Rather than spend a fair amount of time searching for an ratings agency (NRSRO) default report, I'll just refer you to M*'s figures. In Exhibit 2 on p. 4 of this M* paper is a table that includes "default score" by credit rating. Those aren't default rates, but represent relative rates of default. BBB has a score of 5.0, BB has a score of 17.78, meaning that BB bonds default at roughly 3½ times the rate of BBB defaults.
There really is a big difference, which is why M* doesn't simply score A's as 1, B's as 2, C's as 3 and so on when calculating a portfolio's average quality.
https://www.morningstar.com/articles/354597/credit-quality-demystified
PTIAX may be a mere poseur. Between 2012 and 2020 it was classified as a multisector bond fund, typically meaning that it had even more junk than a core plus bond fund. In 2021 it was classified as an intermediate core plus fund, and in 2011 it had been classified as an intermediate core fund (before core plus funds were given their own category).
As the linked article (about the new core plus category) states, the median amount of junk in a core plus fund is (or was, at the time) about 8%. DODIX has 11%, all BB (including NR bonds). PTIAX has more than that (12½%) in bonds rated lower than that (or NR). Plus another 5% rated BB. Then there's BCOIX, with less than 4% junk (including NR), nearly all at BB.
I suspect you'll find a fair degree of correlation between funds' YTD performance and the amount of junk in their portfolios. PTIAX > DODIX > BCOIX.
Note:edited to fix typo, per @BaluBalu's suggestion.

“What if the discount rate is higher or we lower the assumed yield to reflect the uncertainty surrounding buybacks? Today’s market would appear overvalued. On the other hand, perhaps the pandemic has temporarily depressed dividends and buybacks—and the buyback yield will jump sharply in the year ahead, making stocks seem relatively cheap.”
Reminds one of the line about “a one-handed economist.”
That’s a very thoughtful piece overall. And Yikes - Mentions that the S&P fell 34% in early 2020. I’d sure like another crack at those prices.
@Old_Joe - What you say is true. But inflation’s probably averaged 5-7% annually in recent years. Equity prices seem way out ahead of that (by S&P and other averages). If inflation were to catch up to the market gains of recent years we’d be looking at much worse than present level.
-
One thought …
I’ve been taught that in investing there exists a rough correlation between risk and reward. So how does one reconcile 1-2% returns on “safe” bonds now for several years along with double-digit gains in equities over many of those same years? Do today’s investors in the S&P index (or similar fund) really feel like they’re taking 5 or 10 times the amount of risk that’s inherent in an AAA rated corporate or government bond? That’s where I’m having some trouble reconciling all this. Risk / reward seems out-of-whack.

Um, yeah, and I'm kinda thinking EVs and Future Transportation are a wee bit more than just the next "hot" investment idea. I'm kinda thinkin' EV's (and whatever else comes next/with them) are gonna be a HUGE part of the LT future of transportation. To wit, CA and 2035 legislation.

I don't doubt that. What I question is how green it is (which is the topic of this thread). Adding lots of cars, regardless of their source of power, is an inefficient way to transport people. The second largest equity holding (4.88%) is Uber. Lyft is not far behind at 2.59%.

According to the Union of Concerned Scientists, ride-hailing trips today result in an estimated 69 percent more climate pollution on average than the trips they displace. In cities, ride-hailing trips typically displace low-carbon trips, such as public transportation, biking, or walking. Uber and Lyft could reduce these emissions with a more concerted effort to electrify its fleet of vehicles or by incentivizing customers to take pooled rides, the group recommends.
“However, those strategies alone will address neither the increases in vehicle miles traveled nor rising congestion concerns,” the report says. “For ride-hailing to contribute to better climate and congestion outcomes, trips must be pooled and electric, displace single-occupancy car trips more often, and encourage low-emissions modes such as mass transit, biking, and walking.”
...
A more systemic effort to address climate pollution has yet to emerge from either Uber or Lyft. And the solutions they’ve proposed so far are unlikely to address the core problem with ride-hailing: it is often more convenient and less expensive than other, less-polluting transportation options.

https://www.theverge.com/2020/2/25/21152512/uber-lyft-climate-change-emissions-pollution-ucs-study
Here's an October 2021 op-ed piece going though the myriad of broken green "pledges" by Uber and Lyft: NYTimes original (with embedded links), SF Examiner reprint (free w/o links)
Aside from their green failures, the piece also notes:

Lyft’s president, John Zimmer, once claimed the majority of rides would be in autonomous vehicles by 2021, but the company has largely backed away from its self-driving efforts, including selling its developmental unit to a Toyota subsidiary this year. Uber, which once characterized robot cars as “existential” to its future, sold off its autonomous vehicle division last year after mounting safety and cost concerns.

(Not relevant to the question of green investing, but it is relevant to the ETF's stated strategy of investing in companies "engaged in the production of electric and/or autonomous vehicles".)
Since others here have mentioned ESG, and you suggested looking at California statutes, one can hardly mention Uber and Lyft without also mentioning Prop 22. IMHO fortunately the courts just overturned it (thus moving closer to restoring employee rights and protections to Uber and Lyft drivers).
https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2021/10/can-anyone-stop-the-uberization-of-the-economy.html

PAWZ lost less than SPY XLP and XLU in 1Q 2020-so could it be classified as a consumer staples etf ?

"The dollar could depreciate sharply thereby making those “nominal” paper gains worth less in real purchasing power."
That's already happening... it's called "inflation", which our leaders would have you believe doesn't exist in the "core", whatever that is. Evidently this "core" doesn't include food, housing, or transportation because they are "volatile", but then, who really needs those anyway?
Orwell would understand.

And you certainly do not want to mis this article:
The ESG Movement: The 'Goodness' Gravy Train Rolls On

I agree with the given caveat, not only in this context but generally, "For any variable, no matter how intuitive and obvious its connection to value might be, to generate 'excess' returns, you have to consider whether it has been priced in already."
I strongly disagree with the statement that "Milton Friedman, the bête noire of ESG advocates, would stand vindicated, and companies would do good, because it made them more profitable and valuable." Friedman, like most economists, ignored behavioral economics and started with the assumption that actors are rational. If businesses acted rationally there would be no need for anti-discrimination laws.
If businesses were focused on long term results and not quarterly profits, they would invest in producing less waste (saving material costs). They would plan better for having to pay for the pollution that they emitted in the past "for free".
That said, fund sponsors also tend to focus on what's currently hot. Like electric, self-driving cars, "FDV ... Fidelity Electric Vehicles & Future Transportation ETF, one of four new ETFs launched in October 2021."
Vehicles, Future Transportation - that's not just cars, though you wouldn't know it from this fund. Efficient transportation? That's mass transit.

while EVs do decrease emissions compared with conventional vehicles, we should be comparing them to buses, trains and bikes. When we do, their potential to reduce greenhouse gas emissions disappears because of their life cycle emissions and the limited number of people they carry at one time.

https://theconversation.com/the-myth-of-electric-cars-why-we-also-need-to-focus-on-buses-and-trains-147827
Where are the investments in electric rail, in fully automated (GoA level 4) systems? For example,

“[Siemens Mobility's] state of the art CBTC signaling at GoA 4 [for the Bangalore Metro] will allow trains to operate driverless, as they will be automatically controlled and supervised without any onboard intervention. This will deliver a truly modern system featuring superior availability, reliability and passenger experience.”

https://railway-news.com/siemens-mobility-wins-bangalore-metro-contract/

GoA 4 is also termed as an Unattended Train Operation (UTO) system. Therefore, the safe departure of the train from a station, including door closing, must be done automatically. The UTO system can detect and manage the hazardous conditions and emergency conditions by introducing guideway intrusion detection, platform, and onboard CCTV, etc. UTO is only possible for systems with GoA 4.

Global Automatic Train Control (GoA 1, GoA 2, GoA 3, GoA 4) Market Forecast to 2023 - ResearchAndMarkets.com (2019)
https://apnews.com/press-release/pr-businesswire/7dd0aca732d347389a6ab8d383ff18ff
Here's the updated report:
https://www.researchandmarkets.com/reports/5300830/global-autonomous-trains-market-2020-2030-by

The following excerpts are from a current column by Paul Krugman, in The New York Times: "Is China in Big Trouble?"
(That link will only work for NYT subscribers.)

China’s economic growth has been gradually slowing. Here’s a five-year moving average of the country’s growth rate:

Basically, China has masked underlying imbalances by creating an immense housing bubble. And it’s hard to see how this ends well.

Now that’s a housing bubble. Kenneth Rogoff and Yuanchen Yang

Rogoff and Yang also show both that housing prices in China are extremely high relative to incomes and that the real estate sector has become an incredibly large share of China’s economy.
None of this looks sustainable, which is why many observers worry that the debt problems of the giant property developer Evergrande are just the leading edge of a broader economic crisis.
China, which maintains controls on the flow of capital into and out of the country, isn’t deeply integrated with world financial markets. So the fall of Evergrande isn’t likely to provoke a global financial crisis in the same way that the fall of Lehman Brothers did in 2008. A Chinese slowdown would have some economic spillover via reduced Chinese demand, especially for raw materials. But in purely economic terms, the global economic risks from China’s problems don’t look all that large.

What measurement, metric, guide or guru (if any) do you observe?
I don’t have any particular monitor - except I follow trends by looking at charts and can’t help thinking about the half-dozen or so serious corrections I’ve witnessed in my lifetime. I try and listen to all the educated pundits. But they appear largely largely clueless. Opinions are all over the place. There’s long time bear Shiller, of course. And Howard Marks sounds concerned. Ray Dalio was big into gold (defensively) a year ago. It’s finally starting to move. Even David Giroux has voiced concerns.
Here’s an October article on the Buffett Indicator
Following the media is, of course, counter-productive. In a downward markets the general tenor becomes bearish and the bearish prognosticators get rolled out. But in an up market, reasons abound why the bull will continue. I do feel Barrons comes closest to providing an accurate perspective - though both bulls and bears appear there.
Biggest concern? All the sharp downturns I’ve lived through began with higher prevailing interest rates. This did two things: (1) It buffered the downside for investors who held some bonds and (2) It allowed for the monetary authorities (ie “Fed”) to stimulate by lowering rates. With rates as low as they are now, the game has changed.
A second concern is all the “hot” money that has entered in recent years thru forums like Robinhood. Could make things interesting in a 20-30% selloff. Could exacerbate the problem.
One thought that occurs to me is that ultra low bond yields have pushed everybody and his neighbor into riskier assets. (TINA). One possible “out” here. The dollar could depreciate sharply thereby making those “nominal” paper gains worth less in real purchasing power. - in a sense justifying the higher prices. In that case, investors would be well served hanging tight.

@rabockma1
FWIW: TCELX gained 59.0% in 2020.

Are you concerned about the Matthews Asia personnel turnover in 2020?
The following portfolio managers left the firm last year:
Tiffany Hsiao, YuanYuan Ji, Beini Zhou, and Lydia So.
Yu-Ming Wang, president and global CIO, resigned from Matthews Asia on 09/30/2020.
Mr. Wang joined the firm only seven months earlier.

It seems this thread is started to be dominated by FR/BL funds. It was not my intent to hijack this thread from the OPs original intent. MSF gave a more detailed analysis of MWFLX, according to M*. The OP is a Fido investor, and I am a Schwab investor, so we may not view funds quite the same as far as availability between these 2 brokerages. I have done some due diligence analysis of funds in this category, and I maintain a M* Portfolio Watchlist of funds that I am most interested in monitoring, but as I said above, the OP has to apply his own personal due diligence criteria, IF he has any interest in this category.
For full disclosure, I have invested in this category off and on for the last several years--SPFYX and SAMBX are 2 funds I have held in the past, before 2021. In 2021 I have owned several BL/FR funds including the following: AFRAX, EIFAX, MWFLX, FFRHX, and PRFRX, but currently I only own 1 fund from this category. At Schwab, their 2 BL/FR funds they recommend are FRFZX and SAMBX. The "hottest" and highest performing BL/FR fund YTD is OOSAX, likely a favorite for bond traders, but it has a somewhat checkered past and the fund investing strategy was changed significantly in 2020.
Because investors differ so much from each other in their investing style and due diligence approach, I am very reluctant to do much more than "suggest" this might be a category the OP "might" want to consider, and if interested he can do his own extensive due diligence. Good luck!

Fred: "Here is what dtconroe said about the fund in January 2020:"
"The Bank Loan/Floating rate bond oef, that I would most likely invest in, is MWFRX/MWFLX. It is from a stable of bond oefs, offered by Met West, and it has an established history of being managed very conservatively, at least "conservative" for a sector HY bond category."
Yep, that is what I said in January, and M* does rate it as a "Low Risk" fund. M* does not seem to think as highly of this fund, based on its fund analysis commentary. So, when I listed FFRHX, PRFRX, and SAMBX, on this thread, I did so because M* fund analysis statements are very complimentary of these 3 funds. There are many good BL/FR funds, so it ultimately depends on what the OP would be comfortable with, after he does his own due diligence.

Howdy folks,
Great discussion. Start with @msf and Ford raising his workers wages so they could afford to buy a Ford. Another classic was the GI Bill after WW2. It was simply a labor control device to slow the reentry of the GI's into the work force. After WW1, the GI's marched on WashDC for jobs and Uncle to call out active duty soldiers to quell the uprising. That said, what the GI Bill resulted in was an incredible investment in human capital which led the the posterity of the 50's and 60's. Both are example of Demand Side economics . . . which we need more of. Not because we're bleeding heart liberals or socialists or even nice guys. IT'S TO STIMULATE AGGREGATE DEMAND. Duh. That's what this Employment strike will result in. That's why the states that maintained the excess unemployment benefits had better economies than those that didn't. The extra bennies went to AGG Demand. And what is so brain dead, is that the republicans are so damn mean, they continually choose the wrong actions and shoot themselves in the foot.
@Ben and @oldJoe, Unions were and are a necessary evil. However, once they were founded, they became institutionalized and aren't much different today than management. Not unlike organized religion. Once established, they become more obsessed with preserving the institution than the membership.
@hank, all true about the demise of organized labor, etc. That said, a DC pension can be a good substitute for a DC pension but it has to be done right and at the beginning of employment and most often they are not. You can have decent benefits for employees and not have enormous legacy costs. My township has great benefits and no legacy costs. 403(b) with match and investment guidance and flexibility. Health care while working and health savings for retirement. It can be done, but you first have to give a shit about your employees.
We need more demand side economics. Raising the minimum wage would be perfect but it's going to have to be a grass roots movement (like a general strike) due to the inability of Washington to do anything right for the right reasons. Infrastructure? Huge. It's jobs. That's what people need and want. The reason why demand side econ is so superior to supply side is the Marginal Propensity to Consume. This is how a person saves or spends each additional dollar. Down around the bottom of the income ladder the MPC approaches 1.0. They are forced to spend (consume) every additional dollar. By consuming, they're buying stuff and then stuff has to be made. When the cost of capital is 0.0%, nothing will ever 'trickle down'.
And for every business with a Help Wanted sign in their window. PAY YOUR WORKERS MORE AND YOU WON'T HAVE THIS PROBLEM.
and so it goes,
peace and wear the damn mask,
rono

The 'story' from Bloomberg so far is really only a small window into how the traders, based in a remote suburb of London, took a huge risk to hit the jackpot in April 2020. Regulators are investigating whether they were brilliant or conspired to manipulate the market. Personally I hope they fairly outwitted Big Oil and the Street. But who knows? Apologies if this has been posted previously.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/videos/2021-05-11/the-day-oil-went-negative-these-unlikely-traders-made-660-million-video

However, if you are a conservative investor looking for a low risk floating rate fund you may want to check out MWFRX/MWFLX. It's standard deviation is 6.2%, according to M*, and during the market crash in March 2020 it lost "only" 8.35%, whereas RSFLX lost 14%.
Here is what dtconroe said about the fund in January 2020:
"The Bank Loan/Floating rate bond oef, that I would most likely invest in, is MWFRX/MWFLX. It is from a stable of bond oefs, offered by Met West, and it has an established history of being managed very conservatively, at least "conservative" for a sector HY bond category."
Since we are talking about HY bond funds, and the OP said to "Keep it coming", may I suggest also checking out OSTIX, a short term HY fund that according to M* is "[...] a unique high-yield offering with a strong risk-adjusted return profile, particularly over the longer term." It also rates the fund's risk as "low".
While its YTD total return is a respectable 5.14%, its 3, 5, 10 and 15 year returns range consistently between 5 and 6%. The fund's average effective duration is currently 2.28, and the standard deviation 5.74%.
OSTIX's consistent performance over the past 15 years recommends it as a possible long term holding. Thought it deserves to be mentioned.
Good luck,
Fred

I have always believed their "we are not money grubbing investment advisors.. we only work for you the fund shareholders, who own the company" is total BS. We you ever asked to vote on the CEO's compensation?
I suspect this cut back was precipitated by the capital they need desperately to upgrade their computer systems

Just wanted to add one last post to this thread.
Today the S&P is currently within 0.5% of it's previous HIGH. Given that and scoring at home, when we get to this point I consider the current Dip/Diplet effectively over. YMMV (but I'm not sure why it would).
So for this latest Dip/Diplet (DOWN from 4,537), the correct response was to BUY or HOLD it, not SELL it.
FWIW, we made a few broad market BUYs and started DCA'ing into two new stock ETFs around S&P 4,300 using cash, CD proceeds and bond OEF SALE proceeds. Those new BUYs are UP in aggregate ~5%.
PLEASE don't try to frame this as boasting or bragging (though I know some will). It's simply a statement of what we've been doing since the March 2020 crash. It's worked EVERY time so far and ALL Dip/Diplet BUYs are now UP between 5% (most recent Dip) - 70% (post-crash BUYs). BUY funds would have all been stagnant, losing money or barely treading water had they been left where they were.
So if any further studies are presented showing Dip/Diplet BUYing does NOT work, please at least add a footnote regarding the March 2020-current as an outlier performance period.

From Yahoo :
Allowab (non-advisory)
Commonwealth Universe
Mid Atlantic Capital Group
Pershing Retirement Plan Network
Raymond James
Raymond James WRAP Eligible
Vanguard NTF

Calamos Market Neutral Income Fund (CMNIX / CVSIX / CVSCX)
https://www.calamos.com/globalassets/media/documents/tax-center/calamos-market-neutral-income-fund-estimated-2021-capital-gains.pdf
Estimates for all other Calamos funds will be available Nov 1
https://www.calamos.com/resources/tax-center/

Several posters commented on this fund on another tread. Quite a flexible allocation fund with good risk profile with respect to 2020’s drawdown and recovery time. Also it is more value oriented.