+1

@lynnbolin2021, thank you for your articles. I too have been reducing risk and using more asset allocation funds including FMSDX. Just want to simply life. Your research helped considerably to narrow down the vast choices available.
Note that the bond portion of FMSDX has a longer duration of 8.3 years than many intermediate term bonds, in the range of 5-6 years. This fund holds several bond sectors ranging from treasury to EM debts. Rate hike may impact this fund more than those funds with shorter duration.

"In 2021, Part B increased 2.70% to $148.50 monthly from $144.60. Annually that was a $47 increase."
That is correct, but remember that the 2021 was supposed to be four times this amount or $15.60 ($3.90 x 4). It was limited to 25% by the law that was passed to help with Covid (can't remember the law's official name).
It is my understanding that this will be deducted this year in addition to the new calculated amount for 2022, so whatever this year's amount calculates out to, this $11.70 ($3.90 x 3) will be added as well. Of course, this assumes that your particular SS benefit increase exceeds this Medicare increase, otherwise you are held harmless.
Just my two cents worth

Many years ago, one could get into MWTIX at Fidelity at mere mortal mins (not the current $3M). With the lower ER of MWTIX, the fund might be worth holding. But between the higher ER of MWTRX, the fact that Rivelle will be retiring next year, and the fund's asset bloat, it's likely time to leave.
You might take a look at FTBFX. As a Fidelity fund, the short term/excessive trading restrictions are different than non-Fidelity funds at Fidelity. Not a criterion I would use for a fund in this category, but still a differentiator. And a fine fund generally.
A fund that was brought up recently in another thread is WCPNX. It's having a spectacular 2021 (for a bond fund). Though if one disregards the past year, most of the funds you're looking at (with the notable exception of MWTRX) have had similar returns over the lifetime of WCPNX.
So the question is whether this past year is an anomaly or a sign of better things to come. Note that it has the highest volatility of the funds mentioned.
Which brings us to the criterion of risk. You referenced it implicitly ("love the consistency"); it's worth calling out as an explicit criterion. Here's a page that should help make comparing risk metrics on various funds easy:
http://performance.morningstar.com/fund/ratings-risk.action?t=BCOIX
What I notice when I drop in some other funds is that BCOIX tends to be a bit above average (compared with the other funds I'm looking at) in risk - a higher (but not highest) standard deviation (MWTRX is toward the lowest) resulting in slightly lower Sharpe and Sortino ratios.
Regarding credit risk - M* has an interesting way of calculating risk. Instead of assigning 1 to A rated bonds, 2 to B rated bonds, and so on, M* assigns numbers to each credit rating based on how sensitive bonds with that rating are to market changes. It turns out that BBB bonds are much more sensitive than A bonds. So a few BBB bonds can pull the down average credit rating of a whole portfolio.
I like this way of computing the average credit rating of a portfolio, but many do not. 68% of the bonds in MTWRX are rated AAA, nearly 80% are A or better. And only about 6% are junk. But that smattering of junk is enough to pull its portfolio credit rating down to BBB.
In contrast, BCOIX has only 46% of bonds rated AAA, and 65% are A or better. But since it has only about 4% in junk bonds, those A (or better) bonds are good enough to keep the fund's average rating at an A.

Ugh! Nobody's dancing here over our recent Dip/Diplet BUYs as the gains are still negligible and the ST verdict ain't in yet. That said, we have partied pretty hard over the six prior BTDs we've participated in since March 2020, all of which are UP 10%-60%.
But that's NOT the point.
The point is ALL investors have a choice with Dips/Diplets, as we have EVERY day of the year with/without them: BUY, SELL or HOLD.
If you bought this last Dip/Diplet, things are looking good. Stories of the the demise of the BTD strategy seem to have (once again) been greatly exaggerated.
We'll cross over the 50dma today and sights will be set on the most recent S&P high of 4536, 2.2% higher than THU's close.
If you SOLD the most recent Dip/Diplet, I kindly suggest you address the question, "What do I do now that the market has just about fully recovered?"
BTW, that answer should have already been in your investment strategy with specifics on the execution of your strategy at a pre-described time/level. If it wasn't, kindly suggest you put it in there now.
Not the best, but it's FREE:
https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/p-500-price-forecast-p-163010316.html

I've been researching via Fidelity and M* for alternatives to MWTRX. I've owned the fund for several years but with performance pretty close due to current market conditions in Fixed Inc, I'm always 'shopping'. Duration, Avg Maturity, Bond Ratings and Expenses are what I've been focused on.
The 2 Int Core Plus Funds that I have zeroed in on are BCOIX and DODIX. I alraedy own DODIX in an IRA Rollover and love the consistency. Other OEF's I've researched are Western, Pru, American, Pimco etc...I worked for Pru for years so I know their funds intimately.
Any other criteria and ideas that you like as much or more than BCOIX? The expense ration alone is more than 1/2 what MWTRX is along with higher credit quality.
Thanks in advance!

Update:
10/1/21 filing:
https://www.sec.gov/ix?doc=/Archives/edgar/data/872323/000110465921121961/tm2128425-1_485bposseq1.htm

@orage - Thanks for insights on I Bonds. Whatever floats your boat. Gives me a chance to say the metals have popped - pretty much across the board. Gold’s been rising now for a couple weeks, making up for at least a month’s recent decline. Around $1800 again after flirting with $1700. Miners, against the recent trend, have been outperforming the metals of late. Up better than 2% on average today. Silver’s doing even better lately.
(Delete)
Should add -It’s not just the precious metals that have perked up. Seems many industrial metals (like copper & aluminum) have gone ballistic. Not sure how to classify platinum - as it has industrial uses - but it has also turned up lately.

Read this with interest: https://www.barrons.com/articles/multi-asset-income-fund-51634081480
FMSDX- A Flexible Fund for Income-Hungry Investors via Barrons
“ The challenge with such a flexible strategy is having the analytical skills to cover such a diverse mix of securities. Luckily, Kramer has a deep bench supporting him. “We have $122 billion of assets under management in this [High Income and Alternatives] group,” he says. Of the group’s 62 investment professionals, 35 of them are in research, he adds. Kramer has two co-managers on Multi-Asset Income: Ford O’Neil, who also works with Kramer on the bond-focused Fidelity Strategic Income (FADMX), and Ramona Persaud, who runs the dividend-stock-focused Fidelity Equity-Income (FEQIX).”
“ But he prefers being “agnostic” as to investment style and asset class, finding the undiscovered value in any kind of security.”
Seems to be working just fine.

Check out WBALX for a solid 30%- 50% alloc fund.

I did quickly, and while the equity part of WBALX may be "solid", I question the performance of the bond portion in the current rising interest rate environment. It makes up 42% of the fund's portfolio, and of that 67% consists of short term US Treasuries and AAA bonds. It's the only balanced fund I have come across where the SEC dividend yield is negative, according to M*.
The majority of the fund's bonds may actually be a detractor from its future performance, unless management makes a change. Holding cash instead may actually be a better choice in the current environment.
My other question is why a "solid" fund like WBALX has accumulated only $223 million in assets over the past 18 years? What am I missing?
Fred

While a negative yield is less than ideal, their short-term bond holdings have probably held up better than many other bond sleeves in recent quarters. That type of allocation is probably why this fund has less volatility. Works for some, not for others.

Check out WBALX for a solid 30%- 50% alloc fund.

I did quickly, and while the equity part of WBALX may be "solid", I question the performance of the bond portion in the current rising interest rate environment. It makes up 42% of the fund's portfolio, and of that 67% consists of short term US Treasuries and AAA bonds. It's the only balanced fund I have come across where the SEC dividend yield is negative, according to M*.
The majority of the fund's bonds may actually be a detractor from its future performance, unless management makes a change. Holding cash instead may actually be a better choice in the current environment.
My other question is why a "solid" fund like WBALX has accumulated only $223 million in assets over the past 18 years? What am I missing?
Fred

There are never any early redemption fees on Fidelity funds.
Fidelity has two different sets of policies. One on non-Fidelity mutual fund transactions and one on Fidelity fund transactions.
- Make too many (two) short term (within 30 days) round trip (buy, then sell) transactions on a single Fidelity fund in a single account within a 90 day span, and you may begin triggering restrictions on trading Fidelity funds.
http://personal.fidelity.com/products/trading/Trading_Platforms_Tools/excessive_trading_policies.shtml
This is Fidelity's excessive trading policy.
There are so many exceptions that if this is something you really want to do, it shouldn't be a problem. It doesn't apply to MMFs or reinvested divs. It doesn't apply to trades totaling less than $10K per day, as noted above. (The limit had been $1K, but was raised to $10K a year ago.)
Or you can use the same automatic investment mechanism that people use to buy TF funds for a $5 fee. If you use this to buy a Fidelity fund, then regardless of the amount, the transaction doesn't count as part of a round trip.
- Sell shares of a non-Fidelity NTF fund within 60 days of purchase and you will incur a short term trading (not early redemption) fee imposed by the brokerage. (The funds themselves may impose an additional early redemption fee; Fidelity funds do not.)
https://www.fidelity.com/mutual-funds/all-mutual-funds/fees
Unlike the excessive trading policy, which applies to Fidelity funds and is focused on the number of trades in a fund and not the shares, short term trading fees are focused on which shares you sell quickly.
Shares are treated FIFO, so this is also a relatively easy fee to avoid. If you purchase 100 shares in May, another 100 in July, and sell 100 in August, you will be fine. Even if you specifically identify the July shares as the ones you're selling.

No recent fund purchases or sales. But did recently open partial positions in TCEHY and BABA and REIT positions in COLD and PINE. Currently am slightly below my stock allocation percent for 2021 after early September stock trimming and stock market drop since start of that month. Still somewhat agnostic about likely market direction for balance of year. But, earning season is starting out nicely. Will think seriously about 2022 later.....

Yes-and you can sell amounts of Fidelity funds under 10k within 60 days without incurring early redemption transaction fees.

The I-bond semiannual variable inflation rate, based on the Sept vs. Mar CPI-U, will be 3.56% starting Nov 1st, for a composite rate of 7.12% (for 6 months) even if the fixed rate (not announced until Monday, Nov 1st) remains 0%, as seems likely.
If an I-bond is purchased before Nov 1st, because interest is compounded semiannually, one would get (1+1.77%)*(1+3.56%) = 5.39% for that bond's first year.

A lot depends I think on how fast rates rise and how much. A gradual increase probably won't hurt bonds much. A rapid increase would. In a scenario where 10-year corporates yield 3% and new issues suddenly yield 6% because of an inflation or default panic, existing bonds yielding 3% would I believe crash hard. But if corporate bond rates gradually increased over a period of years to 6%, the bond market would have more time to adjust to the shift via the income it is already paying to counteract bond price declines and the gradual increase of higher yielding issues in the outstanding bond mix.

The State of MI retired teachers healthcare premiums have actually declined over the last couple of years, but the deductibles and out-of-pocket costs have risen, very substantially. Items like urgent care or ER visits are very costly now, and the drug prices we pay at the pharmacy have risen plenty. It’s much harder to get approval for prescriptions as the insurers constantly force the doctors to rejustify use of a drug the patient has been taking for years. My doctor says his staff spends hours a week talking to retired docs hired by the insurance companies to just say “no” whenever a prescription renewal is presented.
Our Part D provider sends us countless ads urging us to use mail order for refills. One had best read the fine print because there is a $40 minimum charge, even if the Rx is for a month’s supply of Lisinipril, a drug we pay $1.75 for when we buy it at the local pharmacy. If the doctor orders a 90-day supply of the same drug, the pharmacy is required by the insurer to charge us $16. We go in every month because we have always been thrifty.

(This is a 403b, so hey, I wonder if you can sue TIAA for not automatically moving the RMD each year into some nonretirement cash account ... assuming they did not.)
Assuming the relative tried to sue, "failure to mitigate" comes to mind. (Not advice, just a random thought.)
As the IRS notes, "Although the IRA custodian or retirement plan administrator may calculate the RMD, the IRA or retirement plan account owner is ultimately responsible for calculating the amount of the RMD."
https://www.irs.gov/retirement-plans/retirement-plans-faqs-regarding-required-minimum-distributions#6
Everything in SP500 ETF, I am told.
An S&P 500 ETF investment would have grown at roughly the same rate in a taxable account (since it's extremely tax efficient). So the growth hardly softens the blow, especially since the heirs would have gotten that growth tax-free (up to the estate tax exemption limit, currently about $11.7M). But by leaving the money in the TSA, irrespective of penalties, the growth became taxable as ordinary income.
The calculus would be different had that money been invested in something spinning off tons of ordinary income.

@Crash

I just read that Medicare will eat the increase

Where did you read such a report? Someone doesn't know how to do simple math or what they're writing about!
NOTE: relative to Medicare premium only, not any other changes to Medicare for 2022.
An example: 2021 SS monthly benefit = $2,000/month. The 2022 benefit will be $2,118 ($2,000 X 5.9%). The normal monthly Medicare premium will increase in 2022 from $148.50 to $158.50/month. 2022 SS/monthly benefit increase of $118 - $10, 2022 Medicare monthly premium increase = a net monthly SS benefit increase of $108. This is $1,296/annual.
Someone is doing too much Maui-Wowie. You need to contact whomever wrote what you read to have a re-do moment.

By law, "[t]he standard Part B premiums are set to cover 25% of projected average per capita Part B program costs for the aged, with federal general revenues accounting for the remaining amount."
https://sgp.fas.org/crs/misc/R40082.pdf
However, for 2021 the law was changed so that the federal government absorbed most of the premium increase.

To ... avoid a large premium increase, Congress in the new budget law added enough money to Medicare so, according to a spokesman for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, the Part B premium will increase only by an estimated $4 a month.

https://www.aarp.org/politics-society/advocacy/info-2020/congress-medicare-part-b.html
So part of the increase for 2022 would seem to be catching up to what 2021 should have been. Thus only the remainder of the 2022 increase would be due to the projected rise in medical costs between 2021 and 2022.
That may not make you feel any better, but it does help to harmonize the 2022 premium increase (whatever that turns out to be) with the small increase in medical costs over the past year.
While CMS announces original Medicare premiums in November, it has already released average increases for private Medicare insurance:

The average premium for Medicare Advantage plans will be lower in 2022 at $19 per month, compared to $21.22 in 2021, while projected enrollment continues to increase. As previously announced, the average 2022 premium for Part D coverage will be $33 per month, compared to $31.47 in 2021.

https://www.cms.gov/newsroom/press-releases/cms-releases-2022-premiums-and-cost-sharing-information-medicare-advantage-and-prescription-drug