It's all good, FD. PIMIX is still good for long term holders. I'm meeting my goals. That is what is important to me. Keep convincing yourself that getting 5% per year with low SD is the only game in town. I guess there's a reason people live in Georgia :o}

Again, the thread is not about me but after you couldn't come up with anything to debunk the original post you resort to make it personal. I never said that what I do is the only game in town, it works extremely well for our portfolio. I actually posted many times that the average Joe should buy several funds (indexes+managed) and hardly trade.
But, please don't worry about me. I posted the following about a week ago, so I will just copy it below.
Remember, since I retired in 2018, we have enough money to sustain our standard of living for another 40-50 years if our portfolio will make just 4% annually including inflation. Our portfolio is 35+ times our annual expense without our SS. This is why I set up the following goals: make 6% average annually with the lowest SD I can get (preferably under 3) and never lose 3% from any last top. We don’t care about maximizing performance anymore but to meet our specific goals. To do that I use mainly bond mutual funds + several short term trades (hours-days) using stocks/ETF/CEFs/other. The 3 year results are much better than my goals. I never lost more than 1% from any last top in the last 3 years. Below is a copy from my Schwab accounts as of yesterday 10/14/2020 which is about 95% of our total money. There is no way to achieve these results without being a good trader and why I posted other funds too
3 year performance/SD...SPY 13.1%/17.7...VBINX (60/40) 10%/11.1....VWIAX (40/60) 7.04/6.6%...PIMIX 3.75%/5.6....IOFIX 0.2%/23.7
My portfolio performance was 9.9% annually for 3 year with SD=2.18
Below you can see an image of performance as of 10/14/2020 from Schwab. Column 1=one year...Column 2=YTD...Column 3=one year...Column 4=3 years

Below is the SD for one year and 3 years

BTW, welcome to MFO.

Thanks @hank,

Nearly 94 percent of his wealth was earned after he turned 60 - 99 percent of his wealth came after he turned 50

There hope for all of us.

Why would you choose this over say BIV? or the more volatile FTBFX?

Plug the symbols into Portfolio Visualizer and you'll see why. Not only does TCW have the best returns dating back to 2007 (with no down years) but lowest SD and highest Sharp. It's not even really close.

Huh? Do you also graph them $10k growth for 10-9-8-7-6-5-4-3-2-1y-ytd? That's the first thing I do.
From 8y on in, the other two match or much more often outperform TGMLX, except for ytd.
Same 4* rating as Fido bond too.
TGMLX has rather nicer behavior last March, but that's it.
Check it out:
http://quotes.morningstar.com/chart/fund/chart.action?t=TGLMX
So I was just asking what the compelling argument is.
Good outperformance by it 2007-2011, yes. A long time ago.

He looks to a poem when markets decline.
(From) his 2017 letter to shareholders, .... “The light can at any time go from green to red without pausing at yellow. When major declines occur, however, they offer extraordinary opportunities to those who are not handicapped by debt. That's the time to heed these lines from Kipling's If“
If you can keep your head when all about you are losing theirs ...
If you can wait and not be tired by waiting ...
If you can think -- and not make thoughts your aim ...
If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you ...
Yours is the Earth and everything that's in it.
Source / Above Excerpted From

if you've won the game stop playing.
Ah, the Suze Orman approach to investing (circa 2007):

Do you enjoy spending money? Oh, yes. My greatest pleasure is still flying private. I spend between $300,000 to $500,000, depending on my year, on flying private.
What do you do with the rest of your money? Save it and build it in municipal bonds. I buy zero-coupon municipal bonds, and all the bonds I buy are triple-A-rated and insured so that even if the city goes under, I get my money.

(Even Orman concedes that in this low interest rate environment she puts some money into stocks, though most is still in munis.)
I'd like to introduce the "Dumbbell portfolio"
:-)
Universal Basic Income being discussed

The idea isn’t new. As [David] Frum notes, Friederich Hayek endorsed it. In 1962, the libertarian economist Milton Friedman advocated a minimum guaranteed income via a “negative income tax.” In 1967, Martin Luther King Jr. said, “The solution to poverty is to abolish it directly by a now widely discussed measure: the guaranteed income.” Richard Nixon unsuccessfully tried to pass a version of Friedman’s plan a few years later, and his Democratic opponent in the 1972 presidential election, George McGovern, also suggested a guaranteed annual income.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/08/why-arent-reformicons-pushing-a-guaranteed-basic-income/375600/
Virtually every fund prospectuses (including those pertaining to bond funds) contains the warning: “You may lose money”.
That includes not only bond funds but money market funds, including Treasury MMFs. It's a matter of understanding what the risks are and rationally evaluating whether particular choices are worth the risks to you. (I know that sounds like motherhood; the key word is rationally.)

It's all good, FD. PIMIX is still good for long term holders. I'm meeting my goals. That is what is important to me. Keep convincing yourself that getting 5% per year with low SD is the only game in town. I guess there's a reason people live in Georgia :o}

Advances in robotics and artificial intelligence will lead to a net increase in jobs over the next five years but the coronavirus pandemic will result in “double-disruption” for workers, according to the World Economic Forum (WEF).
That will require a significant level of “reskilling” and “upskilling” from employers to ensure staff are sufficiently equipped for the future of work. According to the WEF, half of all employees will need some level of retraining in the next five years.

how-coronavirus-could-usher-in-a-new-age-of-automation

FD,
Bottom line is the FED funds rate does not result in longer term bond fund yields rising right away and in this case the changes up and down happened too fast. If you had cited increases in intermediate bond yields to make your point (whatever it was) or said that active managers can work around rate increases by changing what they own, that would have been clearer. Of course, I don't really believe they can to the extent you seem to think they can, but opinions vary, which is fine. About half of the funds you named have little or no ability to " make changes between categories and the duration", particularly in a short time frame. (DODIX,VWIAX, BIV, VCIT) So why did they do so well? Could it be that it has little to do with active management and big changes?
As for what I hold, you are behind the curve. I do hold significant PIMIX and PSLDX and SCHD and they make up 35% of my portfolio.

Usual bilperk comments and continuation from M* for years.
The OP stated several categories with indexes + managed funds to make my point. We discussed this for years before when you dismissed PIMIX for years when it was an excellent fund and you didn't hold it while I owned a huge % in it for several years until 01/2018.
Since 2018, PIMIX isn't as good as it used to be. AUM is a lot bigger with different % in its categories and why risk/reward isn't as good as before. I'm glad you finally bought it.
Talking about "behind the curve" from you is pretty funny :-)

Hmm.
Seems to me that what is being referred to as a barbell portfolio is really Taleb's anti-fragile portfolio...don't risk at all what you need and be very aggressive with a smaller percentage...similar to the ETF DRSK.. I think this makes a lot of sense in today's investing environment. Morgan Housel in his new book, The Psychology of Money has a chapter about greed and the "goalposts never stop moving"...ala Bernstein's statement, if you've won the game stop playing. Many can't stop tinkering with their portfolio and keep chasing higher returns when they don't have to.
With tongue in cheek and no disrespect meant to anyone, I'd like to introduce the "Dumbbell portfolio". That is when you think you are smarter than the markets, keep investing in an environment where there is untested money being "printed" by central banks across the world, socio-economic class warfare, fundamentals don't matter, structure of our work force is changing, debt up the wazoo, Universal Basic Income being discussed, casino/video gambling, weed legal, sports gambling legal, concealed carry, surveillance capitalism and algorithm brainwashing, what is next? Legalized prostitution? What the heck has this country turned into?! ...and you think it is safe to put your life savings in the stock and bond markets. Who says the guy who puts 10-15% of his dough that he doesn't need to live on in Bitcoin is nutso, I'm not so sure....
Remember...there is no saying that these low interest rates are going to be here forever, sure might be 2 years, 5 years, 10 years, but maybe not.
Rule one, don't lose money...
Good Luck to all,
Baseball_Fan

I don't see a lot of options for Joe the typical investor who like to hold several funds for years.
The main problem is bond funds. Index bond funds and even conservative managed funds such as VG funds will probably make 1.5-2% on average in the next several years.
If Joe is young then he should hold plenty of stocks.
If Joe is retired and wants to lower volatility and especially if he has enough money to keep his lifestyle then he must hold a lot more bonds. It's a lot harder now than several years ago and why Joe may use Multi sector funds. A fund like PTIAX is such a fund with about 4% yield, reasonable risk/reward, a possibility to make 4% annually which is worth it in my opinion.

FD,
Bottom line is the FED funds rate does not result in longer term bond fund yields rising right away and in this case the changes up and down happened too fast. If you had cited increases in intermediate bond yields to make your point (whatever it was) or said that active managers can work around rate increases by changing what they own, that would have been clearer. Of course, I don't really believe they can to the extent you seem to think they can, but opinions vary, which is fine. About half of the funds you named have little or no ability to " make changes between categories and the duration", particularly in a short time frame. (DODIX,VWIAX, BIV, VCIT) So why did they do so well? Could it be that it has little to do with active management and big changes?
As for what I hold, you are behind the curve. I do hold significant PIMIX and PSLDX and SCHD and they make up 35% of my portfolio.

@Derf, Are your bonds paying 5% (.05) or .5% (.005)...wouldn't .5% on $80K = $400, not $4K?

My original point was that for a long term investor, total cost of ownership is less if one pays the $75 fee up front. No argument that all else being equal, paying a fee to buy a fund with a lower ER comes out cheaper in the long run.
But some people balk at that. (Hence the alternative suggestion.) Actually, a lot of people balk at that - look at how many people would rather buy higher ER retail shares than pay a fee to get into lower ER institutional shares. Many people would buy HBLAX NTF over HBLYX with a transaction fee. Or they'd buy C class shares before paying a load for A shares (e.g. TEGBX over TPINX before the latter was sold load-waived).

Actually, I have a lot more problems with the original OP than the way he said it. First, he cites FED funds rate, but his examples are all over the board intermediate bonds. Did these funds see a 2.5% rise in their yields? I don't think so. Second, three years seems to be FD's go-to for making points. Anything can happen with bond funds (or stock funds) over a three year period. Third, "bonds are doomed" does not express my feelings nor have I even heard it before. I hear a lot about bonds being a poor investment at low rates but no so much at higher rates.
I think a good deal of the problem is that the OP is a trader, while most of us hold bond funds for stability and over longer periods than 3 years.
But, hey, don't get me wrong; I love that my bonds are doing well despite low yields. I just don't believe it can continue for long.

Hi bil. The point was bonds did not get hurt too badly as the FEDs lowered rates towards 0%. IT, MS, IG etc. all did OK. He wasn't really comparing fund types to FED rate.

Actually, I have a lot more problems with the original OP than the way he said it. First, he cites FED funds rate, but his examples are all over the board intermediate bonds. Did these funds see a 2.5% rise in their yields? I don't think so. Second, three years seems to be FD's go-to for making points. Anything can happen with bond funds (or stock funds) over a three year period. Third, "bonds are doomed" does not express my feelings nor have I even heard it before. I hear a lot about bonds being a poor investment at low rates but no so much at higher rates.
I think a good deal of the problem is that the OP is a trader, while most of us hold bond funds for stability and over longer periods than 3 years.
But, hey, don't get me wrong; I love that my bonds are doing well despite low yields. I just don't believe it can continue for long.

Now you're on a slippery slope toward a traditional portfolio asset distribution and away from a barbell (zero risk and high risk, nothing in the middle). Once you add bonds, you're proposing a different allocation regimen with likely higher risk as you noted (whether of negative rates or loss of principal from rising rates).
His barbell strategy:

A traditional strategy (note that the leftmost category excludes bonds):

Whoa --100K assets = 80 K X .5% ( Bondo's )+ 20K @7% so $400 + 1.4K += $1.8K On the other hand ,what if negative rates come into play !! ??
Some bed time thoughts, Derf
P.S. I stand corrected.

The equity profiles are quite similar, .....

Important to note significant differences between the two funds in equity holdings: VWINX 36% with HBLYX holding 44%.

True the equity/bond asset allocations are a bit different. Still, the equity profiles are similar:
VWINX vs. HBLYX:
LCV: 69% vs. 73%
LCBl: 21% vs. 15%
LCG: 2% vs. 3%
MCV: 5% vs. 6%
MCBl: 0% vs. 1%
Others: 0%
VWINX: 9.5% of equity is foreign (1.47% Canada, 1.48% UK, 6.59% Europe developed)
HBLYX: 9.4% of equity is foreign (1.69% Canada, 1.34% UK, 6.35% Europe developed)
Even in terms of equity allocation, the historical differences tend not to be quite so large. Closer to 5% than to 8%. Again from M*, VWINX vs. HBLYX:
2020: 36.46% vs. 41.46%
2019: 38.11% vs. 42.87%
2018: 36.90% vs. 40.15%
2017: 38.56% vs. 43.25%
2016: 38.30% vs. 41.27%

"In the past, both BlackRock and Vanguard have expressed a preference for such 'direct engagement'".
We've discussed the problems with this before. At least currently, Vanguard is the largest shareholder in WFC, and Blackrock is number 2. Either they've been asleep at the wheel, or "direct engagement" (at least with Wells Fargo) has left something to be desired.
"Meanwhile, the report broke out Fidelity's index funds run by subsidiary Geode from its active ones."
A quibble then a real question. Geode was spun off from Fidelity in 2003.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB106003396490241400
More to the point, the M* report broke out proxy votes for Fidelity's main (sole?) subadvisor. Did it do a similar breakout for Vanguard? The reason for this question is that Vanguard said it would start delegating proxy voting authority to its subadvisors. You write that Vanguard's votes on providing climate risk disclosures improved somewhat this year. A breakdown would help to see whether the improvement was due in part to the delegation of voting, or whether the delegation and the vote improvements were merely coincidental.

A barbell approach to asset allocation can work. It's one of several approaches to dealing with sequence of return risk. I've posted more than once about this. It's also what Buffett was suggesting with his recommendation of 10% short term Treasuries (effectively cash) and 90% S&P 500 index.
While I might suggest something closer to 20/80 (cash/equity) than 10/90, and I might suggest a bit more diversification on the equity side, I don't have problems with the general idea.
What do have problems with is what hank described as "a little nuts" - going 80/20 rather than 20/80.
If we assume inflation of around 1.4% (COLA for SS in 2021 is 1.3%) and a 7% rate of return on equity for the foreseeable future (a decade), an 80/20 mix may not even match inflation: 80% x 0% (cash) + 20% x 7% (equity) = 1.4%. And that's before taxes.