I don't interpret it as having trouble, but the funds are in "quiet period" with SEC so they are getting everything in order before the funds start to being offered. It appears the opening date has been moved from August 11 to September 10. Look at how long the T Rowe Price Capital Appreciation and Income Fund was announced back in 2017/2018 only to open a year or two ago.

They are delaying till October 1st now.
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/806633/000119312525197907/d50711d485bxt.htm
If they are not having problems raising the money, any insights into what "getting everything in order" might involve that would require extra ~ 2 months? I certainly would not want this to drag out as long as the ~ 5 years it apparently took PRCFX...

I have experienced several market crash periods, in which several funds with low volatility for years, had dramatic losses during a market correction. In post-crash analysis, derivatives that were using leveraging and speculation, were blamed for the "surprisingly" large losses. When I see relatively new funds, which has large percentage investments in derivatives, I wonder how those derivatives are being used. It is hard to be sure, but often "suspect" leveraging and speculation, but hard to be sure. I tend to avoid them. Below is an AI article that explains that in more detail:
"Derivatives can both increase and decrease market volatility, though the overall impact is complex and depends on factors like market maturity, regulation, and how the instruments are used. While they can enhance stability through risk management and price discovery, high leverage and speculation can lead to amplified price swings and increased volatility. However, derivatives also increase information flow and liquidity, which, in mature markets, can lead to more efficient price discovery and reduced long-term volatility.
Factors contributing to increased volatility
Leverage and speculation:
Derivatives amplify exposure, meaning small price movements in the underlying asset can lead to large gains or losses, contributing to volatility.
Speculative trading:
When derivatives are used for speculation rather than hedging, they can attract destabilizing speculative activity, particularly in less mature markets.
High short-term reactions:
Derivatives can cause prices to react more sharply to new information, increasing short-term volatility.
Factors contributing to decreased volatility
Price discovery:
Derivatives markets facilitate faster price discovery as they incorporate new information, leading to more efficient markets.
Risk management:
By allowing participants to hedge against price fluctuations, derivatives can reduce overall market risk and contribute to stability.
Increased information flow:
The increased information flow from derivatives markets to the spot markets can accelerate this information absorption and reduce volatility.
Market maturity:
In more mature and efficient markets, derivatives are used more for risk management, and their price discovery role leads to more stable prices.
Conclusion
The relationship between derivatives and volatility is not a simple cause-and-effect. Derivatives can act as a double-edged sword: they offer valuable tools for managing risk and improving market efficiency but can also be used in ways that amplify volatility through speculation and leverage. The overall impact depends heavily on the specific market conditions and the regulatory environment."

Investopedia:
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/creditdefaultswap.asp
Think about Michael Burry, Charlie Geller, Jamie Shipley.
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1596363/?ref_=nv_sr_srsg_0_tt_8_nm_0_in_0_q_big%20short
If you're convinced everything's going to hell, that's what you want to own. But the monthly fees almost buried Scion Capital before it paid off. Burry was way too smart, and rather early in figuring out the fact that the Housing Market would crash.
And then there's the human cost, in a severe situation like the GFC. In the film, Brad Pitt's character (Ben Rickert) was something of a mentor for Geller and Shipley. "We just made the best deal of our lives," they said to him, gesticulating and dancing. "Just don't DANCE," he pushed back at them.

Yield-curve control is something central banks to, not funds.
Most intermediate-term bond funds manage their yield-curve exposure by following strategies such as barbell approaches (i.e. loading up on ST and LT binds but skipping the belly, when appropriate), rolling-down-the-yield-curve (as years go by, maturity shortens, and if yield-curve is normal, the decline in yield will provide temporary gains - those gains will disappear at maturity), duration control (with futures; PIMCO does this a lot), etc.

Very old Morningstar risk scores were within the categories and were quite confusing to use.
Morningstar has been tweaking its stats.
Its current MPRS risk scoring system is no longer relative to the categories. It's an absolute scoring system that can be used to assess different asset classes as well as multi-asset funds. Of course, each Morningstar category would have typical MPRS ranges. This is also why MPRS results are quite similar to much simpler SD based risk systems.
https://pdfhost.io/v/E..d~yHtX_MStar_MPRS_102024

One feature of Morningstar MPRS (new Risk Scores in Risk tab) should be noted.
M* wanted these to be stable. And by their design, they are very stable, so they won't change (or, much) before, during or after any big market events or adverse fund-specific events (a recent example was some bond funds in 2020) - as VIX & SD will do.
But this isn't a flaw or drawback, it's how M* designed them. Be aware of this.
For gory details, see https://ybbpersonalfinance.proboards.com/post/2199/thread

junkster: "Weren’t you a victim of the SEMMX scam that it was a cash substitute in 2020? I wouldn’t touch any fund associated with the fellow that has run LCTRX since 1997. Investigate its punk performance in 2015 and why. I would stick with the guy that runs HOSIX who at one time worked at Leader. He has done an admirable job at the helm of Holbrook."
No I was not a "victim" of the SEMMX scam. I did own SEMMX for several years, but fortunately I was successful of trading out of SEMMX at the very early stages of its decline in 2020, and did not experience any significant losses from SEMMX or any of the other bond oefs I owned at that period. I have not been back into bond oefs since that period. As I have stated several times over the years, retirement investing objectives is to achieve a total return of 4 to 6%, with the least amount of risk. Since I was able to do that with CDs and MMs for several years after 2020, I found no need to invest bond oefs. Now it is becoming very difficult to buy a CD that makes 4%, so I am looking at the least risky way of making at least 4%

FD mentioned a fund above for consideration--LCTRX. It is categorized as an Intermediate Core Plus bond oef, but it is very different than other funds in this bond oef category, in that it has a very low duration and very low standard deviation. This fund uses CLOs (Collaterized Loan Obligations) defined in Investopedia in the following way:
"Collateralized loan obligations (CLOs) are structured securities that bundle a pool of lower-rated corporate loans and sell them to investors in tranches. These investments, managed by CLO managers, offer an opportunity for investors to gain exposure to higher-than-average returns by assuming default risk."
I am curious if any other posters have opinions about LCTRX and the use of CLOs.

Weren’t you a victim of the SEMMX scam that it was a cash substitute in 2020? I wouldn’t touch any fund associated with the fellow that has run LCTRX since 1997. Investigate its punk performance in 2015 and why. I would stick with the guy that runs HOSIX who at one time worked at Leader. He has done an admirable job at the helm of Holbrook.
Also I would like to retract a comment I made a while back about not touching HOBIX with a 10 ft pole. Not that I am recommending it for the purpose of this thread. Also as you alluded to, as the Fed fund rates declines so will the yields on a lot of funds mentioned in this thread. With your adversity to risk would just stick with money markets, CDs and Treasuries. I mean you already missed some big bull markets in many bond sectors over the course of the past several years. As for CLOs, they have been widely discussed here for some time now. Check the archives.
Surprised no one has mentioned a fund widely held by the populace here NRDCX. Talk about low volatility with nary a down day.

DT:I am now considering adding some very low risk bond oefs

No fund achieved lower loss than 1.5% in 2020 + 2022 + performance over 4% since
1/1/2020.
Even RPHIX lost more than 3% in Q1/2020.
Since 2023, I no longer hold more volatile funds for months. Only short term for 1-2 weeks trades. Think ICMUX,PIMIX,RCTIX.
I have been holding funds with low SD with good performance.
Of course, I add timing and always near the exit.
Since early 2023 bond OEFS had one of the best performances for 2 years; several had very low SD and made 20% in 2 years. Think HOSIX, CLOZ which I held for many months.
ICMUX made more than HOSIX in these 2 years by 1%, but I preferred HOSIX.
chart (https://schrts.co/pMytFkvN)
2025 proved again that volatility can show up any time. The only way was to be out.
Since mid-April bond OEFs did great.
Bottom line: there are no funds with very low SD (under 1-1.5% loss any time) with good LT results that you can hold for years.
But, bond OEFs should perform well in the next 1-1.5 years.
So, looking at the last 3 years...
HOSIX would be a good choice with dist close to 6%. The manager, whom I spoke with, is about low SD.
SEMIX/SEMRX and DHEAX are also good and similar. SEMIX has lower SD per the chart.
Chart (https://schrts.co/CuANzpzj)
BUBIX looks good, but I prefer funds that can make 1-2, maybe 3% more annually.
Just YTD, the 3 funds I mentioned lost about 0.5%, but are 1-2% ahead of BUBIX.
Someone who is very risk averse and holds mostly bonds, would love to make another 2% more annually.
Disclaimer: currently, I don't own any of the funds above.

Yep, I am very familiar with DHEAX, having owned it for years. I am also very familiar with SEMMX, also having owned it in the past, but dumped it after its terrible performance in the 2020 crash. I have not looked at it since Medalist took it over

Just to be clear, I'm not suggesting SEMMX/SEMPX, but the other, investment grade fund for the reasons I mentioned.

You mentioned DHEAX in an earlier post, @dt, and I think it is right up your alley. SEMRX, the IG cousin of SEMPX/SEMMX, has tracked DHEAX closely since a management change in 2023, when Semper and a group called Medalist merged. In the last year, the DHEAX and SEMRX charts are practically indistinguishable, with barely a blip during the April swoon.
Might be worth a look for another holding in the DHEAX ballpark, if only to spread the risk a bit in what's been and may well continue to be an attractive space.

Yep, I am very familiar with DHEAX, having owned it for years. I am also very familiar with SEMMX, also having owned it in the past, but dumped it after its terrible performance in the 2020 crash. I have not looked at it since Medalist took it over

You may want to look into CBLDX, DHEAX, ICMUX, and RCTIX.

I am pretty familiar with these funds. DHEAX use to be one of my major bond oef holdings before the 2020 crash. Thanks for the recommendations.

”I'm no trader, but a quick look at the GRZZX 5-year chart shows a steady decline from about $11.00 in 9/2020 to about $5.00 now. Maybe just to make the worth of the fund look a little better?”

That’s pretty much what posters on this thread say (cosmetics).
A more rational idea (further down in the discussion) ) also sounds possible: ”Commission and margin rules at many banks have a share price lower threshold value, below which margin requirements are far stricter and commissions are higher. Doing a reverse split puts them back above this threshold …Option markets tend to dry up when stocks go below $3 or so ”
If Leuthhold were to come out with an etf version of Grizzly I might be inclined to own a few shares. Using an OEF for the purpose of hedging really doesn’t make a lot of sense to me. I think Leuthold waives short term / frequent trading fees & restrictions on this one. But very likely your brokerage wouldn’t.

I'm no trader, but a quick look at the GRZZX 5-year chart shows a steady decline from about $11.00 in 9/2020 to about $5.00 now. Maybe just to make the worth of the fund look a little better?

History is interesting.
Bogle was rushing to launch no-load Vanguard in 1974/75 because he was afraid that Capital Group/AF may beat him to that.
But Capital Group did nothing of the sort. In fact, it became the class champion - tapping all channel sources for its funds. So, RERFX has 19 classes! Then, there are ETFs and separate accounts.

The three founders of Primecap Management Company—Howard Schow,
Theo Kolokotrones, and Mitch Milias—were senior portfolio managers at Capital Group.
Primecap Management implements an investment approach similar to Capital Group
where multiple portfolio managers independently select securities for a mutual fund.
The firm focuses on research and portfolio management with little regard to sales and marketing.
Primecap Management is the advisor for three Vanguard mutual funds
and they also offer three funds under the Primecap Odyssey brand.

Capital Group did very well for us in our accumulation phase. I always did prefer their advisory group approach, split between analysts and managers. Not "brilliant", but competent and steady.

Right there with you @rforno
"... take that as you will. For me, I prefer investment managers that tend to stay in the background. My go-to is Capital Group (where I'm deeply invested across accounts) but in terms of quiet, steady-eddie operations Wellington, D&C, etc are right up there as well."

President Donald J. Trump’s firing of the commissioner of labor statistics ... for announcing that job growth has slowed dramatically
It turns out that he was right. After the firing Trump got what he wanted - another June job growth revision. The number of jobs did not grow slowly in June after all.
For the first time since, well, since the last full month Trump 45 was in the Oval Office (December 2020), the number of jobs shrank.

Per BBG:

Wellington Management Co. is a rarity in the investment world: a fund manager with more than $1 trillion of assets and almost zero brand recognition.
Not for long.
The staid, nearly century-old firm that mostly serves vanilla equity and bond strategies to buttoned-up institutions like pensions and endowments is now moving aggressively into private markets and hedge funds. Wellington is spending big to hire from bulge-bracket banks and alternative investment firms, adding dozens of private markets professionals to build a unit of about 40 people.
It’s also hustling to build a brand with retail investors, many of whom have never heard of the $1.3 trillion firm. It’s a big change for a money manager that for decades didn’t care about what the world thought, as long as its big institutional clients were happy.
Among its recent hires, Wellington recruited a head of private investments capital formation from Goldman Sachs Group Inc., poached a team from Pacific Investment Management Co. to expand in private credit and hired Christina Kopec Rooney from Goldman’s asset management arm to head its nascent push into the US wealth market. It even partnered with private equity giant Blackstone Inc. and Vanguard Group to launch hybrid funds for retail investors.
In perhaps its most radical shift, Wellington – housed across 19 floors in Boston’s Atlantic Wharf – has done the previously unthinkable: It hired a public relations team.

< - >
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2025-09-05/wellington-management-seeks-the-spotlight-after-100-years-of-shunning-it?srnd=homepage-americas
... take that as you will. For me, I prefer investment managers that tend to stay in the background. My go-to is Capital Group (where I'm deeply invested across accounts) but in terms of quiet, steady-eddie operations Wellington, D&C, etc are right up there as well.