Reality check - How many of your current holdings (aside from cash) did you possess …
- 20 years ago?
- 25 years ago?
- 30 years ago?
None of mine date back 25 years (1998 or earlier). But three go back over 20 years. Two are multi-asset funds (10% of portfolio each). The third is a balanced fund (5-7% of portfolio).

I think a lack of discipline or psychology plays a role in selling a 30-year TIPS before maturity, but that characterization puts the reason for selling completely on the investor's shoulders as some sort of moral or psychic failing. A lot can happen to one's finances in 30 years that may have nothing to do with discipline and everything to do with unavoidable liquidity needs. I've seen some market commentators point out that if you just bought and held onto stocks through the Great Depression you would've done fabulously. Meanwhile unemployment peaked at 25% in 1933. Many people in such circumstances were understandably afraid and sold after an 89% decline in the Dow from peak to trough, but just as many I imagine had no choice but to sell to stay alive back then. Discipline or a lack of it has nothing to do with selling for unemployed people who have to pay their bills. That is is the unseen personal 30-year risk in holding such a long-term bond. Today, I would think unforseen health risks, might be a more likely reason for selling before maturity, as uncovered medical bills are still a large cause of bankruptcy in the U.S. But recessions, job loss, and selling of securities do tend to go hand in hand.
I would add just from a market history perspective, that leverage plays a really terrible role in the above recession/depression scenario. A recession hits, people lose their jobs, stocks fall and suddenly investors are getting margin calls on their leveraged bets which they can't pay because they're out of work. That forces them to sell their securities even if they want to hold on for a recovery. Worse, when they sell, that puts further downward pressure on the market and more people who consequently get margin calls. Selling begets selling and you end up in a weird kind of death spiral caused by leverage. My impression is margin levels were really high and easy to get prior to the Great Depression. And we saw just what happened with leverage in the 2008 crash. And now we see what happened with SVB, and seemingly safe Treasury bonds. This is why the FDIC exists, and they label banks too big to fail, although I think there are other ways of addressing these problems that benefit the public more and banks less.

Retail investors may not have the fortitude to hang on to 30-yr TIPS. But IMO, holding 5-yr TIPS to maturity and rolling them over (and laddering) should work fine too to approximately capture the CPI. The real-yields (TIPS yields) have been in +/- 2% range most of the time (FRED charts go back to 2003 although TIPS started a few years back in late-1990s), so it isn't as if the investors would miss the boat on locking high real-rates. BTW, the current real yields are 5-yr 1.20%, 10-yr 1.16%, 30-yr 1.44%.
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=1264R
https://home.treasury.gov/resource-center/data-chart-center/interest-rates/TextView?type=daily_treasury_real_yield_curve&field_tdr_date_value=2023

You'e not missing anything. In order to invest competently, you need 4 skills/proclivities:
1) The horsepower to do the math.
2) An interest in the subject.
3) The knowledge base (historical returns, a working grasp of the finance literature)
4) The discipline to stay the course in the worst of times, so as not to interrupt compounding.
Lack any one of them and you're screwed. What percent of the population do you think has all 4 of the above?

Nice exchange. Thanks gentlemen. I’ve mostly avoided TIPs because I find them difficult to understand / analyze. Thats’s admittedly a stain on me rather than the product or its proponents. However, I have two possibly related thoughts: (1) Any investing approach recommended to the public should also take into account the relatively short time-span adhered to by most retail investors (“the public”) today. One may argue the merits, but such is greatly encouraged and facilitated by modern technology, 24-hour connectivity, no-cost / low-cost trading platforms, etc. If I understand the 30-year TIPS concept correctly, it’s intended as a long term “buy and hold” strategy. (2) Per my previous point, investor psychology would seem to be the unseen elephant in the room here. Would those who bought into the approach have the necessary “staying power” during tough times to see it through to fruition? Most I fear would not.
Apologies if I’m missing something and the laudable goal of the concept advanced is fundamentally to promote long-term investing. To that I say good luck. / George Bernard Shaw (RFK) - “Some men see things as they are …”

All ratings have been updated on MFO Premium site through March. Tools include MultiSearch, Great Owls, Fund Alarm (Three Alarm and Honor Roll), Averages, Dashboard of Profiled Funds, Dashboard of Launch Alerts, Portfolios, Quick Search, Fund Family Scorecard. The site now includes several analytics, including Charts, Compare, Correlation, Rolling Averages, Trend, Ferguson Metrics, Calendar Year and Period Performance.
Since Friday was last day of month, Lipper's Saturday morning data drop enables us to get early view. Usually, a few funds are dropped because their monthly performance numbers get delayed. But, should be close for 1st quarter review.
Beginning soon, updates will be each weekend, reflecting performance through Friday ... for most funds anyway.

Good read. Don’t bet the farm on any particular point. Conventional wisdom. Wish the 10-year would get back up above 4% where I’d plunk a portion of cash back into GNMA. Just a hunch that that’s a more profitable (in & out) trade than at the current rate around 3.5%. Yes, short term rates have fallen dramatically in recent weeks.
The insights into falling commodity prices are of interest (although precious metals / miners have surged this year). Suspect the commodity downturn is normal after a very heady period. Should level off. Checking 3 commodity related funds I’ve owned in the past (but no longer own) …
1-Year Return … 3-Year Annualized
PRAFX -11% …….… +19%
PRNEX - 2% ……..… +26%
BRCAX - 8% ……..…. +22%
*Numbers (rounded) from MarketWatch

That would correspond with the two emails I got from Fidelity 11:45PM Friday evening:
(1) FCONX has closed to new investors
(2) FCRDX has closed to new investors
FCRDX shares were likely moved to FMNDX.
Fidelity's web page(s) may be a little slow in making changes, but the filings have been updated (and are available on the website).

Fidelity® Conservative Income Bond Fund/FCNVX
In this summary prospectus, the term “shares” (as it relates to the fund) means the class of shares offered through this summary prospectus.
Fidelity® Conservative Income Bond Fund, a class of shares of the fund, was formerly known as Institutional Class.
Summary Prospectus
October 29, 2022
As Revised April 1, 2023
...
There is no purchase minimum for shares of the fund offered in this prospectus.

Summary Prospectus
With a pretty flat short term yield curve and rates still rising, I haven't paid much attention to this fund (SEC 30 day yield 4.60% after waivers), preferring MMFs like FZDXX (SEC 7 day yield4.66% after waivers). Given that you have under $100 in the fund, it looks like you concur.

A Fido email came on trades when I didn't do any.
On a/c login, I found that Ultra-ST FCONX (formerly, Investor class) was auto-converted into FCNVX (formerly, Institutional class). Fido website doesn't even recognize FCONX ticker now, while other sites still do. Fido FCNVX info isn't updated either as it still shows $1M minimum - that of course isn't true anymore as my current balance is UNDER $100.00.
I was surprised by this sudden change for which there was no prior notification.
FCONX was among the rare Fido funds to which frequent-trading didn't apply. I checked that remains valid for FCNVX.
Another good change was that the new ER for FCNVX is just 25 bps.
https://fundresearch.fidelity.com/mutual-funds/summary/316146521

Great article that summarizes David Giruox’s many interviews he gave in last several years. In light of this large asset base ($47.4) fund, he manages to move and to execute very well in his portfolio in order to deliver this remarkable results over the tenure as the fund manager.
Giruox also written on a book on “Capital allocation” and is available at Amazon that describes how companies can execute successfully in their business.
https://amazon.com/Capital-Allocation-Principles-Strategies-Shareholder/dp/1264270062

@Observant1, thank you so much for sharing Bilello’s blog and video, which will undoubtedly benefit this board.

March 31, '23.
Christine Benz is a longtime Morningstar personality. She's back with her bucket approach for retirement portfolio construction. It's never been a strategy I could ever hope to actually employ. And if I had the wherewithal, I find it to be just plain too complicated, anyhow. But have a listen, if you'd like:
https://wealthtrack.com/build-a-better-more-resilient-retirement-portfolio-with-morningstars-christine-benz/

31 March, '23:

+1.
Thanks, AndyJ.

I left an old 401(k) with the original provider who morphed into VOYA. I almost rolled over the money but in 20008 the advisor told me "You know the SV fund in your account has a lifetime guarantee of 4%
So I left it and it looked great until recently. Unfortunately he didn't tell me that they also offered PRCWX and it is still open to these account holders.
Now I have a real dilemma. If I sell the SV I loose that guarantee. New money in the SV gets what ever the prevailing rate is and it floats

March 31 edition. This isn't the same old-same old of the past couple of months; there's plenty of new discussion: extend duration or not, even if current longer duration yields don't look great right now, they likely will later; extent of tightening impact of the regional bank crisis; MBS in favor, on and on.
Kelsey Berro seems to be one of the best analysts who've been on the program for a while.
Note to self: time to think more about where the puck is headed instead of where it is and where it's been.

I thought I knew what stable value funds in a 401k were. I used them for years, but what you show looks to me more like an annuity.
Stable value fund is available in my 401(K) plan. It is an insurance product that invest in short term treasurys but has the liquidity like money market fund.
There's a lot of subtlety in attributes of these products that results in a fair amount of confusion. In a broad sense everything people have mentioned here is a stable value fund. In practical terms, the distinctions don't matter much.

stable value funds and their close cousins, guaranteed investment contracts, together accounted for 21.3 percent of the assets in such plans in September [2006]
...
The stable value funds in 401(k) plans are generally a pool of short-term bonds or other debt-market investments protected by an insurance contract known as a wrapper.... The underlying investments are generally corporate bonds, which yield more than government bonds but are also at a greater risk for loss of principal. He said Treasury bonds were a more secure long-term choice than stable value funds, which may be subject “to the law of unintended consequences."
...
Like other stable value funds in 401(k) plans, [the Trust Advisors Stable Value Plus fund] was not a mutual fund but a collective trust.

https://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/08/business/mutfund/08stable.html
"Stable value" can refer to even more varied investment structures. Historically, or "traditionally", these were insurance products - guaranteed insurance contracts like TIAA Traditional issued directly by an insurance company.

TIAA Traditional is a guaranteed insurance contract and not an investment for federal securities law purposes.

https://www.tiaa.org/public/learn/retirement-planning-and-beyond/how-do-traditional-annuities-work
"Stable value" evolved into a much broader range of investment structures. The common thread is the use of insurance to provide investment value stability.

Stable value investment options may be offered by investment managers, trust companies, or insurance companies in various structures, such as separately managed accounts, commingled funds or guaranteed insurance accounts. Sometimes a stable value investment option will be managed by a plan sponsor. While stable value investment options may be managed or structured in a variety of ways, the important similarity is the use of stable value investment contracts, issued by banks, insurance companies, and other financial institutions, which convey to the investment option the ability to carry certain assets at book value.

https://www.stablevalue.org/stable-value/ (Links in original)
For a brief shining(?) moment, stable value funds were offered in retail IRAs. But SEC concerns about pricing led to their demise:

[Stable value as an] investing option has disappeared for individuals [in 2005] because of questions raised by the Securities and Exchange Commission about how to value the funds, although no formal ruling against them has been made.
...
Stable value funds have been available for many years, and remain available today-although on a much more limited basis-in some 401(k) plans and defined benefit pension plans maintained by employers. These investments come under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Department of Labor, which has strict, but somewhat different regulations, from the SEC. The SEC's questions affect investments by individuals in IRAs ...
Scudder launched the first stable value IRA fund in 1997, offering the funds as Scudder Preservation Plus Income and Scudder Preservation Plus. Others were offered by PBGH, Gartmore Morley, Oppenheimer and other mutual fund managers.
But the SEC began raising questions about how to determine the daily valuation of funds with insurance wrappers, which managers had been pricing at book value. The wrapper agreement, which is what made the stable value fund what it was, was also the part that was raising questions at the SEC. The SEC, which initially approved the funds, will not comment on the situation other than to say that there are no stable value funds now registered with the SEC, although there are some nonregistered ones in existence, says John Nester, an SEC spokesman.

https://www.fa-mag.com/news/article-1120.html?issue=56

Here is a link to the full article for the above quote.
https://investor.morningstar.com/articles/1147944

It appears that Bramshill is trying to attract more investors. In addition of the high ER, it is on transaction-fee platform, $49.95 to purchase at Fidelity. Here is the fund’s performance since inception.
https://fundresearch.fidelity.com/mutual-funds/performance-and-risk/89832P515?type=sq-NavBar