Yes, LT bond did better but also VWINX (2/3 bonds) did better but also SD=volatility was better too. (link)
But in the last 10 years TLT+EDV have similar performance to the SP500 too (link)

Sold all his airline holdings.
According to this article, those holdings were worth 4 billion dollars in the not so distant past.

https://247wallst.com/investing/2020/05/02/why-sell-in-may-looks-so-alluring-in-2020/
/Why 'Sell in May' Looks So Alluring in 2020
Jon C. Ogg
May 2, 2020 6:31 am
Last Updated: May 2, 2020 8:51 am
Every year, there is a recurring mantra of “Sell in May and go away!” This is the belief that investors should exit the stock market ahead of summer and not return until the fall. After the bear market panic ended in March, April’s stock market gains were the strongest one-month performance in more than 30 years. Even if investors choose to hold on to all of their stocks, it is important to consider why “Sell in May” matters./
Market may not response similarly compared to previous May's in 2018 2019

Thanks to Chip’s tireless work on manager changes, we fans of Kristian Heugh (aided by Wendy Wang) learned that we may now invest in the MS Europe Opportunity Fund (EUGAX) because it appears that the parent has sent all of the former managers to the sidelines. By my tally, that gives Heugh a global, two international, an Asian, and now a European fund. If you can’t afford the $5M to get into the institutional version of this fund, you’ll have to pay a load (at least this is so where I shop). Not that I’m cheap....

Yeah, it is eye-opening indeed to compare SP500 since NY2k with BND and FAGIX. Criminy.
But evidently it's a brutal test and a brutal span, although few thought so holding on through it.
Compare SP500 also with DODBX, OAKBX, and FPACX wow.
Yet just to show the, what, 'virtue' of active management, throw in CGMFX, and you wind up the same place as FAGIX --- and way ahead of SP500.
I stopped touting FLPSX here after a ton of meh, meh responses. Since NY2k, though, it absolutely pounds all of these funds. And with only the one guy at the helm. That's investing. $10k growth of SP500 is to $28k; Tillinghast laps that many times, reaching $68k to date.

I'll trust the author's method of calculation. I do not disagree with his conclusions.
NYT article
SNIPPET:
Here are the annualized returns:
The S&P 500: 5.4 percent.
Long Treasury bonds (with a duration of at least 10 years): 8.3 percent.
Long investment-grade corporate bonds: 7.7 percent.
Junk bonds: 6.5 percent.
Broad investment-grade bond index (the Bloomberg Barclays US Aggregate Bond index): 5.2 percent.
Take care,
Catch

According to M*, Longleaf's current portfolio is true small cap value and it has 63% small cap while VVPSX only has 45%. Historically, back to the beginning of 2010, the 2 funds have performed almost identically, but over that time VVPSX has led almost all of the time. It gave their lead back in the last few months. Therefore, Longleaf's risk-adjusted returns are just a little better. I have a small investment in VVPSX too and I like it a lot but I was hoping someone might have more insight than just the numbers.

May 2nd Episode:

From MN Doctor Niloo Kruger - She debunks several myths that are going around. Worth reading, we need the truth.
“So much misinformation, so little time. I have decided to write out some myths/false information that keep appearing on my newsfeed. Feel free to comment if you agree or disagree with me. Just please, keep it fact based and be willing to have an open discussion about it.
1. If everyone would just follow the social distancing/isolation rules we would be done with this sooner.
- Until we have a more effective method of stopping the spread of COVID and/or treating COVID social distancing and isolation will remain in effect to some level. It is not because people aren’t following the rules, it’s because it’s the only thing we know that can stop it up to date.
2. The flu kills about the same or more than COVID.
- The flu on average has killed about 36,000 people per year. COVID has killed 57,000 in 4 months. The mortality rate of the flu is about 0.1% while COVIDs rate is roughly 3%. The argument has been made that COVID mortality rate is actually lower since there are much more cases of COVID that haven’t been tested. This may be true, but likely is also true about the flu (many have it who aren’t tested) and the evidence we have to date supports a rate of 3% and certainly it’s not so much greater to drop the mortality rate 30x lower to equal the flu. The two are not comparable.
3. The health care system can handle millions of flu cases a year, they can handle a couple hundred thousand COVID cases.
- Testing and PPE, testing and PPE, testing and PPE. This is the key. We have wide spread testing available of the flu because it isn’t new. We know how to stop the spread of flu (cover your mouth, wash your hands). COVID is new. We don’t have widespread testing of this available, we weren’t prepared for this. Because the testing takes so long for turnover (because there is a backlog and limited testing supplies) we use more PPE than necessary until patient’s test come back. As we get more widespread testing, the turn around will be faster and the amount of PPE needed is less. The stay at home order/isolation bought us time to do this.
I heard a great analogy regarding this. McDonald’s serves 68 million people a year, however, if I go up to any McDonalds and order 500 burgers, it overwhelms the facility. They are not prepared to do this. BUT, if I call two weeks ahead (stay at home order for two weeks) and let them know I will be ordering 500 hamburgers, the facility has the time to prepare.
4. The COVID models were all wrong because we don’t have the numbers predicted by them.
- The models were based off no stay at home/shelter in place orders. 40 out of 50 states have created some sort of order such as this. This has been the one thing that we know limits the spread of the disease…worked in China and Italy. China started to open back up again and numbers started to climb again. The purpose of these orders are NOT to decrease the number of infections, but to buy time for hospitals to build capacity for beds, training, ventilators, PPE, and testing. Also it buys researchers time to learn about COVID to help with treatment of the disease. This strategy has worked, although it has also tanked the economy. However, what we have learned now can help us slowly open businesses back up using appropriate social distancing that we didn’t know about 6 weeks ago (like wearing cloth masks can help stop spread of asymptomatic infection to others). And even more importantly we have the ability to test and quarantine people who have COVID now, something again, we didn’t have the ability to do 6 weeks ago.
5. Hospitals are getting paid more for COVID and there is pressure on doctors to diagnose patients with COVID and to put it on the death certificate.
- This one is truly the most baffling to me. Hospitals are losing millions of dollars due to COVID. No matter who you are, people like to make money. Hospitals like to make money and they do not want to cancel things that are easy money (elective surgeries, well child visits, screening tests). These things have low risk to patients typically and good outcomes. Hospitals have not cancelled this because they are going to make more money with COVID. I assure you, they will not. Children’s Hospital has lost more than 40 million dollars. Last month Allina announced that they lost 63 million dollars. Staff at hospitals throughout the country are getting furloughed. No one is making money because of this. They stopped these easy money things because they know that without widespread testing available and without proper PPE, you risk healthcare workers being exposed to COVID and some data has come out that healthcare workers are at higher risk of mortality due to higher viral loads presumably due to increased exposure. Also, doctor’s do not sign death certificates unless they are a forensic pathologist. Doctor’s do determine cause of death. Cardiac arrest or respiratory failure have never been appropriate to put as a cause of death because virtually everyone ultimately dies of this. Instead, the INCITING SOURCE that precipitated the cardiac arrest or respiratory failure is what should be placed as the cause of death. So for instance, if patient comes in with COVID and ultimately gets a pulmonary emoblism (because COVID has been found to put you at increased risk of clots) that leads to cardiac shock and that’s why you die, then the appropriate cause of death is COVID. Because COVID tests haven’t been widespread, physicians have been allowed (not coerced or pressured) to put COVID as the suspected inciting source as the cause of death despite them not having a test to prove the patient had COVID. I know of no doctor who feels pressured to label something as COVID. Overall, every physician, nurse, healthcare worker, administrator, hospital is losing money, just like the rest of us.

(Closed to new investors is no longer indicated in the SAI or flyer from Southeastern Asset Management or its website)
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/806636/000119312520128249/d882131d497k.htm
Purchase and Sale of Fund Shares
Minimum investment
•$10,000 initial purchase
•No minimum for additional purchases
https://southeasternasset.com/investment-offerings/longleaf-partners-small-cap-fund/
website: https://southeasternasset.com/
Here is an excerpt from the LLSCX SAI from 5/1/19:
Purchase and Sale of Fund Shares
Minimum investment
•$10,000 initial purchase (closed to new investors)
•No minimum for additional purchases
Also see the attached April 9, 2020 quarterly newsletter announcing the reopening(see page 13):
https://southeasternasset.com/commentary/1q20-llsc-commentary/

IMHO it's not that people took on more risk than they thought but rather that people do not appreciate what risk is. Stuff happens. Risk generally is rewarded, but the ride can be jarring.
The average 10 year returns for multisector and for intermediate core bond funds were very close as of today (May 3, 2020). Multisector: 3.65%, core 3.80%.
Take the same ten years through the end of 2019 and the averages are multisector: 4.87%, core: 3.81%. (All data from M*'s legacy graphs; see here for 10 years through 2019, see here for 10 years through today).
Over the long term, higher risk investments will probably do better, but when there are corrections or disruptions, they'll come down to earth faster and harder, bringing their long term averages closer to the lower risk investments.
My guess is that the "wealth effect" has something to do with people's reactions. High flying funds make people feel wealthier than they are; they don't factor in embedded risk. So when, as is inevitable, that risk manifests and the funds show themselves to be just somewhat better, people tend to feel disappointed. I'm suggesting that rather than feel disappointed when bad things happen, instead feel just a little less good when good things happen.
Based on the performance figures, ABNDX is an average fund. It's done very well this year on a relative basis, about 3.5% above category average. And that's brought its 10 year performance up to about 0.35%/year above category average.
On the other hand, PIMIX has held up relatively well against its category, ahead 0.5% YTD. Even from peak (Feb 23) to trough (March 23) it did better, losing "only" 13.3% vs. 14.22% for its category.
ISTM the question is whether one is willing to hold higher risk categories over a long term for a payoff, recognizing that long term is not one or three years but more likely five or even ten years. If that's too long to stay pat, then intermediate term core bond bonds would seem a better fit.
FWIW, I haven't reacted with changes to my portfolio. The only changes I'm contemplating are lateral moves (not category changes) that I've been looking into for years. I just have a little more data to work with now.

@Old_Joe,
You have asked for my thinking on fixed income. Here goes ...
My ability to review funds has been compromised by M*. Part of my quick and dirty review matrix is no more through M* Portfolio Manager. In portfolio manager I have been able, up untill recently, to view the 52 week high and low for a mutual fund along with % above and below. I can still do this with stocks, closed end funds, and etf's but not mutual funds.
I began this study because I was disapoined with the performance of my income funds as I felt they should have held up better than they did during this recent stock market swoon. I had been in this review process now for a couple of weeks ... and as of last week my review matrix is void of these 52 week details that was part of this review and study process. This is where I was getting my upside and downside capture numbers. Now, no more.
I do remember looking at ABNDX to see how it performed against some of my current bond funds as like you I had owned ABNDX before (from time-to-time). ABNDX and AGTHX along with ANCFX were part of my seasonal spiff package where I'd load equities (AGTHX & ANCFX) in the late fall and hold them until spring then rebalance and move (through the nav exchange program) into fixed income (ABNDX) (commission free). Generally, I'd also put my new money to work and buy the bond fund during the summer months as the commission to purchase it was less than to purchase equity funds. I learned to do this early on in my investing endeavors during my teenage years from my late father's stock broker. As a matter of fact he is the one that schooled me on the seasonal investment stratey (Sell In May) that I have used through the years and still do today as May/June period & September/October period are generally seasonal (calendar) rebalance times for me.
During this review of my fixed income sleeve I remember that ABNDX when compaired to my other holdings was the better performer during the downdraft period while it did give up some ground to the others in its fair weather performance. Still it's yield is a little low (2.2%) for my taste. Some Old_School Mytholodgy, taught to me by my father's broker during my early years in investing, was to make +2% above inflation on fixed income and savings and +4% to +6% on value (equity income) and +6% to +8% (perhaps more) on equity growth positions. I remember back in the late 1990's and early 2000's I was getting a yield from AHITX of about 10% (now about 6.5%) and a 5% yield on CD's and yes ABNDX was at the 5% yield mark as well (now around 2.2%). Then the Great Recession came and fixed income started paying little to nothing as it is today with the FOMC's low interest rate policy. With this ... equities have thrived and bonds have withered. Thank goodness for the hybrid funds.
I guess what I'm saying to you ... and others ... fixed income is not what it use to be. And, to gain yield I took on more risk in my fixed income sleeve than I thought I had. If I had continued with ABNDX as one of my core fixed income holdings I'd now be better off today than where I am now in protecting the downside. Still my other holdings within my income sleeve over a ten year period have out gunned ABNDX from both a yield and a total return perspective.
I'm thinking that this new bond fund by American Funds (MIAQX) is a marketing tool fund to help better sell their fixed income stuff thus retain more shareholder money that might now be moving to other bond houses. Anyway, I plan to cut some of my fixed income money back to American Funds where it be ABNDX (most likely) or MIAQX (the new fund) as I'm equity heavy and May/June are rebalance months for me. This rebalance is mostly because I am equity heavy based upon my asset allocation model more so than a seasonal timming strategy move plus I like to rebalance in both spring and fall. In addition, I've been thininking of trimming some from FKINX and moving these proceeds (through nav transfer) into FISCX and FBLAX. FKINX has disappointed me (lately) but it is the first fund I began my investing endeavors with, at age 12. It still remains as one of my top five positions outside of cash.
Thanks ... Old_Joe for asking my thoughts. In writing this out gave me some clairty to the mater as well. I had an elementary school teacher that had us writing a Friday paper as what we had learned in school for the week. I've kept with this through the years and even today write a weekly recap ... more so ... on my portfolio and the market than anything else. One week I turned in a blank paper ... I learned "the hard way" not to do that anymore. Come Monday ... I had to write 50 times on a sheet of notebook paper (front and back) ... during recess ... "I'll take good daily class notes so I can write my Friday paper." In doing this she marked my Friday paper assignment as complete. Told me next time ... I'd not be so lucky.
If I learn anything of great value with my call to my advisor about this new bond fund ... I'll let you know. I'm planning to do a nav transfer this week as I have to call to do this. This will be a good time to make the inquiry on the new bond fund. I'll post what I learn.
Old_Skeet

Just another way of saying that it was goosing returns by investing too much ("many of the securities the Fund holds") in high risk sectors of the market that no one would want when the market turned south.
Barron's, March 23:

The $2.3 billion mortgage-focused AlphaCentric Income Opportunities Fund (IOFIX) lost 31% last week alone, and reportedly put $1 billion of securities up for sale on Sunday.
The fund focused on lower-rated tranches of residential mortgage-backed securities, with about 60% of its holdings rated BBB or lower, according to Morningstar, which had a five-star rating on the fund.
It was also said to have relatively high exposure to “credit risk transfer securities,” or CRTs, a type of mortgage-backed security introduced after the financial crisis. Those CRTs face especially high risk for losses tied to loan modifications. For example, if a distressed borrower negotiates a lower interest rate with an agency, that interest reduction would be passed along to the CRT holder at a loss, according to Goldman Sachs.
AlphaCentric said in a statement that “like many other funds, [the income opportunities fund] is moving expeditiously to address the unprecedented market conditions. With the lack of liquidity in the marketplace, the most effective way to obtain favorable prices is to offer a wider range of securities for bid instead of a smaller number of specific securities. This broadens the potential universe of buyers to try and obtain the most favorable prices.”

https://www.barrons.com/articles/mortgage-backed-securities-get-hammered-feds-move-may-not-be-enough-51584980932
(I was able to read w/o subscription)

I've been waiting to but this fund for YEARS. I need a 50-60% correction and I'll go "all in"

+1 @Zolta. The link that JohnN provided is to an interview with a top doctor at the U Pitt Hospital system, so one shouldn't dismiss his 0.25% fatality rate out of hand.
That 0.25% rate does however assume that everyone who needs an ICU bed gets one, which has been the case in the US so far, unlike, say, Northern Italy last month or Brazil or Russia right now. We could be heading there too IMHO if we open up too fast.
Anyway, 0.25% times US population (331 millions) gives you over 800,000 deaths.

@Old_Skeet- Would appreciate your judgement on ABNDX vs MIAQX when you've gathered enough info to evaluate. We've owned ABNDX on-and-off over the years for balance, and I have to say that I was never overly impressed with American's bond performance vs their equity performance, which I thought was generally quite good.
There's a bit of info over in the "Capital Group Launches Multi-Sector Income Fund" thread, in case you hadn't been following that. MSF, as usual, has been keeping up his good work.

JohnN and Mark, the numbers you quote are using different denominators. The 5.8% number is deaths divided by the number of patients testing positive for the Covid-19 virus. The number 0.45-0.9 is the universe of potentially positive patients if they were tested. Several studies show that number may be 10 or more times higher than the denominators currently being used. The actual mortality rate won't be known until most of the United States population are tested tor both the virus and for antibodies to the virus. Actually, we may never know because the data is suspect of being manipulated or suppressed for political reasons.
The following link provides a good statistical overview.
https://nucleuswealth.com/articles/updated-coronavirus-statistics-cases-deaths-mortality-rate/
Zolta

So, from the CDC - approximately 1,150,00 cases, 66,746 deaths. 5.8% death rate. So far.
6.3% in MN to date. (6228 cases, 395 deaths)