iShare Treasury ETFs
SGOV 0-3m
SHY 1-3 yrs
IEI 3-7 yrs
IEF 7-10 yrs
TLH 10-20 yrs
TLT 20+ yrs
TFLO FRNs
GOVT Mixed

Loeys is avoiding government bond, high yield, and oversea (currency) bonds while he is okay with foreign stocks. Also he is avoiding commodity and tech sectors and they can be added when necessary. So there is some level of customization in his asset allocation as oppose to those allocation used in target date funds.
It would be interesting to back test his allocation for the past 10 years.

7-10 yr Treasury IEF may have the most kick from 10-yr.

Just looked at IEI which is 7-10 Treasuries. I’ve decided to stay put. The international etf has a bit in EM bonds. I believe there’s some appreciation potential there as well (but don’t repeat that)

7-10 yr Treasury IEF may have the most kick from 10-yr.

I’ve long held a slug in international bonds thru an etf. Seriously considering shifting that into an etf that’s about 70% U.S. & 30% foreign. ISTM that with the 10 year near 5% U.S. bonds are the better choice now. What am I missing?

For TIAA-CREF (T-C) funds,
T-C G&I TIGRX / TRGIX 18.42% / 17.90%
T-C LC Value TRLIX / TRLCX 5.95% / 5.98%
Following are not large but notable for index funds.
T-C LC Value Index TILVX / TRCVX 2.52% / 2.47%
T-C SC Blend Index TISBX / TRBIX 1.46% / 1.46%
T-C LC Growth Index TILIX / TRIRX 1.27% / 1.26%
A common theme of these index funds is the use of Russell indexes that aren't selective and reconstitute in a poor way (all on a preannounced day).

Funds that invest in VARIABLE rate securities tend to be less volatile (because of smaller duration) than those that invest in similar quality fixed-rate securities. Of course, they work the best in steady or rising rate environment.
This year, junky FR/BL have done the best. The Treasury FRN USFR is doing well too.
Treasury ZEROS may work for some who want built-in reinvestments and have some goals for specific years. There are lots of them available in the secondary market. Treasury strips are made out of regular Treasuries by separating the principal and interest payments. So, a 30-yr Treasury may become 1 huge "principal" piece and 30 smaller "interest" pieces. Because of this, Treasury ZEROs of variety of maturities are available. Yes, they are volatile but will pay 100% at maturity. Example - $100 10-yr 5% ZERO can be bought for $61.39 only; it will be volatile, but will pay $100 in 10-yrs. It may be difficult to buy CDs beyond 7-10 yrs.

AAII Sentiment Survey, 10/18/23
BEARISH (barely) became the top sentiment (34.8%; above average) & neutral remained the bottom sentiment (31.3%; average); bullish became the middle sentiment (34.1%; below average); Bull-Bear Spread was -0.7% (below average). Investor concerns: Budget; inflation; economy; the Fed; dollar; crypto regulations; market volatility (VIX, VXN, MOVE); Russia-Ukraine war (86+ weeks, 2/24/22-now); Israel-Hamas; geopolitical. For the Survey week (Th-Wed), stocks were down, bonds down, oil up, gold up, dollar up. The DC is clogged without a House Speaker. Bond vigilantes are lifting the long end of the rates. #AAII #Sentiment #Markets
https://ybbpersonalfinance.proboards.com/post/1215/thread

"I’ve never bought a bond directly (aside from some savings bonds years ago). But I do know that 0-coupon bonds are extremely volatile."
I don't think I'd ever buy a zero-coupon bond or fund with a VARIABLE rate. Or an NAV which moves up and down. Kinda defeats the purpose. I bought a 10-year zero lotsa years ago. Predictable, steady. No surprises. The income every year was counted as taxable, though you see nothing "real" for 10 years.

Tonight on CNBC every Treasury bill, note, and bond listed is either at or above 5%, or right on the doorstep (only the 5y and 10y).

Better Loeys at the following link, which I got to from the article posted above.
https://www.ft.com/content/651cc7a4-27e3-4026-9381-76421a0203bb

An essay in yesterday's Financial Times argues in favor of radically simplifying one's strategic asset allocation. It argues, at base, that unusual assets produce unusual returns only until they are discovered by the hoi polloi and the industry arbitrages away the exceptional gain. As a result, the real money is made by first movers and the real costs are borne by those of us who try to get in later.
Here's the core:

On average, research shows around 100 per cent of their total returns can be ascribed to their choice of policy benchmark [i.e., their strategic asset allocation], along with around 90 per cent of their return volatility. The outcomes of those judgments are often complex.
Jan Loeys, JPMorgan’s veteran asset allocation guru, says in a recent client note that this complexity is both pointless and counterproductive. Pointless, because investors need only two assets: a global equity one and a local bond one, with the relative amounts driven by their ability to withstand short-term drawdowns and return needs. (Less is more when it comes to strategic asset allocation," FT.com, 10/17/2023)

The FT allows subscribers to share a limited number of articles with non-subscribers, so that link should work for folks who want to look at the argument but don't have an FT account.
David

BTW, the expected yield on the 20-year Treasury bond auction today is 5.156%

Many investors think that the 20-year is a good buy now. 20 years of 5% interest will work for many folks. But once interest rates start declining you will make a nice CG on the bonds you own. Any kind of market timing is difficult. If one doesn't hit the highest yield, 5% is still great and most likely will be great a few years from now.

All of the Primecap Odyssey funds, which are in multi-year outflow mode, are distributing over 5%. (Looks like the Growth fund is doling out almost 12%, which comes on top of bottom quartile 5-yr. relative performance in its category, so no surprise people are exiting.)

@TheShadow has an annual thread on fund distribution links.
This thread is to note mutual funds/OEFs that have outrageously high yearend distributions. Culprits are high outflows and/or recent manager changes (new managers want to start with fresh portfolios for their tenure).
This problem isn't significant for ETFs, but those too can have notable CG distributions when there are heavy outflows (their advantage of "in-kind trading without tax impact" basically runs out). Vanguard's dual OEF and ETF class structure also bites because both VG OEFs and VG ETFs have identical CG distributions (as % of prices).
M* RK has noted 3, https://www.morningstar.com/funds/3-funds-whose-tax-bills-might-tick-up
AKREX, outflow 9.2% of AUM
VPMAX, outflow 6.8% of AUM
DHSCX, outflows and manager change, 03/2023 (from the link at @TheShadow, est 21.65%!)
Too early for the amounts of CG distributions.
Posters should add more as they learn about large ( > 5%) yearend CG distributions.

from the great John Waggoner
The S&P500 quarterly income tax rate for Q2 2023 was 18.81%, down from the Q1 2023 20.20% rate, down from the Q2 2022 20.05%, significantly lower than the pre-Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017's Q2 2013 29.53% (10 years ago), and 48% lower than the Q2 1998 35.84% rate (25 years ago).
Good thing they're passing those savings on to their customers!

@Yogibearbull - Thanks for clarifying. Guess I’ll have to sell it than! For years I’ve been under the false impression it was a bond fund. Actually, not knowing what I’m doing sometimes works better than when I know what I’m doing.
Yes, M* shows CVSIX to have only a small weighting in bonds. Looks like 15-20% on their pie chart. However, Lipper puts the bond holdings somewhat higher at 46%. Bonds & cash combined come out to 65-70%.
ALLOCATION (CVSIX)
Bonds 45.94%
Stocks 34.79%
Cash 21.56%
Other -2.29%
(Figures from MarketWatch / Lipper)

Is CVSIX a bond fund? I think so. It’s up 7.1% YTD, 9.44% for 1 year, and has a 5 year annualized return of 3.38%, which compares favorably to cash over that period. Not all “bond funds” are equal.
(Numbers from M*)

I’m not trying to convince anyone to buy CDs and Treasuries, just trying to wrap my head around investing in them. For most of my investing history, cash investments have yielded next to nothing. Treasuries and short term bonds fared little better.
Many financial planners and experts say you can safely withdraw about 4% a year from a portfolio in retirement. I am unlikely to live 20 or more years, based on my family history, although my wife could. So, if I can buy a 20-year Treasury yielding 5.15%, that will pay more than my income needs for longer than my expected life span, what’s not to like? I have no intention in putting all of my portfolio in Treasuries, just a portion that would make up the long portion of a ladder.
I’m trying to decide whether to convert more of my bond funds into Treasuries. My bond funds are currently yielding close to 6% but continue to lose value. I know that at some point they will start increasing in value again, and selling now will lock in my losses, so I don’t plan to totally abandon them. But I no longer view them as low-risk investments to anchor my portfolio. I also plan to continue holding 40-60% of my portfolio in stock funds.
So, if I buy a 20-year Treasury that pays dividends semiannually, is that income compounded, or simply paid out in cash every 6 months? So far, the Treasuries I’ve bought are all zero-coupons that you buy at a discount and mature at full cash value. I haven’t bought any 5-year or longer Treasuries, so I don’t understand if the interest is compounded or simply paid out at regular intervals.

Asset class returns to 2023/Q3. Twitter LINK
Image Link https://pbs.twimg.com/media/F8uTaYrXoAAPtZB?format=jpg&name=large