“I don't worry about market crashes, I sell, so, bring it on, the faster and deeper is better because the recovery will be much better too”;-)

Sir, I admire your perseverance.

Here’s a good article that looks into this topic: https://humbledollar.com/2020/06/farewell-yield/
From the article:” That brings me to an idea advanced in 1989 by the late Peter Bernstein. Instead of the classic balanced portfolio with 60% stocks and 40% bonds, perhaps investors should opt for 75% stocks, with the other 25% in cash investments like money market funds and high-yield savings accounts. Bernstein found that the latter investment mix had a similar risk level to the classic balanced portfolio, but higher returns.”

Except today high yield savings is hardly yielding anything significant either unless the yield is coming from investments of lower grade or banks of having shaky balance sheets. But as long as there is FDIC to back it up, you can keep a portion of cash there.

Buffet's Warning on Owning Bonds:

Can you believe that the income recently available from a 10-year U.S. Treasury bond – the yield was 0.93% at yearend – had fallen 94% from the 15.8% yield available in September 1981? In certain large and important countries, such as Germany and Japan, investors earn a negative return on trillions of dollars of sovereign debt. Fixed-income investors worldwide – whether pension funds, insurance companies or retirees – face a bleak future.
Buffett doesn’t really offer any alternatives, except to warn:
Some insurers, as well as other bond investors, may try to juice the pathetic returns now available by shifting their purchases to obligations backed by shaky borrowers. Risky loans, however, are not the answer to inadequate interest rates. Three decades ago, the once-mighty savings and loan industry destroyed itself, partly by ignoring that maxim.

a-bleak-future-for-long-term-government-bonds

I think Buffett is approaching from insurance company point of view. Normally, the foreseen liabilities of an insurance company (for example to pay annuitized payments) are set aside and invested in bonds that mature on that date. I don't think he is particularly talking about bond funds but I can be wrong.

https://www.fedsmith.com/2021/05/30/best-tsp-return-over-12-months/
Tsp S I & C funds were best...
We have ~25% in each, rest in tsp2040
???
S - IVOO
I - EEM
C SPY

Some speculation on the future of oil production in an activist world:

An oil price rally coupled with the declining strength of oil majors would mean a large wealth transfer from the West to countries like Russia and Saudi Arabia, until demand starts declining not only in the West but in Asia too.
"The same oil and gas will still be produced. Just with lower ESG standards," said an executive from a Middle Eastern producer, who previously worked for an oil major, referring to environmental, social and governance performance measurements.

OPEC, Russia Seen Gaining More Power With Shell Dutch Ruling
Also, regarding the future of global coal production (perhaps Putin thinks Russia will be a winner in a warmer world):
Putin Is Betting Coal Still Has a Future

As someone who invest all hid money in bond OEFs and trade stock/CEFs only a few times annually.
PIMIX/PONAX: I sold on 01/2018 and never looked back.
What had been looking good YTD without revealing my own funds:
RPIDX: The manager used to work at PIMCO, YTD=7.3 TTM yield=3
CLMAX: special securitized/MBS with shorting treasuries. It does better than most when rate rise. YTD=6.2 TTM yield=3.9
DBLIX: special securitized/MBS. YTD=5.2 TTM yield=3.8
NVHAX: HY Muni shorter term. You can use it in taxable and/or instead of some of your IG funds. YTD=5.2% TTM yield=3.5
There is always something that does well.

Bloomberg TV caught my attention this evening with a “breaking story” that Goldman Sachs had just advised investors to “short the U.S. 30 year Treasury Bond” because rates were about to soar.
Hmm … When I Googled that, I discovered that Goldman’s been advising that same thing every year at least since 2017. One of these times they’re bound to be right.
@Crash - I feel your pain. Bonds may not pay much, but with limited duration investment grade bond funds you can pretty much depend on getting your money back - albeit possibly not worth as much as when you invested it. On the other hand, in a frenzied equity, real estate or commodes market you can lose quite a lot.

It's a matter of personal comfort. I used the phrase simply to mean that many of the funds on the list, by design, include more than a de minimis amount of equity. Yes, I'm just substituting one expression for another here without defining them.
Consider the conventional wisdom: everyone including retirees should have some money invested in equity, at least 20%. Taking that literally, that 20% allocation to equity is being viewed as a significant amount that affects the behavior of the portfolio.
Take something like BLADX that has around 15% in equities. YTD VCSH (same bond style box as BLADX) is up 0.08%, and VOO is up 12.74%. Assuming no rebalancing (I'm lazy tonight), a 15% weighting in equities would give a total return of:
85% x 0.08% + 15% x 12.74% = 0.07% + 1.91% = 1.98%
BLADX's YTD return is 2.74%. A little higher than the calculation above, but the figures give you a pretty good idea of where that return is coming from. Nearly all from equity.
In years when bond and stock returns are not that far apart (say, 5% bond vs 7% stock), a modest amount of equity isn't going to make a big difference. But in years like this one, where bonds are returning nothing or are even losing money (BND is down 2.65% YTD), a 10% equity stake can mean the difference between losing 1% on the year and breaking even.
That may not sound like much. Remember though that we're talking about bonds and bond funds, where yields are under 3%. In that environment, a 1% improvement can feel like a lot.

The spread has been slightly higher within the past decade (2.57% in early Oct 2012 and in mid March 2013), and hasn't dropped below 1¼% since then. The non-inflation-adjusted portion of the TIPS yield in that time frame was similar to today's -0.8%. So while we're close to extreme values, this isn't something we haven't seen before.
Given that negative yield, if one is willing to forgo short term liquidity, ISTM I bonds would be the better investment. They are never sold with a fixed rate under 0%. After a year, you can redeem and forfeit 90 days interest. After five years, you can redeem for the full value.
They're more like CDs than bonds - aside from forfeiture of interest, you won't lose money. That differs from bonds where early "redemption" means selling on the secondary market where you could lose principal. Like CDs, you can ladder I-bonds to generate an income stream. That's something you almost have to do because you're limited to $10K/year/SSN and $5K/year/tax return (joint or individual).
Here's the Fed graph from the Investopedia piece, with the 10 year Treasury yield curve and the 10 year TIPS yield curve overlayed. The original curve (the spread) is just the difference (height) between the two overlaid curves.
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/fredgraph.png?g=EmIE

Sorry - I can’t make a prediction like that. Thought you might find this article of interest.
From the WSJ: May 26, 2021
“Ford Motor Co. shares rose to their highest level in nearly five years after the auto maker outlined a tech-centric strategy to electrify much of its vehicle lineup …
“Ford said it plans to boost spending on electric-vehicle development to $30 billion by 2025, roughly one-third more than it forecast earlier this year. The increase in spending—a total that includes some money spent in the past few years—is driven by Ford’s plans to eventually begin manufacturing its own batteries, including at two future U.S. battery-cell factories …

“Ford executives told investors during a virtual presentation that they expect 40% of the company’s global sales to be fully electric by 2030 … Shares rose 8.7% to $13.92 in trading Wednesday, their highest level since at least mid-2016.”

Things in bond-land suck, these days. I'm hoping for just a 3% yield, lately
Then you're pretty much stuck with junk or an equity kicker. Otherwise you get that 3% yield at the expense of capital. That is, IG bond funds w/o equity get their yield by going long and losing value as rates rise.
This is what I've been able to find in terms of IG bond funds available to retail investors with a trailing 12 mo yield of at least 3%. Once one discards funds with significant equity states (allocation funds, target date funds), most of what's left are intermediate to long term funds with negative total return YTD.
Allocation 15%-30%: BLADX
Allocation (higher): NADCX (30%-50%), NADMX (50% - 70%), NDMAX (70%-85%), NDAAX (85%+)
Convertibles: SBFCX
Corporate: BYMIX, SIGYX
EM local currency: PYELX
HY muni: ETHYX (has IG portfolio)
Core bond: DUTMX (taxable munis), VKMGX
Core plus: AKGAX, MGBIX, CUGZX, FBDAX, PICYX, IICIX
Intermediate Gov: BTTRX (2025 zeros)
Long bond: DEEAX, RPLCX, VBLAX, VLTCX (corp.), VWESX
Muni long: VWALX, GUTEX
Short gov: IPFIX
Short bond: ANFLX, CSTBX, THOPX
Target date: NWHAX (2025), NWLAX (2035), NWMAX (2040), NWNAX (2045), NTDAX (2055), NWWRX (2060+)
World allocation: TEZIX
World bond: MPIFX
World bond, hedged: GBUSX, FGBFX

I thought the difference in yield between the 10 year TIPS and regular 10 year Treasury Bonds quite astonishing,
“The 10-year TIPS spread as of May 18, 2021 is 2.52%. This means that 10-year TIPS have a yield 2.52% lower than the 10-year Treasury, so inflation would need to average 2.52% per year for the two to have the same returns.”
Article
Here’s a good related Article from Morningstar: TIPS Funds - Go Short or Go Long?

It used to be that Vanguard provided access to institutional class shares of several funds at lower mins than at other brokerages. That's still true for Columbia funds. But other things have changed.
Vanguard offers Pimco institutional class shares (e.g. PDIIX) with a $25K min. This used to be better than other brokerages. Schwab used to require $100K. But now Schwab requires only $2.5K ($1K for IRAs).
Consider TIBIX. It has a $2.5M min,. That's what Fidelity requires in taxable accounts. But Fidelity sells it to IRA investors with a $2500 min. Schwab requires that same $2500 in a taxable account and just $1K in an IRA. Vanguard's mins are $100K (taxable and IRA).
For several years Fidelity has been making institutional shares of many funds available for low mins in IRAs. That's not documented - you have to ask or set up test trades to find the funds. More recently, Schwab lowered mins on many funds including some institutional class shares.
For the most part, the trend at brokerages is for more choices at lower cost/mins. Beyond that, it's hard to generalize about one brokerage vs. another, as they're always in a state of flux.

@hank. PRWCX. I see what you mean: $50B. AUM. But at the moment, it's just 18% in fixed income. So, treat it as a stock-fund, yes? Which it purports to be, anyhow. Yes, Giroux has a magic sauce. He's got the Midas Touch. But at the same time, the likes of DODBX are outpacing PRWCX THIS year. Over the long haul, PRWCX has done better. I'm not so concerned about excellent bond performance in PRWCX. If I get a modicum of profit from the bonds in that fund, I'm happy. I'm not holding it for the bonds. I think that for anyone who knows what they're doing, they wouldn't hold that fund for the BONDS, either. Still, I like that it's a "balanced" fund, and can go up or down the scale, depending upon how the Manager reads the tea leaves.
Things in bond-land suck, these days. I'm hoping for just a 3% yield, lately. That feels like a bite in the ass. But I cannot, due to my risk tolerance--- given age and my status as a retiree--- hold more than I'm holding in STOCKS. Actually, the fund managers have me into more CASH than I'd like, so the stock-portion of the portfolio is a bit lower than desired. But on that score, I'll let them do the work for me. That's why they're there, eh?
MEMORIAL DAY, 2021:
https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/47380/in-flanders-fields

“Publicly traded companies are selling bonds that can convert into stock at a record pace this year, with nearly a third of those issuers paying nothing in interest, as they seek to take advantage of low rates and investors’ ravenous appetite for fast-growing firms.
So far this year, 97 U.S.-listed companies have issued $54.3 billion worth of convertible bonds, according to Dealogic, a data provider. That is the highest year-to-date volume ever—and 11% more than the amount raised at this point in 2020, which was a record-setting year for convertible-debt issuance.Bankers and advisers say the pace of issuance has been swift as inflation fears and the potential for rising interest rates have come to the front of many investors’ minds.
The terms have been so good for companies selling convertible debt that 28 of them are paying no interest on the bonds, the highest number since 2001. The average interest coupon on convertible debt in 2021 is 1.41%, the lowest on record. On average, this year’s crop of issuers will only need to convert bonds into stock if their share price rises 39% typically within a five-year period, the highest so-called conversion premium since 2003, according to Dealogic.”
WSJ Saturday, May 29, 2021

“Shares of AMC Entertainment Holdings Inc. AMC finished Friday with their best weekly gain in four months, surging 116% for the week, in a rally that has once again astounded analysts, enriched individual investors and punished Wall Street traders betting against the company. The movie-theater chain, whose stock closed last year just above $2, finished Friday at $26.12, giving the shares a year-to-date gain of more than 1,100% and the company a market capitalization of nearly $11.8 billion. The rally marks an astounding turnaround for a company that last year was reeling from the coronavirus pandemic and trying to stave off bankruptcy.
Once again fueling this week’s rise: enthusiastic individual investors who have banded together on Reddit’s WallStreetBets forum, in Discord chat rooms and in text chains with friends. Throughout the week, hashtags including #AMCSTRONG and #AMCSqueeze splashed across Twitter, with many predicting more gains ahead. The chatter helped drive $209 million of net inflows into the stock from individual investors between Monday and Thursday, according to Vanda Research’s VandaTrack, more than 15 times the amount seen during the same period of April’s final week.”
WSJ Saturday May 29, 2021

One factor I pay attention to is whether or not a fund is bloated. I've learned from others here that with BONDS, "bloated" means something different, than with stocks. I've read that bond funds are somehow able to handle monstrously gigantic amounts of AUM. I still remain wary..... Looking at my own:
PTIAX. $5.7B.
PRSNX. $1.6B.
RPSIX. $7.1B.
"A billion here, a billion there, and pretty soon, yer talking real money!" That quote originally referenced MILLIONS, not BILLIONS, and so there's a double entendre, there. The "youngsters" here might not remember that far back.
But those PIMCO funds, yikes! I can't imagine how they can keep their arms around all that money....

HMEAX is ntf at Schwab and Vanguard but tf at Fidelity, while BBBMX is ntf at Schwab but tf at Vanguard and Fido,etc

Schwab lists HMEAX as open only to existing shareholders. Fidelity sells it with a 5.5% load. Vanguard sells it NTF. At least according to their respective web pages.
While HOVLX is ntf at Vanguard but tf at Schwab and Fido, etc.
Vanguard: https://investor.vanguard.com/mutual-funds/profile/overview/0856?FundIntExt=EXT
Schwab: https://www.schwab.com/research/mutual-funds/quotes/fees/hovlx
Fidelity: https://fundresearch.fidelity.com/mutual-funds/summary/437769201?type=o-NavBar
This is not to say that Schwab, and likely Fidelity, don't offer more funds NTF than does Vanguard. What really matters is which particular funds you want.

“Heavy inflows into equity funds continue, with the $17.9 billion in the latest week bringing 2021’s total to $512 billion, according to a report from Bank of America’s strategy team, led by Michael Hartnett. In fact, the amount that the bank’s own private clients poured into equities was the fourth-biggest since 2012.”
From Up & Down Wall Street, Randall Forsyth - Barron’s May 31, 2021

Aside from Vanguard funds, there are funds from other fund families where Vanguard sells a cheaper share class than you can get at Fidelity/Schwab/TDA. For example, Columbia Thermostat is easy to buy anywhere, but Vanguard sells the cheaper COTZX class I shares. They're even NTF with a low ($2K/$3K) min.
(About 1/3 of the funds returned from a M* search I ran were Columbia funds, so if you care about getting a cheaper share class of Vanguard or Columbia funds, you might want to seriously consider VBS.)
Then there are other funds that Vanguard sells but retail investors can't get (any share class) at the other brokerages. For example, GEQIX and TSYNX/TSYIX
M* lists of brokers:
COTZX: http://financials.morningstar.com/fund/purchase-info.html?t=COTZX
GEQIX: http://financials.morningstar.com/fund/purchase-info.html?t=GEQIX
TSYNX: http://financials.morningstar.com/fund/purchase-info.html?t=TSYNX
TSYIX: http://financials.morningstar.com/fund/purchase-info.html?t=TSYIX
M*'s brokerage data is not the most reliable part of its database, so I checked each of the sample funds above.
I ran the following screen on M*. It returned 258 share classes, at least some of which were wrong (e.g. CGM funds are no longer available at Vanguard. The screen returned all three surviving CGM funds.)
(Brokerage Availability = Vanguard TF
or Brokerage Availability = Vanguard NTF)
and (Brokerage Availability not = Schwab All (Retail, Instl, Retirement))
and (Brokerage Availability not = Schwab OneSource & NTF (No Load & No Transaction Fee))
and (Brokerage Availability not = Fidelity Retail FundsNetwork)
and (Brokerage Availability not = Fidelity Retail FundsNetwork-NTF)
and (Minimum Initial Purchase <= 50000)