the original jhqax fund is only down 9.72% ytd. but the new jhdax fund is down 12.35 ytd and the new jhtax fund is down 14.85% ytd. i would appreciate it if someone could explain the reason the 2 new funds are down so much more than jhqax. im fortunate that i have a position in jhqax.

What @larryB, @sma3 and I are seeing from SWVXX click within Schwab a/c is the following screenshot. It clearly says 0.60% as 7-day yield and that is WRONG, it is the distribution yield as seen in the following table of monthly distributions annualized using the main website data (that also shows CORRECT 7-day yield as 1.19%). So, it is BAD/WRONG presentation, NOT that Schwab is stiffing us for pennies. @msf makes a good point about rapid nonlinear rise in m-mkt rates.
2/15/22 0.0278%
3/15/22 0.0278%
4/15/22 0.0712%
5/15/22 0.2646%
6/15/22 0.6014%

While I a not sure I believe them, Schwab chat claims with fed reserve raising rates, next months payout will be close to 1.19%. The "waivers' apply to individual investors also he says.

That sounds more or less correct. As with MMFs generally, SWVXX declares dividends daily and distributes monthly. So the distribution on June 15th (this fund makes distributions in mid-month) includes the interest declared on May 16th, May 17th, May 18th, ..., June 14th.
The 0.000501157 per dollar invested that was paid on June 15th, which as @sma3 calculated comes to about 0.6%/year, is really the average of rates on each of these days.
https://www.schwabassetmanagement.com/products/swvxx (see distributions)
Rates have been increasing nonlinearly over the past three months. One expects that to continue for some time. The SEC rate quoted is the average of the interest declared over the past seven calendar days, annualized. That means interest declared June 21, June 22, ..., June 27th.
The midpoint of the days used to calculate the SEC yield of 1.19% is June 24th. The midpoint of the days for which interest was just paid (0.6% annualized) was May 31st. That's a difference of 3.5 weeks!
Both rates are correct. One just needs to be precise as to what "rate" means. The 0.6% rate is the rate of interest earned between May 16th and June 14th. The 1.19% is the rate of interest earned between June 21 and June 27.
If one extrapolates, the next payment, about July 15th, should be higher than 1.19%. That's because it will include interest earned June 15 - June 20 (6 days paying less than 1.19%), interest earned June 21-27 (7 days paying 1.19% average), and interest earned for about 17 days after that (paying more than 1.19%).
17 days at rates higher than 1.19%, 7 days at 1.19% (average), and 6 days at lower rates. That should wind up averaging more than 1.19%.
There is a 0.01% waiver in effect. So the annual yield without waiver would be about one basis point lower.

Yes, 3-5 year look-backs make more sense and are a more reliable indicator than 1 year. I too observe those statistics which @KHaw24 mentioned. As for dividends, well... I've begun to grow a sleeve of single-stocks which pay divvies. Of course, my big slug in FINANCIALS in PRISX will pay, but I won't see that until December. In the current stinky market, dividend payers have the advantage of "paying you" while we all wait for better conditions. My BHB Bar Harbor Bank pays quarterly, so that's the exception for me. My TRP Equity Income PRFDX does not yield as much as the ones you listed. @Bobpa

It's really not apples to apples compariosn to compare funds on a 1 yr basis. It's one the performance categories bit probably way down my list of importance. In simple terms, a lot of the 'top performers' on 1 year performance basis are in the same categories that held up diring the first half of 2022...Energy, Dividend paying funds, Large Cap Value etc...
I prefer 3 and 5 year numbers personally, especially returns vs category! I also look at Upside/Downside on 3 and 5yrs, SD, Beta, Yield (if any), Sector Allocation (usually a good indicator of the source of the outperformance), Concentration ...
As far as your hoices mentioned, I own SCHD as well so I'm not sure if you are asking to add another 'Value/Dividend ETF' in addition to that one?

I am considering exchanging some positions I have in some conservative allocation funds for some dividend ETF's. I have looked at some which have better 1 years returns, such as PEY, DVY, GCOW, SPYD, CDC, CDL, and DHS. Looking forward does it make sense to move from the 30-50% stock portfolio of conservative allocation funds to the ETF's? I already have a position in SCHD.
The dollars now invested in the CA funds probably would not be needed for 3-4 years. Any opinions on the move or the ETF'S being considered. PMEFX is the only CA Allocation fund I have that has held up well. It is now yielding 4.49% (according to Morningstar) and is about 15.5% of my total portfolio. If I was to move the other CA Allocation funds into it, the position would be 27% and I am not sure I am comfortable with that much in one position. Thank you for any comments.

While I a not sure I believe them, Schwab chat claims with fed reserve raising rates, next months payout will be close to 1.19%. The "waivers' apply to individual investors also he says. The $1.61 was on6/15 same day fed hiked rates

I saw the same data.
One of my smaller accounts received $1.61 on 6/15 on a SWVXX balance of $3217
Annualizing it and not accounting for compounding that is $19.32 a year
19.32/3217 is 0.6%
Will email them.

@larryB, sloppy updates. I just checked in my account,
SNVXX 7-day yield 0.45% as of 4/7/22,
SWVXX 7-day yield 0.60% as of 6/27/22.
These data are either stale or wrong.
Schwab website is showing 1.07% and 1.19%, respectively. https://www.schwab.com/money-market-funds

M-mkt ERs are quite different:
Vanguard VMFXX 0.11% (core/settlement)
Schwab SNVXX 0.35% (no core/settlement m-mkt funds at Schwab)
Fidelity SPAXX 0.42% (core/settlement) (Fido also has policy of sequentially tapping other better Fido m-mkt funds)
Keep an eye on 3-mo Treasury rates, $IRX (scale is 10x),
https://stockcharts.com/h-sc/ui?s=$IRX&p=D&yr=1&mn=0&dy=0&id=p99540670730

I just looked at take home after taxes ( Mass tax is 5%)
At Schwab Short term treasuries look the best with 3 mo 1.47 vs Schwab MM 1.11
Their muni MM at my tax rate is 0.64% pretty pathetic!
I guess the spread at 3mos implies that rates will be much higher by then, or is it just Schwab's fee etc?

I frequently used the old M* Performance charts to compare mutual funds.
You can see if Portfolio Visualizer (Backtest Portfolio) meets your needs.
It allows you to compare up to four funds simultaneously when a benchmark is specified.
Yearly returns are listed along with annualized returns for the 1 yr., 3 yr., 5 yr., and 10 yr. periods.
Annualized standard deviation for the 3 yr. and 5 yr. periods is also listed.
The following data is provided for the full evaluation period: CAGR, Best Year, Worst Year. Max. Drawdown, Sharpe Ratio, and Sortino Ratio, etc.

mfs, do you have a blog or other publication outlet? I want to follow :-)
Astonishing about the T. Rowe Price acquisition. A reminder that any time there is an old date for a name that doesn't match slightly younger yearbooks, Morningstar or Wiedenberger, then probably there is a merger of this kind, following perhaps arcane SEC rules about 'a fair rendition of the full history.' Or not, as in the two examples from your earlier post.
I can add one tidbit. The "Administered Fund Second" is in Table 264 of the 1939 SEC report, established 1934. The 1946 Wiedenberger yearbook indicates that Axe Houghton took it over and made it part of AH A. AH A and B were still separate as of 1966 (my latest W*). AH B was very small in 1946, too small for Wiedenberger to discuss, but had come into its own by 1955.
My guess is that both A and B were consolidated prior to the T. Rowe Price merger, but that's supposition. Both were balanced funds, at least by 1955.

Fidelity's site will give similar comparison data, but only for funds they sell. That includes all funds and share classes the sell, not just their NTF funds. But it omits funds like Admiral shares of Vanguard's actively managed funds (e.g. VWIAX).
https://fundresearch.fidelity.com/fund-screener/results/compare/overview/averageAnnualReturnsYear3/desc/1?order=tickers&tab=sn&tickers=VWINX
You'll find one month and three month performance on the short term performance tab. No weekly performance, no 15 year performance.
On the Morningstar site, until it vanishes later this year is the actual fund compare tool. This gives YTD, 1 month, 1, 3, 5 year data. But not 3 month, 10 or 15 year performance figures.
https://www.morningstar.com/funds/screener-compare
Alternatively, if you have premium membership, you can use the premium fund screener (specify precise funds by screening on tickers). The performance tab gives YTD, 4 week, 1, 3, and 5 year data. But not 3 month, 10 or 15 year performance figures.
However, you can create a custom view to display all the time periods you are used to getting.
https://www.morningstar.com/funds/screener-premium

Once the M* "Performance" page changed to its current self, I kept using the old link to the page to compare up to 6 funds at a time. It seems that link is no longer working/supported.
Any suggestions on other sites that have a good comparison tool with similar performance data as the old M* Performance page? The M* compare tool included daily, 1 week, 1 month, 3 month, YTD, 1 year, 3 year, 5 year, 10 year and 15 year performance data. Sure miss it already!

Not sure if it's had the same name?
That would be a good guess. But it wasn't quite a name change. Kiplinger says that T. Rowe Price only started its first mutual fund in 1950.
https://www.kiplinger.com/article/investing/t041-c009-s002-top-funds-from-t-rowe-price.html
In 1992, T. Rowe Price buried the real history of this fund (which existed at the time) and substituted the history of a different fund, Axe-Houghton Fund B, which had an earlier inception date. In short, RPBAX was created well after 1939, but you'll never know when.
According to RPBAX's SAI,

On August 31, 1992, the T. Rowe Price Balanced Fund acquired substantially all of the assets of the Axe-Houghton Fund B, a series of Axe-Houghton Funds, Inc. As a result of this acquisition, the SEC requires that the historical performance information of the Balanced Fund be based on the performance of Fund B. Therefore, all performance information of the Balanced Fund prior to September 1, 1992, reflects the performance of Fund B and investment managers other than T. Rowe Price.

In 1992, the NYTimes reported:

T. Rowe Price, a large no-load family ... took over six funds with total assets of $546 million from the struggling insurance company USF&G.
...
five [of the] USF&G funds, and the funds they have been mingled with, are Axe-Houghton Growth, now part of T. Rowe Price New America Growth; Axe-Houghton Income, into T. Rowe Price New Income; RMC European Emerging Companies, T. Rowe Price European Stock; Axe-Houghton Fund B, T. Rowe Price Balanced; USF&G Cash Reserves, T. Rowe Price Prime Reserve.

https://www.nytimes.com/1992/10/03/your-money/IHT-briefcase.html
Here's a little bit more about Axe-Houghton Fund B and USF&G:

Prior to 1992, Axe-Houghton Associates was named Axe Core Investors, and was wholly-owned by Axe-Houghton Management, a subsidiary of insurer USF&G. Axe-Houghton Management’s services included mutual funds and institutional asset management. In 1992, concurrent with USF&G’s sale of Axe-Houghton Management’s mutual fund business to T. Rowe Price Associates, Inc., senior management of Axe-Core Investors purchased the institutional asset management business of Axe-Houghton Management. Axe-Core Investors subsequently changed its name to Axe-Houghton Associates. In 1993, the Hoenig Group Inc., a publicly-traded financial services company, purchased Axe-Houghton Associates.

http://www.managerreview.com/su_companydetails.php?iCompanyId=906&CompanyName=Axe-Houghton Assoc.
Axe-Houghton Fund B apparently dates back to August 5, 1938, but it might not have been offered for sale until its stated 1939 inception date. I'll leave it for others to resolve that minor discrepancy.
https://opencorporates.com/companies/us_de/366229

Late last week uptick is more like relief rally. Everything is down again on Monday. Listened to @hank’s Wall Street Week posting again. This year will be not be easy to get back to positive territory given that S&P 500 is down 18% and total bond index is down 11%. Earning season is coming in July.

“The numbers: U.S. pending-home sales rose in May by 0.7%, according to the monthly index released Monday by the National Association of Realtors. Analysts polled by the Wall Street Journal had forecast the pending home sales index to drop by 4%. This increase breaks a six-month decline, and comes as mortgage rates continue to rise. - MarketWatch
Could be folks are trying to get out ahead of steeper rate increases they may think are coming.

@Derf - Here’s a somber reminder that not all cats can bounce.
https://tenor.com/view/dead-cat-cpr-funny-animals-cute-revive-gif-13712625

Before Morningstar there was the Wiesenberger annual yearbook, "Investment Companies." First published about 1941, it tailed off about 2000.
Readers of John Bogle may recognize the name: his historical compilations drew on Wiesenberger, especially the 30-year returns study he mounted in preparation for launching the S&P 500 index fund.
I've been picking up copies on the used book market (only the 1943 volume is free to read on books.google.com). I have pretty good spacing, enough for my needs, from 1943 through 1966. (Goal is to assemble historical returns for funds no longer in M*; Wiesenberger gives trailing ten year returns, so I only need a volume every N years).
My university library has all the volumes after 1952, but it is a couple hundreds of miles away and an overnight stay to access. That trip would cost me some hundreds of dollars plus the discomforts of travel, and I'd inevitably forget to copy something. Meh.
It occurred to me that members of this forum might have older copies no longer of use, which would save me that trip.
I would like to buy anything prior to 1946 (excepting 1943), and also, anything from 1971 to 1977.
If interested, please message me. I paid $30 to $40 each for the older volumes, would expect to pay more for the fatter volumes published in the 1970s. If you want it to be a donation to MFO instead, that's fine too. (I'll donate for scans of key pages, even, if you are the fortunate person who owns a complete set of Wiesenberger.)
I'm not a reseller, BTW; these will sit on my shelf next to old copies of Moody's, old copies of the SBBI, old copies of Poor's Railroad Manuals, etc.
Its good to be retired with discretionary income to spend on hobbies :-)