I am confused about taxes on balanced funds.
When you get a distribution from a balanced fund, the money comes from dividends from stocks, interest from bonds, and capital gains from sales. On my unified tax reporting statement, I see dividends (ordinary and qualified) and capital gains from 1099-DIV. But on the 1099-INT section it's all 0s except for a trivial amount from my sweep account.
Is the interest reported as dividends? Qualified or ordinary? Is it the same for bond funds?
Thanks for any light you can shed on this.

The point in the excerpt below cannot be emphasized strongly enough. There is a reason that some bonds or funds pay more. It is called risk premium. That is not a free lunch. A bet on higher yield may pay off nine years or out of ten, or even better, but that just means that when 00 comes up, the impact is likely to be more severe. IOFIX, SEMMX and their brethren were never "cash subs", regardless of how sedate they looked before 2020.

Return-Based Risk Measurements Miss the Mark
The fundamental risks that we see in multi-asset income funds, moreover, can hide in plain view for extended periods. That is, when looking at metrics based on trailing returns, funds can look sedate until a crisis. On this front, multi-asset income funds faced a comeuppance in early 2020 during the pandemic panic from Feb. 19 through March 3.
The classical volatility measure is historical standard deviation, which didn’t signal an impending problem heading into the 2020 crisis. From 2012 up through early 2020, it would have been fair to call multi-asset income funds sedate based on it. Over this nine-year period, they had an average three-year standard deviation of 6.6%, roughly two thirds that of the S&P 500 index’s 10.5% mark. At the end of 2019, multi-asset income funds’ average three-year standard deviation was just below that level, at 6.4%.

If you believe that fossil fuel vehicles are on the way out and EVs are here to stay… what opportunities are out there as a solid risk/reward investment for the next 10 years? Everyone talks about lithium but could there be more important materials to focus on. This graphic shows the current elements in an EV: https://elements.visualcapitalist.com/evs-vs-gas-vehicles-what-are-cars-made-out-of/
Listen to educated people like Elon Musk and rare earth expert James Litinsky and you may start researching NICKEL and Graphene etc. The capital required to build out a mining operation for these materials is intensive. 10 years away to build out.
Nickel is on fire due to Russia and Ukraine conflict: https://www.cnbc.com/2022/03/08/nickel-price-surge-could-threaten-automakers-ev-plans.html
Glencorp GLNCY and VALE are dominant and according to Litinsky they will free cash flow themselves in 3 years. Perhaps they will be bought by an EV OEM. Musk has recently requested more mining investment.
Of course, the risk is the future battery chemistry. Will it always be lithium and nickel etc? Seems like a compelling case -these two stocks. Something to consider.
FWIW: GLNCY is up 45 percent in the last 52 weeks.
https://www.barrons.com/articles/buy-mining-stocks-growth-51631918714

June 2nd Episode:

In an article titled “In Praise of Target-Date Funds,” one of our favorite WEALTHTRACK guests, Morningstar’s Director of Personal Finance, Christine Benz described them as “…nothing short of the biggest positive development for investors since the index fund.”
That got my attention! So this week we are interviewing one of the best target-date managers in the business. He is Wyatt Lee, who is Head and Co-Manager of T. Rowe Price’s $390 billion Target Date Strategies, the largest group of actively managed target-date products in the U.S.
The firm’s Retirement Series earned a Gold analyst rating from Morningstar, one of only two in the actively managed category, for its stellar performance and high ratings for its process, people, and the parent company.
Lee begins with the basics and defines what a target-date fund does and how the product has evolved since it was first introduced in 1994. It turns out target-date funds can be an effective retirement vehicle for investors at all stages of life and that there are many options available.

June 4th Episode:

Part 2 of 2
Candid career advice from three super successful women portfolio managers. Causeway Capital’s Sarah Ketterer, Capital Group’s Karen Choi, and Canyon Partner’s Robin Potts share their victories, setbacks and strategies as they tear down the pink wall.

Absolutely correct. Pure grandstanding.
If they wanted to actually do something, they could repeal the statute that Congress passed in 2009 permitting the mutual fund window. Or they could have followed protocol and made comments on the fund window proposal, which the FRTIB would have had to respond to.
It's even worse than grandstanding, it's dishonest. From the letter:

it is unlikely that your Board would be able to ensure that the approximately 5,000 mutual funds are all free of Chinese firms that pose a direct threat to American national security, enterprises implicated in Chinese Communist Party (CCP) human rights abuses, or companies that otherwise lack the requisite financial transparency and fiduciary responsibility to qualify as prudent investment opportunities. In fact, the FRTIB has explicitly acknowledged as much ...

This is deliberately conflating risk to a portfolio with threats, real or not, posed by some companies within said portfolio. In fact, the FRTIB emphasized the prudent nature of moving the I fund benchmark from the EAFE to the ACWI ex-US index.

In coming to this decision [to switch to ACWI ex-US], the Board noted that moving to the broader I Fund benchmark is in the best interest of participants and beneficiaries, a current best practice in the investment industry, and is widely recognized as a smart strategy in today’s market. The ten largest U.S. companies’ 401(k) plans all invest in emerging markets, as do the ten largest federal contractor plans and the six largest target date fund providers. In addition, the 20 largest defined benefit plans—all of which are for state government workers—invest in emerging markets. TSP participants can decide which TSP funds they want to invest in.

https://www.tsp.gov/plan-news/investment-benchmark-update/
The letter continues:

After widespread and bipartisan outrage in 2020, the FRTIB voted unanimously to abandon the ACWI ex-US IMI transition.

Granting, for the sake of argument, such widespread outrage (which seems dubious as few track such details}, the delaying (not abandoning) of the transition was due to other reasons, notably covid:

Board defers action on I Fund transition — Due to a meaningfully different economic environment related in large part to the impact of the global COVID-19 pandemic, as well as the nomination of three new Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board Members, pending further study, the Board is delaying the implementation of the I Fund benchmark change to the MSCI ACWI ex-U.S. Investible Market index from the MSCI EAFE index.

https://www.tsp.gov/plan-news/i-fund-transition-defer-2020-05-13/
Further down in the letter:

U.S. service-members and other federal employees would likely be shocked to learn that the FRTIB is unaware of which companies make up these approved funds or what risk those companies pose. ... When they invest through TSP, they rightly expect the FRTIB will protect them and their investments from these types of dangerous investments.

That seems to be belied by the very minutes cited in the letter. The FRTIB not only acknowledged the presence of Chinese companies in some the 5000+ funds available in the US (though identifying specific investments at every moment in time would be problematic). It also acknowledged that the developed nations benchmark used by the I fund already includes Chinese companies via Hong Kong.

She also noted that the TSP’s current I Fund index includes Hong Kong, which is part of China, and that there is no widely recognized index for developed markets that excludes Hong Kong. As such, to both divest from Hong Kong equities and create a new, specially designed index without Chinese investments would increase costs to all TSP participants. It would also preclude the implementation of the TSP mutual fund window, as monitoring approximately 5,000 mutual funds for any investments in Chinese entities would prove too costly for the plan.

https://www.frtib.gov/meeting_minutes/2021/2021May.pdf

if the GOP gains control of the WH, Senate and House, one of their priorities will be turning the TSP over to some fund management behemoth
Like George W Bush privatized Social Security in 2005 ...

Toward the end of a first term dominated by international terrorism, President Bush renewed this call in his 2004 State of the Union address: “Younger workers should have the opportunity to build a nest egg by saving part of their Social Security taxes in a personal retirement account. We should make the Social Security system a source of ownership for the American people.”

... and Donald J Trump built the wall in 2017 with Mexican pesos?
https://www.brookings.edu/research/why-the-2005-social-security-initiative-failed-and-what-it-means-for-the-future/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2019/01/25/why-trump-didnt-build-wall-when-republicans-controlled-congress/
In 2025, the GOP will have its hands full dealing with all the tax breaks it instituted that will expire at the end of that year.

He is late for several months. Dimon isn't a good market predictor.
Months ago, my risk criteria was very elevated, I sold it all to cash (similar to Q4/2018 + 03/2020). I only trade every several weeks when I find a perfect set up and only for hours to days (last week was one for stocks, I traded NHMAX).
Big picture haven't changed much. Still high inflation, high prices of the basics such as food,oil/gas and housing, rates are going up (two 50 points in 2 months), we still have a war in Europe+supply chain problem. Risk in the market is lower but still high.
The SP500 Chart has lower lows and lowers high + the 200 days moving average is downtrend.

Anna your suspicions are correct! In 2025, if the GOP gains control of the WH, Senate and House, one of their priorities will be turning the TSP over to some fund management behemoth like Blackrock, Fidelity , Voya, Prudential Financial, etc-whichever firm makes the largest and most strategic campaign donations!

"As of December 31, 2020, TSP has approximately 6.2 million participants (of which approximately 3.8 million are actively participating through payroll deductions), and more than $735.2 billion in assets under management; it is the largest defined contribution plan in the world."

Is that some drool I see on the lips of fund management country wide? (If you don't follow the TSP doings over time, you have missed the various political maneuvers used over the years in an attempt to move the TSP into the skim paradises (female owned small investment business promotion, letting more firms share the wealth and management, etc.) The flavor of the argument depends on who wants the expansion and what audience is being targeted. In the past, this has not been much of a threat.
My paranoid, suspicious mind is musing how, after this is sealed in superglue to the TSP program, the more egregious the costs, the better the argument for restructuring the fund more like retirement funds run elsewhere. (You know any old stable value fund is the same as the G-fund, all have index funds with low fees, etc.) Why not Voya; they throw the best parties? (adlib from Delaware move of their retirement funds from Fidelity to Voya.
And, yes, I do know that all my comments are just idle wondering and wandering.

Keeping with that example, here is M*'s 5 year history of Distributions for HBLAX. It's generally been income and LT capital gains.....

I generally like funds that pay some sort of dividend. The exceptions are for another thread. I am generally of the opinion that companies should pay something more for the use of my money than promises of future returns that I can only enjoy when I decide to sell.
Last time I read anything about dividends they were still a large part of historical returns on investing in the stock market. This despite the recent (30~40 year) fanfare for capital gains.
Needless to say that would-be investors should understand the underlying thesis of any active or "passive" fund they are looking at.
One of the things I like about SCHD--for example--is that its top ten sectors do not show a reliance on consumer durables, utilities, infrastructure, or REITS for its payout. I like to buy those sectors separately.
Like some other posters in this thread, I am also a fan of VDIGX, CDC, and VEIPX. Some other funds not mentioned previously include IHDG, FYLD, SYLD, PEY, and CSB.
Those are all types of equity funds. I have nothing to say about bonds.

”Generally I’d stay away from funds so labeled or named. Strategies vary and they can be a lot riskier than the name implies.”

@Mark - It’s not for me to tell people what they should or should not invest in. I was simply sharing my own personal view with the poster (ron) who I suspected did not understand the degree of risk some income oriented funds could present. I probably underestimated his degree of knowledge in that regard. Please note the words “can be” in my original comment. Please note the “I’d” which was clearly a reference to my own personal predisposition.
I’m not familiar with the entire universe of dividend paying funds but have closely followed a couple. Price’s PRFDX lost nearly 30% in a single quarter. (Qtr. 1, 2020). And the previously stable and “defensive”, DFND, has now fallen about 18% in fewer than 5 months this year.
*@ron - Please disregard my earlier remarks and defer to the wisdom of @Mark and the others who have had good results using this type of fund,

I use them. CDC and DIVO in my taxable account because most of dividend distributions are qualified. I am also currently holding FCPI in my Roth account as a hedge against inflation. This one may be a short term hold. However, in all cases I hold them because I like the composition of the portfolio's holdings and I see opportunity for capital gains as well. YMMV

May 27th Episode

The investment opportunities surfacing in the volatile stock, bond, and real estate markets. Causeway Capital’s Sarah Ketterer, Capital Group’s Karen Choi, and Canyon Partner’s Robin Potts share their perspectives.

@shipwreckedandalone:
Here’s a nice profile on Rajiv Jain from 2020.
https://www.ft.com/content/f07bff08-226a-4e96-ada5-d0271e3ab986
He made his mark running Vontobel’s EM fund until he struck out on his own.
Also check ghqpartners.com for info on the firm Jain has run since 2016.

Sold some recent purchases for S/T gains, since my guess is that this is just another bear market rally. Will sell more if up again tomorrow.

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1041673/000119312522160269/d286967d497.htm
497 1 d286967d497.htm NUVEEN INVESTMENT TRUST II
NUVEEN EMERGING MARKETS EQUITY FUND
SUPPLEMENT DATED MAY 26, 2022
TO THE STATUTORY PROSPECTUS DATED DECEMBER 1, 2021
Nuveen Emerging Markets Equity Fund will be liquidated after the close of business on July 26, 2022.
Effective June 24, 2022, the Fund will stop accepting purchases from new investors. Existing shareholders may continue to purchase Fund shares until July 14, 2022. Existing shareholders may continue to reinvest dividends and capital gains distributions received from the Fund. The Fund reserves the right to modify the extent to which sales of shares are limited prior to the Fund’s liquidation. After the close of business on July 26, 2022, the Fund will liquidate any remaining shareholder accounts and will send shareholders the proceeds of the liquidation.
PLEASE KEEP THIS WITH YOUR PROSPECTUS
FOR FUTURE REFERENCE
MGN-EMEP-0522P
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NUVEEN EMERGING MARKETS EQUITY FUND
SUPPLEMENT DATED MAY 26, 2022
TO THE STATEMENT OF ADDITIONAL INFORMATION DATED DECEMBER 1, 2021
Nuveen Emerging Markets Equity Fund will be liquidated after the close of business on July 26, 2022.
Effective June 24, 2022, the Fund will stop accepting purchases from new investors. Existing shareholders may continue to purchase Fund shares until July 14, 2022. Existing shareholders may continue to reinvest dividends and capital gains distributions received from the Fund. The Fund reserves the right to modify the extent to which sales of shares are limited prior to the Fund’s liquidation. After the close of business on July 26, 2022, the Fund will liquidate any remaining shareholder accounts and will send shareholders the proceeds of the liquidation.
PLEASE KEEP THIS WITH YOUR
STATEMENT OF ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
FOR FUTURE REFERENCE
MGN-EMESAI-0522P

That performance comparison is heavily dependent on period selected. Your selection of end date makes it seem like you're cherry picking (or cherry pit picking in this case).

Standardized Total Returns are reflected as of month- and quarter-end time periods. ... Morningstar calculates Standardized Returns in-house in accordance with the rules outlined in SEC Rule 482, Forms N-3 and N-4, and reflect the investment experience from the inception date of the fund. The SEC Rule 482 in the Securities Act of 1933 dictates that this return figure be as of Most Recent Quarter.

https://awgmain.morningstar.com/webhelp/glossary_definitions/mutual_fund/mfglossary_standardized_returns.htm
As of the last month's end, MSEGX beat ARKK by 6.71% (1 month), 10.76% (3 month), 9.93% (6 month), 7.16% (YTD), 15.83% (1 year), 5.16% (annualized, 3 year).
http://performance.morningstar.com/fund/performance-return.action?t=MSEGX
M* analysts rate MSEGX silver (MSEQX gold), forward looking, while they put a sell (negative) rating on ARKK>. That might be a good place to start looking for a comparison.
What attributes of MSEGX lead you to characterize it as an innovation type fund? Its approach is "to invest in established and emerging large cap companies in the US that [it] believe[s] have sustainable competitive advantages with above average business visibility, the ability to deploy capital at high rates of return, strong balance sheets and an attractive risk/reward profile." [ibid.]
In contrast, "Companies within ARKK include those that rely on or benefit from the development of new products or services, technological improvements and advancement in scientific research relating to the areas of: DNA Technologies and the 'Genomic Revolution'; Automation, Robotics, and Energy Storage; AI and the 'Next Generation Internet; Fintech Innovation."
https://ark-funds.com/funds/arkk/
While there's certainly some portfolio overlap (e.g. Zoom ZM and Block SQ), the two fund objectives don't seem all that similar. ARKK doesn't even suggest a focus on large cap companies, and in fact over half its holdings are in midcaps. How many large caps are truly disruptive?

Sold out of FSMEX, which was a 2021 addition. I intend to buy this back at some point later in the year, but this tax-loss sale counterbalances a few capital gains from January.

Munis are an interesting market.
Using VWITX as a benchmark, NAV is down 10.5% from H2 2021. Yield is 2.25% (per Marketwatch) and NAV is lower than at any time in the past decade. -- a few pennies below the covid crash.
Another benchmark, MUB is down 10.1% from its H2-2021 with a yield of 1.92%.
With an acknowledgement that the space could get a technical bounce, I find the yields woefully unattractive, given the inflation environment, and other alternatives for capital deployment. What kind of tax-free yield might get my attention? Maybe something like 4.5%.