% yield with a duration of less than 1.5? Like others, I am skeptical of the flight to floating rates and am fearful this play could become problematic. We still like OSTIX, LASYX, BSIIX, LLDYX, and PONDX.

Thanks again everyone for your thoughts and opinions!!
DH, I have to agree with Hank; I'm not sure why you believe I and others should known that the 10-year was going to rise from 1.78 to 2.24 in just a handful of days, now. I'm not surprised rates are moving up; just the recent velocity.
Junkster, Thanks for the articles (I could not get to the Barron's article though). The Lord Abbett article seems to make the case for "diversifying" your portfolio with BL. As they also offer "attractive income" in a variety of interest rate environments and attractive risk-adjusted returns. Agreed, I do not think they are a "panacea" for higher rates, just another alternative.
In fact, the article appears to endorse, "this may be the time to invest" in BL. Did I misinterpret the conclusion?
JoJo26, thank you for your advice and thoughts. In general, I agree with you 100%; I'm not making wholesale changes or moving every bond holding to BL, just diversifying a bit because I'm beginning to believe the guru's that claim the decade's-long bull market may be coming to an end, albeit, hopefully slowly. We may just be "normalizing", whatever that means.
Please keep the discussion going! Matt

I was caught off-guard a little bit by the accelerated rise in the 10-year.

That should not have happened
http://www.mutualfundobserver.com/discuss/discussion/29877/the-scariest-chart-for-bond-yields#latest

Here's a link to a topic I discussed earlier this morning about the sudden love affair with floating rate funds being a panacea for rising rates
http://blogs.barrons.com/incomeinvesting/2016/11/16/why-floating-rate-loans-may-not-rise-in-price-when-rates-do/?mod=BOL_hp_blog_ii

Here is a screen capture of your first entry which shows IEF neither blue nor underlined. PIMIX is blue, underlined and I can select it for research.

Keep waiting for PTIAX to post 3rd Q commentary .Maybe they're going the way of less monthly and/or quarterly comment?Here's snippets from just released Annual Report dated August 31,2016
The past year saw very big
changes for both the Fund and for fixed-income markets. Fund assets grew more than four times going from $164.37
million to $688.60 million during the year. Managing that growth and maintaining desired allocations occupied most of the
management team’s time and attention
As this is being written, we still believe the tax-exempt market is attractive, but that can change quickly, and good
opportunities can be difficult to find even when we like the market. Thus, it is difficult to say whether allocations to tax exempts
will increase or decrease.
Our current allocation to commercial mortgage-backed securities (CMBS) (8.40%) was put in place after bringing on a
Commercial Real Estate Credit specialist with fifteen years of experience.
As a total return bond fund, we seek to position ourselves in the most undervalued fixed-income securities we can find
consistent with the need for proper diversification and liquidity. To identify such opportunities, we find scenario analysis
(over roughly a three-year investment horizon) to be more valuable than rate or market forecasting
http://ptiafunds.com/documents/ptam-annual-report.pdf

Hi @chip
The below, with missing highlight for etf's, started/changed around Nov. 10. At least with this laptop.
Anyone else find the same status?
Thank you and Regards,
Catch
IEF
PIMIX

It's a bit distressing to see all the sudden enthusiasm here, there, and everywhere with floating rate/bank loan funds. The last thing I want to see is that category becoming "groupthink" and the "logical" place to go. In the real world we have seen this category actually decline since November 1 albeit just a tad. Yet at the same time we have seen a huge spike in Treasury rates. Two reasons for this. One is with floating rate the key metric is the 3 month LIBOR rate not the longer term Treasuries. And secondly, since floating rates carry what I would call junk "lite" credits they have been held back a bit with the decline in the junk bond market the past two weeks.
Below is a link, although a few months old, of one of the better articles I have seen on the floating rate/bank loan sector. Note how the 3 month LIBOR rate historically moves lockstep with the Fed funds rate.
https://www.lordabbett.com/en/perspectives/marketview/floating-rate-no-need-to-wait-libor-day.html

FYI: - Doubling DownThe Trumpian Fox has entered the Populist Henhouse, not so much by stealth but as a result of Middle America's misinterpretation of what will make America great again. Not having voted for either establishment party's candidate, I write in amazed, almost amused bewilderment at what American voters have done to themselves. A Reuters/Ipsos Election Day Survey of 10,000 voters revealed the extraordinary fury of the American populist movement.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.janus.com/insights/bill-gross-investment-outlook
"Investment Outlook" Translated Into English:
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/bond-guru-bill-gross-says-trump-voters-will-suffer-most-from-election-result-2016-11-16/print

mcmarasco says: "I was caught off-guard a little bit by the accelerated rise in the 10-year."
You're not the only one. Suspect T. Rowe got caught a bit flat-footed. I own several of their conservative funds which have dramatically underperformed relative to my funds at Dodge & Cox and Oakmark the past week. Suspect T. Rowe was positioned for something different than what occurred. Three of their lower-risk funds (which I own) have underperformed noticeably since Nov. 8: PRWCX, RPGAX and TRRIX.
Some of this relates to bond holdings. (RPGAX in particular is global). More generally, I suspect T. Rowe has been expecting slower growth and constrained government spending and was so positioned in these funds. By comparison, Dodge & Cox (DODBX) is heavily weighted towards financials which have benefitted from the prospect of higher rates and inflation (and likely repeal of Dodd-Frank). And - just a guess - OAKBX probably benefitted from its long-time toe in the water exposure to drillers and energy. Also - they shed most long-term government bonds 2-3 years ago and have remained largely short-duration.
Sorry: No advice here. But folks have served-up some good ideas. Concur with you that the reaction is probably overdone - but that long-term the trend in rates is higher. FWIW: I'd be very surprised if Yellen is still Fed Chair a year from now. Anything's possible. (Maybe Rudi - if he doesn't take the Secretary of State job? ... :))

GREAT information, points and thoughts everyone, THANK YOU!
I was caught off-guard a little bit by the accelerated rise in the 10-year. I agree that it is probably a bit of an over-reaction, BUT, the trend is still probably up, albeit not in a straight line.
What happens if the FED does move in Dec. How much of this rate move is baked-in anticipating the Dec. rate hike?
That is one reason why I am contemplating moving some of my monies into a BL fund.
Any further thoughts, ideas, suggestions are very welcome; please continue the conversation!
FYI, I too hold MAPIX and a little DEM, which I am holding on to, but NOT adding to at this point. Any comments or thoughts?
Thank you, Matt

I may have read this from another poster here at MFO...seemed worth re-posting for this thread:
https://wellscap.com/pdf/emp/20161031.pdf