This is a good, in-depth discussion on the mining that will be necessary to meet the needs of the renewables industry from the Manhattan Institute. manhattan-institute.org — mines-minerals.pdf
Some observations:
All energy-producing machinery must be fabricated from materials extracted from the earth. No energy system, in short, is actually “renewable,” since all machines require the continual mining and processing of millions of tons of primary materials and the disposal of hardware that inevitably wears out.
He says: Compared with hydrocarbon using devices, green machines entail, on average, a 10-fold increase in the quantities of materials extracted and processed to produce the same amount of energy. But I don’t see where he includes the extraction of fossil fuels for the conventional devices. Also, no mention of nuclear power is this report.
Expansion of today’s level of green energy—currently less than 4% of the country’s total consumption (versus 56% from oil and gas)—will create an unprecedented increase in global mining for needed minerals.
Among the material realities of green energy:
Building wind turbines and solar panels to generate electricity, as well as batteries to fuel electric vehicles, requires, on average, more than 10 times the quantity of materials, compared with building machines using hydro-carbons to deliver the same amount of energy to society.
Replacing hydrocarbons with green machines will vastly increase the mining of various critical minerals around the world. For example, a single electric car battery weighing 1,000 pounds requires extracting and processing some 500,000 pounds of materials. Averaged over a battery’s life, each mile of driving an electric car “consumes” five pounds of earth. Using an internal combustion engine consumes about 0.2 pounds of liquids per mile. (note, I think “consumes” is a misnomer here, the half a ton of materials are not actually consumed. Also, this 5 lbs to 0.2 lbs talk is not an apples to apples comparison)
By 2050, with current plans, the quantity of worn-out solar panels—much of it non- recyclable—will constitute double the tonnage of all today’s global plastic waste, along with over 3 million tons per year of unrecyclable plastics from worn-out wind turbine blades. By 2030, more than 10 million tons per year of batteries will become garbage. (While a million tons seems to be a large amount, we really don’t know that it is for a country of 350 million people.)
In sum
Even without subsidies, mandates, and policies that favor green energy, the future for both America and the rest of the world will see many more wind and solar farms and many more electric cars. That will happen precisely because those technologies have matured enough to play significant roles. And given the magnitude of pent-up global demand for energy and energy-using machines and services—especially after the world struggles out of recession — the world will need “all of the above” in energy supplies.
Note this report is a follow up to a report the author wrote in early 2019. Here’s a link without discussion https://manhattan-institute.org/green-energy-revolution-near-impossible

@MikeW,
Thank you for your question about how I follow the markets.
The barometer is not geared to follow the foreign markets as it follows the S&P 500 Index. However, the way I have my portfolio organized is by sleeves. I have three sleeves that are global in nature. Two are in the growth & income area of my portfolio and one in the growth area. All of the sleeves within the portfolio are set up in M* Portfolio Manager and are followed for performance as well as the funds contained in each sleeve. With this, I can tell what is moving and what is not by sleeve and by fund as well.
My three best performing sleeves ... One Month Leaders ... are my global growth sleeve +5.83%, domestic growth large mid cap sleeve +5.52% and my global growth & income sleeve +3.85%. The global hybrid sleeve is the laggard (of the global sleeves) at +1.82%; but, it is an income generating sleeve with a yield of 3.9%.
In comparison, my portfolio, as a whole (which includes my allocation to cash) has gained 2.14% over the past month and produces a yield of about 3.4%.
In addition, I have a compass that tracks a number of equity and bond etf's, domestic, global and foreign.
For my global compass the one month leaders are EEM +7.17% ... GSP +6.18% ... and, CWB +5.94%.
For my domestic compass the one month leaders are XLB +9.21% ... XLV +6.20% ... and, XLK +4.52%.
I'm thinking that any investor that wishes to actively engage the markets needs a way to follow the asset classes they wish to invest in. To do this I use my compass and my portfolio sleeve system as it provides data as to what is moving within my portfolio and what is not.
Generally, any equity ballast (or spiff position) that I might position into centers around the S&P 500 Index which the barometer follows.
Again, thank you for your question. I hope my answer has been helpful.
Old_Skeet

Chapter I -Too complex for me. Fortunately I purchased the DejaOffice App at Apple around the time I retired. It has proven highly reliable and very versatile for creating various files and keeping backups. Updating the most recent backup to all devices (weekly) works reliably. So I have basic records of just about everything related to investing since retiring 20+ years ago. Annual returns, additions from other sources, withdrawals by year, total withdrawals to date, total gains to date, Roth conversion dates and amounts, etc. etc. I also record every fund exchange, transfer or sale I make, but normally discard those files after 3 years. The thought of having to maintain all that garbage in some type of paper file (as might have been common 25 years ago) is daunting to say the least.
Chapter II - I don’t worry too much about any overarching plan. Looking at those detailed records gives me some degree of confidence I’m heading in the right direction. We’ve skated around the related issue in the past of whether it’s better to keep a 3-5 year cash reserve to smooth out those market shocks or to just pull what you need from the overall blend of assets. The former allows for a more aggressive investment approach of course (but with fewer dollars). Good arguments both ways. I’m in the minority here as I believe in not maintaining a separate cash reserve. However, am quite conservatively invested,
Chapter III - In terms of how much and when to withdraw? Depends on needs. Pull substantial amounts for a new car or home renovation maybe every 5 years. Lesser amounts for other years. If worried about market levitation I do a 6 month “advance” by transferring the next year’s anticipated needs into cash still within the tax-sheltered domain. I did that mid-way through 2019. Not planning on doing that this year. Politicians have gone spending crazy in an election year. A trillion here ... a trillion there ... Hell to pay some day. But I expect the markets to hold at least until November. As far as those drawdowns for major purchases go ... if the market’s sucking air and your investments are way down, postpone whatever you’d intended. Wait for a better time. I suspect that in that regard the human brain is better enabled to make the decision than would be MonteCarlo or any other computer simulation.
Chapter IV - Can’t quite get my head around the popular notion of “spending down” assets. My invested assets have increased (in nominal terms) during retirement. I expect them to continue to increase. (That’s after whatever withdrawals were taken.) There’s something to be said for having an increasing “net worth” at any age. In fact, it seems counterintuitive to me to be “investing” (presumably for growth) while at the same time planning how to divest oneself of said assets. Maybe it’s because I have a decent pension. Don’t know. But it’s a real brain stopper for me.

perhaps further of interest:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/stock-buybacks-and-a-shaky-economy/2020/07/19/5d31791a-c84c-11ea-8ffe-372be8d82298_story.html
https://www.nber.org/papers/w26958

This might be a very strange post.
I had a new electrician over my house the other day. A real sharp guy with 50+ years of experience & a streak of the philosophical. My house which was built in the 1970s is a landmine of aluminum & copper wiring. Typically I handle most of the wiring myself but for this I needed a professional. I was mentioning that it was sort of like detective work trying to figure out where the short was when while standing on the ladder looking at the wiring issue, he turned to me & said "you know this might sound really weird but I do my best problem solving when I'm sleeping". I didn't think it was weird at all.
Which brings me to this post.
I really respect & appreciate someone like Old_Skeet's barometer postings which lays out a very robust systematic way of investing using numbers.
However, that's not how I roll even though I have at times tried. I've most likely left good money behind in the process but fortunately also avoided any major blow-ups along the way. I have tried to put as much on auto-pilot regarding finances as I can & have tried to idiot-proof the process along the way (to guard against my own bad decisions).
The encounter with the electrician (who is now my go-to electrician for me when needed) crystallized how I do approach investing as with most of my life. My best problem solving & subsequent decisions come to me while either on a walkabout (hike of some sort) or sleeping. Not very scientific but has worked out extremely well for me throughout my life. I have been out on my own since I was 16 & have done okay. I also have done either yoga or tai chi throughout my life which I find helps immensely in clearing my mind. The more I consciously think about investing, the worse decisions I generally make. I tried rule-based investing for stocks for a short time, but wasn't very successful. Yikes, I sold Amazon at $400.
I do try to stay stay informed & am not data-phobic. Information gathering (from a multitude of sources including here at MFO) is important & helps the unconscious processing.
This process also is helped if one does not carry a lot of expectation. One has to be okay with the unknown.
Why 'Sleeping on It' Helps
So that's my strategy for investing.
Any thoughts or comments?

I remember Ed’s depth of knowledge as well as the “wickedly sarcastic sense of humor” Mark references. His last post ISTM was to the effect he didn’t want to participate in a board he characterized as “Links Central” or something fairly close to that. So often when people leave - or threaten to - they’re back again. In Ed’s case I can’t remember his ever posting again. A true loss.
I’m fairly certain that remark might be buried in the board’s extensive archives, as it was after we transitioned from FA to mfo.
@msf - Thanks or all the digging.
@bee - Thanks for the link to a 2001 Fund Alarm page. It appears that was before my time. Being a science buff, I surely would have remembered a handle like Neutron. How clever and unique!
For convenience, here’s that link again.
https://web.archive.org/web/20011205080443/http://64.45.57.12/wwwboard/wwwboard.html

The simple way of computing an average credit rating would be to score AA's as 1, BB's as 2, etc. (with fractional adjustments for AAA, A, etc.). That's what many sources do.
M* instead weights each grade by the risk it represents. BBB bonds have around 4-5x the default risk of AAA bonds, CCC bonds have around 50-100x the default rate of AAA bonds. So it's pretty clear that a simple average won't do if what you're interested in is a sense of average default risk.

Source:https://www.livewiremarkets.com/wires/quantifying-the-risk-of-bonds-with-s-p-credit-ratings
Add to this the fact that M* counts non-rated (NR) bonds as BB or B, and one begins to see how PTIAX could have a weighted credit risk "score" of BB.
Ted posted a thread last November entitled Are Bond Funds Misreporting Their Portfolio Holdings?
https://mutualfundobserver.com/discuss/discussion/54229/are-bond-funds-misreporting-their-portfolio-holdings
This linked to a story about an NBER white paper, Don't Take Their Word For It: The Misclassification of Bond Mutual Funds. The thesis was that funds themselves are overstating the quality of their holdings. That would tend to make even M*'s fund credit ratings too optimistic.
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3474557 (Actual research paper)
This paper generated some back and forth between the authors and M*. I don't know if the M* page below represents the tail end of that exchange, but it should help anyone who's interested get started in sorting through the issues.
https://www.morningstar.com/learn/bond-ratings-integrity
One of the papers M* links to gives this hypothetical fund scoring:

Credit Quality	Weighting %	Default Score	 Average Score
AAA		15.00		  0.00			0.00
AA		24.00		  0.56			0.13
A		18.00		  2.22			0.40
BBB		34.00		  5.00			1.70
BB		 9.00		 17.78			1.60
B		 0.00		 49.44			0.00
Below B		 0.00		100.00			0.00
Not Rated	 0.00		 49.44			0.00
Average Score						3.83

Since M* considers all funds with weighted average scores between 3.47223 and 9.02778 to be of BBB quality, this hypothetical fund would get a BBB rating from M*.

If one of you bond meisters (maybe msf?) can explain this to me it would be surely appreciated. I am looking heavily into bond funds now as I reach retirement .M* rates the PTIAX bond avg rating as BB in the style box area . Yet it then reports these bond rating percentages as present in the fund. AAA 32.71%,AA 31.37% A 10% BBB 5.75% BB 1.33% B 0.92% Below B 8.59% and NR 9.13%. I have seen similar numbers on M* where the bond avg rating is far below the actual percentages which are much greater among the higher rated bonds. It would seem to me that the above PTIAX bond rating avg would be more like A and not BB as noted. Am I missing something here?

Hi guys,
In looking back though the thread I see where the last report was made on July 4th with a reading of 125 indicating that the S&P 500 Index was extremely overbought. Since then, not much has changed with the barometer reading; and, as of Friday July 17th it scores the Index with a reading of 121 reflecting that the Index remains extremely overbought.
Recently, Jim Cramer made a call based upon some charting that he believes we might be in for a pullback towards the end of July. We will see if this comes to be. For me, I'm also thinking that there is some near term downside coming.
Here is the link to Mr. Cramer's call https://www.marketwatch.com/story/cnbc-mad-money-host-jim-cramer-uses-this-chart-to-predict-the-exact-date-the-stock-market-could-hit-the-skids-2020-07-15
Since last report ... I have reduced my equity allocation from about 45% equity to 40% equity and raised cash by a like amount. This now puts my asset allocation at about 15% cash, 45% income and 40% equity. From here I do not have any buy or sell activity planned; and, I await the next stock market pull back building cash from my portfolio's income generation. Most likely, I'll do a little equity buying should we get into a stock market pull back which would be a decline, for the Index, of -5% (3065) to -10% (2900) from its near term high of 3225. Currently, the Index is off it's 52 week closing high of 3386 by about -5% and is up off it's 52 week closing low of 2237 by just short of +45%. That is a strong run upwards, form the 52 week low, without a major pull back.
For me, a dip is a decline of up to -5%, a pull back is a decline from -5% to -10%, a correction is a decline of -10% to -15%, a downdraft is a decline of -15% to -20%, and a bear market is a decline greater than -20%.
Generally, stocks go soft during the summer ... so be cautious. I know, I am.
Take care ... and, be safe.
Old_Skeet

Hi guys,
Yes, have owned PONAX even before it was that and the ER increase. ...
God bless
the Pudd

PONAX's ER bounces around quite a bit because the SEC requires it to include the costs of traditional leveraging. These are genuine costs: borrowing $1 to make $2 still costs you interest on that dollar. But there are also ways to create leverage that have costs that aren't included in the ER.
This makes some funds appear cheaper than others, even though they're not.
Here's a M* article on this phenomenon and how M* adjusts the ER figures it reports.
https://www.morningstar.com/articles/969612/one-expense-ratio-to-rule-them-all
Currently, 0.55% of the ER for PONAX (and other share classes) is this interest expense.
See footnote 1 in the summary prospectus.

The PIMIX assessment was based solely on PIMIX previous years. In 2018 it was at 18% in its category but making 0.6% is pretty low when PTIAX made 2% and SEMMX made 3.9%.
Possibly the comparison with PTIAX alone was deemed not sufficiently persuasive. Regardless and for whatever reason, the ringer SEMMX was tossed in - a fund that isn't a multisector fund (per M*). Which begs the question: why stop with just the third best nontraditional fund of 2018?
Instead of cherry picking SEMMX, a 1* fund with a tarnished reputation, one could have cherry picked CLMAX, a 5* fund. Its 2018 performance of 7.58% not only nearly doubled that of SEMMX, but it made PTIAX look anemic.
==========
Argentinian fiasco? PIMIX had just a 2% exposure to bonds that dropped in value to 71¢ on the dollar.
https://www.pionline.com/markets/pimcos-bet-argentine-bond-paying-75-rate-hit-peso-rout
As that column noted: "PIMCO's profits or losses on the bonds would depend significantly on the extent to which it hedged its foreign-exchange exposure." PIMCO stated that half of PIMIX's position (i.e. 1%) was dollar-denominated.
The proof is in the pudding. In August, PIMIX dropped 1.11% vs. the category's 0.83% gain. It made up that 1.94% underperformance in the remainder of the year by outperforming monthly by 0.65%, 0.40%, 0.36%, and 0.50%. (Data from M*)
Interesting how attention is called to some some black swan events with small impact, while others are disregarded ("You can't look at PIMIX YTD and compare it to BND (high rated bonds) when we had a black swan")
========
PDBAX is not a M* Multi category fund but a Intermediate core plus fund
People here generally understand that M* categories are not the be-all end-all (see, e.g. RPHYX). I mentioned PDBAX specifically because M* does not calls it multisector, writing:

I ...suggest[] again to take a look at core plus funds. Generally core plus funds carry a bit less credit risk than multisector funds, though there's a fair amount of overlap between the most aggressive core plus and the more tame multisector funds. ... For example PDBAX.

The data I presented and that you quoted supports that thesis. What was your point?
FWIW, ADVNX is not a Lipper multi-sector income fund but a flexible income fund.
=========
2) SD(volatility) lower than 5
3) Morningstar return above average or high
These are effectively the same test. Since standard deviation is a second moment, a single outlier will skew the calculation. If a fund's SD is not distorted by March's performance figure, then March's performance must not have been an outlier. This in turn virtually mandates that the fund's return be relatively high (i.e. without a significant dip).

Hi guys,
Yes, have owned PONAX even before it was that and the ER increase. Made money then and now on 3-26-20 made a large 5-digit buy and am up 6.93%---again, Fido numbers, not mine. In that timeframe, I sold all bond funds except this one.....and in the future this could go, too.
God bless
the Pudd

Looking for usenet files that I've got scattered all over the place in backups of backups of backups, I ran across a posting of Ed's that I saved, from mid 1999. We can reasonably figure that I moved to FundAlarm some time early this century.
That post (after stripping headers):

Mike Roberts wrote:
> Please tell me which funds for the next 1,3 5, and 10 years will outperform
> the S&P 500 Index. What's that - I'm waiting............
Hi Mike,
I'm not Sal, but here's a list:
FSPHX, FSDCX, FSCSX, FSPTX, FDLSX, FDCPX, NTCHX, VGHCX, JAMRX, JAOLX,
JASSX, JAVLX. Do you need more?

The S&P 500 (as represented by VFIAX) dropped 19% over that span. Half of the six Fidelity Selects did better, half worse over 5 and 10 years. Only two did better over 3 years. Here's a graph for the Fidelity funds.
As for the Janus funds:
JAMRX was Janus Mercury at the time (it was renamed around 2006)
JAOLX was Janus Olympus at the time, and was merged into Janus Orion JORNX in 2006; this in turn was renamed Janus Global Select (with a new, global investment policy) in 2010.
JASSX was Janus Special Situations, which barely survived three years; it was merged into JSVAX Janus Strategic Value and renamed Janus Special Equity, which was renamed Janus Contrarian in 2004.
JAVLX was Janus Twenty, which was merged into JACTX Janus Forty in 2017.
Between the dot com bust and the 2003 timing scandal, Janus did not have a happy turn of the century.
As for the non-Fidelity, non-Janus funds, I think people know that VGHCX has always been a great performer, though it slowed down a bit in the past decade. NTCHX underperformed the S&P 500 in all timeframes in question.

PIMIX was a great fund until the beginning of 2018. PIMIX is still a decent fund
I would go with PTIAX. LT good record + good downside protection. 2 more option are TSIIX and ADVNX
2018 returns:
PTIAX: 2.01%
TSIIX: 0.68%
PIMIX: 0.58% (still top quintile)
Multisector bonds: -1.52%
ADVNX: -1.99%
Typo? 2019 perhaps?

These 3 funds are based on the following(which I post already):
1) 3 year average annually over 4.3%
2) SD(volatility) lower than 5
3) Morningstar return above average or high
4) Morningstar risk low/below average.
The PIMIX assessment was based solely on PIMIX previous years. In 2018 it was at 18% in its category but making 0.6% is pretty low when PTIAX made 2% and SEMMX made 3.9%. PIMIX was unique investing more in MBS but in the last years diversified to more global and HY but kept the distributions high. I used to own a very high % in PIMIX for years but sold in 01/2018. In 08/2019 we found out about the Argentinian fiasco bonds PIMIX had.
===============
PDBAX is not a M* Multi category fund but a Intermediate core plus fund (you can maybe called it Multi light because it has about 20% below IG per M*).
It's more global with over 30% abroad
It has 18.9% derivatives.
===============
Basically, PIMIX used to be the easiest fund to recommend but it's getting harder and why I trade :-)

PIMIX was a great fund until the beginning of 2018. PIMIX is still a decent fund
I would go with PTIAX. LT good record + good downside protection. 2 more option are TSIIX and ADVNX
2018 returns:
PTIAX: 2.01%
TSIIX: 0.68%
PIMIX: 0.58% (still top quintile)
Multisector bonds: -1.52%
ADVNX: -1.99%
Typo? 2019 perhaps?

@msf Thanks, your questions have helped greatly in my thought process
I am concerned about my category selection rather than my fund selection.
I purchased an active bond fund because I think active management can add value over passive index bond funds. I purchased a multsector fund bond fund to give the bond managers latitude in their holdings decisions. ... Thanks!

Glad to be of help. I completely understand the idea in looking for wider ranging funds, else why pay for the active management?
I originally started looking at multisector funds for myself as a way to dabble in foreign bond exposure, while, as you wrote, giving the manager leeway to decide on the allocation. I was left with the impression that multisector funds tend not to wander too widely. They may be very different from one another, but over time, each shows a decided preference for certain types of bonds.
Not that many seem to invest significantly in foreign bonds. So making my original selection was easier. (I've since tinkered with foreign bond funds, so my own reasons have changed over time.)
I mention all of this by way of suggesting again to take a look at core plus funds. Generally core plus funds carry a bit less credit risk than multisector funds, though there's a fair amount of overlap between the most aggressive core plus and the more tame multisector funds. Beyond that, it's not easy to tell the categories apart.
Here's how Vanguard describes the M* categories:
Core Plus:
- Consists of funds that invest primarily in investment-grade U.S. fixed income issues including government, corporate, and securitized debt.
- Has greater flexibility than core offerings to hold noncore sectors such as corporate high-yield, bank loan, emerging markets debt, and non-U.S. currency exposures.
Multi-sector:
- Consists of funds that seek income by diversifying their assets among several fixed income sectors, usually U.S. government obligations, U.S. corporate bonds, foreign bonds, and high-yield U.S. debt securities.
- Typically holds 35% to 65% of their assets in securities that are not rated or are rated BB and below
M* shows 24 core plus funds to which it gives a credit rating of BB (junk). Same as the typical multisector fund. For example, PDBAX (not a recommendation, just an example).
Here's M*'s description of the PGIM family's bond strategy. It notes that this family's funds take on more credit risk than their peers. The way M*puts it, PGIM has "a distaste for Treasuries and agency mortgages, which PGIM has almost universally found too expensive for its tastes." M* goes on to note that "while the [PDBAX] portfolio bounced and rallied strongly in the weeks thereafter, it fell roughly 10% during the first three weeks of March." That was the cost of greater credit risk.
https://www.morningstar.com/articles/980651/one-bond-managers-trip-through-the-latest-storm
Here's a graph showing how the relevant categories performed between March 1 and March 31. It also shows how PIMIX along with some other funds mentioned here did worse than the average core plus fund, but better than the typical multisector fund. The losses were:
Multisector category: 13.4%
PIMIX: 12.4%
PDBAX: 10%
PTIAX: 9.3%
Core plus category: 7.1%
US Agg Bond index: 2.6%

@bee, Thank for your your question about what funds I might benchmark my portfolio against. One, the benchmark must be a hybrid fund and have a yield generation of about 3.5%. Not to many hybrid funds achieve this as they are geared more towards growth than income generation. Two funds that I own that come close to the required yield are two widely held American Funds. They are Income Fund of America (AMECX) with a yield of about 3.4% and a ten year average return of 8.5%. The other one is Capital Income Builder (CAIBX) with a yield of 3.6% and a ten year average return of 6.8%. Overall I am at a yield of about 3.4% with a ten year average return of better than 9 percent.
I'm thinking the main reason that I am doing a little better than these funds comes from me being active within my portfolio and my use of special investment "spiff" positions when I feel it warranted. From a yield perspective I pair up better to AMECX and from an asset allocation perspective I pair up more towards CAIBX. Performance wise, again, I have done better than either of these two funds.
My top five funds owned (size wise other than my MMK funds) when combined account for about 25% of my portfolio are AMECX, FKINX, ISFAX, CAIBX & JNBAX.
On your other comment about living below one's means. I feel blessed that both my principal residence and 2nd home are both paid for and have been for a good number of years. Living below my means for a good number of years has helped us (wife and me) get ahead along with good prudent investing.
I have had high school buddies (at reunions) that were indeed much higher wage earners that I ... ask ... I know I made more than you through the years; and, now you have a great deal more than me. How did you do it? Win a lottery? Nope, I just spent less and lived within my means saving some along the way plus I have been a good prudent investor and grown my wealth through the years.
Besides, it cost to much to keep up with the Jones that live off credit cards and are mortgaged to the hilt.
Again, bee ... Thanks for asking. Now you know.
Old_Skeet

I considered investing in PIMIX a while ago. In the multi-sector bond category, PIMIX had generated top-decile trailing returns with below average volatility. The fund's non-agency mortgage sector investments accounted for much of the strong performance after the financial crisis. However, the non-agency mortgage sector is much smaller today. Yet, Pimco refuses to close PIMIX which currently has ~ $120 Bil AUM. Matter of fact, I don't believe that PIMCO has ever closed a fund because it grew too large. This compaoblony policy is not in an investor's best interest.

The above is a good encapsulation of M*'s latest analyst review (not paywalled):
https://www.morningstar.com/articles/986480/why-pimco-income-remains-among-the-best
With the better financial reporting, "trust but verify" is good practice. (With much financial reporting, the "trust" part isn't justified.)
Jacobson writes that "Pre-financial-crisis supply in the [nonagency residential mortgage] sector has been shrinking." Those securities are often referred to as legacy RMBS (i.e. securities issued pre-financial crisis). And the statement's correct. However, the post GFC RMBS 2.0 sector (with stricter borrower guidelines) is growing. Though it is still minuscule; I don't want to suggest otherwise.
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/credit-suisse-and-citigroup-join-other-major-banks-in-mortgage-bond-revival-with-a-twist-2019-08-20
In late 2017 Jacobson (along with lead writer Miriam Sjoblom) was making the same point about a shrinking supply, describing the post GFC years as "a once-in-a-career opportunity. " They also commented even back then on the fund size (more on that below).
A bit concerning is Jacobson's statement that "Pimco still likes the sector for its return potential and modest volatility: ... they totaled 37% as of March 2020." This seems to be overstated.
According to M*'s portfolio page (old-style version) non-agency RMBSs amounted to 8.57% (out of 120% bond exposure) of the portfolio. The largest sector was agency MBS pass throughs at 40.58% (out of 120%), followed by asset-backed securities at 33.63% (out of 120%). All as of March 31, 2020.
According to the fund's annual statement, summary section, non-agency MBSs constituted 19.5% of assets (out of 100%), and asset backed securities constituted 12.8%. We report, you decide :-)
PIMCO says that securities (substantially all are bonds) constitute 154.5% of assets. And it reports non-agency MBSs constituting 30.3% of assets. So the non-agency RMBS percentage of securities (out of 100%) is, according to PIMCO, 30.3%/154% = 19.6%, or about what was reported in the annual statement's summary.
Regarding size: current size is $120B according to PIMCO ($117B according to M*). Jacobson made the same complaint about bloat in his 2018 analyst report (free) entitled "Is PIMCO Income Getting Too Big". According to that year's annual report, the fund's assets (all share classes) totaled $112B, or about the same size as now. But it had grown from about $69B the year before.
Mitigating that, Christine Benz (M*) comments that (at least with respect to vanilla bond funds):

managers who use derivatives to express their market outlooks may be able to successfully manage more girth than managers who focus more on bond-picking to make a difference. PIMCO Total Return and its various clones, for example, were able to deliver peer-beating returns for many years even though the fund grew too large for bond-picking to make a significant difference in its returns. At its peak, PIMCO Total Return had nearly $300 billion in assets, and Gross managed various pools of money in that same style for other entities, too.

PIMCO's funds have their issues, but so far they seem to have handled them better than I would have expected. I might put the fund on a watch list for more problems. But as I wrote above, if I had reasons before for liking the fund, I would examine those reasons before jumping ship.

PIMIX was a great fund until the beginning of 2018. PIMIX is still a decent fund.
You can't look at PIMIX YTD and compare it to BND (high rated bonds) when we had a black swan.
PDIIX is another Pimco fund, much smaller and managed by the same team.
I would go with PTIAX. LT good record + good downside protection. 2 more option are TSIIX and ADVNX.
These 3 funds have the following:
1) 3 year average annually over 4.3%
2) SD(volatility) lower than 5
3) Morningstar return above average or high
4) Morningstar risk low/below average.
See the list below
(link)