Thank you for all the effort in this thread.
Sorry, but may I be so bold to ask for the top 10 in Sharpe over 5 years?

Thanks for the update.
3. I wondered about the "analyst" ratings when I saw that nearly all funds had them. Now I know - as far as M* is concerned, analysts can be replaced by a computer - no asterisks ("Q notations") needed.
Here's M*'s paper on Morningstar Medalist Rating Methodology. The date on the paper (Version 1.0) is May 2, 2023. But the date shown for the paper according to a M* search is Jan 31, 2023. (Related to Yogi's comments about dates on M* papers.)
1. While M* still provides its basic screener, it's been very slow in updating its fund categories. So you won't be able to use it to screen for moderately conservative allocation funds.
2. M* started giving each share class its own rating before it retired the "classic" premium fund screener. So adding individual share class ratings did not necessitate dropping the "distinct funds only" feature. As with other screening criteria that were dropped from the Investor screener, dropping "distinct funds only" was strictly a M* design decision. The individual share class ratings merely highlighted an implementation flaw in the premium screener.
In applying "distinct funds only", the premium screener would first eliminate all but one fund class (typically the oldest) of each fund and then apply the other criteria. This meant that sometimes it would miss a fund that had a share class satisfying all the selected criteria. That happened when the oldest share class did not satisfy the criteria. The premium screener should have screened on the other criteria and only then selected one share class of each fund in the result set.

Pessimists get the microphone. Optimists make the money.

+1
What a surprise, economists have been wrong for decades.
Hint: every time someone predicts markets based on the economy, unemployment, valuation, inverted yield and many others, there is a big chance they are wrong about what stocks will do in the next 1-3-6 months.

"Aside from Social Security and other pensions, retirees may obtain guaranteed income from 1) traditional bonds, 2) inflation-protected bonds, or 3) annuities. For ease of presentation, this article narrows the list to one version of each: 1) Treasury bonds, 2) ladders of Treasury Inflation-Protected Securities, and 3) single-premium immediate annuities, also known as lifetime annuities....."
https://www.morningstar.com/bonds/retirement-income-treasury-bonds-tips-ladders-or-annuities

In my quick search with M* Investor Screener yesterday, I missed some usual hybrid favorites because:
1. M* has (again) changed allocation/balanced categories to descriptors: Conservative, Moderate-Conservative, Moderate, Moderate-Aggressive, Aggressive. IMO, it's good as I never liked the %based names (like Allocation/Balanced 30-50%, etc).
BTW, a new M* Category document that is typically published in April but is overdue (in the past, M* has just slipped in the new document but still with the April date).
2. Another recent M* change has separate ratings for classes, so the M* Investor Screener now shows zillions of AF classes that overwhelm the list. There is no way to suppress that (the old Screener had "Distinct Classes Only" option and that showed either the oldest class or that with the lowest ER). IMO, M* can leave the default as-is but add "Distinct Classes Only" option.
3. Some old favorites are Bronze or Neutral now. That can be explained by the terrible 2022 for hybrids that affected them differently (growth-oriented hybrids suffered more). But I doubt that many holders would swap out of them because of that. I noticed that but limited my mentions to Analysts Ratings of Gold/Silver only. For example, JABAX, a hybrid choice in my Schwab DAF is now Neutral, but if it remains that way, Schwab will likely kick it out and replace with something else.
Another recent M* change is the elimination of computer-generated Q-ratings. Justification provided is that the computer-generated ratings are now as good as genuine Analyst Ratings - may be a wishful thinking. I see lots of gobbledygook in the computer-generated ratings reports. M* needs more work on "Mo", its version of AI chatbot, or just use ChatGPT or Bard in the meantime.
FWIW, M* Analyst Ratings are forward-looking and based on multiple factors, while the Star-Ratings are purely based on past performance over 3, 5, 10 years (weighted). With old regular and Q ratings, this covered universe is now substantial.

The old screener enabled one to select on many criteria, including 5 year trailing percentile ranking. The new tool (I hesitate to call it a screener, with so few screening criteria) returns 452 share classes of moderately conservative allocation funds.
With the exception of various classes of American Funds College 529 funds for 2030 (e.g. CTHFX) and 2027 (e.g. CTSFX), and Dunham Enhanced US Market DASPX / DCPSX / DNSPX, they all have analyst ratings.
I suspect Yogi is surprised that some of the usual names aren't regarded more highly. I've never been enamored with the analyst ratings, so this doesn't surprise me. Though perhaps he can identify some funds that are missing. All the T. Rowe Price and Vanguard moderately conservative funds are rated silver or gold.
As to the OP's question, the Investor Screener says the top 5-10 funds based on five year performance are: FMSDX, VTMFX, USBLX, TNXAX, WBALX, TRIFX, HBLYX, GSBFX, TAIFX. These may not be in precise rank order because funds have multiple share classes and I tried to list the highest ranked share class that could be purchased by a retail investor.

Notice the typical IRS equivocating language: certain rights or benefits. Not all.
Here's the 12 month rule for intangibles:

Paragraph (f) of [26 CFR § 1.263(a)-4] provides a 12-month rule intended to simplify the application of the general principle to certain payments that create benefits of a brief duration. ...
(f) 12-month rule—(1) In general. Except as otherwise provided in this paragraph (f), a taxpayer is not required to capitalize under this section amounts paid to create (or to facilitate the creation of) any right or benefit for the taxpayer that does not extend beyond ... 12 months

26 CFR § 1.263(a)-4
You can go reading through all the exceptions and draw a legal conclusion, or you can apply some common sense. Virtually all bonds with coupon payments make payments at least annually. So if you buy a bond between interest dates, it is nearly certain that there will be a coupon payment within a year that more than covers any accrued interest you paid to the seller.
Consequently, if we assume that the 12-month rule applies to your bond, then it applies to virtually all bonds bought with accrued interest. So it is curious that the Sched B instructions say only that you can declare prepaid interest there if you get a 1099-INT.

When you buy bonds between interest payment dates and pay accrued interest to the seller, this interest is taxable to the seller. If you received a form 1099 for interest as a purchaser of a bond with accrued interest, follow the rules earlier under Nominees to see how to report the accrued interest. But identify the amount to be subtracted as “Accrued Interest.”

https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-prior/i1040sb--2022.pdf
I don't think you can willy nilly enter items on a tax Schedule when there's no instruction for it. You can't decide that you'll put your capital losses on Schedule B, though that would reduce your taxes. Instructions say what you can or must put on a schedule. They don't say what you can't or mustn't include. That's just common sense.

@msf, IRS rules specifically allow one in this instance to take a deduction for the Accrued Interest paid in the year paid. There is no magic or transformation suggested.
"Expense paid in advance. An expense you pay in advance is deductible only in the year to which it applies, unless the expense qualifies for the 12-month rule.
Under the 12-month rule, a taxpayer is not required to capitalize amounts paid to create certain rights or benefits for the taxpayer that do not extend beyond the earlier of
the following.
• 12 months after the right or benefit begins, or
• The end of the tax year after the tax year in which payment is made."
Page 8 Publication 538 (January 2022)
One of the benefit of taking a deduction in the year Accrued interest is paid to the sellers is it eliminates for me accrued interest deduction recording keeping on a bond by bond basis. Less chance of making a mistake and over or under reporting the deduction. Accelerating deductions is not important to me because I always have tons of tax overpayment which I always roll all of it into the next year estimated taxes. It is more important for me to get my tax returns done right so I do not have to revisit them in audits.
I was only asking what you would do so I may know the benefits of your choice that I may not have thought through. No need to answer.

@Derf - the links I provided (Baird, Tax Adviser) have pretty clear examples. Here's another page that's especially example-oriented.
https://thismatter.com/money/bonds/bond-income-taxation.htm
It has a section entitled US Treasuries that starts: "US Treasuries are taxed like other bonds and notes." It goes on to say that T-bills, being short-term debt (maturing in a year or less) are taxed at maturity, with the "gain" being taxed as ordinary income.
That "tax at maturity" rule for short-term debt is the reason why you don't have to pay tax on CDs of a year or less until maturity. But you have to declare interest annually on longer term CDs.
@BaluBalu - cash basis accounting is just the way most people naturally operate. Think of it as "checkbook accounting", or "cash flow accounting."
https://www.shopify.com/blog/what-is-cash-basis-accounting
As an example, one December I did some consulting cross country. I incurred my expenses in December and declared them on that year's tax return. The business mailed me a check between Christmas and New Years' and booked its expense that year. I received the check in the mail in early January. I declared the income the year I received the check, not the year I earned the income.
Cash basis accounting is not a way to magically transform investments into operating expenses. When you purchase a bond at a premium, part of each coupon payment is considered return of principal. If you pay $110 for a $100 bond, you don't get to deduct the premium when you make the investment. You reduce the taxable amount of each interest payment as the premium amortizes.
Same thing here - you're paying up front for a higher cash flow down the road. Not advice, only describing the way I would treat it.

Closest thing I own is DIVO. That's up about 1.0 YTD.

I bet you knew, which I did not, that DIVO holds 22 stocks!?
Plus Dow derivs and several other options.
My fear is that it is easier to fail than broader ETFs. (I already went through closing w effing RWGV, closed on account of not enough interest ....)

It holds 32 stocks according to M*, if they are over their most recent technical snafu.
It is also an MFO premium Great Owl, and a five star M* fund. Various numbers named after econ dudes go into conclusions like that, People can look them up to see if they satisfy their wonts.
AUM are at 2.9 billion. I have also looked at the stocks it holds. I'm not worried.
YTD returns are ahead of SCHD and VEIRX. Twelve month returns are perking right along.
And I love the fact that it pays monthly dividends.
That being said, everyone should do their due diligence, and stay in their comfort zone.

Closest thing I own is DIVO. That's up about 1.0 YTD.

I bet you knew, which I did not, that DIVO holds 22 stocks!?
Plus Dow derivs and several other options.
My fear is that it is easier to fail than broader ETFs. (I already went through closing w effing RWGV, closed on account of not enough interest ....)

I was surprised to learn this, though this does not apply to me -
"Market discount on a tax-exempt security is includible in taxable income as interest
income."
See the last sentence under Line 10 instructions to recipient of Form 1099-INT - https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f1099int.pdf
It was inconceivable to me that the IRS (i.e., tax rules) would make a distinction between new vs previously issued tax exempt securities in the total amount of taxable income recognition. I must be missing something here because this would artificially depress secondary market for tax-exempt securities, leading to more liquidity issues. May be just like the bank stress tests, the tax rules are myopic and assume that market discount is created by credit events and not by interest rate changes.
Form 1099-INT instructions for the payer. https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/i1099int.pdf
The payer instructions do not tell me where on Form 1099-INT the brokerage reports market discount on a Treasury obligation accrued at maturity (i.e., no election to include annually is made). My Fidelity account currently shows the market discount paid to me in 2023 under Total Realized Gain / Loss (Tax Info (Year-to-Date)). I am guessing this Accrued Market Discount received will be reported on Form 1099-B under item 1(f). I had asked a Fidelity rep about Form 1099 reporting of Accrued Market Discount and he said it will be reported on Form 1099-INT just like interest on Treasury Bills is reported.

@msf,
It seems I can take a deduction for Accrued Interest in the year paid (and not wait until the next year in which related coupon payment was received.)
https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p538.pdf see Expense Paid In Advance under Cash Method on page 8.
I paid Accrued Interest on some bonds in 2022 but the first coupon was not paid to me until 2023. This created more Accrued Interest paid than Interest Income from Treasury obligations in 2022. It seems I can take a deduction for all the Accrued Interest paid in 2022. My overall interest income is higher than Accrued Interest paid and so Line 2, Schedule B will not be negative.
Initially, I was planning to take a deduction only when the related interest income (coupon) was taken into account because that provides better matching of income and deduction. But as a cash basis taxpayer it felt weird to defer the deduction of Accrued Interest paid to the following year. Taking a deduction in the year paid also did not harm the IRS or any taxpayer. Yr 1, Seller reports income, Buyer reports the deduction for the same amount, and the IRS receives the tax on coupon in Yr 2 when it would have received if the seller did not sell the bond.
What would you do - when would you take the deduction for the accrued interest paid?
Thanks.

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1697196/000158064223003285/acpmi497stkr.htm
497 1 acpmi497stkr.htm 497
AlphaCentric Prime Meridian Income Fund
(the “Fund”)
June 22, 2023
The information in this Supplement amends certain information contained in the Fund’s current Prospectus and Statement of Additional Information (“SAI”) dated February 1, 2023.
______________________________________________________________________________
Due to the Fund’s small asset size and limited number of shareholders, the Board of Trustees of the Fund has determined that it is in the best interests of the Fund and its shareholders to apply for the deregistration of the Fund under the Investment Company Act of 1940. When granted, the Fund will operate as a private fund and certain legal protections afforded to shareholders under the Investment Company Act of 1940 will no longer apply.
In connection with these changes to the Fund, the Fund will not accept new investments, effective immediately.
* * *
You should read this Supplement in conjunction with the Fund’s Prospectus and Statement of Additional Information, 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 1-888-910-0412, or by writing to the Fund at c/o U.S. Bancorp Fund Services, LLC, 615 East Michigan Street, Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53202.
Please retain this Supplement for future reference.

QUAL v. JQUA - a SeekingAlpa article comparing the two June 8, 2023

The estimate Lewis Braham wrote:

An imperfect alternative is to find a substitute for a closed fund that either ... is run by the same manager. This March, T. Rowe filed for a prospectus for the Capital Appreciation Equity ETF, run by the same manager as the mutual fund ... the ETF will give investors a chance to access Giroux’s stock picks, but only those. In the mutual fund, Giroux also buys unusual bonds and bank loans. Moreover, the ETF ...will hold 100 stocks, while Giroux typically holds only 30 to 40.

That from his article on dealing with access to closed funds.

Interesting web call today from Doug Ramsey. Leuthold is, as you know, determinedly quant so it's rather more data-rich and informative than folksy and engaging. They've promised to share a copy with me, and I'll share it with you if I can.
Highlights:

• both yield curve inversions and six-month drops in the index of Leading Economic Indicators are pointing to a business downturn beginning in fall. Both are eight-for-eight with no false positives as predictors, though their "predictions" occur with "long and variable lags." The window for a yield curve inversion has been four to 16 months previously. Others observe that Fed actions presage recession by about two years.
  
• the last false signal from a yield curve inversion was in the mid 1960s. Doug talked a bit about the differences in economic conditions between then and now.
  
• the stock market generally rallies - on average by 13% - immediately after a curve inversion, before rolling over. Currently it's up 16%.
  
• US inflation has dropped like a rock but “…Fed policy has never been this tight with inflation having already come down significantly.”
  
• the stock market is not in a bubble, but in in the top 10% of historic valuations
  
• seven to nine stocks have gone crazy, driving all of the year's returns of the S&P 500. They're the best candidates for a smackdown.
  
• midcap valuations are good, small cap valuations are historically good. That judgment looks only at the valuations of the 80% of small caps that operate in the black, so "small quality" might be worth your attention.
  
• the valuation on small caps relative to large caps is as extreme as the late 1990s. Remember that the S&P 50 corrected by 50% in 2000-02. The S&P Equal Weight index and small caps vastly outperformed back then.
  
• assuming 6% earnings growth and normal valuations as the base, large caps are priced for 3.5% returns in the medium term, mid caps are 6-7% and small caps are at 8-9%. Foreign corporate earnings still have not returned to their 2007 levels which makes such calculations for EAFE and EM, given Leuthold's discipline, impossible.
  
• Average stock likely to perform much better over the next 3-5 years than the average index because the average index is so beholden to a few vastly overextended stars.
  
• Leuthold Core Investment today is 51% net equities with no evidence that they're going to drop toward their 30% minimum allocation; their investable universe looks like the S&P 1500 Equal Weight and that's not looking nearly as risky as it did 18 months ago.

Don't hold me to all of that yet. Those reflect my type-as-he-talks notes, and I'll need to cross-check against the original when I get it. I'm guessing that I got 95% right ... leading to only a 5% chance that I'm leading you to insanity, despair and poverty!
For what that's worth,
David

I personally believe Gold will do over the next 45 years what the SPY did the last 45 years. Too much debt fueled by "only so much gold on the Earth" hype behind it (think bitcoin 21M max). My opinion is in the minority but I believe steadfast regardless. I own zero but will acquire at some point going forward.

Thanks, @msf. That is very useful. I will study links in your post / the subject and post if I think anything useful can be added; otherwise, this is my last post in this thread.
Just an FYI for others, the Constant Yield Method vs Ratable Method are relevant only if the Treasury Obligation is sold before maturity. That is, one does not need to worry about these if held to maturity.
I looked at only the first 1/2 page of Baird write up @msf linked and can say that it is a very good write up for anybody interested in learning / refresher about Bonds / Notes, even if the tax issues mentioned in this thread are not relevant for you.

Anyone pay for M* services?
What are the top 5-10 funds in the Moderate Conservative Allocation Category for top Percentile Rank over 5 years?