It's just another lazy piece by someone with column inches to fill.
Do a M* screen for taxable bond funds, AUM >= $100 (million), and 15 year returns >= 7.17% and you get a similar top 20 list. The results aren't identical because the screen is being run a week later, but the results are similar. All 20 funds I find have 15 year performances well above 7%; the ones in the column in the aggregate merely average above 7%.
Most of the funds are indeed HY funds. That's to be expected. A diversified portfolio of HY bonds should have better raw performance than IG portfolios over the long term since risk is theoretically rewarded in the marketplace.
There's another class of funds that one would expect to have performed well anytime in the past 40 years as interest rates declined: long term and/or zero coupon funds. Not only is this not helpful, these funds are likely to be some of the worst performing funds going forward as interest rates rise.
In the article's list are two IG funds with extended durations:WHOSX (hard to get higher grade than Treasuries) and VWETX. Also in the list is American Century's last remaining target date zero coupon bond fund, BTTRX. For most of its life it had a very long duration, due in part to its target date and in part due to holding all zeros.
Other long term IG funds that my top 20 screen turned up include: DEEIX (at 8.55%/year, the best 15 year performance), VBLLX (an index fund despite the article saying all top performing funds were actively managed), and CLDAX.
There's even an EM fund, GMCDX / GMDFX , that outperformed some of the article's funds over the past 15 years.
When all is said and done, the article and my addendums are just mindless and relatively useless screens.

Based on MFO Premium analysis:
1. RPGAX rated higher than DODBX on lower risk over 1, 3, and 5 years period.
2. RPGAX has lower maximum drawdown in March 2020, -15.7% versus -21.0%, than that of DODBX. The recovery period is 7 months versus 11 months in favor of RPGAX.
3. The ulcer index and Martin ratio are higher in RPGAX than those of DODBX.
If you already own a growth-oriented allocation fund such as PRWCX, pairing it with the DODBX would allow you to capture the recent shift to value stocks.
Even DODBX's $15B asset is not small, the firm should able to manage it well. BTW, D&C only managed 6 funds.
If I don't have any balance fund, RPGAX would be a solid choice.

I recently added to RPGAX and don’t own or contemplate buying DODBX, so I am not a neutral observer. I agree with @hank that the “global” label does not make an allocation fund much different from a “domestic” one, although another allocation fund I own, JBALX, owns no international stocks. Not sure about it’s 555 bonds, however.

@crash,
It is the Russian government OFZ bonds that you have to look for. US banks and brokerages will be forbid to buy these bonds, effectively cutting off foreign cash flow. Russian government bonds pay higher yield, over 7%, since they are not investment grade. They also carry considerably sovereign risk: default on debt payment and wars.
Based on the annual reports of several EM local currency bond funds and they have some Russian bonds:
1. Pimco Emerging market local currency bond, PELAX, 7.8%
2. TRP Emerging market local currency bond, PRELX, 8.5%
3. Vanguard Emerging market bond, VEMBX, 2.4%
The non local currency emerging market bond fund, PREMX have 4.38% Russian Foreign Bond - Eurobond.
Eurobond is a bond issued outside the home country of the issuer through an international syndicate and sold to investors residing in various countries. You should be okay for now.

I own both. Good funds. This is purely hypothetical.
If you were going to sell part or all of one to raise portfolio cash, which is the better one to retain going forward (1-3 years)?
- In favor of keeping RPGAX: Has 10% in a Blackstone hedge fund that should protect somewhat in a bear market, has solid conservative management at TRP, probably has had a more level performance record since inception (but didn’t exist in 2008).
- In favor of keeping DODBX: Much lower ER (.53% vs .95%), Is more in-tune with the recent shift towards value, bond portion is managed by the same folks that run their excellent DODIX
MaxFunds is of little help. Forecasts a “worst case” (1 year) loss of 60% for RPGAX and a slightly worse 65% loss for DODBX. On the one-year upside potential, they’re rated identically. However, MaxFunds rates RPGAX much more highly overall. This appears largely based on their assessment that DODBX is bloated.
*Note - I don’t think the “global” vs “domestic” issue is worth fretting over here. DODBX typically holds some foreign stocks - more than one might think.

Unfortunately, the long list of bond funds that johnN posted are apparently all high yield funds. Using the best 15-year returns is not exactly very helpful if you want to have some diversity in the bond funds you select for your portfolio.
Fred

https://investornews.vanguard/5-investing-principles-that-are-built-to-last/
investing principles that are built to last
**Markets are unpredictable and investment fads come and go. Already in 2021, we’ve seen speculative behavior around AMC and Gamestop and overheated trading based on emotions rather than fundamentals. At Vanguard, we believe you can stay on the path to long-term financial success by avoiding trends and focusing on balance, discipline, and diversification.**
Is Jack Brennan Bogle*s long lost brother?

The old deck lumber we removed aged considerably and they hold little value. The climate here is tough on lumber products - hot in summer and wet in winter. The combined swelling and drying out processes require annual coating. Even at best effort the walking surfaces would last the most 5 years. Plastic lumber survives better and there are newer PVC-coated aluminum panels out now.

We resurfaced our deck several years ago with plastic lumber. Given the wet climate in Pacific Northwest wood products do not last. Last time I checked wood decking lumber was more than 40-50% higher than that of a year ago.

Built a new side deck with lumber last summer. I’m thinking if it keeps going up in value I may be able to tear it out and sell the lumber this summer for 50% more than I paid back than. :)
Certainly some “inflation psychology” evident with building products - despite the Fed’s admonition that it’s only “transitory”. What are they smokin?

We resurfaced our deck several years ago with plastic lumber. Given the wet climate in Pacific Northwest wood products do not last. Last time I checked wood decking lumber was more than 40-50% higher than that of a year ago. The pandemic does not help.
Other than T. Rowe Price New Era, PRNEX, I have not invested in other commodity funds/ETFs. PRNEX provides broad exposures to natural resources.
https://troweprice.com/personal-investing/tools/fund-research/PRNEX#content-portfolio
Other investment opportunities??

I will suggest; Cowpiecoin. High pressure molding and shaped properly would insure long term use.

@Catch22. I get the scent in the wind - so to speak. Many in northern Michigan have been grumbling lately about what they perceive as 50% jumps in prices of small “starter homes” (from around $200,000 to $300,000 or more) over the past year or so. Quite a bit of press coverage as well. But are you really suggesting something like this as a solution to skyrocketing materials prices?

“Lumber prices are up more than 35% this year, at $1,180.70 per 1,000 board feet as of April 13, after more than doubling in price in 2020. Also this year, steel futures have jumped 40% and iron ore trades nearly 7% higher. Copper has climbed 15%”
Barron’s April 15, 2021
LINK Link may not work. One trick I’ve learned is to do a web search for the exact words (cut and pasted) from a quoted article.
BTW - Columnist Jack Hough has a fascinating take on this in the same issue of Barron’s, asking “How about a wood-based cryptocurrency?” Suggested name ... Barkcoin
:)

Related
Crypto etf surpassed gld
https://www.kitco.com/news/2021-04-15/GLD-vs-GBTC-Grayscale-Bitcoin-Trust-to-surpass-world-s-largest-commodity-ETF.html
Maybe been buying wrong vehicle the whole time..Maybe add more GBTC

https://www.nasdaq.com/articles/cathie-wood-ark-funds-buy-750000-coinbase-shares-after-ipo-2021-04-15
Maybe good buy DODECOIN ARKK now...unclear if need to keep buying In 2022 or 23

If you’re anti Cathie Wood... feel free to skip this post. Otherwise, there’s a solid discussion of Coinbase and crypto ‘ Bitcoin going from 60K to 500K... around the 5:50 mark https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=SU_YjT6KvT8
And for a special surprise... Reddit users mentioned an odd sound at 8:56 and 13:33<— Worth it. It’s a bit more than standard fee compression.

If you own MSSMX (I do) then you already own some crypto currency. The fund is up 26.82% this year and one of its top 10 largest holdings (4.5%) is Microstrategy.
And so do the funds: RYWAX MACGX MSSGX TRZIX and FSSNX ... lots of MSTR shares... and MSTR (I believe) their worth is 80% made up of bitcoin exposure which their average cost is around 23-25K and BTC is at 60K right now. Numbers are approximate.

What he says: “Last year was an aggressive year for fixed-income performance with global central banks slashing rates as a result of COVID-19, and at the same time re-engaging in secondary market bond purchasing ...
True. But it went much further ...
“The Fed originally said participants in the corporate bond-buying facility must have at least a BBB credit rating as of March 22. That's the lowest rung of investment grade. However, it later opened the program to ‘fallen angels,’ which are investment-grade companies that have recently been dropped into junk territory. ... Not all junk-rated companies can participate. Firms must be rated at least BB- at the date of the purchase.” Source
Yup - If you start using Treasury’s printing press to scour up & guarantee some marginally investment grade BBB bonds along with some good ol’ junk-rated BB- you’re going to light a fire under the corporate bond market. That’s the reason corporates did so well. The Fed’s rate cutting plus frightened equity investors running into bonds didn’t hurt either.

Re: “Add Safety by Venturing Abroad”
Title’s a bit misleading. Try and find a prospectus for any foreign or global bond fund that doesn’t mention the increased risks of owning foreign bonds.
I’ve always allocated a small chunk to foreign bonds (5-10% of portfolio), mainly because I don’t trust the Fed and politicians to protect the buying power of the USD. Nice to have some foreign bonds just in case of a dollar rout. I’d hazard a guess that my foreign bond exposure over several decades has produced a somewhat better return than the domestic side has. But too many variables to pin down the advantage.
One variable is that more often than not your foreign bond fund is (fully or partially) hedged back to the U.S. dollar to reduce the volatility introduced by exchange rates. Another variable is the credit quality of the bonds owned. And a third is duration. Fees can be very high as well on foreign bond funds. A big variable is ability of manager to get the valuation / macro picture right and shift funds from country to country. TRP, IMHO, hasn’t been particularly successful at that over the years.
One fund I’ve owned before that doesn’t hedge back to the dollar is PRELX. But I haven’t been too impressed since it came out. Have been tempted to pick some up recently because it’s down a bit this year and probably due for some kind of rebound. However, a counter argument is that the EM bond market usually suffers when U.S. equity markets correct. So, it might be better to wait longer until the current U.S. stock euphoria wears thin.
An alternative to foreign bonds would be to invest directly in foreign currencies. Gets rid of interest rate risk. PRPFX does this to some degree and therefore benefits on days when the dollar is weak. Personally, about 10% of my portfolio is in DODLX. To be clear - this is a global bond fund, and often holds around 50% in domestic bonds, along with the international. The fund also dabbles a bit (5-10%) in the EM bond sector - adding incremental return without going off the reservation. With any bond fund, you want low fees, as fees consume a larger share of potential gains with bond funds. D&C does a decent job limiting expenses on all their funds.

@Baseball_Fan
Since everything is liquidated & in cash now, it would seem distribution should be straight forward & your figures seem about right unfortunately.
Also unfortunately, they are still recalculating NAV as of February 18 as well as all past NAVs for the past 2 years or more. So who knows what those numbers will be & when that distribution will occur.
And then there is the matter of "reserves".
This is their latest FAQ page dated April 8.
It might end up being more like a 50% loss, at least initially. But they did mention that there might be a second distribution as well.
Then there are the lawsuits- class action against the fund, Infinity Q Capital Management, and specific individuals responsible and also any potential lawsuit on behalf of the fund against Infinity Q Capital Management to recoup costs incurred through this whole process.
@wxman123
What SIPC Protects

SIPC protection is limited. SIPC only protects the custody function of the broker dealer, which means that SIPC works to restore to customers their securities and cash that are in their accounts when the brokerage firm liquidation begins.
SIPC does not protect against the decline in value of your securities. SIPC does not protect individuals who are sold worthless stocks and other securities. SIPC does not protect claims against a broker for bad investment advice, or for recommending inappropriate investments.
It is important to recognize that SIPC protection is not the same as protection for your cash at a Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) insured banking institution because SIPC does not protect the value of any security.

But there is at least one firm advertising to sue your broker if they recommended IQDAX.

DHSTX
YTD Return: 1.42%; 3-Yr. Annualized Return: 8.02%; 5-Yr. Annualized Return: 8.26%; 10-Yr. Annualized Return: 6.57%; YTD Net Flow: (millions): $120.52; 1-Yr. Net Flow (millions): $847.83; 3-Yr. Net Flow (millions): $1,118.06; 5-Yr. Net Flow (millions): $1,339.79; 10-Yr. Net Flow (millions): $1,528.24; 15-Yr. Net Flow (millions): $1,567.78; Minimum Initial Investment: $2,500; Inception Date: Jan. 31, 2005; Manager Names: Bill Zox and John McClain
ACGTX
YTD Return: -2.14%; 3-Yr. Annualized Return: 5.09%; 5-Yr. Annualized Return: 4.55%; 10-Yr. Annualized Return: 5.22%; YTD Net Flow: (millions): $25.33; 1-Yr. Net Flow (millions): $144.06; 3-Yr. Net Flow (millions): $1,553.26; 5-Yr. Net Flow (millions): N/A; 10-Yr. Net Flow (millions): N/A; 15-Yr. Net Flow (millions): N/A; Inception Date: Aug. 28, 1987; Manager Names: Scott A. DiMaggio, Matthew S. Sheridan and Gershon M. Distenfeld
SIHAX
YTD Return: 1.02%; 3-Yr. Annualized Return: 5.07%; 5-Yr. Annualized Return: 6.96%; 10-Yr. Annualized Return: 5.47%; YTD Net Flow: (millions): ($1.02); 1-Yr. Net Flow (millions): ($6.23); 3-Yr. Net Flow (millions): ($49.61); 5-Yr. Net Flow (millions): ($36.75); 10-Yr. Net Flow (millions): ($118.99); 15-Yr. Net Flow (millions): ($86.04); Minimum Initial Investment: $2,500; Front Load: 4%; Redemption Load: 2%; Inception Date: Aug. 5, 1996; Manager Names: B. Scott Minerd, Kevin H. Gundersen, Thomas J. Hauser and Richard J de Wet
JAHYX
YTD Return: 2.13%; 3-Yr. Annualized Return: 6.59%; 5-Yr. Annualized Return: 7.02%; 10-Yr. Annualized Return: 5.71%; YTD Net Flow: (millions): $1.46; 1-Yr. Net Flow (millions): ($48.04); 3-Yr. Net Flow (millions): ($325.69); 5-Yr. Net Flow (millions): ($1,004.49); 10-Yr. Net Flow (millions): ($1,042.00); 15-Yr. Net Flow (millions): ($619.14); Minimum Initial Investment: $2,500; Inception Date: Dec. 29, 1995; Manager Names: Brent D. Olson and Seth Meyer
IPHYX
YTD Return: 1.16%; 3-Yr. Annualized Return: 6.27%; 5-Yr. Annualized Return: 6.97%; 10-Yr. Annualized Return: 5.69%; YTD Net Flow: (millions): ($9); 1-Yr. Net Flow (millions): ($34.81); 3-Yr. Net Flow (millions): ($170.38); 5-Yr. Net Flow (millions): ($314.25); 10-Yr. Net Flow (millions): ($599.77); 15-Yr. Net Flow (millions): ($841.72); Inception Date: May 3, 2004; Manager Names: Randall Parrish and Rick Cumberledge
SHYAX
YTD Return: 4.26%; 3-Yr. Annualized Return: 6.68%; 5-Yr. Annualized Return: 8.34%; 10-Yr. Annualized Return: 6.17%; YTD Net Flow: (millions): ($40.33); 1-Yr. Net Flow (millions): ($93.23); 3-Yr. Net Flow (millions): ($301.19); 5-Yr. Net Flow (millions): ($727.33); 10-Yr. Net Flow (millions): ($1,236.19); 15-Yr. Net Flow (millions): ($1,040.26); Minimum Initial Investment: $100,000; Inception Date: Jan. 11, 1995; Manager Names: Donald E. Morgan, Robert L. Cook, Paul A. Karpers, Kevin P. Loome, Thomas G. Hauser, David S. Aniloff, Seth Brufsky, Michael E. Paasche, Thomas J. Gahan, Michael Schafer, Douglas C. Pardon, Kapil Singh and Chris Mathewson
FHIIX
YTD Return: 1.82%; 3-Yr. Annualized Return: 6.41%; 5-Yr. Annualized Return: 6.99%; 10-Yr. Annualized Return: 5.84%; YTD Net Flow: (millions): ($3.33); 1-Yr. Net Flow (millions): ($3.1); 3-Yr. Net Flow (millions): ($97.82); 5-Yr. Net Flow (millions): ($329.8); 10-Yr. Net Flow (millions): ($692.87); 15-Yr. Net Flow (millions): ($795.67); Minimum Initial Investment: $1,500; Front Load: 4.5%; Inception Date: Nov. 30, 1977; Manager Names: Mark E. Durbiano and Steven J. Wagner
FXIMX
YTD Return: -0.92%; 3-Yr. Annualized Return: 6.37%; 5-Yr. Annualized Return: 6.48%; 10-Yr. Annualized Return: 5.88%; YTD Net Flow: (millions): $32.91; 1-Yr. Net Flow (millions): $10.64; 3-Yr. Net Flow (millions): $51.84; 5-Yr. Net Flow (millions): ($312.18); 10-Yr. Net Flow (millions): ($2,953.82); 15-Yr. Net Flow (millions): ($1,255.78); Inception Date: March 17, 2000; Manager Names: Scott A. Mather and David L. Braun
GUHYX
YTD Return: 2.55%; 3-Yr. Annualized Return: 8.09%; 5-Yr. Annualized Return: 9.42%; 10-Yr. Annualized Return: 6.43%; YTD Net Flow: (millions): $3.35; 1-Yr. Net Flow (millions): $7.99; 3-Yr. Net Flow (millions): $15.07; 5-Yr. Net Flow (millions): $3.61; 10-Yr. Net Flow (millions): ($61); 15-Yr. Net Flow (millions): ($56.19); Minimum Initial Investment: $2,500; Front Load: 2.25%; Inception Date: Sept. 1, 1998; Manager Names: John Blaney and Andrew Liggio
BHYAX
YTD Return: 1.63%; 3-Yr. Annualized Return: 6.21%; 5-Yr. Annualized Return: 7.47%; 10-Yr. Annualized Return: 6.04%; YTD Net Flow: (millions): ($10.87); 1-Yr. Net Flow (millions): $74.39; 3-Yr. Net Flow (millions): ($169.34); 5-Yr. Net Flow (millions): ($2,126.14); 10-Yr. Net Flow (millions): ($1,628.13); 15-Yr. Net Flow (millions): ($722.64); Minimum Initial Investment: $1,000; Front Load: 4%; Inception Date: Nov. 19, 1998; Manager Names: James Keenan, David Delbos, Mitchell S. Garfin and Derek Schoenhofen
TGEIX
YTD Return: -3.77%; 3-Yr. Annualized Return: 3.58%; 5-Yr. Annualized Return: 6.02%; 10-Yr. Annualized Return: 4.61%; YTD Net Flow: (millions): $361.89; 1-Yr. Net Flow (millions): $357.35; 3-Yr. Net Flow (millions): $3,090.39; 5-Yr. Net Flow (millions): $3,718.48; 10-Yr. Net Flow (millions): $4,747.04; 15-Yr. Net Flow (millions): $5,726.82; Minimum Initial Investment: $2,000; Inception Date: May 29, 1998; Manager Names: Penelope D. Foley, David I. Robbins, Javier Segovia and Alex Stanojevic
WHOSX
YTD Return: -15.06%; 3-Yr. Annualized Return: 6.6%; 5-Yr. Annualized Return: 2.87%; 10-Yr. Annualized Return: 7.58%; YTD Net Flow: (millions): ($22.3); 1-Yr. Net Flow (millions): $101.77; 3-Yr. Net Flow (millions): $42.34; 5-Yr. Net Flow (millions): $11.75; 10-Yr. Net Flow (millions): $138.87; 15-Yr. Net Flow (millions): $71.61; Minimum Initial Investment: $2,000; Redemption Load: 2%; Inception Date: Dec. 8, 1986; Manager Names: Van Robert Hoisington, Van R. Hoisington and David M. Hoisington
STHTX
YTD Return: 1.65%; 3-Yr. Annualized Return: 6.09%; 5-Yr. Annualized Return: 7.67%; 10-Yr. Annualized Return: 5.57%; YTD Net Flow: (millions): ($6.9); 1-Yr. Net Flow (millions): ($7.82); 3-Yr. Net Flow (millions): ($155.8); 5-Yr. Net Flow (millions): ($453.74); 10-Yr. Net Flow (millions): ($334.26); 15-Yr. Net Flow (millions): ($21.7); Minimum Initial Investment: $100,000; Inception Date: Oct. 3, 2001; Manager Names: Michael Kirkpatrick and James FitzPatrick
VWETX
YTD Return: -8.08%; 3-Yr. Annualized Return: 7.98%; 5-Yr. Annualized Return: 6.15%; 10-Yr. Annualized Return: 7.69%; YTD Net Flow: (millions): $13.66; 1-Yr. Net Flow (millions): ($14.18); 3-Yr. Net Flow (millions): $67.22; 5-Yr. Net Flow (millions): $699.27; 10-Yr. Net Flow (millions): $2,449.55; 15-Yr. Net Flow (millions): $5,700.67; Minimum Initial Investment: $50,000; Inception Date: Feb. 12, 2001; Manager Names: Scott I. St. John, Daniel Shaykevich, Samuel C. Martinez, Arvind Narayanan
PHYZX
YTD Return: 2.35%; 3-Yr. Annualized Return: 7.44%; 5-Yr. Annualized Return: 8.16%; 10-Yr. Annualized Return: 6.63%; YTD Net Flow: (millions): $1,068.05; 1-Yr. Net Flow (millions): $5,135.74; 3-Yr. Net Flow (millions): $7,158.06; 5-Yr. Net Flow (millions): $8,239.13; 10-Yr. Net Flow (millions): $9,590.95; 15-Yr. Net Flow (millions): $9,855.75; Inception Date: March 1, 1996; Manager Names: Robert Cignarella, Brian Clapp, Robert Spano, Ryan Kelly and Daniel Thorogood
SGYAX
YTD Return: 4.17%; 3-Yr. Annualized Return: 7.26%; 5-Yr. Annualized Return: 8.73%; 10-Yr. Annualized Return: 6.87%; YTD Net Flow: (millions): $34.44; 1-Yr. Net Flow (millions): $132.83; 3-Yr. Net Flow (millions): ($521); 5-Yr. Net Flow (millions): ($504.26); 10-Yr. Net Flow (millions): ($308.2); 15-Yr. Net Flow (millions): $347.41; Minimum Initial Investment: $100,000; Inception Date: Dec. 5, 2005; Manager Names: Donald E. Morgan, Robert L. Cook, Paul A. Karpers, Kevin P. Loome, Thomas G. Hauser, David S. Aniloff, Seth Brufsky, Michael E. Paasche, Thomas J. Gahan, Michael Schafer, Douglas C. Pardon, Kapil Singh and Chris Matthewson
FAHCX
YTD Return: 5.5%; 3-Yr. Annualized Return: 9%; 5-Yr. Annualized Return: 9.85%; 10-Yr. Annualized Return: 7.33%; YTD Net Flow: (millions): $95.36; 1-Yr. Net Flow (millions): $56.61; 3-Yr. Net Flow (millions): ($256.53); 5-Yr. Net Flow (millions): ($288.65); 10-Yr. Net Flow (millions): ($215.73); 15-Yr. Net Flow (millions): ($328.34); Inception Date: July 3, 1995; Manager Names: Mark Notkin and Brian Chang
FAHIX
YTD Return: 5.33%; 3-Yr. Annualized Return: 9.47%; 5-Yr. Annualized Return: 9.85%; 10-Yr. Annualized Return: 7.19%; YTD Net Flow: (millions): $974.69; 1-Yr. Net Flow (millions): $900.3; 3-Yr. Net Flow (millions): ($619.88); 5-Yr. Net Flow (millions): ($645.25); 10-Yr. Net Flow (millions): ($3,152.87); 15-Yr. Net Flow (millions): ($2,878.46); Inception Date: Nov. 1, 1977; Manager Names: Mark Notkin and Brian Chang
BTTRX
YTD Return: -1.75%; 3-Yr. Annualized Return: 6.64%; 5-Yr. Annualized Return: 3.46%; 10-Yr. Annualized Return: 6.47%; YTD Net Flow: (millions): $5.38; 1-Yr. Net Flow (millions): $17.75; 3-Yr. Net Flow (millions): $6.03; 5-Yr. Net Flow (millions): ($54.53); 10-Yr. Net Flow (millions): ($65.52); 15-Yr. Net Flow (millions): ($273.8); Minimum Initial Investment: $2,500; Inception Date: Feb. 15, 1996; Manager Names: Robert V. Gahagan, Brian Howell, James E. Platz and Miguel Castillo
FXICX
YTD Return: -2.87%; 3-Yr. Annualized Return: 5.57%; 5-Yr. Annualized Return: 4.87%; 10-Yr. Annualized Return: 4.54%; YTD Net Flow: (millions): $22.32; 1-Yr. Net Flow (millions): $30.74; 3-Yr. Net Flow (millions): $70.54; 5-Yr. Net Flow (millions): ($217.03); 10-Yr. Net Flow (millions): ($2,729.09); 15-Yr. Net Flow (millions):