From what I read the "Market" is priced to perfection and that includes rate cuts starting in March with multiple cuts to follow. If this happens it will be great for bonds, but you have to ask why would this happen? Many people think the cause would be a recession with significantly higher unemployment. In that case, stocks will tank, and Bonds will do well and MMF rates will drop.
However, a lot of other folks think a recession is unlikely soon, with employment holding up, and therefor inflation will come back without any rate cuts by May. Bad for Bonds but good for MMF
The old adage that the expected return from a bond or bond funds is likely it's current yield is probably reasonable. So with yields running 5 to 6% for exotic funds and 4.2 % for "core" that is likely what you will get long term. Inflation may go up but that much? Who knows?

That is a premium bond, so YTM, YTW would be lower.
https://www.investing.com/rates-bonds/ba-8.75-15-sep-2031-scoreboard

Thanks, Yogi.
I was looking at Boeing bonds. The one with CUSIP - 097023AE5. Why does Fidelity show a cCurrent yYield so different from Yield to worst (see below) when there is call protection. Am I not paying attention to something obvious or do I need to read the issuing document?
Basic Analytics
Ask Yield to Worst 5.364%
Ask Yield to Maturity 5.364%
Current Yield 7.229%

The first Treasuries I invested in at Vanguard matured today (actually, the maturity date was 1/15/2024). At Fidelity the money shows up in my account in the AM on the maturity date. The matured T-Bill is still in my Holdings at Vanguard and no activity in the Recent Transactions. Any experience you guys could share about Treasuries maturing at Vanguard would be appreciated.

So long as withholding (plus any estimated taxes paid) cover your 2023 taxes, there's no need to do more. The source of your income (e.g. Roth conversion) doesn't matter - just that you paid in enough to cover taxes.
FWIW, I usually make payments by credit card. No registration required, and I make about 0.8% in the process. That's 2.625% cash rewards less 1.82% processing fee. One comes out ahead even with a 2% cash rewards card like Fidelity's or (ugh) Wells Fargo's.
https://www.irs.gov/payments/pay-your-taxes-by-debit-or-credit-card
Years ago, when there was only one game in town, I used EFTPS. I'm likely still registered. But there are alternatives now.

Addressing just "how to pay": it's possible to use Direct Pay for estimated taxes:
https://irs.gov/payments/direct-pay
Done in 5 minutes or less.

Just have to chuckle. Human anything’s are hard to come by nowadays. Nasty trying to communicate with a robot on other end of the line when you find yourself stranded somewhere at midnight due to flight issues and you’re trying to secure food & shelter for the night. :(
Investing? I heard on Bloomberg Spirit plunged 50% today. Guess there was a ruling against the merger with Jet Blue. There ya go!

I was going to pay estimated taxes on a Roth conversion I did in December. I was going to pay online using the federal electronic payment system (EFTPS). I registered to create an account more than a week ago, but you can’t use the system until they send a pass code in the snail mail. It still hasn’t arrived, and the deadline is today.
Now I’m wondering if I even need to bother. My wife and I both have taxes withheld from our pensions and Social Security. We typically get a refund totaling $1,500-$3,000 each year — much higher than the estimated taxes on my Roth conversion. So do I even need to bother paying estimated taxes on the conversion?

@Soupkitchen. Of course your balanced funds have bonds, perhaps as much as 65% of assets in vanguard Wellesley or the like.

Good point Larry. Best to run an analytical tool to get the true concentration.

@Soupkitchen. Of course your balanced funds have bonds, perhaps as much as 65% of assets in vanguard Wellesley or the like.

”Money Market Funds or Bond Funds? … Is it really time to get back into bond funds? “
I’m currently weighing the question. I’ll get back to you when I know for sure. :)
Honestly, I have a little in a money market fund, a little in a short-term bond fund and a bit in an intermediate-term global bond fund. Roughly equal amounts. I’ve resisted the temptation to play around with HY or inflation hedged products - neither of which I understand very well.
Fido’s analysis tool has me 45% equities / 32% bonds / around 20% short-term paper & money market, with the rest classified as “other” (probably metals). Most of that bond component comes from asset allocation, arbitrage, or L/S type funds, however.
Just watching the action today … Most bond etfs I watch are off .50% - give or take. The 10-year had jumped back above 4% at last look. Much better performance on the short end.

This investor will be 70, come July. I bought (junk) bond funds at just the wrong time, at the start of '22. I've been riding them DOWN, with fatter yields, but the value sank. Now they are doing better in anticipation of rate cuts. But I'm not wanting to get "smoked" on BOTH sides of this proposition. The funds have brought me back to almost -even- right now. I'll be holding onto them. The monthlies are just getting reinvested. USING the dividends will just lengthen your runway, extending the time before you see profit. But it's coming. Better days. Although I do not think we'll see rate cuts from the Fed before the END of this year or into '25. Bond market is outrunning itself.
PRCPX TTM yield = 6.86%
TUHYX TTM yield =7.39%
PIMIX TTM yield =6.21%, looks fine. Stay domestic. PRSNX is the same flavor, but global, rather than domestic only. Its TTM yield is just 4.60%. I'm doing fine for myself with my domestic junk funds, as opposed to EM or anything fancy or complicated. I'd just say: keep it domestic.
MM Treasuries, are you in? We are good there, unless we "break the buck" again. A virtually guaranteed 5.1% in PRTXX is tough to beat, for peace of mind. Is the extra 1 or 2 percent yield worth it to you, if you were to move your dough? Maybe not, and I'd not argue with you.

I would be curious to know what you are investing in now? I sold out of my bond funds at the beginning of 2023 for a nice tax loss. I decided to invest the proceeds into MM funds, which were, and still are paying north of 5%. I am still happy to collect 5% instead of worrying about losing money again in bond funds. "Bond funds are back" is proclaimed now. Is it really time to get back into bond funds? I am investing for income now since I am retired at 65. I am still invested in balanced funds and PIMIX. What do you think?

I have a hard time paying a computer even 0.3% for advice.
Computer-only service at Vanguard costs 0.15%. All these programs and options do get rather confusing. At 0.30% a real human being at Vanguard will help you with some planning issues like sequencing of drawdowns. Not all of the 0.3% is going for paying a computer.
0.15%: Vanguard Digital Advisor® - pure robo, pure index (VTI, BND, VXUS, BNDX)
0.15% Vanguard Digital Advisor - pure robo, ESG index (ESGV, VCEB, VSGX, BNDX)
0.20%: Vanguard Digital Advisor - pure robo, active/passive (as above plus VHCAX, VADGX, VZICX, VAGVX, VAIGX, VCOBX)
0.30%: Vanguard Personal Advisor - hybrid, pure index (same index funds as above)
0.30%: Vanguard Personal Advisor - hybrid, ESG index (same ESG funds as above)
0.35%: Vanguard Personal Advisor - hybrid, active/passive (same as active/passive above)
0.30% Vanguard Personal Advisor Select - dedicated advisor
https://investor.vanguard.com/advice/robo-advisor (pure robo)
https://investor.vanguard.com/advice/personal-hybrid-robo-advisor (hybrid)
https://investor.vanguard.com/advice/personal-financial-advisor
(I can't quite differentiate between all of these either.)

I think, also, you have to decide if you are talking about reinvesting dividends. People who plan to live on their investments may need to spend them, especially if the absolute value has dropped significantly
After 1929 and more relevant to us, after 2000, the market did indeed return to it's previous high in 2007 only to crash again. IT was not until 2013 that it finally hit a new high and stayed there
You need a strategy that allows you to avoid selling during these dips to pay your bills. Taking withdrawals out of equities when the market is within 5% of it's high and using cash when it is not is one that is pretty simple, but it depends on having enough cash to ride out long periods of underperformance

There are periods when actively managed funds beat "the market" (aka S&P 500 in this thread). For example, in the 11 years from 1999 through 2009 S&P 500 index funds beat actively managed LC blend funds only once.
Given a period when stock funds are beating "the market", what can one say about bond sleeves of balanced funds? Certainly if the balanced funds are not beating "the market", then bonds must be pulling down performance. But if typical balanced funds are still beating "the market", you don't know if the bonds are helping performance, or if they are hurting performance but not by so much that the funds don't underperform "the market".
To make that determination, you could compare typical balanced funds with typical stock funds.
As to why "everyone" is beating the market at some time, that could be individual security selection as you suggested, or it could be a general tendency to invest slightly differently from the market (e.g. somewhat more growthy stocks or smaller caps, or in bonds perhaps somewhat lower credit quality). Whatever.

I couldn't find reinvested SP500 TR for that period
NYU/Stern spreadsheet:
https://pages.stern.nyu.edu/~adamodar/New_Home_Page/datafile/histretSP.html
https://www.stern.nyu.edu/~adamodar/pc/datasets/histretSP.xls
From the spreadsheet (it uses S&P 500 TR for years 1957 et seq.):
12/1964 investment: $2661.02
12/1974 value: $3023.54
Nominal ten year cumulative return: positive 13.62%.
Showing once again that memories and speculation are no match for cold, hard numbers :-)
The spreadsheet (if you download the xls version) has several sheets containing explanations, raw data, etc. Very helpful in understanding the figures.
Divs between 1965 and 1973 inclusive tended to run a shade over 3%, and 1974 divs were 5.43%. That seems about right to account for a 32.72% swing in returns between price only and total return.
Still, losing 32% in real dollars (calculated from spreadsheet) including reinvested divs is painful.

I cringe when people talk about stocks for all times and talk only about good times. People have to deal with markets they are in. So, these historical data are useful for perspectives.
In the charts above, I tried to add SP500 but couldn't. I looked up SP500 index data:
12/1964 84.75
12/1974 68.56
That was -19.10% index return during that 10-yr period. I couldn't find reinvested SP500 TR for that period - I think that it still would be negative. In that time, VWELX was just flat, but DODBX and FPURX were positive. Did the people investing in 1965 know this? If not, what would have been a prudent course, especially if decumulation in retirement was expected.
10-yr periods ending around dot.com bubble, the GFC, the 2020 Pandemic were difficult too. So, that is the lesson - bad stuff happens, and occasionally.

Market has good times and bad times.
Indeed. Another venerable balanced fund, PGEOX, outperformed FPURX for 8.5 years starting 12/31/64, before falling behind in the last 1.5 years of that 10 year span.
Funds are not static, they evolve and adapt.
For example, in 2008, Puritan explicitly changed from "emphasizing above-average income-producing equity securities, which tends to lead to investments in stocks that have more 'value' characteristics than 'growth' characteristics" to a fund that "is not constrained by any particular investment style. At any given time, FMR may tend to buy 'growth' stocks or 'value' stocks, or a combination of both types."
Here are descriptions of how a couple of its peers changed over decades:

Initially focusing on a simple mix of blue-chip stocks and high-grade bonds, [the George Putnam Balanced Fund] has expanded its universe over the years, incorporating international equities, high-yield bonds, and even alternative investments to diversify and enhance returns.
The management of the fund has also transitioned from a primarily fundamental, research-driven approach to one that incorporates technical analysis and global economic trends. This evolution reflects the fund’s commitment to maintaining its foundational principles while adapting to the complexities of the modern financial world.
...
Originally a hybrid of stocks and bonds, the[Wellington] fund has continually recalibrated its asset mix in response to economic cycles. During periods of market exuberance, such as the post-World War II boom and the late 20th-century bull markets, the fund shifted towards a higher allocation in stocks to capture growth.
Conversely, in times of economic downturns and uncertainties, like the oil crises of the 1970s and the financial crisis of 2008, the fund increased its bond holdings, prioritizing capital preservation and income. The Wellington Fund’s management has been characterized by a blend of historical wisdom and a forward-looking approach, consistently adapting to the ever-evolving market dynamics.

https://pictureperfectportfolios.com/what-are-the-oldest-mutual-funds-historic-investments-revealed/
Whether these and other fund changes have handled markets in good times and bad I leave for others to decide. The point here (since someone keeps asking me what the point is) is that these may not be your father's (or your grandfather's) funds. It's fun to see how they did half a century ago, but is it meaningful?

\\\FPURX from Jan '73 to summer '82, Ray Gun era, way more than doubles. Granted the end period was a time of 15% inflation
\\\ Inflation in 1974 (the era of Watergate and Whip Inflation Now) was about the same as inflation in 1980 - a shade over 12%. There was no calendar year with 15% inflation. It peaked at 13¼% in 1979.
As so often, I cannot tell your point except to be contrary.

The points are that memories fade, people remember things as worse (or better) than they were (back when I went to school I walked ten miles in the snow uphill both ways), and that it's easy enough to pull up the actual data if the numbers support what people remember. Such as ...

\\\ three-month CDs in early May 1981 paid about 18.3 percent APY, according to data from the St. Louis Federal Reserve.

Interesting factoid, but only circumstantial evidence of inflation. Connect the dots. What was the spread between CD rates and inflation? It may be negative now (CDs yielding less than inflation), but that doesn't mean that CDs weren't providing significant real returns in the 80s. They were, and without knowing that spread, we can't say much about the inflation rate from CDs.
Also, it's easy enough to link to sources if one is so inclined. Since you like the St. Louis Fed, here's its inflation data in tabular and graphic forms.
to summer '82 ... the end period was a time of 15% inflation
You questioned my selection of calendar year figures. What would you have preferred? Annual inflation as of the summer of '82? FPURX hit its 1982 peak on June 15th.
If my point were to be contrary, I'd quibble that this date wasn't in the summer. But my intent is to look at real data, not faded memories. So let's look at June 1982. Prices had risen over the past 12 months (not calendar year) by 7.1%. Less than half of 15%. (Source: BLS)
You wrote (pardon my paraphrasing) that you couldn't understand how investments such as FPURX could rise so much in nominal terms (1973-1984) while the market just broke even in real terms (Hulbert). By conceding that inflation was high at the "end period" of 1973-summer 1982, you implied that inflation was not so high at other times as to explain the apparent contradiction.
My response in part was to point out (with actual data) that your memory of inflation was fuzzy. Though inflation in the "end period" was not quite as high as you remembered, it was high throughout the 12 year span and in fact was virtually as high in 1974 as it was in 1980. That goes part of the way to explaining what you saw as a contradiction.
The rest of the explanation had to do with your selection of reference fund. There were multiple issues there.

\\\ Adjusted for inflation, the cumulative return of the S&P 500 over the calendar years 1973-1984 was 0.0266%. Unadjusted, it was 148%.
Yes, why I chose a balanced fund. Is FPURX an outlier? Should I have chosen something other?

As I showed in the data below, FPURX well outperformed reputable, well known peers. Those peers, VWINX and VWELX still demonstrated your point (that balanced funds could outperform the market) while looking less like cherry picking.

\\\ In a time when fund managers could get inside information (no Reg FD), it wasn't hard for managers to beat the market. Puritan was especially successful, but lots of well known stock and balanced funds beat that 148% nominal return, such as VWINX (211%), FFIDX (201%), DODGX (193%), VWELX (175%).
Ah, that must be it. Entirely! Of course the two middle ones are stock funds, no?
So ... is there a point here?

The fact that stock funds could perform as well as balanced funds suggests that it might not be stocks vs. bonds, but rather active vs. passive. As I noted, it was not that difficult for well researched and well connected active management to outperform. Merely showing that an outlier balanced fund (or a typical balanced fund) outperformed the market is not sufficient to show that the bond sleeve helped. Not when pure stock funds were achieving similar returns.
Bonds may not even have helped. It depends on which bonds and how they were used. In nominal terms, S&P 500 returned 148% over12 years, 1983-1984 and 10 year Treasuries just 110%, though Baa corporates returned 168%. Data again from NYU/Stern spreadsheet.