The graphic is set for the 5 days ending May 10, Friday; for the best to worst % returns in select etf categories. One may then also select the one month column to align the one month return best to worst; or for the other listed time frame columns.
ADD an etf performance of your choosing, if you desire. ***
*** Requested ADD: For the week and YTD
--- MINT = +.09% / +2.3% Pimco Ultra Short Term Enhanced Bonds
--- EWW = +2.5% / +.91% (I Shares, Mexico)
MMKT note: Fidelity core mmkt's yields remain basically unchanged this week, having .01% yields downward, with core acct's yields at 4.95% (SPAXX) and 4.98% (FDRXX).
NOTE: The broad U.S. equity and bond sectors finished the week with generally positive performance in many sectors through a very erratic market week. China large cap (FXI etf) , had another week of 'performance+', with a +15.6 YTD; as well as DXJ etf(Japan large cap), which is now +23.9 YTD. Bonds in many sectors ended the total week performance with mixed gains. Bond funds ranged from +.09% to a +.73%, with the ultra short term being the lowest positive (as expected) and the very long term being the best sectors. See the 'graphic' link at the beginning of this write for details of weekly returns.
NEW: 1 week 'heat map' by sectors. This is an interactive graphic. You may hover the computer pointer over the various blocks to view portions of sectors and/or stocks within those sectors. NOTE: to the left of the graphic, one may change the 1 week performance drop down menu to another time frame. Another example: at the left edge of the graphic, select exchange traded funds and then 1 week or a time period of your choice.
Remain curious,
Catch

May 5 & 11 Episodes:

Teresa Ghilarducci argues that working longer is not the solution to the retirement crisis. She explains why not and what is.

PIMCO’S Group Chief Investment Officer Dan Ivascyn also runs the world’s largest actively managed bond fund, PIMCO Income. He says bond returns are the most attractive they have been in years and even rival stocks.

The JEPI fund managers also run JHEQX which has an inception date of 12/13/2013.
These two funds are not clones.
JEPI is "designed to provide current income while maintaining prospects for capital appreciation."
JHEQX is "designed to provide capital appreciation through a diversified equity portfolio,
while hedging overall market exposure."
With that said, here's a Portfolio Visualizer Backtest for JHEQX, RLBGX, VWENX, and VFIAX.
https://www.portfoliovisualizer.com/backtest-portfolio?s=y&sl=5276rWmbK9uD5mgRq56Fhw

“'While many investment strategies have lagged the tech-heavy S&P 500 and Mag 7 stocks over the past year,
high dividend growth and high free cash flow has kept up,' Chris Senyek, chief investment strategist
with Wolfe Research, wrote in the report."
“'Dividend investing is an attractive long-term structural investment strategy, it’s tried and true,' Ben Kirby,
co-head of investments of Thornburg, wrote in an email to Barron’s. 'It tends to generate attractive returns and,
in many cases, better returns to the overall market, usually with less volatility.'”
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/it-s-a-good-time-to-look-at-apple-and-other-growth-stocks-that-pay-dividends/ar-BB1lUCXX

Barron's recently published an article about JEPI titled How a Niche Fund Became the Biggest Active ETF.
"All in all, J.P. Morgan Premium Equity Income provides an attractive take on the covered-call strategy.
But investors still need to think carefully about whether this have-your-cake-and-eat-it-too strategy really deserves a place in their portfolios."
"Covered-call funds’ yields may be comparable to those of bond funds, but they don’t necessarily offer the same downside protection. In a bear market, the options premium should provide some cushion against losses,
but beyond these, the funds have all the downsides of a stock portfolio."
MSN link to article for those without a Barron's subscription:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/savingandinvesting/how-a-niche-fund-became-the-biggest-active-etf/ar-BB1m0IxK

Charlie Bilello customarily posted The Week In Charts videos to his own YouTube channel.
https://www.youtube.com/@charlie_bilello/videos
The three most recent The Week In Charts videos were posted only to his employer's YouTube channel.
https://www.youtube.com/@creativeplanning/videos
Now with that out of the way, let's proceed...
The Week in Charts (05/10/24)
The most important charts and themes in markets, including...
00:00 Intro
01:03 Topics
02:19 "Don't Let Them Sell You a Bond Fund"
13:50 Saving Social Security
26:08 Is the Consumer Finally Pulling Back?
34:51 Falling Fertility Rates
43:08 Buy In May and Stay
45:53 Welcome to the Casino
49:01 Happy Workers
Video

I’ve had 12% of our portfolio in VWIAX for some time, but have paired it back by 1/3. With VWIAX invested in value stocks and intermediate bonds, its performance has lagged for several years.
When I first started investing, I had bought into the large and small value concept that they are the sweet spot of equity investing. This has not been my personal experience these last few years. This may still bare out over time, but my personal timeline is more limited than the market itself.
I’ve slowly been reallocating to more of a total stock market focus. There are so many interesting funds that are available, which I’ve dabbled in over the past few years. But once I’ve purchased a starter position, I ask myself if I’m willing to invest an amount that can make a difference in my total returns, and often the answer is no and I sell that fund. After being an investor in VWIAX for many years, the answer to that question has been shifting.

Utes today. Maybe it's just sector rotation after all.
I find it easier for me to already be there when things do rotate.

Indeed. A month or so ago I sold UTG and went into HTD…a John Hancock CEF holding both utilities plus preferred shares. I also hold a similar John Hancock fund, PTD. Both utilities and preferreds will benefit with moderation of rates. I consider it as fixed income with a kicker.

Catch - I haven’t seen the paperwork yet. They’re mailing it to me to look over. I’m thinking I might not have heard right on the phone. Could be a 6-month term. That’s how often the car insurance renews, Or perhaps the amount quoted is based on the remaining months until the homeowner’s policy renews. They did say I needed to increase the liability limit on the homeowner’s policy, but not sure how much that will add to the total cost. Yes, it’s supposed to be an umbrella policy. Yes, the agent did say $1 Mil coverage. I can understand where southern Michigan might have higher rates.
Yogi says “It ain’t over til the fat lady sings.”

@hank Your're writing about an 'umbrella' policy, yes?
I'm sure these vary by your home/auto policy liability amounts and perhaps area.
Our cost is $368/year for $1 million, as a reference. South/central Michigan.

Utes today. Maybe it's just sector rotation after all.
I find it easier for me to already be there when things do rotate.

Right there with ya guys!. Agent called today. App is in the mail. About $80 a year . I’d never heard of one either. But the world was a much different place back when I first took out homeowners insurance in 1977.
Geez, you learn a lot here!
Edit 5/13/24 / I received the written application. I must not have understood the agent over the phone. Here’s the ditty:
- 1 Mil Umbrella
- Annual cost $138
- Cost to increase homeowner liability coverage: $60 per year
- Total additional annual cost to me: $198 annually
- Likely I’m receiving a discount for having home and 2 vehicles with same insurer
- There were 18 “yes / no” questions on the app - Things like “Do you have any pets?” and “Have you ever been party to a lawsuit?” They seemed especially interested in any powered recreational vehicles. I have none. (We pedal)

I have lost al hope that most organizations can keep up with hackers. The only hacks we probably hear about seem to be health care institutions that are probably legally mandated to report.
Unless one lives in California ...

California law requires a business or state agency to notify any California resident whose unencrypted personal information, as defined, was acquired, or reasonably believed to have been acquired, by an unauthorized person. (California Civil Code s. 1798.29(a) [agency] and California Civ. Code s. 1798.82(a) [person or business].)

https://oag.ca.gov/privacy/databreach/reporting

Looking at the portfolio data, a couple of top line figures stand out. (Yogi also commented on much of this; he posted as I was composing.)
M* reports that FMSDX has 45% of its assets in its top ten holdings, but that's misleading. Its top 4 holdings, at 11%, 8.5%, 8.5%, and 8% are Treasuries. Disregarding that, its portfolio doesn't look nearly so concentrated (i.e. closer to VWIAX's 12% of assets in top 10 holding).
Portfolio composition is a different story. While both funds are classified as moderately conservative (meaning similar stock/bond ratios), the Fidelity fund is noticeably more aggressive - as one might infer from its volatility.
Fidelity says that its fund is 41.5% in equities with the rest (excluding 1.35% cash/other) in bonds. Vanguard says its fund is 37.12% in equities with the rest (excluding 1.12% short term reserves) in bonds. Superficially similar, but ...
https://fundresearch.fidelity.com/mutual-funds/composition/31638R717
https://investor.vanguard.com/investment-products/mutual-funds/profile/vwiax#portfolio-composition
Vanguard says that all of its bonds are investment grade (albeit 17% Baa), while Fidelity reports that nearly a third of its bonds are junk bonds. Those typically behave more like equities. In this sense, the Fidelity fund begins to look more like a moderate allocation fund. In fact, M* classified the fund this way in 2021 and 2022.
Wellesley is a traditional hybrid fund, with a large cap value-leaning equity portfolio. FMSDX currently has more of a large blend orientation, though it tends to skew more toward mid caps (even now it is right on the mid/large boundary).
All of these differences help to understand the overall performance differences you're seeing. They're both fine funds and which one you pick would seem to depend on the type of fund you want.

I manuvered in the direction of cash. Sold / submitted sell orders pretty much across the board. Should raise my cash level from around 10% to near 12%. Some of this due to caution - and some related to anticipated infrastructure spending.

I am looking at FMSDX and VWIAX, two Moderately Conservative Allocation funds according to M*, for inclusion in a conservative retirement portfolio.
While FMSDX has a much better 1, 3 and 5 year performance record, it is also somewhat more volatile than VWIAX. On the other hand, if interest rates have supposedly reached their peak, wouldn't VWIAX, with a usually constant duration of around 6.5 compared to FMSDX's duration of 3.0, benefit more when rates start to come down in the future?
In addition, VWIAX is managed by Wellington, a well established and highly regarded management company.
I have a hard time making a decision and would appreciate any comments or suggestions. Thanks.

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1414039/000158064224002661/millerconvert_497.htm
497 1 millerconvert_497.htm 497
Ticker Symbol By Class I
Miller Convertible Plus Fund MCPIX
Supplement dated May 10, 2024 to the Fund’s Prospectus, Summary Prospectus, and
Statement of Additional Information (“SAI”), each dated March 1, 2024
This Supplement provides new and additional information beyond that contained in the Prospectus, Summary Prospectus and SAI and should be read in conjunction with the Prospectus, Summary Prospectus and SAI. This Supplement supersedes any information to the contrary in the Prospectus, Summary Prospectus and SAI.
The Board of Trustees of Miller Investment Trust (the “Trust”) has concluded, based upon the recommendation of Wellesley Asset Management Inc., that it is in the best interests of the Miller Convertible Plus Fund (the “Fund”) and its shareholders that the Fund be liquidated. Pursuant to a Plan of Liquidation (the “Plan”) approved by the Board of Trustees, the Fund will be liquidated and dissolved on or about June 10, 2024.
The Fund is closed to all new investments as of May 10, 2024. The Plan provides that the Fund will begin liquidating its portfolio as soon as is reasonable and practicable. The Fund may pursue its stated investment objective until June 10, 2024, but may, at the discretion of the Adviser and in accordance with its Prospectus, liquidate its portfolio prior to June 10, 2024, and invest in cash equivalents such as money market funds until all shares have been redeemed. On or about the close of business on June 10, 2024, the Fund will distribute pro rata all its assets in cash to its shareholders and all outstanding shares will be redeemed and cancelled.
Prior to June 10, 2024, you may redeem your shares, including reinvested distributions, in accordance with the “How to Redeem Shares” section of the Fund’s Prospectus. Unless your investment in the Fund is through a tax-deferred retirement account, you will recognize gain or loss for federal income tax purposes (and for most state and local income tax purposes) on a redemption of your shares, whether as a result of a redemption that you initiate or upon the final liquidating distribution by the Fund, based on the difference between the amount you receive and your tax basis in your shares. The Fund may make one or more distributions of income and/or net capital gains on or prior to June 10, 2024, in order to eliminate Fund-level taxes. Please refer to the “Tax Status, Dividends and Distributions” section in the Prospectus for general information. You may wish to consult your tax advisor about your particular situation. Plan sponsors or plan administrative agents should notify participants that the Fund is liquidating and should provide information about alternative investment options.
You should read this Supplement in conjunction with the Fund’s Prospectus and Statement of Additional Information each dated March 1, 2024 which provide information that you should know about the Fund before investing. These documents are available upon request and without charge by calling the Fund toll-free at 1-877-441-4434. The Prospectus, Summary Prospectus and Statement of Additional Information may be obtained by visiting www.MillerFamilyOfFunds.com. You should retain this Supplement for future reference.

Perhaps that page was just changed, but it now reads $1K min. Worth pointing this out to Schwab if they still balk at opening the account for less than $100K.

I did and will do so again, but this time in an email to the rep that I work with.

However, as you stated, APDKX is also available (albeit with a transaction fee), so I'd be inclined to go in that direction. You've already got Schwab agreeing that you can open a new account in Artisan International Value, so at this point it's just a quibble over the share class.
You might also look into converting the Roth shares to APDKX. A straight conversion might even help avoid the transaction fee. I haven't done this at Schwab, but I've tried conversions at Fidelity with mixed results:

Agree.

Lesson learned: one may be right about the rules, but one still needs to get the fund company to cooperate. If you can't do a straight conversion in the Roth, you could look at buying $1K of APDKX (to establish the Roth account), then selling all ARTKX shares and buying more APDKX shares. You'll get charged a transaction fee but you'll have cheaper shares for the long run.

Agree.

Finally, if all else fails and Artisan won't let Schwab open APDKX accounts, you could try opening the accounts directly at Artisan and then transferring them in-kind to Schwab. However, at Artisan, APDKX has a $250K min (see prospectus), so you might have to do some maneuvering to temporarily boost your account (and then sell off some shares when the account is moved to Schwab).

Artisan will allow Schwab to open ARTKX or APDKX. Artisan told me that the minimum initial purchase is up to Schwab. We are back to Schwab's website which says 1,000 minimum for either share class for an IRA. Schwab's website also says $2,500 initial minimum for a "Basic" account. I take this as meaning a regular non-retirement account. While I do believe that the minimum initial for ARTKX has always been $1,000, I always thought that $250,000 was the minimum initial for APDKX.
Let's assume for the moment that $250,000 is the minimum initial for APDKX and Schwab is recalcitrant regarding $100,000 as the minimum initial for ARTKX. As a last resort, I can purchase $100,000 of ARTKX and the next day sell as much as I want and pay the Short-Term Redemption Fee.

However, there was caveat, which is the minimum initial investment amount is $100,000. This is on Schwab's website.
https://www.schwab.wallst.com/Prospect/Research/mutualfunds/summary.asp?symbol=ARTKX
Perhaps that page was just changed, but it now reads $1K min. Worth pointing this out to Schwab if they still balk at opening the account for less than $100K.
However, as you stated, APDKX is also available (albeit with a transaction fee), so I'd be inclined to go in that direction. You've already got Schwab agreeing that you can open a new account in Artisan International Value, so at this point it's just a quibble over the share class.
You might also look into converting the Roth shares to APDKX. A straight conversion might even help avoid the transaction fee. I haven't done this at Schwab, but I've tried conversions at Fidelity with mixed results:
- I had an unusual share class of one fund. When the "A" shares were given NTF status (load-waived, no fee), I asked to convert my shares to A shares to shave a few basis points off the ER. Fidelity was willing but said that the fund company had to allow it, and they wouldn't. (This was in a taxable account, so I wasn't going to sell at a gain to repurchase on my own.)
- I had retail shares of closed fund. The fund prospectus said that any owner of that fund could open another account in the same fund. So when I had enough to qualify for the institutional share class, I asked Fidelity to convert the shares. Here too, the fund company balked at the idea of opening a new account, regardless of what the prospectus said. The fund company finally agreed once it realized that I was just converting an existing account. But that shouldn't have mattered.
Lesson learned: one may be right about the rules, but one still needs to get the fund company to cooperate. If you can't do a straight conversion in the Roth, you could look at buying $1K of APDKX (to establish the Roth account), then selling all ARTKX shares and buying more APDKX shares. You'll get charged a transaction fee but you'll have cheaper shares for the long run.
Finally, if all else fails and Artisan won't let Schwab open APDKX accounts, you could try opening the accounts directly at Artisan and then transferring them in-kind to Schwab. However, at Artisan, APDKX has a $250K min (see prospectus), so you might have to do some maneuvering to temporarily boost your account (and then sell off some shares when the account is moved to Schwab).

Thank you to everyone for their input, and especially @briboe69 to verify what we thought we needed to do.
We have started the process, as per the paperwork received. I will update this thread as everything progresses in the future.
One last 'complaint' about our wonderful world of all things online. We've had a 'home' online presence since 1997; and have fully enjoyed the experience. My 'work' career had me involved with technology for more than 40 years; and many more years of keeping 'up' with everything involved with technology at home.
While I understand the ongoing attacks and system breaches of data centers of all sorts; I keep my fingers crossed that all organizations are spending the money needed to hire the folks they need to attempt to stay ahead of the hackers.
We keep all of our home systems up to date and use VPN for online; and anti virus programs. The only periodic downside for VPN is that it has to be disabled for access to some online accounts. A small bother to deal with for some protection.