NOTE:

My intention, at this time; is to present the data for the selected bond sectors, as listed; through the end of the year (2024). This 'end date' will take us through the U.S. elections period, pending actions/legislation dependent upon the election results, pending Federal Reserve actions and market movers trying to 'guess' future directions of the U.S. economy. As important during this period, are any number of global circumstances that may take a path that is not expected; and/or 'new' circumstances. In the 'cooking pot' we currently have the big ingredients of the middle east and also, how much damage Ukraine may inflict upon Russia and the response.

NOTE TWO: I MAY NOT have a report next week, as the Shop Vac comes out on Friday to remove my gall bladder. I don't know what condition, my condition will be in..... :)
FIRST: The NEWS is very full of elections info and the terrible hurricane(s) reports and the resulting suffering. Ukraine and Russia are still busy with war. And is Lebanon entering a period of becoming a GAZA-fication relative to infrastructure and death? Song lyrics arise: "No where to run to, no where to hide."
W/E October 11 , 2024..... Make your best guess week for bond NAV's
--- I was away from market news for the week, so I only have bits and pieces of the weekly picture based on the NAV's. This week found the w/e NAV price results for many of the bond sectors to have followed the overall trend for the majority of the week; down, down, down. The weekly broad bonds sectors found the long duration to be out of favor, some of the short duration had modest gains and shorter duration TIPS were more happy. The MINT etf, to the best of my recall, has maintained a positive price for the year, each and every week; and these remains for this week.
A few numbers for your viewing pleasure.
NEXT:
*** UST yields chart, 6 month - 30 year. This chart is active and will display a 6 month time frame going forward to a future date. Place/hover the mouse pointer anywhere on a line to display the date and yield for that date. The percent to the right side is the percentage change in the yield from the chart beginning date for a particular item. You may also 'right click' on the 126 days at the chart bottom to change a 'time frame' from a drop down menu. Hopefully, the line graph also lets you view the 'yield curve' in a different fashion, for the longer duration issues, at this time. Save the page to your own device for future reference. NOTE: take a peek at the right side of this graph to find the yield swings of the past week, and for the current yields for the last business day.
For the WEEK/YTD, NAV price changes, October 7 - October11, 2024
***** This week (Friday), FZDXX, MM yield continues to move with Fed funds/repo/SOFR rates; and ended the week at 4.67% yield (no change). Fidelity's MM's continue to maintain decent yields, as is presumed with other vendors similar MM's. Theoretically, a new yield bottom is in place, until the next FED action. SO, one is still obtaining a decent MM yield. MOST MM's found a few hundreds basis drop in yield for the week.
--- AGG = -.46% / +3.03% (I-Shares Core bond), a benchmark, (AAA-BBB holdings)
--- MINT = +.14% / +4.75% (PIMCO Enhanced short maturity, AAA-BBB rated)
--- SHY = +.02% / +3.57% (UST 1-3 yr bills)
--- IEI = -.23% / +2.98% (UST 3-7 yr notes/bonds)
--- IEF = -.63% / +2.06% (UST 7-10 yr bonds)
--- TIP = +.08% / +4.02% (UST Tips, 3-10 yrs duration, some 20+ yr duration)
--- VTIP = +.23% / +4.78% (Vanguard Short-Term Infl-Prot Secs ETF)
--- STPZ = +.30% / +4.72% (UST, short duration TIPs bonds, PIMCO)
--- LTPZ = -.76% / +2.11 % (UST, long duration TIPs bonds, PIMCO)
--- TLT = -1.94% / -2.41% (I Shares 20+ Yr UST Bond
--- EDV = -2.82% / -5.42% (UST Vanguard extended duration bonds)
--- ZROZ = -3.19% / -7.78% (UST., AAA, long duration zero coupon bonds, PIMCO
--- TBT = +4.09% / 11.98% (ProShares UltraShort 20+ Year Treasury (about 23 holdings)
--- TMF = -5.85% / -20.09% (Direxion Daily 20+ Yr Trsy Bull 3X ETF (about a 2x version of EDV etf)
*** Additional important bond sectors, for reference:
--- BAGIX = -.40% / +3.45% Baird Aggregate Bond Fund (active managed, plain vanilla, high quality bond fund)
--- LQD = -.64% / +3.50% (I Shares IG, corp. bonds)
--- BKLN = +.33% / +6.39% (Invesco Senior Loan, Corp. rated BB & lower)
--- HYG = -.04% / +7.63% (High Yield bonds, proxy ETF)
--- HYD = -.23%/+5.36% (VanEck HY Muni)
--- MUB = -.21% /+1.67% (I Shares, National Muni Bond)
--- EMB = -.49%/+7.33% (I Shares, USD, Emerging Markets Bond)
--- CWB = +1.03% / +8.71% (SPDR Bloomberg Convertible Securities)
--- PFF = +.24% / +11.65% (I Shares, Preferred & Income Securities)
--- FZDXX = 4.67% yield (7 day), Fidelity Premium MM fund
*** FZDXX yield was .11%, April,2022. (For reference to current date)
Comments and corrections, please.
Remain curious,
Catch

I'm not going to try to dissuade you from staying with Plan F. Peace of mind has a certain intangible value that for you exceeds $372.
Regarding absence of bills with Plan F, that's the theory. And at worst, you may get a couple of bills that you're not responsible for paying. But you still have to deal with them. Crash gave an example. The result of our crazy quilt insurance system. [...]
"require prior authorization ... probably the reason why most good doctors shy away from Advantage plans". We can test that theory. Do most good doctors shy away from all commercial insurance - employer sponsored, ACA, etc.? The vast majority of these policies also require prior authorizations. [...]

Well, despite Crash's example, all I can say is that I have been on Plan F for over a decade and have never received a medical bill in my mailbox.
Regarding prior authorization, I recently came across an article in a local paper (City&State) regarding the so far unsuccessful efforts by the City of NY to force its retired employees from Original Medicare into an Aetna Medicare Advantage Plan. Here is an excerpt: "Opponents of Medicare Advantage say that the privately-managed plan will make it more difficult for retirees to receive care, citing investigative reports in The New York Times and Kaiser Health News that documented how private plans were ripping off the federal government while restricting retirees’ access to critical medical care through pre-authorizations.
The Times investigation, published in October, ran under the headline: “‘The Cash Monster Was Insatiable’: How Health Insurers Exploited Medicare for Billions – By next year half of Medicare beneficiaries will have a private Medicare Advantage plan. Most large insurers have been accused in court of fraud.”
According to the Times, “eight of the 10 biggest Medicare Advantage insurers – representing more than two-thirds of the market – have submitted inflated bills, according to the federal audits. And four of the five largest players – UnitedHealth, Humana, Elevance and Kaiser – have faced federal lawsuits alleging that efforts to over diagnose their customers crossed the line into fraud. … The additional diagnoses led to $12 billion in overpayments in 2020, according to an estimate from the group that advises Medicare on payment policies – enough to cover hearing and vision care for every American over 65.”

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1300746/000089706924001946/497e.htm
497 1 497e.htm
Filed pursuant to Rule 497(e)
Registration Nos. 333-282272; 811-21625
Intrepid Small Cap Fund
Institutional Class (Ticker: ICMZX)
Investor Class (Ticker: ICMAX)
Intrepid Capital Fund
Institutional Class (Ticker: ICMVX)
Investor Class (Ticker: ICMBX)
Supplement dated October 11, 2024 to the
Prospectus dated January 31, 2024
We are pleased to announce the anticipated acquisition of the assets and liabilities of the Intrepid Small Cap Fund by the Intrepid Capital Fund pursuant to the reorganization of the Intrepid Small Cap Fund. The acquisition, which is expected to become effective after the close of business on November 22, 2024, is described in more detail in the information statement and prospectus filed as part of a Registration Statement on Form N-14 with the Securities and Exchange Commission in connection with the reorganization.
The information statement and prospectus will be sent to shareholders of the Intrepid Small Cap Fund. Shareholders of the Intrepid Small Cap Fund are urged to read the definitive information statement and prospectus when it becomes available because it contains important information about the reorganization. The information statement and prospectus may be obtained free of charge from the SEC’s website at www.sec.gov or by calling 1-866-996-3863.
Upon the acquisition of the Intrepid Small Cap Fund by the Intrepid Capital Fund, each shareholder of the Intrepid Small Fund will receive shares of the Intrepid Capital Fund, which have an aggregate net asset value equal to the aggregate net asset value of the shareholder’s shares in the Intrepid Small Cap Fund. The Intrepid Small Cap Fund will then terminate. The shareholders of the Intrepid Small Cap Fund will not be assessed any sales charges or other shareholder fees in connection with the acquisition, and the reorganization has been structured with the intention that it qualify for federal income tax purposes as a tax-free reorganization under the Internal Revenue Code.
Existing shareholders may redeem or exchange shares of the Intrepid Small Cap Fund in the ordinary course until the last business day before the closing of the reorganization. The redemption fee is waived with regard to the Intrepid Small Cap Fund in light of the proposed reorganization.
You should review the definitive information statement and prospectus carefully when available and retain it for future reference. In connection with the reorganization, the Funds are not asking you for a proxy and you are requested not to send a proxy.
The Funds have filed an information statement and prospectus as part of a Registration Statement on Form N-14 with the Securities and Exchange Commission in connection with the reorganization. The definitive information statement and prospectus will be sent to shareholders of the Intrepid Small Cap Fund. Shareholders are urged to read the definitive information statement and prospectus when available because it will contain important information about the reorganization, including the reasons of the board of trustees for approving the reorganization. The information statement and prospectus may be obtained free of charge from the SEC’s website at www.sec.gov or by calling 1-866-996-3863.
Please keep this Supplement with your Prospectus.

I think the article correctly alludes to the AUM game being played by the mutual fund industry vs interval fund industry as the reason for the difference in marks. Too much manager discretion in marks makes timing / luck a big factor in trading these funds, causing frustration to some retail fund traders.
Edit: The article also correctly predicted additional negative adjustments to NAV for CBYYX (-0.6%) and EMPIX (-0.10%). While SHRIX closed 2.72% higher today. EMPIX was even, CBYYX and SHRIX are -1+% related to Milton. Given the larger SHRIX is marking back up, I am guessing the worse of negative marks for Milton could be behind us.
Did anyone here put their toe back into these today?
This article implies Milton's impact on Cat Bonds is not yet clear and that "Greater clarity may emerge next week." https://www.artemis.bm/news/hurricane-milton-estimated-principal-loss-cat-bond-market-twelve-capital/

@Charles ; 'The SEC also filed a complaint in federal district court in Madison, Wisconsin, against Senior Portfolio Manager, Edward Walczak, for fraudulently misrepresenting how he would manage risk for the fund.
When I googled his name , it show Jan. 2020,filed . Feb. 2022 judgement granted.
Thanks , just filling in a few missing blanks.
Derf

Thank you @davidsherman. For me, it's the association that took me aback.
Catalyst, Rational, AlphaCentric all seem like asset gathers. Really high er. Front loads. 12b-1 fees. Multiple share classes.
I came across Szilagyi back in 2017 profiling AlphaCentric Income fund. I absolutely loved Tom Miner and the folks at subadvisor Garrison Point, but I was skeptical of their association with Szilagyi's organization.
An excerpt:
Focusing on IOFIX, the adviser pays 0.33% “other” (mostly administrative and servicing). The remaining 1.16% “management fee” (after a 0.01% acquired fund fee) is then split between AlphaCentric and Garrison Point, or 0.58% each. Since another Jerry Szilagyi company “MFund Services LLC,” also gets paid to manage the overall trust, Szilagyi’s firms appear to receive more fee from the fund than GPC does.
Interestingly, AlphaCentric is listed along with Eventide, Pinnacle and Advisory Research as a strategic partner in a firm called Multi-Funds, which describes itself as “A Premier Marketing, Consulting and Distribution Firm.” While this channel may indeed have helped bring attention to IOFIX, allowing the sub-adviser to focus on its strategy and portfolio management … what it loves to do, Multi-Funds hasn’t helped other funds in the AlphaCentric family achieve anywhere near the assets attracted by IOFIX.
Jerry Szilagyi also runs Catalyst Funds, a collection of “Intelligent Alternatives … We understood that the market did not need another traditional family of mutual funds … we endeavor to offer unique investment products to meet the needs of discerning financial advisers and their clients … specialized strategies seeking to produce income and equity-oriented returns while attempting to limit risk and volatility.” There are 28 Catalyst Funds comprising $6.2B in AUM. Average age just under 5 years. Most come in three classes, including those imposing 4.75% front-loads and 12b-1 fees. Average fees: 1.76% (oldest share class, 2.01% all share classes).
When you stood-up CrossingBridge, it just seemed like a horse of a different color.
You're always 10 steps ahead of everybody else in the room, which puts me 20 steps back and surely missing something.
Or, simply being a Pollyanna.
But Szilagyi's brand also ran into regulatory issues, granted he's in good company, but still:
SEC Charges Portfolio Manager and Advisory Firm with Misrepresenting Risk in Mutual Fund
The Securities and Exchange Commission today announced charges against a New York-based investment adviser for misleading investors about the management of risk in a mutual fund. Catalyst Capital Advisors LLC (CCA) and its President and Chief Executive Officer, Jerry Szilagyi, agreed to pay a combined $10.5 million to settle the charges. The SEC also filed a complaint in federal district court in Madison, Wisconsin, against Senior Portfolio Manager, Edward Walczak, for fraudulently misrepresenting how he would manage risk for the fund.
https://www.sec.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2020-21
Fund That Lost $700 Million on Bearish Bets Fined for Misleading Investors
Catalyst Capital Advisors and CEO Jerry Szilagyi settled regulatory probes, will pay $10.5 million
A mutual-fund manager that lost 20% with wrong-way bets against the stock market agreed to pay $10.5 million to settle regulatory claims that it misled investors about its procedures for limiting losses.
Catalyst Capital Advisors LLC and its chief executive, Jerry Szilagyi, settled the regulatory probes Monday without admitting or denying wrongdoing. The Securities and Exchange Commission and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission also both filed civil fraud lawsuits against Edward Walczak, the portfolio manager who ran the Catalyst Hedged Futures Strategy Fund.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/fund-that-lost-700-million-on-bearish-bets-fined-for-misleading-investors-11580167076
I'll post more later on the Catalyst, Rational, and AlphaCentric families.

^MOVE, the bond risk, is over 120 and indicates elevated risk.
MOVE > 110 has a nice correlation to high volatility in bonds and in most cases, typical high-rated bonds don't do well.
On 3-2-2020 it was at 125 = sell everything = correct. The week before it was already over 110.
End of 02/2022 it was over 130 = sell and continue to get higher with some lower volatility.
Also at the end of 2007, it was over 130 and higher in 2008.
www.tradingcenter.org/index.php/trade/equities/stock-signals/354-move-index-bonds

conveniently? you're reading into my post in an odd way. i was simply offering up an explanation for those friday gains. it had nothing to do with buying or selling.

junkster wrote: "Regarding CBYYX where a few are invested including me. I re entered this fund in July after Hurricane Beryl had no impact whatsoever. Hurricane Beryl was a cat 5 and broke all sorts of meteorological records. Yet none of the cat bonds got hit. Since Beryl the cat bonds have been the best performers in Bondville even outperforming the S@P. Oddly enough almost all the gains have come on Fridays."
regarding Friday gains, i found this today on the artemis website that perhaps explains why that day is special:
"Investment managers are working to incorporate their projections and estimations of potential losses from major hurricane Milton into their catastrophe bond and ILS portfolios. Managers of 40’s Act registered US mutual fund structures need to mark their portfolios with a fund price daily, based on net asset value. This is a challenge given the catastrophe bond market only marks its positions on a Friday ...."
that being the case, it'll be interesting to see what this friday brings ...

You conveniently didn’t mention the rest of my post where I said I was exiting CBYYX and why.

junkster wrote: "Regarding CBYYX where a few are invested including me. I re entered this fund in July after Hurricane Beryl had no impact whatsoever. Hurricane Beryl was a cat 5 and broke all sorts of meteorological records. Yet none of the cat bonds got hit. Since Beryl the cat bonds have been the best performers in Bondville even outperforming the S@P. Oddly enough almost all the gains have come on Fridays."
regarding Friday gains, i found this today on the artemis website that perhaps explains why that day is special:
"Investment managers are working to incorporate their projections and estimations of potential losses from major hurricane Milton into their catastrophe bond and ILS portfolios. Managers of 40’s Act registered US mutual fund structures need to mark their portfolios with a fund price daily, based on net asset value. This is a challenge given the catastrophe bond market only marks its positions on a Friday ...."
that being the case, it'll be interesting to see what this friday brings ...

There's a fascinating piece in the WSJ on the ascendance of active ETFs (Jon Sindreu, "Investment Industry Loses Active ETFs," 10/8/2024). Not quite sure what to say about it. Key points:
1. Passive is a low margin, commoditize business which is "killing many midsize asset managers that lack the scale of compete."
2. Smart beta was the industry's first attempt to raise its margins by offering passive-like (or "passive-light") ETFs with higher fees. That cascaded in ESG and other niche preferences.
3. Active ETFs "are the latest attempt" to add to margins, and their investors "are paying more to get less performance." In particular, large cap active ETFs trail both large cap funds and passive ETFs in performance. Active mid-caps trail passive mid-caps. None of those calculations take volatility into account.
4. Active ETF launches this year outnumber passive by 3:1.
5. Active ETFs are outperforming in small caps and bonds.
6. The largest active ETF is JPMorgan Equity Premium Income ETF, "which sells covered calls to reduce volatility," an activity that Mr. Sindreu describes as "a sure way to miss out on big gains during rallies while retaining unlimited downside risk."
To which I say, "hmmmm..."

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1103243/000141304224000794/enscls497.htm
497 1 enscls497.htm
A series of PFS Funds
Supplement dated October 8, 2024
to the Prospectus and Statement of Additional Information
dated February 28, 2024
This supplement updates information currently in the Prospectus and Statement of Additional Information. Please retain this supplement for future reference.
The Board of Trustees (the “Board”) of the PFS Funds (the “Trust”) has approved a Plan of Liquidation (the “Plan”) relating to the Ensemble Fund (the “Fund”), effective October 3, 2024. Ensemble Capital Management, LLC, the Fund’s investment adviser (the “Adviser”), has recommended to the Board to approve the Plan due to the pending acquisition of the Adviser and the acquiring entity’s desire not to continue the mutual fund business. As a result, the Board has concluded that it is in the best interest of the shareholders to liquidate the Fund.
In connection with the proposed liquidation and dissolution of the Fund called for by the Plan, the Board has directed the Trust’s principal underwriter to cease offering shares of the Fund immediately as of the date of this Supplement. Shareholders may continue to reinvest dividends and distributions in the Fund or redeem their shares until liquidation. While undergoing an orderly liquidation, the Fund will invest in cash equivalents and will not be pursuing its investment objective.
It is anticipated that the Fund will liquidate on or about October 24, 2024. Any remaining shareholders on the date of liquidation will receive a distribution of their remaining investment value in full liquidation of the Fund. If you have questions or need assistance, please contact your financial advisor directly or the Fund toll-free at 1-800-785-8165.
IMPORTANT INFORMATION FOR RETIREMENT PLAN INVESTORS
If you are a retirement plan investor, you should consult your tax advisor regarding the consequences of any redemption of Fund shares. If you receive a distribution from an Individual Retirement Account or a Simplified Employee Pension (SEP) IRA, you must roll the proceeds into another Individual Retirement Account within sixty (60) days of the date of the distribution in order to avoid having to include the distribution in your taxable income for the year. If you receive a distribution from a 403(b)(7) Custodian Account (Tax-Sheltered account) or a Keogh Account, you must roll the distribution into a similar type of retirement plan within sixty (60) days in order to avoid disqualification of your plan and the severe tax consequences that it can bring. If you are the trustee of a Qualified Retirement Plan, you may reinvest the money in any way permitted by the plan and trust agreement.
This Supplement, and the existing Prospectus dated February 28, 2024, provide relevant information for all shareholders and should be retained for future reference. Both the Prospectus and the Statement of Additional Information dated February 28, 2024, have been filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, are incorporated by reference, and can be obtained without charge by calling the Fund toll-free at 1-800-785-8165.

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1355064/000158064224006059/alphstrategic-497.htm
497 1 alphstrategic-497.htm
AlphaCentric Strategic Income Fund
Class A: SiiaX Class C: SiicX Class I: SiiiX
(the “Fund”)
October 7, 2024
This information supplements certain information contained in the Prospectus, Summary Prospectus and Statement of Additional Information for the Fund, each dated August 1, 2024.
______________________________________________________________________________
Effective on or about November 1, 2024, the Fund’s name will change to “AlphaCentric Real Income Fund”.
Effective on or before November 5, 2024, AlphaCentric Advisors LLC intends to retain CrossingBridge Advisors, LLC (“CrossingBridge”) as the new investment sub-advisor to the Fund, subject to approval by the Board of Trustees of the Fund. CrossingBridge is a boutique investment firm specializing in corporate credit, with an emphasis on high yield debt and opportunistic credit. CrossingBridge manages over $3.2B in assets across nine funds and includes a management team of nine investment professionals with an average of 20+ years of investment experience. The Fund’s investment strategy and focus on real estate related securities will remain intact. Additional information regarding the sub-advisory services provided to the Fund will be made available on or before November 5, 2024.
Effective on or before November 5, 2024, Goshen Rock Capital, LLC will no longer serve as the investment sub-adviser of the Fund.
* * * * *
You should read this Supplement in conjunction with the Prospectus, Summary Prospectus and Statement of Additional Information for the Fund, each dated August 1, 2024, which provide information that you should know about the Fund before investing. These documents are available upon request and without charge by calling the Fund toll-free at 1-844-ACFUNDS (1-844-223-8637) or by writing to 4221 North 203rd Street, Suite 100, Elkhorn, Nebraska 68022.
Please retain this Supplement for future reference.

I think the other issue is they went to a "team" approach, so even if you have substantial $ you do not get one individual to work on your issues, unless maybe you pay for "personal advisor". I explored using their Personal Advisor but they only use Robo funds/etfs and made no reference to legacy positions with large capital gains
I don't know but I left and never looked back

Ended up holding on to CBLDX, it was actually up last Friday. It had positive returns in 2020 and 2022. That's the kind of bond fund I like. The five year returns are also pretty good, though I doubt we'll be in that sort of rate environment any time soon.
Sold TBUX, USTB, XONE, and WSHNX. It was too many funds anyway. I will likely consolidate into USFR and VRIG or PULS. Yes, they are boring, but I'm holding onto MNHAX, CBLDX, THOPX, and WCPNX, so there is still some excitement in bond land. Eventually I'll have to consolidate those holdings, but I don't think this is the best time. If the rate environment continues to deteriorate I won't hesitate to lock in profits.

All I have left is HOSIX, SCFZX, CBLDX, and SEMMX/PX. The later on a short leash. Keep wanting to buy AHTFX and JSVIX on a downdraft but never sure when the downdraft will become something more ominous. Stating the obvious, oil is causing a big problem for bonds. You were among the first to go back in THOPX so hope it continues to work for you.

I thought THOPX would be temporary to begin with. I'm guessing it will make way for WCPNX, CBLDX, and MNHAX over some period of time. But hard to tell when that day will come.
I don't expect rates to go up the way they did in 2022. So dividends should cover some of the pain on the longer duration funds.
I'll add your funds to my bond watch list.

Ended up holding on to CBLDX, it was actually up last Friday. It had positive returns in 2020 and 2022. That's the kind of bond fund I like. The five year returns are also pretty good, though I doubt we'll be in that sort of rate environment any time soon.
Sold TBUX, USTB, XONE, and WSHNX. It was too many funds anyway. I will likely consolidate into USFR and VRIG or PULS. Yes, they are boring, but I'm holding onto MNHAX, CBLDX, THOPX, and WCPNX, so there is still some excitement in bond land. Eventually I'll have to consolidate those holdings, but I don't think this is the best time. If the rate environment continues to deteriorate I won't hesitate to lock in profits.

All I have left is HOSIX, SCFZX, CBLDX, and SEMMX/PX. The later on a short leash. Keep wanting to buy AHTFX and JSVIX on a downdraft but never sure when the downdraft will become something more ominous. Stating the obvious, oil is causing a big problem for bonds. You were among the first to go back in THOPX so hope it continues to work for you.

The SP500+QQQ has been great since 2010. From 2000 to 2010, the SP500 lost about 10% and QQQ lost almost half.
FAIRX was a great fund during 2000-10 but has been far behind since 2010.
ICMUX made more than PIMIX for 3 years (chart)
But PIMIX made more from 2015 to 2020 (chart) and PIMIX management is pretty good.
Based on my history of following many funds, I hardly ever found a fund that stays at the top every 2-3 years. Maybe PRWCX is the exception.

@FD1000, you totally didn't understand or ignored what I said. My opinion is that, for most investors (not traders), it's the portfolio construction that matters more so than individual funds. Of course no fund stays in the top tier of category year in and year out. But there are plenty of funds that stay consistently good over time and fill that portfolio segment, like ICMUX.
Your comparative selection of funds above is all in hindsight and therefore irrelevant to portfolio construction IMHO.

Ended up holding on to CBLDX, it was actually up last Friday. It had positive returns in 2020 and 2022. That's the kind of bond fund I like. The five year returns are also pretty good, though I doubt we'll be in that sort of rate environment any time soon.
Sold TBUX, USTB, XONE, and WSHNX. It was too many funds anyway. I will likely consolidate into USFR and VRIG or PULS. Yes, they are boring, but I'm holding onto MNHAX, CBLDX, THOPX, and WCPNX, so there is still some excitement in bond land. Eventually I'll have to consolidate those holdings, but I don't think this is the best time. If the rate environment continues to deteriorate I won't hesitate to lock in profits.

It's my perception that people who move in and out of funds are "fund" investers, maybe even collectors, not over-all "portfolio" investors. My hope is having a portfolio that trends upward with the least amount pf volatility I can obtain. The portfolio is, hopefully, made up of managers and a mix of fund type with a winning long-term history. Not the best fund that month or year. If ICMUX has a so-so year, I don't jump out to get into the hot fund at the time. ICMUX, and I'm just using this fund as an example, has history of good management and returns and a risk level that fits the portfolio.... Is there better funds at this precise time? Probably. Just another 2-cents.

Good management is not guaranteed to be good every year or even several years and in every situation and/or market.
I never believed in diversification either because it led to lower performance for years.
BTW, in very high risk markets, you learn pretty quickly that most funds sink together. You even learn that bonds don't always save you, think 2022.
The SP500+QQQ has been great since 2010. From 2000 to 2010, the SP500 lost about 10% and QQQ lost almost half.
FAIRX was a great fund during 2000-10 but has been far behind since 2010.
ICMUX made more than PIMIX for 3 years (chart)
But PIMIX made more from 2015 to 2020 (chart) and PIMIX management is pretty good.
Based on my history of following many funds, I hardly ever found a fund that stays at the top every 2-3 years. Maybe PRWCX is the exception.
In bondland the exceptions are so much better and can last for months, sometimes years.
An extra of 3% in bondland annually for many retirees is so good that you can own a small % in stocks (or none) with a much lower volatility portfolio.
The investors who believed in B&H; in the last 10 years, the most recommended bond fund, BND (US Total index) made just 1.7% average annually, far behind inflation.
In the last year, I owned 2 bond funds for most months and hardly traded. Not every trader changes funds every week/month. I always admitted I'm a trader but I see many who trade so much more than me and claim they don't.

How far does anyone think this reversal on the 10 year may go? I understand the “bond vigilantes” taking control of longer rates out of the Fed’s hands (not that they ever really had it) but am surprised by the speed and magnitude of the reversal. Friday’s hot jobs report really blew the lid off the rate structure. Just a temporary bump - or are we heading a lot higher? The damn election throws a whole lot of monkey wrenches into the equation too, with several possible outcomes. I think the Fed is being a little restrained right now due to the election. At some point afterward (assuming it ever ends) they might decide to clamp down harder if the economy keeps running hot. And, counterintutively, that could cause the short end to spike and longer rates to drop.
Maybe too off topic - But does anyone think as I do that the big gains in equities the past 2 years (and to a lesser degree bonds and cash) are helping keep the economy hot by providing consumer spending stimulus - mostly for the people who already have enough? So to a degree it becomes a virtuous circle with spending propping up stocks and stocks propping up spending. What could possibly go wrong? Just some far out thoughts. You won’t hear this on Bloomberg.
Anybody know what’s coming? Is that light at the end of the tunnel a locomotive heading our way? I don’t pretend to know. Just throwing some crazy questions out there for the smarter board members.