@AndyJ

I could be a little wealthier now if I'd gone into that trade more heavily back then, instead of cautiously.

This "trend" may persist. Good for you for paying attention and for acting on it. Some trends are short lived...some longer in duration. To me, this is where 3 month charts are helpful. Trends tend to persist. When they break down...they tend make "lower-lows" over a 1-3-6 month time frame. Go luck with your investments.
Here's an example using VIS over the last year...short lower-lows, but the trend shows longer "higher-lows". I try to look at trends this way. The red arrows are "lower Lows' and the green arrows are "higher-lows".
45 % higher-lows over the last year.

Here’s what PRWCX manager David Geroux said recently about IG bonds as an investment:
“What I would tell you about rates today is that the risk/reward on Treasuries or IG [investment grade] is so poor, it gets a situation where if rates stay static, you make very, very low returns. If rates revert back to more normalized levels, you lose a lot of money. And if rates go down, you don't have a lot of room for rates to go down … So, it's a really negatively skewed risk-adjusted return … As a result of that, we have a very short duration in our fixed-income portfolio, probably the shortest duration we've had since I've been running this strategy. Our duration today is 1.5 years” LINK
Your attempts to immunize the thread from mention of PRWCX or manager David Geroux’s views on the question “Why do you still own Bond funds?” sounds to me a bit cocoonish. Why would your view, or my view, or that of anyone else here on the question supersede that of Mr. Geroux as both verbalized by him publicly and as practiced thru his management approach?
-
“David Geroux is a five-time nominee and two-time winner of Morningstar's Fund Manager of the Year award in the allocation category. David’s fund has also won 15 "Best Fund" awards 2 from Lipper. “
Okay hank, I am not attempting to "immunize the thread" from mentioning PRWCX. I am simply stating that PRWCX is not a Bond Fund, it is an allocation fund, in which equities are the focused investment, and bonds are more in the "ballast" category, as a complement to equities. I have been in many thread debates, in which PRWCX investors, do not think PRWCX should even be classified as an "allocation fund", but rather it should be classified as a value oriented equity fund. Giroux has a history of being a value oriented investor, who will decrease equities when he thinks they are overvalued, and use the bond component (or cash) as a way of holding assets, that can be used to buy equities when they are fairly valued. There are many investors who invest in that manner, but the question is what "bond fund" are they going to use as a ballast fund for their equities, or will they just pick their favorite allocation fund, and let that manager choose bonds as they desire. Other investors, are more focused bond fund investors, who will use selected "bond funds" for total return and ballast. When they look to "bond funds", it makes sense to look at those "bond fund" managers, who excel in performance for those bond funds, to meet bond fund objectives, that fit the roles investors using those "bond funds". What I have learned about your posts on PRWCX, is that Giroux is a great "allocation fund" manager, who believes that Investment Grade Bond oefs and treasuries are out of favor for his allocation fund, and the other types of bonds (not specifically identified for this thread) are short duration bond holdings. I choose to emphasize what great bond fund managers, (like Ivascyn, Gundlach, etc.) are doing with their investments, but other posters/lurkers will likely find value in other ways on this "bond fund" thread.

On the lighter side (in a shake your head sort of way)....perhaps this idea has SPAC potential:
Moving Heaven and Earth to Save the Planet
Of course this idea never got off the ground:
Flipping Islands For Fun and Profit

“Infinity Q Capital Management says it plans to return approximately $500 million to investors who were unable to get their money back after the investment firm halted redemptions on a then-$1.7 billion mutual fund earlier this year. It remains unclear how much investors will eventually recoup from the Infinity Q Diversified Alpha Fund. The fund currently has around $1.3 billion on hand—well below where it was last valued in February—and it will keep $750 million in reserve …
“(The) firm unexpectedly halted redemptions in February and said it couldn’t value its holdings. The move stunned market participants, some of whom viewed their investments in the fund as a hedge to their broader portfolios. Infinity held wide-ranging bets across stock, currency and derivatives markets, including over-the-counter positions … Infinity appeared to have misvalued its large derivatives portfolio. Some of the valuations it disclosed were too high and, in one instance, mathematically impossible.”
From WSJ June 9, 2021
https://www.wsj.com/articles/infinity-q-capital-management-plans-to-return-500-million-to-mutual-fund-investors-11623181417

@dtconroe,
Here’s what PRWCX manager David Geroux said recently about IG bonds as an investment:
“What I would tell you about rates today is that the risk/reward on Treasuries or IG [investment grade] is so poor, it gets a situation where if rates stay static, you make very, very low returns. If rates revert back to more normalized levels, you lose a lot of money. And if rates go down, you don't have a lot of room for rates to go down … So, it's a really negatively skewed risk-adjusted return … As a result of that, we have a very short duration in our fixed-income portfolio, probably the shortest duration we've had since I've been running this strategy. Our duration today is 1.5 years” LINK
Your attempts to immunize the thread from mention of PRWCX or manager David Geroux’s views on the question “Why do you still own Bond funds?” sounds to me a bit cocoonish. Why would your view, or my view, or that of anyone else here on the question supersede that of Mr. Geroux as both verbalized by him publicly and as practiced thru his management approach?
-
“David Geroux is a five-time nominee and two-time winner of Morningstar's Fund Manager of the Year award in the allocation category. David’s fund has also won 15 "Best Fund" awards 2 from Lipper. “ LINK

Compare whatever you have vs a benchmark (VBIAX or your desired VYM/VCIT allocation). Many times a 10-30 fund portfolio will under perform over 5 year rolling periods. Choose your key metrics. That, in turn, may provide guidance how to think about this question.

Too much for me to digest tonight. But I trust ProPublica. On YouTube, I've run into a guy who runs a business geared for the ultra-wealthy. He helps them strategize about how to hide money from the tax man. It can get extreme. He mentions that there are countries around the world that SELL citizenship, for a donation into a "National Fund." Alternatively, you could buy and hold real estate for at least 5 years. Then, after 5 years, you could apply for citizenship there. (Until then, you're granted a 5-year "golden visa," residency permit.) St. Lucia. Vanuatu. Dominica. Granada. Trinidad & Tobago. Serbia. Montenegro. Portugal. Ireland. (Got that one covered.) Even Egypt.
This guy recently RENOUNCED his US citizenship. THAT will take care of the higher US tax in a big way..... He chose St. Lucia.

7 mutual funds. And just since yesterday, ONE single stock. I don't use buckets, but I do my best to cover large, small, foreign, domestic. Stocks. Bonds. (Currently: 40 stocks, 56 bonds. And 4 cash.)

China seems to think so.
As far as the list of “Assets for Protection Against Inflation”, proceed at your own risk. One might consider that there are shaper minds in the world than Ms, Peters who have already identified the potential and bid these assets up. Wish investing were as simple as opening a book and looking up “What to Buy” for any occasion that might present itself. Not to say these ideas won’t work - just that the game’s not as easy as it sounds nor the playing field as level as one might assume.
How about Katelyn Peters? Is she under any obligation not to invest in these areas first? Is she forbidden from sharing her list with her closest friends or family members before releasing it to the public?
#5 - S&P 500? Really? What a unique idea!
#10 - TIPS? In theory only. There’s been numerous articles in recent months attesting to their being wildly overbought. Some discussion here as well.

LOL - Wonder if 54321 would be better?
The “Speed of Light” would be cool. But how to express that in 4 digits?

@Mark,
A CIT is a Collective Investment Trust.
CITs may be available via some defined contribution plans [401(k), 457(b), etc.].
They are similar to mutual funds but have less reporting requirements and are not governed by the SEC.
CITs usually have lower expense ratios than corresponding mutual funds.
For example, I own MIEIX (0.70% er) in my 401(k).
When my 401(k) plan replaces MIEIX with a CIT "clone" on 07/01, it will have a 0.58% er.

Link

Thinking about the original question, I've tried to take a step back and reformulate the question a bit: what is a bond, and why would one own a bond (or in the aggregate a bond fund)?
From a business finance perspective, a bond is a way to raise cash without selling part of a company. Funds are characterized as bond funds if they hold these financial instruments; not if they behave like traditional bonds. This is an important distinction because it affects what we mean when we talk about bond funds.
From an investor perspective, a traditional IG bond is a way to get a better return than in a bank. In exchange, one takes on a modest amount of risk, some of which can be diversified away in a fund. IG bonds preserve nominal principal, though inflation gradually reduces their value over time.
One diverges (slightly) from this traditional perspective of bonds as pure income streams when one starts trading bonds in an attempt to increase total return. This began in the 70s, largely with Bill Gross and total return funds. These funds take on a measure of equity characteristics, especially as they add junk bonds. At this point, ISTM one is at the edge of crossing over from "bonds" to "allocation" funds, in behavior albeit not in name.
Moving on, multisector bond funds behave significantly like allocation funds. But because they're still bond funds from a finance perspective, people can feel good about eating their vegetables - investing in "bonds" while getting better returns.
Here's Portfolio Visualizer's correlation matrix of a "pure bond" (albeit leveraged) multisector fund PDIIX, a multisector fund with a 13% equity kicker RPSIX, and a rougly 40/60 allocation fund (disregarding cash) FTANX. The five year time frame I selected is the period covered by PDIIX's current management team including Ivascyn.
They're all pretty well correlated. Further, annualized standard deviations are quite close together, ranging from 5.62% to 5.84%. In terms of risk and performance these multisector funds feel like hybrid funds.
I do own a multisector fund (none of the funds here), but I expect it to behave like a hybrid fund. It's just another way for me to get that risk/reward profile.
To the extent that I use IG bond funds, they're there to serve as the last bastion before dipping into equities should stocks swoon for several years. On the short end, I use short/ultrashort funds as backup to pure cash - a bit more return in exchange not drawing upon them monthly in case of hiccups.
I've no bond funds for a traditional, widows and orphans, monthly pension type cash flow.

“PRWCX was a very conservative balanced fund years ago … Giroux has produced stellar total return, but it does not fit very well into a "bond" thread…”

I was merely responding to this sentence from FD-100 (same thread): “PRWCX performance since 2000 shows that it made more money than the SP500 with lower volatility.”
Of course PRWCX’s not a bond fund. I do like stepping on sacred cows now and than (like PRWCX) - even though I own the fund myself. As far as bonds, Giroux in the last year has described them a very poor investment which he avoids - except for a few of the high-yield and convertible types. (Perhaps that qualifies him for inclusion in this thread?)
As far as risk, Giroux asserts in his most recent fund report that he thinks he can preserve investors’ principal over a 3-year time horizon. That, I think, remains to be proven. Yes - a more aggressive fund today. Exposure to tech and large caps has hurt his performance recently. However - I wouldn’t bet against this guy.

5 in my long-long term account that I rarely touch (several AFs)
3 in my more actively-managed account (PRWCX, MGGIX, PRILX)
1 as the only holding in my 403(b) (RWMGX)
The vast majority of the OEF holdings are in equity. (There's FI in PRWCX, and I hold a modest 30+ year position in FKTIX.)

I try to structure my portfolio into three buckets.
Bucket 1 - Cash / Bond Funds (for Income)
I hold a cash or bond positions with each account I have. Presently this bucket has 17% of my portfolio and represents 3-5 years of income (I may need to spend in retirement).
Bucket 2 - Asset Allocation Funds (for Capital Preservation)
I hold 3 AA funds and they make up 35% of my portfolio. These funds attempt to outpace inflation, reduce downside market risk, and achieve moderate growth.
Bucket 3 - Sector / Category Funds (for Growth)
I hold 10 funds here. These tend to be buy and hold positions and represent 48% of my portfolio. My plan is to periodically sell shares to replenish/enhance bucket 1 (Cash / Bonds) especially when these "Bucket 3 funds" capture above normal gains. I am more actively evaluating these funds for consistent performance, manager risk/reward, and trend momentum.

5. I played the 20-30 game at one time but found that I was never able to strike a meaningful position in any particular one, enough to move the needle on total portfolio performance that is. As mentioned by hank I also grew tired monitoring all of them finding better things to do with my time. Everyone is and can be different though.

I own 9 funds and seek to keep my fund total no more than 10. I usually own closer to 5 or 6.

@shipwreckedandalone : Found it or one would say part of the problem.
How did the Fund’s overall asset allocation shift from beginning to end of the semi-annual period?
At the end of September 2020, the Fund had a weighting of approximately 56% in stocks, 36% in fixed income securities and
8% in cash equivalents. This compared to the allocation at the end of March 2020 of approximately 62% in stocks, 31% in fixed
income securities and 7% in cash equivalents. After the U.S. equity market rebounded sharply from its first quarter 2020 lows,
we positioned the Fund more defensively by increasing its allocation to fixed income in recognition of the heightened
uncertainties faced by the market.
Thanks Derf

When a fund's performance suddenly takes a nosedive or soars into the stratosphere, there are a few things I check before even delving into the fund's details:
- Is the performance naturally volatile, bouncing from top quintile to bottom? Not here.
- Has the fund recently switched categories? Not here.
- Does the fund typically invest in a portion of the market that has done well long term, but has recently seen its fortunes change?
Yes. Of the 50%-70% equity allocation funds, fourteen distinct funds, including VLAAX focus on large cap growth funds. Of these fourteen funds, aside from the notable exception of Puritan (FPURX, FPKFX), these funds have pretty much all done miserably YTD, generally in the bottom quintile, despite over half being 4-5* funds.
Puritan sits on the blend/growth border so would tend to be less severely hurt by the rotation from growth to value.

LOL - Always controversial. I find it really cumbersome to track more than 15 (plus 2 or 3 cash accounts). So strive to be in the 15-16 fund ballpark.
Sure, you can compile a single list of 50 funds if you want - and track. Not hard to do. But when you start arranging those into meaningful sub-groups, portfolio sleeves, or whatever else you call them … that’s when the rubber hits the road and tracking difficulty intensifies.
Currently, I hold 15-16 traditional type funds which provide exposure to a variety of investment types & styles. Here’s a list of those types.
(1) domestic growth
(2) domestic value
(3 ) global growth
4) gold / pm miners,
(5) commodities
(6) EM bonds,
(7) global investment grade income
8 domestic investment grade income,
(9) high yield municipal
(10) 2 risk parity funds
(11) a hedge-type fund
(12) a conservative multi-asset “tracking fund” which I own and also against which I measure my own performance
Honestly, I don’t think it matters much. I’m always looking for ways to consolidate / lessen the number. I’d say let your allocation model, goals and personal style dictate how many funds - as long as you can track them well.