Alphacentric funds: http://alphacentricfunds.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/AlphaCentric-Distributions-2017-11-21-EST.pdf
Generally all share classes of a fund have the same cap gains distributions, because all shares represent the same fractional interest in the fund's portfolio. Only the income divs tend to be different for each share class because the expenses are paid first out of div income.
Since IOFAX projects no cap gains distributions (as of Nov 21), you can figure that the IOFIX share class is likewise not planning a cap gains distribution.

@TheShadow - Many thanks! Saved me a lot of time and moola.
Does anyone know if IOFIX plans a year-end capital gain distribution?

Lewis makes an excellent point about percentage change in rates (e.g. a change from 0.25% to 0.50% is a doubling). Since you'll get the face value of a bond back at maturity, the market price of a bond won't be cut by anything near a half. Still, you'll take quite a haircut if rates double.
A 30 year bond with a coupon of 0.25% will lose nearly 7% (6.96%) so that its yield to maturity (YTM) matches the new market rate of 0.50%.
In contrast, a 30 year bond with a coupon of 4.00% will lose "just" 4.22% given the same 0.25% increase in market rates. So at "normal" rates, you'd just about break even (interest minus capital loss) in a year's time.
Calculator for bond price given coupon and market rates:
https://dqydj.com/bond-pricing-calculator/

Try this link instead:
https://www.icmarc.org/x3333.html?RFID=W1582&usg=AOvVaw2I9Vd-WRuW_zIiwp1pxMzJ
A solid piece, pretty much textbook (longer duration = greater loss with rising rates, junk = less sensitive to rates).
A few curiosities:

• It is interesting to note that contrary to conventional wisdom, all fixed income sectors experienced positive returns during the four rate hikes.
  I thought conventional wisdom said that historically NAV losses were more than compensated for by high coupons. Vanguard certainly makes this point in writing that buying bond funds in rising rate environments can still be profitable. (Not checking for citation now.)
  The problem is that with interest rates at historical lows, the coupons will likely not fully mitigate capital losses. The Vantage Point article alludes to this as well: "it is possible that the next upturn in rates would not result in positive returns for fixed income sectors due to unique factors, which may not have been present in the last four rate hikes."
• It gives as its rationale for not studying rising rate periods earlier than 1986 that "many fixed income sectors did not exist prior to 1986." So presumably it excludes securitized assets prior to the 1999 period of rising rates for the same reason. Yet MBSs (a major portion of secutized assets) certainly did exist then. FMSFX dates to 12/31/1984 and VFIIX got its start 6/27/1980.
• It explains that in the fourth rising rate period it studied, intermediate term bonds (actually aggregate bond portfolios) outperformed short term bonds in part because "short-term rates [rose] much more than longer-term rates, as shown by the flattening of the yield curve ". These days, there's not much more flattening to be had. Just a ¾% difference between a 3 month T-bill and a 30 year T-bond. Short term rates could again rise faster than long term rates, but that would result in an inversion not a flattening.

.

If it's an IRA I agree but if the total amount of taxable income in a taxable account is below a specific amount (around $78,750 for joint account) capital gains are zero.

Just an ironic aside from the reaction to our December issue.
I used a click-bait style headline for our article denouncing click-bait journalism. Yesterday I pulled the readership stats for the first 36 hours (basically, Saturday and Sunday) after launch.
Most-viewed article (in MFO history): Reduce your 2020 risks by 50% with this one move! 27,000 views
Second-most viewed article in the issue: the issue's homepage, 3,000 views.
I'm guessing that bots, Russian or otherwise, are involved. I'm guessing that there's an algorithm that trawls the internet looking for a certain style of headline, then scrapes it. Where the scrapings go, I know not.
Or, more optimistically, we're sparked a revolution in online media literacy and people by the tens of thousands are holding reprints of the article close to their hearts.
Yup, that's what I'm guessing. Yes indeedy.
David

It's important to me if a fund is considered for a taxable account as I avoid funds that pay capital gains.

Yes, TRRIX looks good to me, apart from the paltry dividends. I still am enjoying my own mix. In order of size: PRWCX RPSIX PRSNX PTIAX PRIDX VEIRX (wife's 403b soon to be moved to TRP as a rollover IRA.) and lastly, PRDSX. .....In full retirement, and wife will commence work again in 2020. I'm paying monthly rent. Nobody wants to still be doing that in retirement, but it simplifies everything, with water and electric included. And I'm rid of a house the family had owned since 1959--- which I've hated for as long as I can remember. And snow is now a thing of the past for us. ...Though I did get caught in the rain on my walk today. 5 mins. from the house. The little guy here just lights up your heart when he smiles at you. We're sharing with cousins. It really feels like FAMILY. :)

Jeffrey Gundlach: The US stock market ‘will get crushed’ in the next recession
Julia La Roche
Yahoo FinanceDecember 2, 2019, 6:14 PM CST
Influential bond investor Jeffrey Gundlach, the CEO of $150 billion DoubleLine Capital, sees a scenario where U.S. stocks get crushed in the next recession — and likely won't recover for quite some time to come.
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/gundlach-the-us-will-get-crushed-in-the-next-recession-001139205.html
What else is new?...last time lost 55% dows to 5.5k
This time dows 10k to 15k bottom in 12 or 24 or to 36 months?

Hi guys,
Going to ponder mostly. Most things are at 52-week highs. In my IRA, I guess that's good. I bought several funds last month and have coverage. The energy sector seems to be very volatile. The MIP I own still pays well, so will add on weakness. I have seen new oil fields will come on line next year. There also is a con tango in the futures markets in oil. The Economist (I love this magazine, mind you) has sent out its end of year and 2020 preview. I'm reading now.
Buying very little right now.....maybe YAFFX. It seems to be dead in the water. Will not add to bonds 'til things hit 2% on the 10. I think it's a loser play before that. Still hearing overseas bonds and stocks. How will that work with U.S. and China slowing? The dollar has to fall.....will that happen?
Seems to me a lot of jibber from people who don't want you to sell.......just saying......
God bless
the Pudd

The third or fourth Capital One rep I spoke with said that some people are reporting problems with Firefox. So if you're unable to open an account, try a different browser.
Another problem: Capital One kept our "profiles" on file from when we had accounts many years ago. But it wouldn't let us access the profiles or create new ones (since we had existing profiles). We had to call to have the passwords reset.
Despite having closed accounts years ago, Capital One not only retained our SSNs, but data on linked bank accounts, phone numbers, etc. AFAIK, Capital One should have no need for external bank data once an account is closed. On the plus side, we didn't have to go through a validation process to relink a bank. Still, I'd rather they not retain information that isn't needed for legal purposes.

"Vanguard’s flagship funds charge about 10 bps for wrapping the entire stock market, SPY (an ETF, which structurally has lower costs) does it for 4 bps"
Since Vanguard funds have an ETF share class, they share the structural cost advantage of ETFs viz. being able to offload trading costs onto authorized participants. Meanwhile, SPY has a structural disadvantage relative to index funds (whether in ETF or OE format), in that it is organized as a UIT, forcing it to endure cash drag.
SPY invests in 500 stocks, a far cry from the entire stock market. Its ER is 9.5 bp, not 4 bp. VOO costs 3 bp for wrapping the same 500 stocks. (VFIAX is 4bp.) Similarly, VTI which does wrap the entire stock market (at least the US part) also costs 3bp, and VTSAX costs 4bp.
---
"“Sweeping” is a term of art by which money automatically leaves the brokerage accounts to rest peacefully on the balance sheet of a bank every night and then be back in the brokerage ready for the morning bell. ... All discount brokerages have a sweep available"
That's certainly a "sweeping" assertion. What about VBS (Vanguard)? It pays enough on its MMF that a bank sweep would be a losing proposition. Though as Vanguard notes, MMFs are not FDIC insured.
Speaking of which, if the money is back in the brokerage ready for the morning bell, how do brokerages advertise FDIC-insured sweep accounts? The blogger is conflating the practice of banks doing "overnight sweeps" to enhance their profits with brokerages offering sweep accounts.
One can infer he is thinking about the former from his passing reference to bank regs and capital sufficiency ratios - this is a part of why banks sweep money out of customers' bank accounts overnight. See the first full paragraph of this ICI paper on p. 44 (pdf p.54).
Rather, brokerages sweep money into bank accounts until it is needed for settlement, not just overnight. Here is Schwab's disclosure, describing how it keeps most of the money in a Schwab Bank MMA and a small amount in a DDA (demand deposit account, aka checking account).
And E*Trade's disclosure of its Extended Sweep Deposit Account program, which says that you're not FDIC-insured until the money actually hits the target bank. Also, that the money is withdrawn from the deposit banks in order to cover debit balances in the brokerage. Not to move the balance back to the brokerage daily.
---
Payment for order flow? The blog presents this an an unalloyed good; better than market execution plus a cash bonus. Better, but not best. One often winds up losing this way.

It creates an incentive for brokers to send orders to whoever pays the most, rather than the place that might get the best outcome for customers. ...
Canada has banned the practice. The United Kingdom recently put it under review and said in September that nearly all UK-based brokerages acting in an agency capacity had stopped accepting payment for order flow.
For their part, market makers say they give, on average, a better price than the market is offering, usually a fraction of a penny per share.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-brokers-fees/u-s-online-brokers-still-profiting-from-dumb-money-idUSKBN1WN1UD (Oct 8, 2019)

Hi @hank and others.
I use to use the Lipper Balanced Index as my bogey. However, it is no longer easily accessable to follow weekly so I've done as hank and chose a fund within my portfolio that has some common traits as my overall portfolio.
With this, I now use American Fund's Capital Income Builder A shares (CAIBX) as my bogey since it, as well as my portfolio, have a global total return perspective with both having an income tilt. Both have about the same income yield (excluding capital gains) which is in the low to mid 3% range with CAIBX having a ten year total annual return of 6.92% (according to M*) while my portfolio has about the same yield but with a ten year average total return of better than 2+% more than CAIBX. A good bit of my portfolio's outsized performance comes by me employing spiff (special investment) positions from time to time.
Interestingly, TRRIX and CAIBX have the same rolling 12 month total return of 10.74% (according to M*) with CAIBX listed with a ten year average total return of 6.92% vs 6.04% for TRRIX through November 29, 2019. In addition, CAIBX is listed with a TTM yield of 3.4% while TRRIX is listed at 1.66%.
Because of my portfolio's outsized performance has made being active, for me, worthwhile as it has put additional dollars in my pocket that I would not otherwise have. In addition, I favor higher yielding hybrid funds as long as they can maintain respectable total returns since this puts more income dollars in my pocket over the lower yielding ones.
I wish all ... "Good Investing."
Old_Skeet

Strip away much the text and what the writer is referencing becomes clearer:

Unlike Congress, the IRS has been working on the issue and took an important first step toward reducing RMDs for most retirees. ... Back in January, I observed that if the IRS recalculated these two-decade-old mortality tables and updated the rules, it would be modestly helpful but wouldn’t make that big a difference. ... Now that the IRS has formally proposed a change, it turns out this intuition was right. ... It seems very likely that this rule will become a final regulation sometime in 2020.

Embedded in the column is a link internal to M*:
https://www.morningstar.com/articles/909626/could-the-government-take-the-bite-out-of-rmds

One obvious thing to do would be to adjust the mortality assumptions that drive these RMDs, because they are going on 20 years old. In fact, President Donald Trump directed the Treasury Department to do just that, and when the government reopens, it will likely propose some adjustments. However, while life expectancy has increased, my back-of-the-envelope calculations reveal that such a change would not make much difference.

For a robust analysis, including copious links, see Kitces:
https://www.kitces.com/blog/irs-proposes-new-rmd-life-expectancy-tables-to-begin-in-2021/

Third Avenue Value finally published their 2019 capital gains distributions estimates: https://thirdave.com/2019-estimated-income-capital-gain-distributions/

Nice piece, non-technical. Thanks.
Several of the limitations presented are discussed in the NYU paper. One that isn't is what Nocera presents as gaming:

That sounds good in principle, but managers began to manipulate the VaR by loading up on what Guldimann calls “asymmetric risk positions.” These are products or contracts that, in general, generate small gains and very rarely have losses. But when they do have losses, they are huge. These positions made a manager’s VaR look good because VaR ignored the slim likelihood of giant losses, which could only come about in the event of a true catastrophe. A good example was a credit-default swap, which is essentially insurance that a company won’t default. The gains made from selling credit-default swaps are small and steady — and the chance of ever having to pay off that insurance was assumed to be minuscule. It was outside the 99 percent probability, so it didn’t show up in the VaR number. People didn’t see the size of those hidden positions lurking in that 1 percent that VaR didn’t measure.

This is what I have in mind when I question portfolios that seem to do just a little bit better, until they don't. How are they levitating? They'll likely never have a problem, but if they do they may crash swiftly and steeply.

For new and seasoned investors, the rule of "do your homework" still applies, eh? Read as much as you need for your understanding comfort level, and ask questions about a particular investment to be comfortable with the fit in your perception of risk tolerance and how the investment fits into a portfolio for your age and other financial circumstance. In the below case I knew there must be a typo. FAGIX had a loss of -5.79% in 2018 and is YTD about +15.4%. A -5.79% loss for 2018 became a -58% (very close number types with throwing away a decimal and rounding). Yup, we all have brain farts from time to time.
So here's the deal. I read the linked article from the perspective of a seasoned individual investor/boomer familiar with FAGIX. I also thought about the article from the perspective of a relatively new investor attempting to understand investments. Mr. Kinnel starts the write directing the reader to only the years of 2019 and 2020 and possible investment scenarios for the funds mentioned. He writes in the EXAMPLE below of FAGIX rebounding from a 58% loss.
FROM Russel Kinnel: As investors review their results for the year and plot a course for the future, some will no doubt be tempted to dump the holding that did worst and reallocate that money to the managers who did best. Yet a review of the greatest turnarounds this year suggests that your biggest winner in 2020 might be one of your biggest disappointments from 2019. At a minimum, be sure you aren't selling simply because the fund's style is lagging.

EXAMPLE from the article:Fidelity Capital & Income (FAGIX) is yet another Notkin vehicle. In this case, it's a high-yield bond fund that rebounded from a 58% loss to a 15.2% gain. As I mentioned, the equity version has higher highs and lower lows, but the drivers are similar. Notkin has about 20% of the fund in many of those same stocks as Fidelity Leveraged Company Stock, and his aggressive style is on display with his bond selection, too.
Good evening,
Catch

FYI: As investors review their results for the year and plot a course for the future, some will no doubt be tempted to dump the holding that did worst and reallocate that money to the managers who did best. Yet a review of the greatest turnarounds this year suggests that your biggest winner in 2020 might be one of your biggest disappointments from 2019. At a minimum, be sure you aren't selling simply because the fund's style is lagging.
Here's a look at six prominent funds that have gone from worst to first. One thing that links all of them is that they persevered with their strategy rather than pivoting to something else. As Vanguard founder Jack Bogle liked to say in bear markets: Don't just do something, sit there!
Regards,
Ted
https://www.morningstar.com/articles/957544/funds-that-went-from-worst-to-first

Added a big slug to PRBLX in my Roth IRA now that CGs are paid out for the year.

Nicely timed. Nice price too.
If anyone is interested in buying the AMG Yacktman funds with a similar strategy note that they are paying capital gains 10-14 days earlier than normal this year. The ex and payable date is Dec 16. The NAV of YAFFX, for example, is estimated to drop 11.8% - 14.4% on that day.

FYI: U.S. stocks edged lower Thursday as investors assessed conflicting signals on prospects for the U.S.-China trade talks.
The Dow Jones Industrial Average dropped 0.20%, a day after the gauge of blue-chip stocks logged its biggest fall of the month. The S&P 500 slipped 0.16%, and the Nasdaq Composite slid 0.24%. All three major U.S. indexes earlier this week notched the latest in a string of recent all-time highs.
Investors continued to monitor the drumbeat of headlines on attempts to resolve trade tensions between the U.S. and China.
China’s chief trade negotiator late last week invited his American counterparts for a new round of face-to-face talks, according to people briefed on the matter, The Wall Street Journal reported Thursday. Chinese officials hope the negotiations can take place before the Thanksgiving holiday, but the U.S. side hasn’t committed to a date.
That report came less than a day after President Trump criticized China’s efforts to reach a trade agreement, escalating concerns that the world’s two biggest economies won’t reach a deal this year.
Overseas, the pan-continental Stoxx Europe 600 index retreated 0.4%, led by losses in sectors most exposed to the global economic impact of worsening trade tensions.
Investors who parsed Federal Reserve meeting minutes released Wednesday found central bank officials said little about what would prompt them to resume interest-rate cuts when they signaled a pause following last month’s rate reduction.
The health of the U.S. economy has been a focus of investors, and a recent drive into shares of economically sensitive companies, like banks and manufacturers, has suggested optimism about the economic outlook. New data Thursday showed the number of Americans applying for first-time unemployment benefits held steady at a near five-month high last week, above the level expected by economists surveyed by The Wall Street Journal. The recent rise in jobless claims could be an early indication of a cooling labor market, or it could reflect seasonal volatility around the holidays.
The yield on the benchmark 10-year U.S. Treasury was 1.781%, up from 1.737% Wednesday. Bond yields rise as prices fall.
Energy shares led gains among S&P 500 sectors, rising 1.1% as U.S. crude oil rose 2.3%.
Company-specific news drove swings in individual stocks. Shares of Charles Schwab jumped 6.6% after CNBC reported that the brokerage is in talks to buy TD Ameritrade Holding and a deal could be announced as early as Thursday. TD Ameritrade surged 18%. Rival E*Trade Financial dropped 9%.
Shares of Tiffany rose 2.6% following a Reuters report that LVMH Moët Hennessy Louis Vuitton SE has gained access to the jewelry retailer’s books after it improved its takeover offer to nearly $16 billion.
Regards,
Ted
Bloomberg Evening Briefing:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-11-21/your-evening-briefing
MarketWatch:
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/us-stock-futures-pare-losses-after-report-chinas-liu-cautiously-optimistic-over-trade-deal-2019-11-21/print
WSJ:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/stocks-fall-on-dimming-hopes-for-u-s-china-trade-talks-11574315113
Bloomberg:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-11-20/asia-stocks-set-for-caution-on-u-s-china-tensions-markets-wrap
IBD:
https://www.investors.com/market-trend/stock-market-today/dow-jones-down-239-points-for-week-china-concerns-tesla-stock-hits-buy-point/
CNBC:
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/11/21/us-stocks-wall-street-in-focus-amid-earnings-data-and-trade-talks.html
Reuters:
https://uk.reuters.com/article/us-usa-stocks/wall-street-muted-on-doubts-over-progress-in-u-s-china-trade-deal-idUKKBN1XV1GM
U.K:
https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-stocks/uk-stocks-fall-as-trade-fears-labour-manifesto-weigh-idUKKBN1XV0UN
Europe:
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-europe-stocks/trade-woes-knock-european-shares-for-the-fourth-day-thyssenkrupp-slumps-idUSKBN1XV12X
Asia:
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/11/21/asia-markets-november-21-us-china-trade-hong-kong-protests-currencies.html
Bonds:
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/11/21/us-treasury-yields-amid-us-china-trade-tensions-jobless-claims.html
Currencies:
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/11/15/forex-markets-us-china-trade-deal-in-focus.html
Oil
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/11/21/oil-markets-us-china-trade-deal-in-focus.html
Gold:
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/11/21/gold-markets-us-china-trade-deal-in-focus.html
WSJ: Markets At A Glance:
https://markets.wsj.com/us
Major ETFs % Change:
https://www.barchart.com/etfs-funds/etf-monitor
SPDR's Sector Tracker:
http://www.sectorspdr.com/sectorspdr/tools/sector-tracker
SPDR's Bloomberg Sector Performance Pie Chart:
https://www.bloomberg.com/markets/sectors
Current Futures:
https://finviz.com/futures.ashx