@ybb. Don't know enough to assess point 1. But point 2, yes, seems fair.
March 2020 unsettled even The Great One. He's in good company. He moved quickly enough to dump all the airline holdings though.
The Fed and Congress really did respond quickly, fortunately for us. Like going to war, but instead of paying people to build airplanes and bombs, they paid them to stay home ... and, likely, not topple the government. Actually, many governments did same thing.
Those images of stacked coffins rocked our world.
The value investing environment you describe sounds right too.
People only invest if they perceive there is a future. Even value investors! In March 2020, for a few short moments, it felt like an asteroid was inbound.
So, likely took a while for WB and company to recover.
Those who did not hesitate and jumped into BRKA (and other funds) during that time have been rewarded handsomely.
They still believed!

DJT closed at $16.98 per share, down another 6% today, Wednesday Sept 4. It's obvious that Biden and the Democrats HAVE RIGGED THE STOCK MARKET TOO !!!!!

It's still $15.98 overpriced though....
(I'll give $1 of value in their share price to reflect their IT equipment and other capital expenses lol)

2 things happened:
1. BRK has huge operational businesses now and lots of related economic risks.
2. WB has gotten trigger-shy. He didn't act during 2020 or 2022. He may be waiting for a market that isn't there.
BTW, many value investors (WB, Howard Marks, Sam Zell, etc) complained that the Fed and the Congress intervened too early in 2020 (remember pandemic, elections), so the value investors missed their "feasts" or "on the grave dances". I think that the government saw earlier than the most what was evolving in 2020 based on tax receipts (payrolls, FICA, sales, customs).

It is our goal to leave taxable investments to our heirs.

According to Section 1014 of the Internal Revenue Code, if a person holds property at death, it will receive a new basis equal to the fair market value of the property at the person's date of death. In the case of appreciated assets, the rule allows people to inherit the assets, such as stocks or real estate, without inheriting the tax burden that's triggered by capital gains. This is known as a step-up in basis. In states that recognize community property laws, married couples stand to benefit greatly.

https://fidelity.com/learning-center/personal-finance/what-is-step-up-in-basis

Nice feature ain't it? The kids can rearrange the deck chairs to suit themselves.

It is our goal to leave taxable investments to our heirs.

According to Section 1014 of the Internal Revenue Code, if a person holds property at death, it will receive a new basis equal to the fair market value of the property at the person's date of death. In the case of appreciated assets, the rule allows people to inherit the assets, such as stocks or real estate, without inheriting the tax burden that's triggered by capital gains. This is known as a step-up in basis. In states that recognize community property laws, married couples stand to benefit greatly.

https://fidelity.com/learning-center/personal-finance/what-is-step-up-in-basis

Hi@Tarwheel
A good and fair question.
The inclination to use the etf's, in the list, for bond fund performance, is the sector types represented, as well as their duration.
Surely not a 'perfect' list, but allows for those viewing to perhaps have some ideas about bond(s) performance in the sectors relative to one another. Several of the listings are from requests. BUT, I have to keep the list to a manageable size.
Even the NAV aspect is flawed when considering 'monthly distributions' and the affect upon a NAV price towards a 'month ending' number.
And the fact that some of of etf's are active managed and/or have some 'special sauce' within the management style.
I obtain and input all of the data manually, so my time allotment every week is limited, too.
From a personal note, our portfolio is currently 60% income/cash. BAGIX is 33% of this, with the remainder being MMKT's. And though BAGIX is an intermediate duration fund, I can't really compare this to the etf, IEF; which is 7-10 year duration, but is a Treasury fund. BAGIX has only 27% in UST's.
However, I try to have a view and perhaps find a 'trend' over a time period and a 'why?'.
The inputs that affect the pricing comes from so many directions: flight to safety, a change in yields (for whatever reason), sovereign wealth funds and hedge funds using etf's. There are a lot of moving parts, eh?
NOTE: We do not chase funds for high yields (2008 exception); but do watch for opportunity in a falling yields environment to obtain the gains from pricing.
I made a one year chart (below). Not much value for the most part, as the two funds are bond indexes and one ETF all to the 'long duration' aspect.
You mentioned your having bond funds vs etf's. I'll be glad to build a chart, as I'm curious as to outcomes for active managed bond funds vs a similar category etf; although sometimes a difficult match. You're welcome to provide some tickers.
Well, I've not likely really answered your question; and in the end; I'm just a curious person about 'stuff'.
NOW, I must travel outside and alter the height of the grass in the lawn.
CHART 1 year FNBGX vs VBLAX vs EDV

@Sven is asking what price is received when a purchase is made automatically, as opposed to being entered by the investor. It's a good question.
Most automatic investments are via DRIP plans. "True" DRIPs are set up with the companies themselves. In these plans, investors often receive shares from a company based on its closing price on the day of reinvestment, frequently at a discount. For example:

common stockholders may now receive a number of shares based on 95% of the market price per share of common stock at the close of regular trading on The Nasdaq Capital Market on the valuation date fixed by the Board for such distribution

https://ir.ofscreditcompany.com/shareholder-services/dividend-reinvestment-plan
However, for "synthetic" DRIPs, where the brokerage is reinvesting the divs, it's not clear what price the investor is paying for the additional shares. Likewise, when the brokerage is automatically purchasing shares (with investor cash, not divs) on scheduled dates, what price is paid for those shares?
What Fidelity does when reinvesting divs (I don't know about scheduled investments):

Note ... that the stock price at which your reinvestment occurs is not necessarily the same as the price that is in effect on the dividend payable date. This is because we generally buy the shares of domestic companies two business days before the dividend payable date [likely now one day before with T+1], at the market price(s) in effect at the time, in order to help ensure that we have shares on hand to place in your account on the dividend payable date.

https://www.fidelity.com/bin-public/060_www_fidelity_com/documents/customer-service/brokerage-retirement-cust-agree-and-commission-sched.pdf
Related: what price does M* use for purchases in calculating total return including reinvested dividends?

Reinvestments are made using the actual reinvestment price,

https://admainnew.morningstar.com/directhelp/Glossary/Performance/Total_Return.htm

Most indexers pick everything. The ranking above may be just that of indexers by their market shares.
Is Fido missing from the list? NO.
Most Fido index funds are sub-advised by Geode Capital Management, #4 on the list. Geode Capital started out at Fido but was later spun off. Fido & Geode remain quite close.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geode_Capital_Management

Breakdown
67.83% % of Shares Held by All Insider
6.57% % of Shares Held by Institutions
20.43% % of Float Held by Institutions
306 Number of Institutions Holding Shares
Top Institutional Holders
Holder Shares Date Reported % Out Value
Vanguard Group Inc 2.88M Jun 30, 2024 1.44% 56,157,660
Blackrock Inc. 2.18M Jun 30, 2024 1.09% 42,590,983
Susquehanna Intl 1.06M Jun 30, 2024 0.53% 20,579,208
Geode Capital Management, LLC 941.82k Jun 30, 2024 0.47% 18,365,490
Citadel Advisors Llc 556.05k Jun 30, 2024 0.28% 10,843,053
State Street Corporation 440.16k Jun 30, 2024 0.22% 8,583,198
Greenwich Wealth Management Llc 353.5k Jun 30, 2024 0.18% 6,893,250
Group One Trading, L.P. 340.04k Jun 30, 2024 0.17% 6,630,838
Charles Schwab Investment 265.87k Jun 30, 2024 0.13% 5,184,484
Jane Street Group, LLC 264.25k Jun 30, 2024 0.13%

Ratio of GDX:GLD shows how depressed the miners are relative to gold-bullion. The ratio peaked at 0.586 in 2006, bottomed at 0.1089 in 2015 and at 0.1081 again in 2020 (pandemic low). Now it's only 0.167; the recent range is 0.136-0.173. It doesn't have to reach 0.586 to make money in miners.
Of course, the miners were to blame in the past because they focused on exploration and production, not profitability. It is said that they are now different and more aware of shareholders' interests. Some even pay variable-dividends. But it would take more to lure back former investors who got burned repeatedly in the past.
In the 1-yr chart of the ratio GDX:GLD, change the dates as needed.
https://stockcharts.com/h-sc/ui?s=GDX:GLD&p=D&yr=1&mn=0&dy=0&id=p72470038519

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/923184/000119312524209917/d812678d497.htm
497 1 d812678d497.htm FORM 497
MATTHEWS INTERNATIONAL FUNDS
dba MATTHEWS ASIA FUNDS
Supplement dated August 29, 2024
to the Prospectus dated April 29, 2024, as supplemented
For all existing and prospective shareholders of the Matthews Asian Growth and Income Fund – Institutional Class (MICSX) and Investor Class (MACSX):
The Board of Trustees (the “Board”) of Matthews Asia Funds (the “Trust” or the “Funds”) has approved the tax-free reorganization (the “Reorganization”) of the Matthews Asian Growth and Income Fund, a series of the Trust (the “Target Fund”), into the Matthews Emerging Markets Equity Fund, a series of the Trust (the “Acquiring Fund”). The Reorganization does not require the approval of the shareholders of the Target Fund or the Acquiring Fund.
The Target Fund’s investment adviser, Matthews International Capital Management, LLC (“Matthews”), proposed that the Target Fund be reorganized into the Acquiring Fund because approximately 80% of the companies comprising the emerging markets equity investment universe (as represented by the MSCI Emerging Markets Index) is located in Asia, and therefore there is an increasing overlap between an investment strategy focused on emerging market equity securities and one focused on growth and income-generating securities in the Asian region. Further, Matthews noted that the broader emerging markets universe in which the Acquiring Fund operates should benefit shareholders of the Target Fund and will have the potential to improve long-term performance for those shareholders. Matthews further believes that it is in the best interests of the Target Fund to combine the Target Fund’s assets with a fund with a lower overall expense structure and generally better performance, recognizing that the Acquiring Fund has a shorter operating history. Matthews also believes that the Acquiring Fund’s investment objective and strategies make it a compatible fund within the Trust for a reorganization with the Target Fund. Matthews believes that continuing to operate the Target Fund as currently constituted is not in the long-term best interests of the Target Fund. Matthews also believes that both Funds may benefit from potential operating efficiencies and economies of scale that may be achieved by combining the Funds’ assets in the Reorganization. As a result, Matthews determined it prudent to recommend the Reorganization to the Board of Trustees of the Trust.
The Acquiring Fund and the Target Fund have compatible investment objectives. The Target Fund seeks long-term capital appreciation, with a secondary investment objective to seek income. The Acquiring Fund’s current investment objective is to seek long-term capital appreciation; effective upon completion of the Reorganization, the Acquiring Fund will adopt, as part of its principal investment strategies, a policy to invest at least 20% of the Acquiring Fund’s net assets in income-producing securities.
The Target Fund currently operates with two fundamental restrictions that the Acquiring Fund has not adopted: (A) the Target Fund is prohibited from owning more than 10% of outstanding voting securities of any one issuer; and (B) the Target Fund is prohibited from investing more than 5% of its assets in companies that are under three years old. Effective upon completion of the Reorganization, the Acquiring Fund will adopt these fundamental restrictions, such that the fundamental investment restrictions of the Target Fund and the Acquiring Fund will be the same following the Reorganization.
To effectuate the Reorganization, the Target Fund will transfer its assets to the Acquiring Fund. The Acquiring Fund will assume all of the liabilities of the Target Fund and will issue shares to the Target Fund in an amount equal to the aggregate net asset value of the outstanding shares of the Target Fund. Immediately thereafter, the Target Fund will distribute these shares of the Acquiring Fund to its shareholders. After distributing these shares, the Target Fund will be terminated as a series of the Trust.
When the Reorganization is complete, the Target Fund’s shareholders will hold the same class of shares of the Acquiring Fund as they currently hold of the Target Fund. The aggregate net asset value of the Acquiring Fund shares received in the Reorganization will equal the aggregate net asset value of the Target Fund shares held by Target Fund shareholders immediately prior to the Reorganization. The Reorganization is expected to be completed on or about November 8, 2024.
Effective after the close of business on October 25, 2024, shares of the Target Fund will no longer be offered to new shareholders, and shareholders holding shares of any other series of the Trust will not be able to exchange their shares for shares of the Target Fund.
While the portfolio managers of the Acquiring Fund anticipate retaining a portion of the Target Fund’s holdings following the closing of the Reorganization, they do anticipate selling a material portion of the holdings of the Target Fund in preparation for the Reorganization. The extent of these sales is primarily because certain of the current holdings of the Target Fund are deemed not to be appropriate for the Acquiring Fund. Matthews anticipates that the proceeds from such sales will be reinvested in assets that are consistent with the Acquiring Fund’s investment process before and after the closing of the Reorganization. During this period, the Target Fund may deviate from its principal investment strategies.
Matthews has agreed to pay 30% of the expenses incurred in connection with the preparation and distribution of the Prospectus/Information Statement to be sent to shareholders, including all direct and indirect expenses and out-of-pocket costs other than any transaction costs relating to the sale of the Target Fund’s portfolio securities prior to or after the closing of the Reorganization. The remaining expenses will be shared by the Target Fund and Acquiring Fund in proportion to each Fund’s net assets, subject to applicable expense limitations.
If you do not want to participate in the Reorganization, you may redeem your shares of the Target Fund in the ordinary course until the last business day before the closing. Redemption requests received after that time will be treated as redemption requests for shares of the Acquiring Fund received in connection with the Reorganization.
In connection with the Reorganization, a registration statement on Form N-14 will be filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”). The registration statement may be amended or withdrawn and the information statement/prospectus it contains will not be distributed to Target Fund shareholders until the registration statement is effective. Investors are urged to read the materials and any other relevant documents when they become available because they will contain important information about the Reorganization. After they are filed, free copies of the materials will be available on the SEC’s web site at www.sec.gov.
This communication is for informational purposes only and does not constitute an offer of any securities for sale. No offer of securities will be made except pursuant to a prospectus meeting the requirements of Section 10 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended.
Investors should carefully consider the investment objectives, risks, fees and expenses of the Funds.
Please retain this Supplement for future reference.
Emerging Markets Equity Fund (investment changes) :
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/923184/000119312524209922/d812678d497.htm

But my concerns are the investors who have poor/no knowledge of options but are buying options-based funds thinking that they are all-weather income funds.
Exactly. I've mentioned risk profiles in a few other posts. There's been little response but that doesn't mean that everyone is familiar with them. Here's the risk profile of a covered call and and the risk profile of a pure long position overlayed. These are two of the simplest risk profiles you can have.

This shows a current stock price of about 39 and a strike price of 40. You do get about $1 worth of "insurance" if the stock price falls. But that's little consolation if the price drops $3 (left side of the graph). And you get a little extra profit in the middle if the stock doesn't rise past the strike price.
But all the profit you might have gotten with larger price gains (right side of graph) is lopped off. That's a big price to pay for a cash stream if you're not carefully curating your call writing as Yogi described.
Anything other than a pure long position alters (distorts?) the risk profile and makes metrics like standard deviation suspect. In part simply because you're no longer dealing with a normal distribution of outcomes and in part because the risk may be all bunched into low probability (but very bad) events that aren't reflected in the aggregate numbers (haven't happened recently).
I took a quick look at DIVO. Nice fund, because the manager carefully selects and watches over the securities for which he writes calls. At the end of the day this (like all trading, I suppose) constitutes a form of timing. Quoting Yogi again, there's no "secret sauce".
Since the selloff in March 2020, DIVO has run neck and neck with solid straight equity income funds: passive, like VYM and NOBL; and active like VEIRX.
Portfolio Visualizer comparison
This is not to put down DIVO. It has done remarkably well and looks to be a fund well worth considering. And it significantly outperformed in March 2020 (despite offering just "small" insurance).

Posters familiar with options know what they are doing.
But my concerns are the investors who have poor/no knowledge of options but are buying options-based funds thinking that they are all-weather income funds.
Call-writing (-selling or -shorting) funds are a bull market phenomenon. They turn capital gains (CGs) into options income, but don't protect the downside. They have grown like weeds in this bull market due to lots of marketing hype.
Moreover, the traditional application of call-writing uses boring but steadily growing (mature?) stocks that don't move around much. So, investors holding those boring stocks can write calls and boost income some with the call premiums. Call-writing on volatile things like QQQ, on the other hand, is nontraditional and counts on rising markets that trigger written calls again and again to transform possible LT-CGs into ST options income. You may want to hold these in tax-deferred/free accounts.
It isn't as if JPM has found some secret sauce for JEPI (AUM $34.8 billion, inception May 2020) and JEPQ (AUM $15.7 billion, inception May 2022). Granddaddy of options-based fund is GATEX / GTEYX that has been around since December 1977 (soon after options started trading in the US) and in those 46+ years, it has gathered an AUM of $6.6 billion. FWIW, it never impressed me much. Gateway is now a neglected part of French Natixis that also owns some more visible boutiques - Oakmark/Harris, Loomis Sayles.
Natixis https://www.im.natixis.com/en-us/home

From Morningstar today (Excerpt):
”At this point, we know little about the shakeup at Western Asset Management. Leech’s departure comes just a few months after another key leader, John Bellows, abruptly left the firm. Like Leech, Bellows was thought to be a key part of the firm’s long-term plans. His unexpected exit in May was a blow, especially now that Leech is no longer in the picture, and there has been some fallout from his departure. Franklin noted in its recently filed 10-Q that it launched an internal investigation into certain past trade allocations involving treasury derivatives in select Western Asset-managed accounts and is currently cooperating with parallel government investigations that led to the issuance of the Wells Notice to Leech. The firm said it does not expect to take action until the investigation is concluded. That said, following Leech’s leave of absence, Franklin decided to close his Macro Opportunities Strategy fund, which had around $2 billion in AUM at the end of last month. All this could lead to a loss of confidence for a fixed-income firm that caters primarily to institutional clients, who are known to cease relationships following the departure of key personnel and/or reports of government investigations.”
Link to above story “ Franklin: Leech’s Departure and Ongoing Investigations Will Weigh on Fixed-Income Flows”
Separately, Bloomberg today is reporting heavy redemptions from WAMCO funds from retail investors.
More from Bloomberg (excerpted August 28):
“Wamco, a unit of Franklin Resources Inc., said it’s cooperating with investigations by the US Department of Justice and the Securities and Exchange Commission. Those probes are focused on whether it favored some clients over others — cherry-picking who got more profitable trades, according to people with knowledge of the matter … The trades involved Treasury derivatives in Wamco-managed accounts and unrealized first-day gains and losses, the person familiar with the company said. ”

From the article,
"In years where stocks declined, eg the global financial crisis in 2008 or the bear market in 2022, the call options expired worthless but did provide investors with additional income that reduced the drawdowns*."
*(YBB Note) By tiny amounts. Basically, covered calls didn't provide downside protection unless some puts were bought using the covered call income.

I will do this on positions with large gains that I wish to protect (ideally a zero-cost 'collar'), such as large dividend payers. I don't do it very often, but it can work well in that scenario. But CCs alone are rarely worth doing unless it's on a stock that doesn't really move very much -- which also means the premium you might get for the call makes it more trouble than it's worth.

Dueling, context-free, mismatched numbers:
Q1/2017 through Q2/2020 vs. Wikipedia's "real wage" figures from the "2017–2019 period".
There's a well known golf saying (a rule, actually): Play it where it lies.
Covid hit during Trump's administration. That's the hand he was dealt. The economy he inherited was strong and growing. That's also part of the hand he was delt. You don't get to cherry pick dates any more than you do when looking at investment performance.
But for fun, let's go with it. We'll use March 2020 as the month that COVID struck. That's when WHO declared it a pandemic. That's the month when number of workers employed started to drop; they fell through the floor in April.

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=1taIE
Since we're agreed that Covid distorts things, we'll count the numbers only up to Covid, i.e. through Feb 2020. The original FRED graph (median real employment wages) doesn't have that sort of granularity. So instead, here's a graph of nominal wages. (With inflation so low, Y/Y dropping to nearly 0 in April 2020, nominal or real is no big diff.)

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=1taJw
Sure enough, there's that spike that accounts for the outsized increase in wages. But take a closer look. As we zoom in, we see that the jump occurred in April 2020, i.e. as a result of Covid. Average wages spiked (perhaps as businesses shut down lower paid workers were disproportionately unemployed?), then declined and within 2-3 months resumed the same upward trend they had been on all along.

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=1taKg
Just as we're not giving the blame to Trump for the precipitous drop in employment in April 2020, we don't give the credit to Trump for the spike in wages that same month.

First, it's 3 years, not 2 years.
Second, looks to me they started in 2019, not showing the peak of 2020. If you look at this chart(https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LES1252881600Q)
Trump started in Q1/2017 and by Q2/2020, real wages after inflation grew up from 355 to 393. That is 10.7% real growth. Then covid hit, and since Q2/2020, it went from 393 back to 368, this is a decline of 6.4%,
2 more observations:
1) From Q4/1099 to Q1/2017 = 18 years, it grew from 335 to 355 = 5.9%
2) Since 1980, no other president except Trump has achieved above 10% real wage growth.

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1437249/000158064224004810/mdp_497.htm
497 1 mdp_497.htm 497
MDP LOW VOLATILITY FUND
Class A Shares - MDPMX
Class I Shares – MDPLX
Supplement dated August 26, 2024 to Prospectus and Statement of Additional Information dated May 31, 2024
The Board of Trustees of Valued Advisers Trust (the “Board”) authorized an orderly liquidation of the MDP Low Volatility Fund (the “Fund”), a series of Valued Advisers Trust. The Board determined on August 23, 2024 that closing and liquidating the Fund was in the best interests of the Fund and the Fund’s shareholders.
The Fund’s investment adviser informed the Board of its view that it no longer is economically feasible to continue managing the Fund because of the Fund’s small size and the difficulty encountered in attracting assets.
The Fund is no longer accepting purchase orders for its shares, and it will close effective as of September 24, 2024 (“Closing Date”). Shareholders may redeem Fund shares at any time prior to this Closing Date. Procedures for redeeming your account, including reinvested distributions, are contained in the section “How to Redeem Shares” in the Fund’s Prospectus. Any shareholders that have not redeemed their shares of the Fund prior to the Closing Date will have their shares automatically redeemed as of that date, with proceeds being sent to the address of record. If your Fund shares were purchased through a broker-dealer or other financial intermediary and are held in a brokerage or other investment account, redemption proceeds may be forwarded by the Fund directly to the broker-dealer or other financial intermediary for deposit into your brokerage or other investment account.
The Fund is no longer pursuing its investment objective. All holdings in the Fund’s portfolio are being liquidated, and the proceeds will be invested in money market instruments or held in cash. Shareholders may continue to reinvest dividends and distributions in the Fund or redeem their shares until the Closing Date. Any capital gains will be distributed as soon as practicable to shareholders and reinvested in additional Fund shares, unless you have requested payment in cash.
IMPORTANT INFORMATION FOR RETIREMENT PLAN INVESTORS
If you are a retirement plan investor, you should consult your tax adviser regarding the consequences of a redemption of Fund shares. If you receive a distribution from an Individual Retirement Account (IRA) or a Simplified Employee Pension (SEP) IRA, you must roll the proceeds into another IRA within 60 days of the date of the distribution to avoid having to include the distribution in your taxable income for the year. If you are the trustee of a qualified retirement plan or the custodian of a 403(b)(7) custodian account (tax-sheltered account) or a Keogh account, you may reinvest the proceeds in any way permitted by its governing instrument.
For additional information regarding the liquidation, shareholders of the Fund may call (833) 914-3344.
You should read this Supplement in conjunction with the Prospectus and Statement of Additional Information, each dated May 31, 2024, which provide information that you should know before investing in the Fund and should be retained for future reference. These documents are available upon request and without charge by calling the Fund at (833) 914-3344.
PLEASE RETAIN THIS SUPPLEMENT FOR FUTURE REFERENCE

The PRWCX expense ratio is 0.71% which lies in the Moderate Allocation category's average fee quintile.
The fund's expense ratio would need to be below 0.50% (cheapest fee quintile) to be eligible for inclusion.
Mentioned in the 2020 "Thrilling 36" exercise:
"T. Rowe Price Capital Appreciation PRWCX actually wasn't on the list
last time, either, but because I always get a lot of questions about it:
The fund missed the expense ratio screen by 4 basis points.
Don't worry, we still rate it Gold."

Covered calls are something that intuitively sound good. Also, they're one of the few things about options that my father taught me, and parents always know best (unless you're a teenager :-)).
But they may not work well as long term investments. If you write covered calls that never get exercised, they boost returns (let's say, 1%/year) while not reducing volatility. That's because if you shift your entire performance line up by 1% it's still got the same jiggles, just 1% higher.
Actual volatility is reduced by lopping off peaks when the market jumps and the calls are exercised. That's the exact opposite of the way you want to reduce volatility. Think Sortino ratio, that measures downside volatility only.
And those lost returns from lopping off peaks? They cost a lot more than the relatively small income stream one gets from writing the calls. Here's a graph from Finominal showing how this strategy loses in a rising market. And markets tend to rise over the long term.

Writing calls does generate a certain income stream, which many investors look for. Though as the writer of the article accompanying the graph says:

Any investor can create income by simply selling a small stake of their portfolio, which is also favorable from a taxation perspective as capital gains tend to have lower tax rates than income.

https://caia.org/blog/2024/02/24/covered-call-strategies-uncovered
That's a sentiment I agree with and why I focus more on total return than divs with bond funds. YMMV.