SFHYX seems to be available for purchase ($49.95 TF) over at FIDO with $5,000 min. At least, my BUY order is sitting out there for now .
Spectrum Finl manages this fund along with SVARX.

A global minimum corporate tax rate of 15% was agreed to at the G7 finance ministers' meeting this weekend.
Proponents of the deal hope to build unstoppable momentum going into the G20 meeting next month.
Many details still need to be resolved.
It will likely take several years before a deal is implemented if it is ratified.
Link

This year my value funds, large and small, are out-perform their larger siblings by large margin. Often in excess of 5-10%. I like the mid-cap value stocks where they tend to lead to in early phase of recovery while they have real earning. Labor and raw material shortages are the hurdles right now.
Stocks are at all time high, i.e. Expensive. Being patient is important to add slowly as pullback occurs.

https://www.barrons.com/articles/higher-rmd-age-higher-catch-up-limits-highlight-lawmakers-retirement-proposals-51622831293?siteid=yhoof2&yptr=yahoo
Remember to read the comments.
Stay Kool, Derf

”You can use an ETF as a savings account. But you're going to have to manually move money into the "checking" account (core fund) if you want to use it.”
*** Have to? Are we simply talking sound financial practice here? Or, does Fido prevent you from using the more direct route between ETF and another purchase or sale?
What I kind of surmise is that buying directly out of an ETF would take at least 1 extra day to settle, making the intended purchase more susceptible to price fluctuation. If true, that would be enough to convince me to use a money market fund for transactions.
And at TRP they won’t allow you to sell 99% of a non-money market fund because the system is set up to retain a certain % in case of daily price fluctuation. Found that out the hard way recently when I tried to sell / exchange most, but not all, of TRBUX from IRA to my TOD account. (However, you can do so by selling all and closing the account.)
Re cap gains. This is a tax deferred account. But the headache caused by using TRBUX as a checking account is the reason I began using Price’s short term and money market muni funds. And did see @Investor’s comment on the matter.
I’m one not to worry about putting cash at an elevated level of risk. I know others don’t feel the same. Even 0.5% earned on an ultra short bond fund looks better than 0.0%. :)
Thanks for all the thoughts.

Though JPST and ICSH have their places in a portfolio (I own both) I have been using the SFGI Direct online bank account( Summit Bank) the past year with great success. With these ETF's paying about .30% (30 day SEC yield) I almost double this with .56% APY at SFGI. ACH transfers in and out (no restrictions on amount) has never taken more than 1 business day. And no losses in spread and no extra book keeping. Limit to 6 withdrawals/ mo to prevent penalties as in any other savings account. I try to maximize my income on cash holdings as much as possible during this low yield period.

Hi @hank
Taxable or sheltered account?
I ask, as the paperwork for a taxable account isn't worth my time; for the small amount of interest earned for a tax year via an investment as FLDR. Note: I recall that one doesn't have to report an interest earned amount if less than $15. So, perhaps not a problem; depending on the amount of money invested. If we have money parked in the core cash account, it is likely from the sale of an investment. Generally, we will leave the money in place, versus a purchase of an issue, such as FLDR; awaiting a better investment opportunity.
Hi @davfor
Your graph is correct, but this reflects a one-time event (hopefully).
So, yes; FLDR was volatile during a time period; as well as other debt investments within mutual funds or etf's holding this type of debt. I suspect that most folks who don't watch often, we not aware of anything happening with these holdings; and that all looked well when viewing 6 months later.
The credit markets lockup was discussed here beginning in late February, 2020.
Spring 2020 credit related liquidity lockup
Regards to both of you,
Catch

Thanks...this is great!

I'll stick with my chosen funds. Finally, circumstances are presenting me with the chance to dabble a bit. ENIC, a Chilean electricity provider is at 52-week low, after the election. 7% div.
Bombardier BDRBF.
You bought WOOD. Watch WFG. West Fraser Timber.

I've had a similar experience with MIEIX.
On 09/30/20, MIEIX was classified as a Foreign Large Growth fund with a 3 star rating.
The corresponding category rank was: 5 Yr - 66; 10 Yr - 49; 15 Yr - 24.
On 12/31/20, MIEIX was classified as a Foreign Large Blend fund with a 5 star rating.
The corresponding category rank was: 5 Yr - 6; 10 Yr - 5; 15 Yr - 3.
Although no material changes were made to the fund, it "improved" considerably!

M* still posts the annual performance rankings of the fund based on the category it was in that year. I verified this by comparing the MIEIX rankings for 2018 and 2019 (when it was still classified as foreign large cap growth) with other foreign LCG funds that had nearly identical performances with MIEIX in those years.
In 2018, MIEIX returned -10.66%. M* says that placed the fund at the 19th percentile. That's the same percentile as ARTIX was ranked, with its -10.86% return.
In 2019, MIEIX returned 28.40%, only good enough for a 46th percentile ranking. That's the same percentile as TWEIX got with its 28.37% return.
http://performance.morningstar.com/fund/performance-return.action?t=MIEIX
http://performance.morningstar.com/fund/performance-return.action?t=ARTIX
http://performance.morningstar.com/fund/performance-return.action?t=TWIEX
However, on those same pages, annual performances are compared with the fund's current category, not the category the fund was in for each past year.

Think of traditional bank accounts. There's a checking account where you can write checks, pay bills, buy things. And there are savings accounts that pay higher interest.
You can keep all your cash in a savings account, but when you need to buy something, you transfer the cash to your checking account. (Technically some transfers from savings accounts are limited, but we'll ignore that detail.) The point is that there's a difference; you can't use a savings account in exactly the same way as a checking account.
Same thing here. You can use an ETF as a savings account. But you're going to have to manually move money into the "checking" account (core fund) if you want to use it. And with an ETF, it's going to take two days before you can take the money out of Fidelity. (You can use the ETF proceeds for trading almost immediately - different brokerages handle this slightly differently and I'm not positive about Fidelity's rule here.)
There's also the matter of tracking cap gains. @Investor had a subthread (under RPHYX) that covered this a few days ago. But you already know this, as you've been using a TRP short term fund this way. Likewise you also know that these funds fluctuate in value.
ETFs, especially when used for cash and traded short term have additional costs. Notably spread. The spread on FLDR is sizeable: 0.06% (on average). If you were to buy $100 and immediately turn around and sell it, you'd lose around 6¢. You might pay $100.03 to buy the fund and receive $99.97 when you sold it. You could try to mitigate that by placing limit orders, but then you run the risk of seeing some of your orders go unfilled.
6¢ might not sound like much, if you're doing this even once a month, that's nearly 3/4% eaten up in transaction costs.
If on the other hand you're letting most of the cash sit (so you're only losing 3/4% on a small part of the cash), then you don't need usually need instantaneous access for much of the cash. In that case, you could still use a short term bond fund for your cash reserve.

That works for me. I have enough $'s in FZFXX for a little quick trading. But the rest of my "cash" $'s are in ICSH, JPST, and RPHYX. FLDR is too volatile for my cash $'s.

M* Link
RPHYX has done the best of my 4 cash holdings this year (but it can not be traded during the day and has a minimum holding period):
RPHYX Link

Here's an even more extensive M* piece on its categories, historically, how they're defined, and how funds are classified. It's a one hour(!) video and has a somewhat dubious transcription. (I'll probably watch the video and slides later.)
https://www.morningstar.com/articles/754147/morningstar-categories-introduction-update-2016
M*'s style box was created in 1996 (according to most sources). But until 2002 funds were rated according to broad categories, as Rekenthaler stated.
All ways of benchmarking performance - using a large universe (e.g. US equity), using more precisely defined peers (style boxes), using an index blend that matches the fund's portfolio - have weaknesses. My intent was to highlight a weakness of comparing a fund with a "box" of peers: instability.
In addition, the quality of the comparison degrades as one moves toward a boundary even without crossing it. This is something I have posted on a few times in the past year prior to the market rotating to value.
Funds in an given style box, say blend, that tended toward value generally ranked more poorly than their peers that had a growth leaning. Normally this distortion effect isn't pronounced within a box. But because the gradient between growth and value was so large in the past couple of years one had to keep it in mind when looking at fund ratings.
If you want stability, you can go back to M*'s old way of rating funds. Compare all US equity funds together. A fund can't drift out of this "box" because there's only one box. But then the possibility of ratings distortions within this one box become much larger. This is what Rekenthaler is calling "style effect".
If you rate a fund against a hypothetical index benchmark blended to match the fund's portfolio (as I believe S&P is doing, or at least was doing years ago), you lose the sense of how well the manager is positioning the fund in its investment universe. What you get is just a measure of specific security selection, e.g. was the decision to invest solely in Coke rather than in the market mix of Coke and Pepsi a good one?
If you like, fault M*'s choice of methodology (style boxes). Though each methodology has its weaknesses. The discontinuity in a fund's star rating is inherent in the style box methodology. M*'s quality of execution doesn't create that discontinuity, but rather determines when discontinuity manifests.

Call me dense, but I have been trained/educated over the years, to shift from accumulation investing, to preservation of principal investing. That relates to the "age in bonds" principal, the older you get. What I was not trained/educated over the years about, is that not all bonds are the same. Some bonds are traditional safe harbor, low total return, and low income producing funds. Other bond funds are much more "equity-like" in total return, that can be invaluable in preventing erosion of principal.
Now that I have been in retirement for the past 8 years, my objective is to develop a system of harvesting RMDs, that is tax friendly, but not necessarily tax avoidance. My system is devoted to shifting my principal from tax deferred, retirement accounts, to taxable accounts that I can more easily use for all kinds of age related expenses, and expenses I can address from a taxable account. My system is devoted to having a preservation of principal investing strategy, in which I use more aggressive bond oefs to produce sufficient total return to "recoup" RMD amounts that were harvested, so that my principal in tax deferred accounts can stay neutral, while my taxable account grows in principal each year. I don't want/need the extreme volatility of equities, where my principal can drop 25% to 35% over night, forcing me to have "patience" in an advanced age, to recoup major principal losses over time, which leads to age related stress in my golden retirement years. More aggressive bond oefs (nontraditional, multisector, HY Munis, FR/BL, etc. bond oefs) have great "total return" value for me, to preserve principal, with modest total return, in my tax deferred accounts, while I can use some more conservative bond oefs in my taxable account, to minimize taxes and prevent any major drops in principal.
I have become more and more a trader of bond oefs (both aggressive and conservative) to prevent major losses in recessions and black swan events, and to prevent major erosion of principal I have accumulated in over 40 years of working and investing for retirement.

Yesterday, in the June M* Fund Investor newsletter, I noticed that VPMAX was now classified as a Large Blend fund. As you noted, a mutual fund's star rating and category rank can change dramatically when a fund is moved to a new category.
I've had a similar experience with MIEIX.
On 09/30/20, MIEIX was classified as a Foreign Large Growth fund with a 3 star rating.
The corresponding category rank was: 5 Yr - 66; 10 Yr - 49; 15 Yr - 24.
On 12/31/20, MIEIX was classified as a Foreign Large Blend fund with a 5 star rating.
The corresponding category rank was: 5 Yr - 6; 10 Yr - 5; 15 Yr - 3.
Although no material changes were made to the fund, it "improved" considerably!

Oh, I am thinking I would fault them a bit. They know how their star system is used, and when it lacks nuance and context to this extent, and when star changes seem capricious, what's a consumer to do? (As an instructions writer, I know the answer: read deeper, read harder, RTFM. So why have stars in the first place? CU does a better job.)
This is just a remarkable, damning summary, which I repost for emphasis:
... reclassified VPMCX as large cap blend. It had been classified large cap growth even though its portfolio had been in the blend column since 2018.
Its performance looked very poor compared with its "peers": 50th percentile (2018), 84th percentile (2019), 94th percentile (2020). (Though in 2021, with value ascending, it looked great - somewhere in the top 5%).
As a result of its long term "poor" performance, it had been rated 2 or 3 stars earlier this year. But with the reclassification, it's suddenly a five star fund. Nothing has changed.

A visual video graph of the shift from growth to value 2020-2021

M* on the growth of Value that’s been happening since Sep 2020.
https://www.morningstar.com/articles/1039812/value-funds-strike-back
The death of the growth vs value debate?:
https://www.ft.com/content/cb16a4d0-dfcc-4ae1-ad97-a962f24640d6
Fund managers see more rotation into Value
https://www.reuters.com/business/fund-managers-see-value-cyclical-stocks-running-further-despite-slow-us-jobs-2021-05-07/
Previous skeptics predict Value has further to go.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-05-11/value-investing-is-a-winner-from-the-tech-wreck-on-wall-street

Hi @Roy
From Golubs thread of MUTUAL FUNDS WHY .....
You wrote: Moderate allocation fund, PRWCX as mentioned in the past holds the bulk of our investments. Never used an ETF to this point which doesn't mean we may not sometime in the future. I have looked at allocation ETFs in the past to compare to PRWCX and have been left wanting. Thus, actively managed mutual fund over an ETF.
Haven't looked at MA ETFs anytime recently, but if anyone has knowledge of any worth examining, bring it on.
>>>>>
Not unlike mutual funds and your allocation mix, you may build your own mix with etf's, too.
*** stockcharts data is total return for a period, which includes any distributions.
*** two examples in charts.
PRWCX, 10 year total return
QQQ and AGG,10 year total return
The above PRWCX 10 year return = 231%
The above, QQQ and AGG, with a mix of 50/50 and using a simple average between the two etf's for total return = a combined 10 year return of 302%.
Mental benchmarks that I use for what I consider two high class allocation mutual funds are VWINX and FBALX. VWINX has a nominal mix of 30/70, equity/bond and FBALX has a nominal mix of 70/30 equity/bond.
One could mix QQQ and AGG for any combination of equity/bond percentages.
Broad bond etf list
Broad growth etf list
Perhaps the most substantial question now is, what performance paths do the various bond types travel into the future; with many types having had a most decent 40 year run.
My 2 cents worth about this topic.
Regards,
Catch

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/04/business/inflation-stock-market-bonds.html
Inflation Is Real Enough to Take Seriously
While economists debate whether the current spike is “transitory” or longer lasting, investors may want to review their inflation playbook, just in case.....
https://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/081315/9-top-assets-protection-against-inflation.asp
Assets for Protection Against Inflation
By KATELYN PETERS Reviewed by CHIP STAPLETON Updated May 26, 2021
1. Gold
2. Commodities
3. 60/40 Stock/Bond Portfolio
4. REITs
5. S&P 500
6. Real Estate Income
7. Aggregate Bond Index
8. Leveraged Loans
9. TIPS

M* recently reclassified VPMCX as large cap blend. It had been classified large cap growth even though its portfolio had been in the blend column since 2018.
Its performance looked very poor compared with its "peers": 50th percentile (2018), 84th percentile (2019), 94th percentile (2020). (Though in 2021, with value ascending, it looked great - somewhere in the top 5%).
As a result of its long term "poor" performance, it had been rated 2 or 3 stars earlier this year. But with the reclassification, it's suddenly a five star fund. Nothing has changed. Its half brother POGRX is a bit more growthy, so M* has left it in the LCG category. As a result, that fund sports a 2 star rating.
An example how even unintentional drift affects star ratings is FSMAX. It tracks the S&P 500 completion index. M* writes: "This has been one of the strongest performers in the mid-cap blend category over the trailing 10 years through July 2020." But it has been on the blend/growth boundary since at least 2017, and M* recently reclassified it as growth. So this perennially strong performer is now rated 2 stars.
I'm not faulting M* here. Funds that do not sit near the center of a style "box" have a good chance of being over- or under-rated. This will happen regardless of what box they're dropped into.

”The longest collapse in history was 1929 and lasted 2.8 years. The 2007 recession lasted 1.3 years.”

Dow Jones Average 1925-1955

2006-2012 S&P
Trying hard not to interpret these charts. Others may draw their own conclusions. But (since this is a bond related thread) I did check the yield of the 10-year Treasury near the beginning of the ‘07-‘09 crash. On January 1, 2008, the 10-year Treasury yielded 3.74% (more than double today’s rate).