All the bonds will gradually converge on their face value at maturity. So the 0.625% bonds, with a current price below face value, will continue to gain value as you said.
The 4.25% bonds are currently priced slightly above par. So their market price will gradually decline toward par. But the coupon payments until maturity will more than make up for the slight decline in price.
The "face value" or "principal" is what a bond pays at maturity. If these were physical paper bonds, this amount would be printed on their face. Hence the term face value.
I believe that what you are looking at is the fund's latest semi-annual report, Form N-CSRS.
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/105544/000110465923065152/tm239404d2_ncsrs.htm
N-PORT forms are much less readable. Here's the fund's latest one.
Neither reports the purchase price - just current and maturity values.
Fidelity shows a current asking price of $94.280, i.e. 94.28% of face value. The semi-annual (March 31) report valued the bonds at 473,758/501,000 or 94.56% of face value. This decline is due to market interest rates rising. Offsetting that decline, but only partially, was the bond's gradual appreciation, heading toward face value at maturity.
If you have a login at Fidelity, you can see the quote here.

@msf If I understand what you said, then the .625 % & 1 % bonds will continue to gain value as they get closer to maturity. I take that "face amount" is total purchase of that particular bond or note ,etc. ?
Thanks for your time, Derf

Still 35% bonds in the portfolio here. Of that, 63% = junk.

@MikeM If you're thinking about doing a full transfer of an account to Fidelity, it would be better to wait until the account is officially a Schwab account. TDA charges $75 for a full transfer, Schwab "only" $50. At Fidelity full transfers are free. (Partial account transfers are free at all three brokerages).
https://www.tdameritrade.com/pricing/brokerage-fees.html
https://www.schwab.com/legal/schwab-pricing-guide-for-individual-investors
https://www.fidelity.com/trading/commissions-margin-rates
Generally, fees at Fidelity are the same or slightly less than at Schwab. And Fidelity offers a relatively high paying government MMF as a transaction account, while Schwab requires you to use a bank sweep paying 0.45%.
Of interest to mutual fund investors, Schwab charges its short term trading fee on NTF funds if you trade in under 90 days. At Fidelity it is only 60 days. And Fidelity enables you to add shares to a TF position for $5, while Schwab charges the full $49.95. OTOH, at least a couple of posters have said they've been able to get Schwab to waive its fund transaction fees altogether.
Also, some funds offer multiple institutional share classes and Schwab may give you access to the cheaper share class than Fidelity does. For example, you can buy PIMIX at Schwab (TF), while at Fidelity you're stuck with the higher ER class PIPNX (TF).
I think the service is excellent at both brokerages. In this regard one could not go wrong either way.
WIth respect to brokerage acquisitions: I've not seen a company pay its customers when it was acquired. And I've rarely seen customers complain about that. Certainly Tweeters have complained about Twitter service since Musk bought it. But at the time he purchased the company I didn't see them saying they should get a share of his payment.
FWIW, Schwab advertises that it has more locations than Fidelity. Of course what matters is whether it has a brokerage location near you, not how many it has elsewhere.
https://www.schwab.com/compare-us

She already had her 15 minutes of fame.

@hank Yep but anything (or most things) that go beyond a few pages head off page in some way or the other even if it's just a bond discussion turning into oil stock on page 5.

Democrats are losing the PR battle and the actual battle on this. Striking that a GOP House majority of 5 seats can call the shots over a Democrat controlled Senate and WH. What were the Dems smoking when they intentionally chose to not take any action on the debt ceiling between Nov and January when Dems controlled all of DC. Dems are the party of stupid when it comes to political maneuvering.
Dems are looking pretty stupid here ---> negotiating hard after months of clean debt ceiling raise stance and now reportedly agreeing to more military spending, reducing IRS budgets and cuts to other programs to make way for increased military spend.
McCarthy, McHenry, Graves are all out there giving daily press talks and Dems have nobody prominent doing the same. GOP pulled their s##t together and Dems are literally giving away the chips.

I don't share your opinion, based on a wide array of news sources I follow.

Vanguard Health Care had an annualized 16.4% return during Ed Owens'
long tenure (05/23/1984 - 12/31/2012) compared to the the S&P 500 index's 10.7% return. This fund has not performed as well since Jean Hynes became the sole named manager in 2013. Note: Today it was announced that longtime analyst Rebecca Sykes
was promoted to comanager on Vanguard Health Care.

Jean Hynes performance hasn't beaten the Morningstar US Health index since she took over. I am pleasantly surprised that they named a comanager. Jean Hynes is also the CEO of Wellington, so not exactly an easy person to remove from a fund against her will.

Democrats are losing the PR battle and the actual battle on this. Striking that a GOP House majority of 5 seats can call the shots over a Democrat controlled Senate and WH. What were the Dems smoking when they intentionally chose to not take any action on the debt ceiling between Nov and January when Dems controlled all of DC. Dems are the party of stupid when it comes to political maneuvering.
Dems are looking pretty stupid here ---> negotiating hard after months of clean debt ceiling raise stance and now reportedly agreeing to more military spending, reducing IRS budgets and cuts to other programs to make way for increased military spend.
McCarthy, McHenry, Graves are all out there giving daily press talks and Dems have nobody prominent doing the same. GOP pulled their s##t together and Dems are literally giving away the chips.

That ability of a fund to request information is a direct result of the market trading scandal:

The market timing and late trading issues of the mid 2000’s were caused, in certain cases, by the lack of transparency regarding beneficial mutual fund owners invested through omnibus accounts. Rule 22c-2 under the 1940 Act, which the SEC adopted in response to those scandals, requires a fund to enter into written agreements with financial intermediaries, including those maintaining omnibus account positions with the fund, in which the intermediary agrees to provide the fund with certain shareholder information upon request and to implement any fund-imposed trading restrictions on investors identified by the fund as having violated the fund’s frequent trading policy

https://www.perkinscoie.com/images/content/1/1/v2/115211/IL-0712-Williamson.pdf
Still, as you said, this only goes so far:

Although these policies are designed to deter frequent trading, none of these measures alone, nor all of them taken together, eliminate the possibility that frequent trading will occur in these funds, particularly with respect to trades placed by shareholders who invest in these funds through omnibus accounts maintained by brokers, retirement plan accounts, and other financial intermediaries. The Funds’ access to information about individual shareholder transactions made through such omnibus arrangements is often unavailable or severely limited. As a result, the Funds cannot ensure that their policies will be enforced with regard to those fund shares held through such omnibus arrangements (which may represent a majority of fund shares), so frequent trading could adversely affect these funds and their long-term shareholders as discussed above.

Guggenheim Funds frequent trading policy
Sometimes (though probably not with this), enforcement is effected through intimidation, being told something like: "we can get you if you break our rules", even if that's not true.

Even with no change in market rates, bond prices change. This is most obvious with zero coupon bonds. They are sold at a discount and one gets yield from price appreciation.
As bonds get closer to maturity, their prices gradually converge to par. If the coupon is below current market rate based a bond's remaining maturity, a bond will be priced below par. If the coupon is above current market rate a bond will be priced above par. This is true regardless of when a bond was sold or why it was sold with a particular coupon rate.
The 0.625% bond is a discount bond. That coupon is so low, it's almost like a zero, that trades below par for its entire lifetime. You need to know Wellesley's acquisition price before you can say whether the fund has a mark-to-market loss or gain. All one can tell from the current price and coupon is the YTM.
The march toward par is not linear. A disproportionate amount of price gain of a discount bond comes early. If a 10 year bond is sold at a discount, then five years later the bond price will have gone up more than half (assuming no change in market rates). That's because it is now a 5 year bond and 5 year bonds yield less than 10 year bonds (usually).
So one can pick up some yield by continually selling bonds and buying longer term bonds rather than holding bonds to maturity. This strategy is often called "rolling down the yield curve".
https://corporatefinanceinstitute.com/resources/fixed-income/rolling-down-the-yield-curve/
The 0.625% bond

@yogibearbull : Yes sir I got all of that. If only they had more $ to throw at the higher rate. Note also .625 rate shows a loss !! Go figure ?!

Was I supposed to sell on the 1st day of May or the last? This investing stuff is so confusing sometimes.

Chill Out Mark - Like Melania ”I really don’t care …”

new (persuasive) thoughts on inflation
https://messaging-custom-newsletters.nytimes.com/template/oakv2?campaign_id=116&emc=edit_pk_20230526&instance_id=93572&nl=paul-krugman&productCode=PK&regi_id=22268089&segment_id=134011&te=1&uri=nyt://newsletter/e5fb7e76-bcbf-5c61-be18-2fdaaa5dc431&user_id=83d45440ead1d14c2a89a1e7221337d1

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1005020/000093041323001656/c106434_497.htm
497 1 c106434_497.htm
Virtus FORT Trend Fund,
a series of Virtus Opportunities Trust
Supplement dated May 25, 2023, to the Summary and Statutory Prospectuses and Statement of Additional Information (“SAI”) of the fund named above, each dated January 27, 2023, as supplemented
Important Notice to Investors
On May 23, 2023, the Board of Trustees of Virtus Opportunities Trust voted to approve a Plan of Liquidation of the Virtus FORT Trend Fund (the “Fund”), pursuant to which the Fund will be liquidated (the “Liquidation”) on or about July 12, 2023 (“Liquidation Date”).
Effective June 9, 2023, the Fund will be closed to new investors and additional investor deposits, except that purchases will continue to be accepted for defined contribution and defined benefit retirement plans, and the Fund will continue to accept payroll contributions and other types of purchase transactions from both existing and new participants in such plans. Investors should note that the Fund’s investments will be sold in anticipation of the Liquidation and may be sold in advance of June 9, 2023.
At any time prior to the Liquidation Date, shareholders may redeem or exchange their shares of the Fund for shares of the same class of any other Virtus Mutual Fund. There will be no fee or sales charges associated with exchange or redemption requests.
Prior to the Liquidation Date, the Fund will begin engaging in business and activities for the purposes of winding down the Fund’s business affairs and transitioning some or all of the Fund’s portfolios to cash and cash equivalents in preparation for the orderly liquidation and subsequent distribution of its assets on the Liquidation Date. During this transition period, the Fund will no longer pursue its investment objective or be managed in a manner consistent with its investment strategies, as stated in the Prospectuses. This is likely to impact the Fund’s performance. The impending Liquidation of the Fund may result in large redemptions, which could adversely affect the Fund’s expense ratios. Those shareholders who remain invested in the Fund during part or all of this transition period may bear increased brokerage and other transaction expenses relating to the sale of portfolio investments prior to the Liquidation Date.
On the Liquidation Date, any outstanding shares of the Fund will be automatically redeemed as of the close of business, except shares held in BNY Mellon IS Trust Company custodial accounts, which will be exchanged for shares of the Virtus Seix U.S. Government Securities Ultra-Short Bond Fund. For BNY Mellon IS Trust Company custodial accounts, Class A shares, Class I shares and Class R6 shares of the Fund will be exchanged for Class A shares, Class I shares and Class R6 shares of the Virtus Seix U.S. Government Securities Ultra-Short Bond Fund, respectively. Class C shares of the Fund will be exchanged into Class A shares of the Virtus Seix U.S. Government Securities Ultra-Short Bond Fund, and any contingent deferred sales charges will be waived.
Shareholders with BNY Mellon IS Trust Company custodial accounts should consult the prospectus for the Virtus Seix U.S. Government Securities Ultra-Short Bond Fund for information about that fund. The proceeds of any redemption will be equal to the net asset value of such shares after the Fund has paid or provided for all charges, taxes, expenses and liabilities. The distribution to shareholders of these liquidation proceeds will occur as soon as practicable, and will be made to all Fund shareholders of record at the time of the Liquidation. Additionally, the Fund must declare and distribute to shareholders any realized capital gains and all net investment income no later than the final liquidation distribution. The Fund intends to distribute substantially all of its net investment income prior to the Liquidation.
Although shareholders are expected to receive proceeds of the Liquidation in cash, proceeds distributed to shareholders may be paid in cash, cash equivalents, or portfolio investments equal to the shareholder’s proportionate interest in the net assets of the Fund (the latter payment method, “in kind”). Shareholders who receive proceeds in kind should expect (i) that the in-kind distribution will be subject to market and other risks, such as liquidity risk, before sale, and (ii) to incur transaction costs, including brokerage costs, when converting the investments to cash.
Because the exchange or redemption of your shares could be a taxable event, we suggest you consult with your tax advisor prior to the Fund’s liquidation.
Investors should retain this supplement with the Prospectuses and SAI for future reference.
VOT 8567 FORT Trend Fund Supplement (5/2023)

The fund files its complete schedule of portfolio holdings with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (SEC) for the first and third quarters of each fiscal year as an exhibit to its reports on
Form N-PORT. The fund’s Form N-PORT reports are available on the SEC’s website at
www.sec.gov.
Coupon
Maturity
Date
Face
Amount
($000)
Market
Value •
($000)
U.S. Government and Agency Obligations (12.1%)
U.S. Government Securities (11.7%)
United States Treasury Note/Bond 0.625% 10/15/24 501,000 473,758
United States Treasury Note/Bond 4.500% 11/30/24 175,000 175,656
United States Treasury Note/Bond 1.000% 12/15/24 68,000 64,430
United States Treasury Note/Bond 4.250% 12/31/24 392,264 392,57
Why the difference in rates as the maturities are close ? DCA Purchased at different time, probably.
Face amount & Market value shown.
So the banks weren't the only ones getting whacked. Wonder if Wellington was holding any T's & notes, ETC..

What will be the rating if we do default?

“Although Wood holds Nvidia across several of her smaller funds, investors in the flagship ARK Innovation ETF (ticker ARKK) have mostly been left out of this year’s blistering 159.90% rally.”
OOPS!
Story Here

Vanguard Health Care had an annualized 16.4% return during Ed Owens'
long tenure (05/23/1984 - 12/31/2012) compared to the the S&P 500 index's 10.7% return.
This fund has not performed as well since Jean Hynes became the sole named manager in 2013.
Note: Today it was announced that longtime analyst Rebecca Sykes
was promoted to comanager on Vanguard Health Care.

[snip]
Also, I would not leave a dime in any Wells Fargo accounts. That bank has a poor history, and I'm not convinced that the culture there has changed. If a bank is opening accounts that customers didn't approve, you don't deal with that bank.

+1
"Wells Fargo has been sanctioned repeatedly by U.S. regulators for violations of consumer protection laws going back to 2016, when employees were found to have opened millions of accounts illegally in order to meet unrealistic sales goals. Since then, executives have repeatedly said Wells is cleaning up its act, only for the bank to be found in violation of other parts of consumer protection law, including in its auto and mortgage lending businesses."
"While Wells Fargo tried to frame the agreement with the CFPB as a resolution of established bad behavior, CFPB officials said some of the violations cited in Tuesday’s order took place this year."
Link