Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

In this Discussion

Here's a statement of the obvious: The opinions expressed here are those of the participants, not those of the Mutual Fund Observer. We cannot vouch for the accuracy or appropriateness of any of it, though we do encourage civility and good humor.

    Support MFO

  • Donate through PayPal

*

123578

Comments

  • Woops.... I forgot to @dtconroe in the prior post.
    Thanks DT. I had a couple of questions I was hoping your could answer. What are your key criteria for evaluating the overall risk of these funds? 3 of them are very close in terms of SD... how do you differentiate their risk levels from lower risk to higher risk and how would you compare these funds to the risk levels of funds like SEMMX and ZEOIX? thanks very much.
  • Mike, A lot of risk measures are related to the category, and it is sometimes difficult to compare between categories. The 4 funds above are more risky in the non-traditional bond oef category, approaching lower risk multisector bond oefs. For me personally, I use M* quite a bit to try to establish relative risk between funds, but there are imperfections and complexities. I usually start with how M* has established Risk, COSIX is rated as Average risk, and DFLEX, IISIX, and PFIUX are all rated by M* as having "Below Average" risk. I then look at Standard Deviation as another singular way at looking at volatility, which closely corSDponds to risk--so again COSIX has the highest SD at 2.45, followed by PFIUX at 1.56 SD, IISIX with a 1.52 SD, and DFLEX at 1.51 SD. I gave you information about the credit qualiity of assets in each bond in my post above, so you can look at how much Investment grade bonds are in each fund vs. junk rated bonds. I like to put all the funds on a performance graph and then look at their performance patterns, with particular emphasis on peak to trough drops in downmarkets. There are many other statistical measures of risk, including upside/downside capture ratios, Sharpe ratios, etc.

    You have to remember that in the non-traditional bond oef category, the definition of this category notes the widespread use of more sophisticated investment techniques involving shorting, hedging, leveraging, and large host of measures that will vary from fund to fund, but they do impact performance. So, any simple way of determining risk is often not that simple--for the most part I depend heavily on SD, and M* risk categorization, but I look at a lot of other things to dig down deeper to form an opinion.

    When you compare the 4 funds above, there are a number of other nontraditional bond oefs that I consider much less risky, including SEMMX which has a much lower SD. When you start looking at funds like ZEOIX, from the HY Bond category, it is even more tricky, but ZEOIX has a very low SD and its performance pattern, like SEMMX, is very smooth and upward, including almost no drops in performance in downmarkets. So, in my opinion, I would consider ZEOIX and SEMMX the least risky and very close in riskiness, and then a bigger step up to IISIX, followed by DFLEX, then PFIUX, and COSIX being the most risky. Some may argue with me on these rankings, if they stress some other characteristics more than those I emphasize.

    I will eventually make another post about non-traditional bond oefs, that are as a group lower in risk, and close to the short term bond category as a cash alternative.
  • edited January 2020
    Who is buying ZEOIX and where? Schwab has a $49.95 transaction fee plus a 1% redemption fee. Seems restrictive for a $1500 min. purchase amount.
  • Bought a small position late last week. Paid a $20 fee at Vanguard. Also, there is a 1% fee if held less than thirty days. I don't think that that will come into play here.
  • @Gary1952,

    I was addressing your inquiry about ZEOIX above. Should have stated that in my first post.
  • Gary1952">Who is buying ZEOIX and where? Schwab has a $49.95 transaction fee plus a 1% redemption fee. Seems restrictive for a $1500 min. purchase amount.

    I looked at ZEOIX closely at the end of 2019/beginning of 2020, as a possible landing spot, for some RMD money I was depositing in my taxable account. From my perspective, it is a very good option as a cash alternative fund, with a very smooth and solid history of consistent performance. However, I opted to pass on it for now, as I do not like funds with redemption fees, and as you noted at Schwab you are also required to pay transaction fees. I decided to put that money into some existing non-traditional bonds I own, and continue keeping it on a watchlist for possible future investing.
  • It seems that there has been a lot of interest Muni bond options for taxable accounts recently. It is hard to generalize about whether it is best to purchase a Muni bond fund, or if a taxable bond fund might be a better, or at least an acceptable choice. For some years, I have used Tax Cost Ratios of each fund to help decide if I want to seriously consider it. In case you are not familiar with Tax Cost Ratios, here is its definition from the M* Glossary.

    "Tax Cost Ratio

    The Morningstar Tax Cost Ratio measures how much a fund's annualized return is reduced by the taxes investors pay on distributions. Mutual funds regularly distribute stock dividends, bond dividends and capital gains to their shareholders. Investors then must pay taxes on those distributions during the year they were received.

    Like an expense ratio, the tax cost ratio is a measure of how one factor can negatively impact performance. Also like an expense ratio, it is usually concentrated in the range of 0-5%. 0% indicates that the fund had no taxable distributions and 5% indicates that the fund was less tax efficient.

    For example, if a fund had a 2% tax cost ratio for the three-year time period, it means that on average each year, investors in that fund lost 2% of their assets to taxes. If the fund had a three-year annualized pre-tax return of 10%, an investor in the fund took home about 8% on an after-tax basis. (Because the returns are compounded, the after-tax return is actually 7.8%.)"

    You can find what the average Tax Cost Ratio is by category, with Munis being 0, short term bonds being .88 Nontraditional bond oef being 1.38, HY bond oefs being 2.06 etc. but you have to go to each fund to find out the Tax Cost Ratio specifics for it. Here are a few examples of TCR for some funds in various categories:

    HY Munis: NVHAX and SDHAX (0)
    NonTraditional Bond OEFs: MWCRX (1.36), SEMPX (2.13)
    Short Term Bond OEFs: DHEAX (1.38), DBLSX (1.13)
    HY Bond oefs: ZEOIX (1.20), RPHYX (1.01)

    The above TCRs are for 3 years, but at Schwab you can also get them for the last year.
  • I recommend the risk screens here. I am a recent transplant from M*, though I was never very active on their boards until they destroyed the value of premium membership. I quickly realized that resistance was futile.

    I first tried the quick search option on the premium site to evaluate funds for my wife's rollover IRA. It's free. And you can compare up to five tickers at once. I have subsequently purchased access to the whole shebang.

    I sought to keep her selection of bond funds simple to understand, high quality, and on the lower end of the duration scale. The first goal being to preserve principal, with some modest hope of compounding over the six years before we have to take RMD's. The second goal was to create a template if something unforeseen happens to me.

    From the selection of funds available at Wells Fargo I selected:

    Vanguard Inflation Protected Admiral VAIPX. A pure TIP's fund that's AAA rated at 7.38 years duration. Because you never know.

    Vanguard GNMA Admiral VFIJX. An intermediate government fun that AAA rated at 2.68 years duration.

    Fidelity Intermediate FTHRX. A boring intermediate that's A rated at 3.99 years duration.

    Vanguard Short Federal Admiral VSGDX. AA rated, 2.35 years duration.

    Payden Low Duration PYSBX. AA rated, 1.9 years duration.

    I have the short-term funds because I intend to have her fully invested between now and the end of the year. So there will need to be some guarantee of something there to sell when it comes time for RMD's.

    My own IRA collection is more diverse (Christine Benz might call it a sprawling mess) due to my interests, and what is available at Vanguard. But this post is already getting long-winded.

    I have been participating in online communities since the days of Compuserve. Just a few thoughts . . .

    Paragraphs help readability. White space helps readability.

    There will always be more viewers than posters. But jargon can turn people off. After the first page of this thread I just glazed over all the fund symbols listed. Maybe I missed some good ones. So I decided to add enough of the name for viewers to catch the fund family, and the drift of the strategy.

    If I'm going to type at all, I find it just as easy to type "open end fund" as I do to type "hey pal, use google." Your mileage may vary.


  • WABAC, I am a recent poster on MFO (Mutual Fund Observer), and was previously very active on M* (Morningstar). At M* I started many threads, commented on many other threads, and at M*, it became common practice to use abbreviations and symbols. So throughout the threads at M*, posters would use abbreviations and symbols such as OEF, CEF, ETF, ER, SD, etc. I just assumed MFO posters and viewers have the same basic knowledge and posting protocol, as posters and viewers at M*. That may not have been accurate assumption. I have not seen a specific set of "posting rules" at M* that requires full use of words associated with various common abbreviations and symbols. At this point, I am inclined to continue posting in a manner that was commonplace at M*.
  • edited January 2020
    @dtconroe
    Regarding Tax Cost Ratio (TCR), I don't recall what tax rate / bracket M* uses to calculate the value. The definition M* provides is silent on the topic. For munis, with a TCR of 0% the issue is moot. Perhaps I don't understand TCR fully, but for taxable bond funds, the tax impact is tied to one's specific tax situation / tax rate and whether they are close to a breakpoint in tax brackets. The tax impact of interest / dividends for someone in the 15% tax bracket is different than for someone in the 22% bracket or higher. State and local taxes also need to be considered to get a full picture. Seems like TCR is more a relative vs. absolute measure and one needs to do further due diligence to get the full picture for their particular situation.
  • @dtconroe
    Regarding Tax Cost Ratio (TCR), I don't recall what tax rate / bracket M* uses to calculate the value. The definition M* provides is silent on the topic. For munis, with a TCR of 0% the issue is moot. Perhaps I don't understand TCR fully, but for taxable bond funds, the tax impact is tied to one's specific tax situation / tax rate and whether they are close to a breakpoint in tax brackets. The tax impact of interest / dividends for someone in the 15% tax bracket is different than for someone in the 22% bracket or higher. State and local taxes also need to be considered to get a full picture. Seems like TCR is more a relative vs. absolute measure and one needs to do further due diligence to get the full picture for their particular situation.

    Bingo. There is no more 15%. It goes 10,12,22,24,32,35,37.
    Most USA households will be at 22% and under because MARRIED FILING JOINTLY is up to $186.4K and especially retirees with lower income at retirement compared to when they used to work.

    Let's see how it works in reality. If we compare MWCRX to VCFAX for 3 years. Looking at M* tax tab (link)

    Performance pre-tax MWCRX 3.5% VCFAX 5.7%
    Performance after-tax MWCRX 2.3% VCFAX 3%. The after tax numbers are way off for tax bracket 10,12,22 and even 24 which goes to $321.45K for Fed income

    The above means that the difference between MWCRX to VCFAX is not only 0.7% but much higher.


  • dtconroe said:

    WABAC, I am a recent poster on MFO (Mutual Fund Observer), and was previously very active on M* (Morningstar). At M* I started many threads, commented on many other threads, and at M*, it became common practice to use abbreviations and symbols. So throughout the threads at M*, posters would use abbreviations and symbols such as OEF, CEF, ETF, ER, SD, etc. I just assumed MFO posters and viewers have the same basic knowledge and posting protocol, as posters and viewers at M*. That may not have been accurate assumption. I have not seen a specific set of "posting rules" at M* that requires full use of words associated with various common abbreviations and symbols. At this point, I am inclined to continue posting in a manner that was commonplace at M*.

    I'm a stranger here myself.

    But the board seems lightly moderated. So there's plenty of room for different styles. I plan on sticking to mine. I'll admit I've been known to type RBI instead of runs batted in.
  • "perrywinkle">@dtconroe
    Regarding Tax Cost Ratio (TCR), I don't recall what tax rate / bracket M* uses to calculate the value. The definition M* provides is silent on the topic. For munis, with a TCR of 0% the issue is moot. Perhaps I don't understand TCR fully, but for taxable bond funds, the tax impact is tied to one's specific tax situation / tax rate and whether they are close to a breakpoint in tax brackets. The tax impact of interest / dividends for someone in the 15% tax bracket is different than for someone in the 22% bracket or higher. State and local taxes also need to be considered to get a full picture. Seems like TCR is more a relative vs. absolute measure and one needs to do further due diligence to get the full picture for their particular situation.

    perrywinkle, I really don't have anymore information about M* calculations than what is posted above in the M* definition. I assume the TCR varies in importance, depending on your own personal tax situation, which is hard to generalize about.

  • edited January 2020

    @dtconroe
    Regarding Tax Cost Ratio (TCR), I don't recall what tax rate / bracket M* uses to calculate the value. The definition M* provides is silent on the topic. For munis, with a TCR of 0% the issue is moot. Perhaps I don't understand TCR fully, but for taxable bond funds, the tax impact is tied to one's specific tax situation / tax rate and whether they are close to a breakpoint in tax brackets. The tax impact of interest / dividends for someone in the 15% tax bracket is different than for someone in the 22% bracket or higher. State and local taxes also need to be considered to get a full picture. Seems like TCR is more a relative vs. absolute measure and one needs to do further due diligence to get the full picture for their particular situation.

    This M* widget at the dinky linky seems to be designed for comparing individual bonds, but I don't see why it wouldn't work for funds. It allows you to enter your Federal and State tax rates. I used the latest SEC yields for the funds I was comparing when I looked into adding a taxable bond fund to my taxed account.

    dinky linky.
  • WABAC said:

    @dtconroe
    Regarding Tax Cost Ratio (TCR), I don't recall what tax rate / bracket M* uses to calculate the value. The definition M* provides is silent on the topic. For munis, with a TCR of 0% the issue is moot. Perhaps I don't understand TCR fully, but for taxable bond funds, the tax impact is tied to one's specific tax situation / tax rate and whether they are close to a breakpoint in tax brackets. The tax impact of interest / dividends for someone in the 15% tax bracket is different than for someone in the 22% bracket or higher. State and local taxes also need to be considered to get a full picture. Seems like TCR is more a relative vs. absolute measure and one needs to do further due diligence to get the full picture for their particular situation.

    This M* widget at the dinky linky seems to be designed for comparing individual bonds, but I don't see why it wouldn't work for funds. It allows you to enter your Federal and State tax rates. I used the latest SEC yields for the funds I was comparing when I looked into adding a taxable bond fund to my taxed account.

    dinky linky.
    @WABAC: Yes, that calculator works for many situations. It does not account for Qualified Dividends which are taxed at a lower rate than ordinary dividends (0% for lower tax brackets). Some taxable bond funds hold assets which qualify for Qualified Dividend tax treatment but that info is not readily available nor factored into most calculators. While I have used the M* calculator or similar ones, for my situation, I have often found the best assessment is found by doing what if scenarios in tax software, like TurboTax, or one of the many tax estimators available online because there can be many moving parts and interactions in the tax calculations that the simple calculator does not address. At least that has been the case for my situation. As always, your mileage may vary.

    Also, using SEC yield vs distribution yield in the calculator will provide quite different results because they are calculated differently. This investopedia article discuss the differences between the two ways of calculating yield.

    https://www.investopedia.com/terms/d/distribution-yield.asp


  • WABAC said:

    @dtconroe
    Regarding Tax Cost Ratio (TCR), I don't recall what tax rate / bracket M* uses to calculate the value. The definition M* provides is silent on the topic. For munis, with a TCR of 0% the issue is moot. Perhaps I don't understand TCR fully, but for taxable bond funds, the tax impact is tied to one's specific tax situation / tax rate and whether they are close to a breakpoint in tax brackets. The tax impact of interest / dividends for someone in the 15% tax bracket is different than for someone in the 22% bracket or higher. State and local taxes also need to be considered to get a full picture. Seems like TCR is more a relative vs. absolute measure and one needs to do further due diligence to get the full picture for their particular situation.

    This M* widget at the dinky linky seems to be designed for comparing individual bonds, but I don't see why it wouldn't work for funds. It allows you to enter your Federal and State tax rates. I used the latest SEC yields for the funds I was comparing when I looked into adding a taxable bond fund to my taxed account.

    dinky linky.
    Sec yield is not an accurate number.
    Example: PIMIX sec yield for a couple of years is under 3.5% and PIMIX continues to pay about 5.5% annually.


  • @WABAC: Yes, that calculator works for many situations. It does not account for Qualified Dividends which are taxed at a lower rate than ordinary dividends (0% for lower tax brackets). Some taxable bond funds hold assets which qualify for Qualified Dividend tax treatment but that info is not readily available nor factored into most calculators. While I have used the M* calculator or similar ones, for my situation, I have often found the best assessment is found by doing what if scenarios in tax software, like TurboTax, or one of the many tax estimators available online because there can be many moving parts and interactions in the tax calculations that the simple calculator does not address. At least that has been the case for my situation. As always, your mileage may vary.

    Also, using SEC yield vs distribution yield in the calculator will provide quite different results because they are calculated differently. This investopedia article discuss the differences between the two ways of calculating yield.

    https://www.investopedia.com/terms/d/distribution-yield.asp
    Interesting discussion at the link with Vanguard and M* coming down on different sides. Thank you perrywinkle. I think that I would take the SEC yield for calculations when rates are falling.

    But it seems that the tool I linked to is not quite as handy as I thought. But a little better than the M* tax cost ratios perhaps.

    For my taxable account I am actually starting to think about closed end munis. I don't currently have any taxable bond funds in it.
  • @dtconroe - Very interesting thread, thanks for keeping it up.

    You mentioned ZEOIX; have you considered SSTHX as an alternative? I own SSTHX because it is NTF at Vanguard and there is no Short Term Redemption fee. The fund portfolios look similar.
  • @WABAC

    If you are considering CEF munis hopefully you are aware that most are leveraged in the 38% range and if there is a bond downturn in the future these funds will really get zapped because of this. If you dig deep there are a few funds with minimal leverage. I cannot remember which ones they are as it has been several months since I researched them. I ended up with VWALX which I mentioned previously. It had the risk benefit ratio I could live with Good luck with your hunt.
  • "RisklessInSeattle">@dtconroe - Very interesting thread, thanks for keeping it up.

    You mentioned ZEOIX; have you considered SSTHX as an alternative? I own SSTHX because it is NTF at Vanguard and there is no Short Term Redemption fee. The fund portfolios look similar.

    Riskless, yes I am familiar with SSTHX and have had it on a watch list of short duration HY bond oefs that I monitor. I totally agree with you that it is very similar to ZEOIX. I have not chosen to own either ZEOIX or SSTHX, but on the M* discussion threads, I did mention both of those funds several times, as good options for low risk investing.





  • This post is about the use of Non-traditional bond oefs, as low risk alternatives in a conservative portfolio, compared to short term bond oefs. Typically short term bond oefs, are low risk options, because of their short duration, and their use of investment grade corporates, securitized assets, and cash and cash equivalents. Lower risk Non-traditional bond oefs, typically hold lower investment grade corporate and securitized assets, but will use a wider array of investing strategies, in an "unconstrained" manner, to produce "absolute return" to protect and grow principal. The M* definition of Non-traditional bond oefs is as follows:

    "Morningstar Category: Nontraditional Bond":

    "The Nontraditional Bond category contains funds that pursue strategies divergent in one or more ways from conventional practice in the broader bond-fund universe. Many funds in this group describe themselves as "absolute return" portfolios, which seek to avoid losses and produce returns uncorrelated with the overall bond market; they employ a variety of methods to achieve those aims. Another large subset are self-described "unconstrained" portfolios that have more flexibility to invest tactically across a wide swath of individual sectors, including high-yield and foreign debt, and typically with very large allocations. Funds in the latter group typically have broad freedom to manage interest-rate sensitivity, but attempt to tactically manage those exposures in order to minimize volatility. The category is also home to a subset of portfolios that attempt to minimize volatility by maintaining short or ultra-short duration portfolios, but explicitly court significant credit and foreign bond market risk in order to generate high returns. Funds within this category often will use credit default swaps and other fixed income derivatives to a significant level within their portfolios."

    Four lower risk, non-traditional bond oefs, worthy of consideration as alternatives to short term bond oefs are as follows:

    1. MWCRX/MWCIX: It has a standard deviation of 1.02, duration of 1.8, credit rating of BB, rated as Low Risk by M*, has total return of 1 and 3 yrs as 6.36/3.82. The bulk of this fund is investment grade assets, but does hold close to 20% in HY assets.
    2. SEMPX/SEMMX: It has a standard deviation of .77, duration of 1.39, credit rating of B, M* risk of Low, has total return of 1 and 3 years as 5.28/5.09. The bulk of its assets are in lower grade securitized assets.
    3. CUBAX/CUBIX: It has a standard deviation of 1.26, duration of .99, credit rating of BB, M* risk rating of Below Average, and its total return for 1 and 3 years as 6.25/3.33. The majority of its assets are investment grade but does hold almost 1/3 of its assets in HY, and its assets are in both corporate and securitized categories.
    4. PMZAX/PMZIX: It has a standard deviation of 1.05, duration of 1.16, M* credit rating was not rated (typical of PIMCO), but M* risk is rated as Low, and its 1 year and 3 year total return is 5.36.4.06. The majority of its assets are in securitized assets.

    Many will not consider anything other than investment grade short term bond oefs, but these non-traditional bond oef funds have performance tracks that are very smooth with upward trajectories, and they have held up very well in downmarket periods, and their total return is very good for a lower risk portfolio role.

  • fundly said:

    @WABAC

    If you are considering CEF munis hopefully you are aware that most are leveraged in the 38% range and if there is a bond downturn in the future these funds will really get zapped because of this. If you dig deep there are a few funds with minimal leverage. I cannot remember which ones they are as it has been several months since I researched them. I ended up with VWALX which I mentioned previously. It had the risk benefit ratio I could live with Good luck with your hunt.

    That is good advice.

    I don't move quickly. I keep an eye on costs, credit quality, and the company I buy products from.

    The Closed End Fund Association has a nice screen for expense ratio, discount/premium, and leverage.

    I can do a deeper dive on anything that interests me with the premium tools at mfopremium. But right now the lower cost general funds that interest me are selling at a small premium. The only muni for my state, NAZ, is leveraged up the wazoo and has an expense ratio to match.

    VWALX is 12% of my muni-bond portfolio, and the only thing that isn't rated A or better.

    I don't really like bonds much. So I'm not sure I want to add more to my taxable account that is primarily to be left to my children.

    I am taking the income from the munis to supplement Social Security until we have to take RMD's. But I won't need that when the RMD's start.
  • @dtconroe; You said, {Back to some investing topics! My wife has a traditional IRA, and in 2020 she is required to begin her RMD process. Our approach to RMDs, is to take the total RMD amount at the beginning of the calendar year, transfer it to our taxable account, and then make a reinvestment decision about this RMD transfer to our taxable account. My wife is even more conservative than I am, would put it in a tin can in the back of the yard if it was totally up to her, but has agreed to a conservative bond oef in her IRA account. Currently, she is totally invested in MWCIX, but I think we will diversify a little more into her account starting in 2020. IISIX is a fund that I am considering adding to her MWCIX fund for a little more total return, but still be supportive of her very low risk tolerance. We will try to produce enough TR in her account, to recoup the RMD withdrawal each year. }
    I was wondering where you parked your wife's RMD & how you divided it % wise if more than one investment was picked.
    Thanks for your time, Derf
  • She does not have a large IRA, about $120K--half of it is in MWCIX and half of it is in IISIX.
  • @dtconroe: Thanks for your reply. I wasn't interested in the amount in her IRA, as that isn't any of my business. More to my question is, did she take a RMD & if so did total distribution all go into a taxable bond fund ?
    Thank you again for your time, Derf
  • "Derf">@dtconroe: Thanks for your reply. I wasn't interested in the amount in her IRA, as that isn't any of my business. More to my question is, did she take a RMD & if so did total distribution all go into a taxable bond fund ? Thank you again for your time, Derf

    Yes, she took her RMD out of the MWCIX fund, and then we split the balance between MWCIX and IISIX in her IRA for 2020. I decided to give you the total amount of her IRA, because we would use more than 2 funds, if it was much larger. I don't want to suggest any IRA holder only use one or two funds for a larger IRA. The IRA RMD distribution from my wife's IRA, and the much larger RMD distribution from my IRA, both went into our joint taxable account, where we immediately reinvested it into our existing bond oefs.
  • Derf, in reading your post and question again, I gather you wanted more specifics about the specific bond oefs, where we reinvested my wife's IRA RMD. The more specific and detailed answer, is that we have 6 bond oefs in our taxable account--one HY Muni fund, one short term bond oef, and 4 nontraditional bond oefs. My wife's IRA RMD, and my larger IRA RMD, were transferred to our joint taxable account and co-mingled into a cash account. It stayed there for one day, and then was distributed into our 6 existing bond oefs in our taxable account. The bulk of it went into 2 non-traditional bond oefs in our joint taxable account--SEMMX and MWCIX. I described these 2 non-traditional bond oefs in a recent post, as good and low risk alternatives to short term bond oefs. I hope that better answers your inquiry.
  • @dtconroe: Thanks for your reply & more info. Have a good week.
    Derf
  • edited January 2020
    This post is about Intermediate Core-Plus bond oefs. In general, this is one of the more popular bond oef categories, with an emphasis on Investment Grade Bonds, typically with much diversification in its holdings. Some refer to this category as Multi-Sector lite. According to M*, this is the formal definition:

    "Intermediate Core-Plus Bond
    Intermediate-term core-plus bond portfolios invest primarily in investment-grade U.S. fixed-income issues including government, corporate, and securitized debt, but generally have greater flexibility than core offerings to hold non-core sectors such as corporate high yield, bank loan, emerging-markets debt, and non-U.S. currency exposures. Their durations (a measure of interest-rate sensitivity) typically range between 75% and 125% of the three-year average of the effective duration of the Morningstar Core Bond Index"

    Here are several funds in that category worth considering:
    1. BCOIX/BCOSX: Credit rating A, Standard Deviation 2.74, Duration 5.68, 1yr/3yr total
    return 10.84/4.86
    2. DODIX: Credit rating A, Standard Deviation 2.05, Duration 4.3, 1yr/3yr total return
    10.02/4.74
    3. JAFIX: Credit rating BBB, Standard Deviation 2.63, Duration 5.68, 1yr/3yr total return
    10.28/4.11
    4. MWTRX/MWTIX: Credit Rating BBB, Standard Deviation 2.87, Duration 5.92, total
    return 1yr/3yr 9.93/4.36
    5. MTGAX/MTGDX: Credit Rating BB, Standard Deviation 1.82, Duration 2.07, total
    return 1yr/3yr 7.41/5.10
    6. TGLMX/TGMNX: Credit Rating BB, Standard Deviation 3.07, Duration 5.80, total return
    1yr/3yr 8.46/4.04
    7. IICIX: Credit Rating BBB, Standard Deviation 2.83, Duration 5.94, total return 1yr/3yr
    10.63/4.96
    8. SGVAX: Credit Rating BB, Standard Deviation 2.14, Duration 3.00, total return 1yr/3yr
    6.82/4.29
    9. DBLTX/DLTNX: Credit Rating BB, Standard Deviation 2.08, Duration 3.89, total return
    1 yr/3yr 6.64/3.71

    Comments: I have owned many of these funds over the years, but my favorite funds are DODIX, BCOIX and MTGAX. If you have owned any of these funds, you are invited to discuss your experience with them.`
  • Not too fond of that overall list, though it includes many of the popular names on forums, some of which I might consider owning, notably IICIX/IIBAX. I have owned Baird and DblLine in the past.

    Maybe take a look at this Fido screen. To me at least, the discussion of this category begins with Western Asset, specifically WACPX/WAPAX, the latter NTF, l/w at Fido.

    https://www.fidelity.com/fund-screener/evaluator.shtml#!&ntf=Y&expand=$FundType&ft=TBND_PI&msr=4,5&sortBy=FUND_PRFM_MTH_NLD_AATR_1YR_PCT
Sign In or Register to comment.