Covered-call funds, about which Devesh has written a series of essays (two more will appear in our April issue), are artificially and temporarily suppressing volatility, if Charley Grant and the WSJ are to be believed:

The stock market is calmer than it has been in years. Some worry that a popular strategy is contributing to the tranquility.
Measures of market volatility have fallen to levels last seen in 2018 ...
Investors are seeking protection from potential losses by pour money into [covered-call ETFs] ... assets in such funds has topped $67 billion, up from $7 billion at the end of 2020."

Their argument is that this sort of herd trade (in volatility ETFs) "blew up in spectacular fashion six years ago." The options trade now exceed stocks in value, with ever covered-call position necessarily matched over an opposite position in "call overwrites." The concern is that this is a complex, leveraged structure that might be catastrophically vulnerable to an external shock that causes a cascading rush to the exits.
To be clear, Devesh and the Journal are competent to comment on the risks. I'm not. Mostly I wanted to highlight the prospect that your hedges might become your anchors. (See Charley Grant, "Popular bet weighs on volatility," WSJ, 3/26/2024, B1. It's online with a paywall and a slightly different title.)
Curious for them to repeat a story unless their anxiety is growing. (Might call for Zoloft.)

GQG Partners gets a lot of comments here. Them seem favorable. The institutional version of GQEPX frequently turns up in my screens at MFO Premium as a "Great Owl." I have it on a watch list. The expense ratio is reasonable. It's available at Fido; I could add it to my IRA.
So? What's my problem? With GQEPX, that is . . .
The turnover. M* says it's 211%. That's a lot of turnover. So I look at the investment strategy in the prospectus:

the Adviser typically pursues a “growth style” of investing as it seeks to capture market inefficiencies which the Adviser believes are driven by investors’ propensity to be short-sighted and overly focused on quarter-to-quarter price movements rather than on a company’s fundamentals over a longer time horizon (5 years or more). The Adviser believes that this market inefficiency tends to lead investors to underappreciate (sic) the compounding potential of quality, growing companies. To identify this subset of companies, the Adviser generates investment ideas from a variety of sources, ranging from institutional knowledge and industry contacts, to the Adviser’s proprietary screening process that seeks to identify suitable companies based on several quality factors such as rates of return on equity and total capital, margin stability and profitability. Ideas are then subject to rigorous fundamental analysis as the Adviser seeks to identify and invest in companies that it believes reflect higher quality opportunities on a forward-looking basis. Specifically, the Adviser seeks to buy companies that it believes are reasonably priced and have strong fundamental business characteristics and sustainable and durable earnings growth. The Adviser seeks to outperform peers over a full market cycle by seeking to capture market upside while limiting downside risk. For these purposes, a full market cycle can be measured from a point in the market cycle (e.g., a peak or trough) to the corresponding point in the next market cycle

That doesn't read to me like "And the only way we can do all that good stuff is to turn this sucker completely over twice a durn burn year! Yeehaw!"
The strategy reads more like an argument for a sedate rate of turnover to enjoy those "sustainable and durable earnings" over "a full market cycle" with tea and biscuits in an old, well-upholstered leather chair, on a Persian rug, by a crackling fire.
Am I missing something with this? Are we just hoping the team is that good at selling and buying stocks at that pace? And can keep it up over some period of time?

Finance Professor:
First, a piece of advice. Don’t believe much that you read (including what I write), especially about buybacks. The mythology on buybacks is staggering, including the claims that they are funded mostly with debt, that they come at the expense of value creating investments and that they are primarily to cover stock-based compensation. The truth is that stock-based compensation is not only a much smaller amount than the buybacks, but the companies that are the biggest buyback players are not the ones where stock compensation is a large percent of expenses. ... The truth is that the buybacks, for the most part, are cash infusions to investors, and much of that cash gets reinvested back into the market.

Let's start with that last part, and for simplicity say that all (rather than much) of the cash is reinvested back into the market. Let's also assume that the cash for buybacks comes from profits. not from debt.
Then from the individual investor's perspective, there's little difference between distributing the cash in the form of (qualified) dividend distributions and using it the cash buy back shares. In the former case, investors pay cap gains rate tax and reinvest back into the market. In the latter case, share price is boosted. And by assumption investors extract the gain (paying cap gains tax), reinvest the gain back into the market.
Same net result, same tax consequences.
One difference between distributing profits via divs and via buybacks is the effect of dilution when options are exercised. However, if the move is toward RSUs w/o voting rights, the dilution effect is somewhat mooted (by being muted).
Another difference is the effect on stock performance based compensation. Buybacks benefit C-level employees by boosting the value of their options (or RSUs). Also by enhancing their reputations as skilled managers.
If one changes an assumption, saying instead that many people do not reinvest (redeploy) profits in the market, then buybacks have the potential to benefit mom and pop investors. They don't have to pay taxes on the profits until they cash them out years later. But that would be an instance of tax code distorting investor (and company) behavior.

@BaluBalu
Would you be able to briefly note the differences in how JQUA and QUAL define quality?
Which traits (profitability, earnings stability, capital structure, growth in profitability, etc.)
are prioritized and which metrics (return on equity, debt to equity, EPS growth, etc.)
are used for evaluation?
Thank you.

The graphic is set for the 5 days ending March 22, Friday; for the best to worst % returns in select etf categories. One may then also select the one month column to align the one month return best to worst; or for the other listed time frame columns.
ADD an etf performance of your choosing, if you desire.
*** Requested ADD: For the week and YTD
--- EWW = +.79% / -.54% (I Shares, Mexico)
MMKT note: Fidelity mmkt's yields moved upward a few hundreds % this week, with core acct's yields at 4.97% (SPAXX) and 5.02% (FDRXX).
NOTE: The majority of all equity and bond sectors finished the week with positive returns, with bond funds having decent gains.
NEW: 1 week 'heat map' by sectors. This is an interactive graphic. You may hover the computer pointer over the various blocks to view portions of sectors and/or stocks within those sectors. NOTE: to the left of the graphic, one may change the 1 week performance drop down menu to another time frame. Another example: at the left edge of the graphic, select exchange traded funds and then 1 week.
Remain curious,
Catch

Except for MTD (and Weeks-To-Date WTD), and fund flows soon, all metrics on MFOP are based on month-ending data. It seems rather quaint, I know. And until third week of March 2020, I never gave it a second thought.

hi ybb.
thank you.
yep, monthly.
the portfolio tool runs the monthly total returns of each fund applying the holding weight (either in % or $) at the return level and then computes the "rolled-up" metrics, like martin.
motivation for the tool came from an article david published about his portfolio and feedback on this board, if I remember, along the lines that you can't weight metrics like maxdd because they are time (phase) dependent.
here's a piece we did when the tool launched ...
https://www.mutualfundobserver.com/2019/09/introducing-mfos-portfolio-analysis-tool/
and another after we improved it with option to substitute category averages for younger funds, also in response to a david query ...
https://www.mutualfundobserver.com/2020/12/an-improved-mfo-portfolio-analysis-tool/
we will soon be adding several new "rolled-up" metrics, like sortino.
c

Two days ago - to my sadness and delight - I had learned via MFO that Eric Cinnamond, one of my all-time favorite managers with ARIVX/ICMAX was back in the mutual funds world with Palm Valley Capital Fund (PVCMX). ('Sadness' because I have missed almost 5 years of exploiting his financial acumen for a modest management fee and 'delight' because I have now been able to put a sizable investment into his new vehicle.)
This got me thinking, are there any other great/good managers who came back to manage a mutual fund or an ETF after being away for some time in the last, say, 20 years that I might be missing on?
(No knock on Bill Nygren, who's done an admirable job at the Oakmark Fund (OAKMX), but I am still hoping for the day that Robert Sanborn comes back with a publicly available investment offering.)

I was just reading the Bottom Line article: Microcap funds thread and decided to check out PVCMX.
First I wondered how this Palm Valley Capital Fund (PVCMX) was able to get such low volatility and then, wow, it's one of my all-time favorite managers: Eric Cinnamond. I'd been an investor with ARIVX and ICMAX during his tenure so that explained everything. (Don't know how I would have found out about him coming back w/o MFO.)
I still want to into get into Virtus KAR Small-Cap Core Fund if at all possible, but will now have to put some money into PVCMX as well. Just hope they do not shut this one down like ARIVX when the market gets too bubbly... (as it is right now, imo).

According to their web page, a defined benefit plan may be one option to get in should your employer offer it.
https://www.virtus.com/products/kar-small-cap-core#shareclass.A/period.quarterly
Once you are able to purchase the fund in a defined benefit plan, you can probably send a copy of your defined benefit account statement exhibiting fund ownership to the transfer agent so can open an account with them, but you need to confirm this with the transfer agent first.
Excerpt:
Effective July 31, 2018, this Fund is closed to new investors, but remains open to Defined Contribution and Defined Benefit plans. Please see the prospectus for these and other exceptions.
From the January 29, 2024 prospectus:
https://www.virtus.com/products/documents/kar-small-cap-core#Statutory+Prospectus_431
IMPORTANT INFORMATION FOR INVESTORS
Virtus KAR Small-Cap Core Fund is no longer available for purchase by new investors (except as described below). The fund continues to be available for purchase by existing investors; however, the fund reserves the right to refuse any order that may disrupt the efficient management of the fund.As of the date of this prospectus, only the following investors may make purchases in the Virtus KAR Small-Cap Core Fund
:▪ Current shareholders of the fund, whether they hold their shares directly or through a financial intermediary, may continue to add to their accounts through the purchase of additional shares and through the reinvestment of dividends and capital gains. Financial intermediaries may continue to purchase shares on behalf of existing shareholders only.
▪ Exchanges into the fund may only be made by shareholders with an existing account in the fund.
▪ An investor who has previously entered into a letter of intent with the Distributor prior to the closing date may fulfill the obligation.
▪ Trustees of the fund, trustees/directors of affiliated open- and closed-end funds, and directors, officers and employees of Virtus, its affiliates, and their family members, may continue to open new accounts.
▪ New and additional investments may be made through firm or home office discretionary platform models within mutual fund advisory (WRAP) programs and other fee-based programs established with the Distributor prior to July 31, 2018.
▪ The fund will also remain open to Defined Contribution and Defined Benefit retirement plans and will continue to accept payroll contributions and other types of purchase transactions from both existing and new participants in such plans.
Notwithstanding the above exceptions, the fund may discontinue new and subsequent sales through any financial intermediary at its discretion.The fund and the Distributor reserve the right to modify these exceptions at any time, including on a case-by-case basis

Reuters...
Environmental, social and governance (ESG) investing boomed in 2020 and 2021 during the COVID-19 pandemic as low oil prices spurred more investors to diversify beyond fossil fuels, and as fund managers sought to appear more climate-conscious. The category started to fall out of favor in 2022 as conventional energy prices soared.
Political backlash against ESG led by Republican politicians in the United States, as well as suspicions of greenwashing involving claims that are not substantiated, have also tarnished the luster of ESG funds. "Greenwashing" refers to companies making false or deceptive claims about the environmental benefits of their products, services or policies.
Globally, funds classified as "responsible investing" recorded $68 billion of net new deposits in 2023 through Nov. 30, LSEG Lipper data showed. That was down sharply from $158 billion for all of 2022 and from $558 billion for all of 2021.
My take...too arbitrary...show me an ESG fund that invests in the likes of Google etc...and I will laugh out loud, listening in on your conversations, selling your information, making you a product...no way many ESG companies are true to the term ESG....not for me, no thank you.

FAMEX behaves similarly, and is NTF at Fidelity….longer term it outperforms it, but since 2020 GOODX has better returns (especially last 6 months or so).
Wasn’t GOODX started by some former Fairholme analysts?
EDIT: sorry, I see that information in the MFO write up!

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/225322/000119312524066591/d782193d497.htm
497 1 d782193d497.htm FIDELITY GLOBAL HIGH INCOME FUND
Supplement to the
Fidelity® Global High Income Fund
June 29, 2023
Prospectus
Reorganization. The Board of Trustees of Fidelity Summer Street Trust has unanimously approved an Agreement and Plan of Reorganization (“Agreement”) between Fidelity® Global High Income Fund and Fidelity® High Income Fund.
Each fund seeks a high level of current income. Growth of capital may also be considered.
As a result of the proposed Reorganization, shareholders of each class of Fidelity® Global High Income Fund would receive shares of the corresponding class of Fidelity® High Income Fund.
The Agreement provides for the transfer of all of the assets of Fidelity® Global High Income Fund in exchange for corresponding shares of Fidelity® High Income Fund equal in value to the net assets of Fidelity® Global High Income Fund and the assumption by Fidelity® High Income Fund of all of the liabilities of Fidelity® Global High Income Fund. After the exchange, Fidelity® Global High Income Fund will distribute the Fidelity® High Income Fund shares to its shareholders pro rata, in liquidation of Fidelity® Global High Income Fund. As a result, shareholders of Fidelity® Global High Income Fund will become shareholders of Fidelity® High Income Fund (these transactions are collectively referred to as the “Reorganization”).
Shareholders of Fidelity® Global High Income Fund will receive a combined information statement and prospectus containing more information with respect to the Reorganization, and a summary of the Board’s considerations in approving the Agreement.
The Reorganization, which does not require shareholder approval, is expected to take place on or about September 13, 2024. The Reorganization is expected to be a tax-free transaction. This means that neither Fidelity® Global High Income Fund nor its shareholders will recognize any gain or loss as a direct result of the Reorganization.
Effective the close of business on March 22, 2024, new positions in Fidelity® Global High Income Fund (the fund) may no longer be opened. Shareholders of the fund on that date may continue to add to their fund positions existing on that date. Investors who did not own shares of the fund on March 22, 2024, generally will not be allowed to buy shares of the fund except that new fund positions may be opened: 1) by participants in most group employer
retirement plans (and their successor plans) if a qualifying fund is already established as an investment option under the plans (or under another plan sponsored by the same employer), 2) by participants in a 401(a) plan covered by a master record keeping services agreement between Fidelity and a national federation of employers that included a qualifying fund as a core investment option, 3) for accounts managed on a discretionary basis by certain registered investment advisers that have discretionary assets of at least $500 million invested in mutual funds and already included the fund in their discretionary account program, 4) by a mutual fund or a qualified tuition program for which Fidelity serves as investment manager, 5) by a portfolio manager of the fund, 6) by a fee deferral plan offered to trustees of certain Fidelity® funds, if the fund is an investment option under the plan, and 7) by qualified intermediaries to facilitate in-kind redemption activity when deemed by the Adviser to be in the best interests of the fund, and 8) by certain asset pools associated with an organization that already offers a qualifying fund as an investment option in its retirement plan(s). These restrictions generally will apply to investments made directly with Fidelity and investments made through intermediaries. Investors may be required to demonstrate eligibility to buy shares of the fund before an investment is accepted.
Effective after the close of business on May 20, 2024, new positions in the fund may no longer be opened. Existing shareholders may continue to hold their shares and purchase additional shares through the reinvestment of dividend and capital gain distributions until the fund’s liquidation.
In connection with the Reorganization, an information statement/prospectus that will be included in a registration statement on Form N-14 will be filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission. After the registration statement is filed with the SEC, it may be amended or withdrawn and the information statement/prospectus will not be distributed to shareholders of Fidelity® Global High Income Fund unless and until the registration statement becomes effective. Shareholders should read the information statement/prospectus, which contains important information about the Reorganization, when it becomes available. For a free copy of the information statement/prospectus, please contact Fidelity at 1-800-544-8544. The information statement/prospectus will also be available on the Securities and Exchange Commission’s website (www.sec.gov).
For more detailed information, please contact Fidelity at 1-800-544-8544...

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/744822/000119312524066633/d797845d497.htm
497 1 d797845d497.htm FIDELITY INVESTMENT TRUST
Supplement to the
Fidelity’s Targeted International Equity Funds®
December 30, 2023
Prospectus
Proposed Reorganization. The Board of Trustees of Fidelity Investment Trust has unanimously approved an Agreement and Plan of Reorganization (“Agreement”) between Fidelity® Latin America Fund and Fidelity® Emerging Markets Fund pursuant to which Fidelity® Latin America Fund would be reorganized on a tax-free basis with and into Fidelity® Emerging Markets Fund.
As a result of the proposed Reorganization, shareholders of each class of Fidelity® Latin America Fund would receive shares of the corresponding class of Fidelity® Emerging Markets Fund.
The Agreement provides for the transfer of all of the assets of Fidelity® Latin America Fund in exchange for corresponding shares of Fidelity® Emerging Markets Fund equal in value to the net assets of Fidelity® Latin America Fund and the assumption by Fidelity® Emerging Markets Fund of all of the liabilities of Fidelity® Latin America Fund. After the exchange, Fidelity® Latin America Fund will distribute the Fidelity® Emerging Markets Fund shares to its shareholders pro rata, in liquidation of Fidelity® Latin America Fund. As a result, shareholders of Fidelity® Latin America Fund will become shareholders of Fidelity® Emerging Markets Fund (these transactions are collectively referred to as the “Reorganization”).
A Special Meeting (the “Meeting”) of the Shareholders of Fidelity® Latin America Fund is expected to be held during the third quarter of 2024 and approval of the Agreement will be voted on at that time. A combined proxy statement and prospectus containing more information with respect to the Reorganization will be provided to shareholders of record of Fidelity® Latin America Fund in advance of the meeting.
If the Agreement is approved at the Meeting and certain conditions required by the Agreement are satisfied, the Reorganization is expected to take place on or about September 13, 2024. If shareholder approval of the Agreement is delayed due to failure to meet a quorum or otherwise (an “Adjournment”), the Reorganization will become effective, if approved, as soon as practicable thereafter.
In connection with seeking shareholder approval of the Agreement, effective the close of business on March 22, 2024, new positions in Fidelity® Latin America Fund (the fund) may no longer be opened. Shareholders of the fund on that date may continue to add to their fund positions existing on that date. Investors who did not own shares of the fund on March 22, 2024, generally will not be allowed to buy shares of the fund except that new fund positions may be opened: 1) by participants in most group employer retirement plans (and their successor plans) if a qualifying fund is already established as an investment option under the plans (or under another plan sponsored by the same employer), 2) by participants in a 401(a) plan covered by a master record keeping services agreement between Fidelity and a national federation of employers that included a qualifying fund as a core investment option, 3) for accounts managed on a discretionary basis by certain registered investment advisers that have discretionary assets of at least $500 million invested in mutual funds and already included the fund in their discretionary account program, 4) by a mutual fund or a qualified tuition program for which Fidelity serves as investment manager, 5) by a portfolio manager of the fund, 6) by a fee deferral plan offered to trustees of certain Fidelity® funds, if the fund is an investment option under the plan, and 7) by qualified intermediaries to facilitate in-kind redemption activity when deemed by the Adviser to be in the best interests of the fund, and 8) by certain asset pools associated with an organization that already offers a qualifying fund as an investment option in its retirement plan(s). These restrictions generally will apply to investments made directly with Fidelity and investments made through intermediaries. Investors may be required to demonstrate eligibility to buy shares of the fund before an investment is accepted.
If shareholder approval of the Agreement cannot be achieved, the Board of Trustees has approved a plan of liquidation for Fidelity® Latin America Fund. Prior to such liquidation the fund’s assets will be managed to provide for sufficient liquidity to meet redemptions prior to liquidation. In this event, effective after the close of business on
July 16, 2024 (or such later date as may be required in connection with an Adjournment), the fund will no longer permit new positions in the fund to be opened. Existing shareholders will be permitted to continue to hold their shares and purchase additional shares through the reinvestment of dividend and capital gain distributions until the fund’s liquidation on or about September 13, 2024 or as soon as practicable thereafter in the event of an Adjournment...

Sure, anything can happen but I have been reading that this time, really, is the right time..for years already.
I also read in 2008, 2020, 2022, that the Fed hands are tight and...here we are.
I always believed in investing in the market you have, not the one you may or anticipate you have.
And for some, like me, volatility matters.

Sold ETRN for a 15% gain in 45 days on news EQT is buying them back.
It's been trending higher in recent days and I didn't get the huge pop I was expecting on the news, but I primarily bought it for a 'trade' on the possibility of a sale. (I was hoping it would've been bought by WMB, which I also own.)
On the upside I could use the gains to offset some losses anyway, so it's still a win-win for me, just not a WIN-win. :)

I am surprised no material change from Friday closing price. currently trading at $11.30 while the implied acquisition price is $12.5 (of course, it is an all equity transaction).
You may be right in bailing as today the price is lower than yesterday when I thought may be there will be delayed positive reaction.
I have a poor sell discipline and so took your cue and sold at $11.30.
(I had some distractions and did not follow through after the initial buy. But Thanks for bringing this to my attention and I count all positive trades.)

I bought both GRID and NLR as part of climate change sleeve . Most of the more speculative clean energy stuff has cratered with rising interest rates, but Grantham thinks it is coming back ( see his recent letter)
Valueline Climate Change. newsletter recommended PCG recently as electrification is going great guns in CA. You will have to assume they learned their lesson in all the horrible fires, and the capital required to fix their grid is available and they can afford it
My cousins are lead plaintiffs in class action against their utility company for the MAria Fire. I
think it is Southern California Edison

Sold ETRN for a 15% gain in 45 days on news EQT is buying them back.
It's been trending higher in recent days and I didn't get the huge pop I was expecting on the news, but I primarily bought it for a 'trade' on the possibility of a sale. (I was hoping it would've been bought by WMB, which I also own.)
On the upside I could use the gains to offset some losses anyway, so it's still a win-win for me, just not a WIN-win. :)

From today's Wall Street Journal:

One of crypto's erstwhile doubters is helping to take bitcoin mainstream. Larry Fink, CEO of BlackRock, called bitcoin "in index of money laundering" back in 2017 ... today he says he is a big believer in bitcoin. His firm managers the fastest-growing bitcoin fund and has forged partnerships with some of the largest players in the digital-assets industry. (Vicky Ge Huang, "BlackRock Does U-Turn on Bitcoin," 3/11/2024)

John Stark, a former SEC enforcement chief, cuts to the chase:

The irony is transparent and glaring in that it's supposed to be decentralized, yet what is more decentralized than a Wall Street behemoth who is taking fees from every single possible angle and peddling something that nobody understands.

(N.B. he might be speaking ironically when he asks "what is more decentralized than BlackRock" or the article might contain a typo, which the intent is the bitter but non-ironic "which is more centralized than BlackRock?")
BlackRock's ETF gathered $10 billion in assets faster than any other OEF or ETF ever.
- - - - -
On the flipside, remember the days of “climate-proofing portfolios is a key consideration for all asset owners” and "climate risk is investing risk" (2020)?
Yeah, about that: BlackRock is liquidating sustainability funds, withdrawing from the Climate Action coalition, banning the use of the term "ESG" ... and is "the top institutional investor in fossil fuels, holding about $133 billion in shares and bonds of the top oil and gas companies, and at least $85 billion in coal" ("BlackRock's climate actions are so milquetoast they're making no one happy," QZ.com, 12/8/2022).
Which is, at base, the argument for government action. Even the largest corporations live in deathly fear of missing out on $1.50 in potential profits. The lazy defense of which is to cite Milton Friedman's 50-year-old declaration that the only legit purpose of a corporation is to maximize profits, the so-called "shareholder theory." Rather a number of people (paywall, sorry) have since noted that Friedman's political preference isn't actually law, much less eternal law. (Google "Milton Friedman was wrong" if you want the potpourri.) Likewise, there is no legal obligations (i.e., fiduciary requirement) to maximize profits. Corporate decisions are driven by executive compensation (the average compensation package for the CEO of an S&P 500 company is about $15 million/year, up 1500% since I graduated Pitt in 1978) which is tied to corporate profits.

From my following and researching CGBL, I have been pleased with its behavior. Its fixed income sleeve Core Plus. The only reason I have not invested in it is because of potential high distributions from its fixed income sleeve (bonds with market discounts) if I were to put it in a taxable account. But may be with good inflows, some of that distribution will be picked up by shareholders coming in later. Any thoughts?

Morningstar reports that its fixed income securities have an average discount (weighted) of under 1%. That is, its average weighted fixed income price is 99.27. That's essentially par. In comparison, on average, moderate allocation ETFs have portfolios with an average discount of 7% (92.90 weighted fixed income price).
https://www.morningstar.com/etfs/arcx/cgbl/portfolio
(select "Bond" next to "Portfolio" toward upper left)
What is your concern with CGBL discount bonds? It looks like the ETF's high interest is coming from the coupons, not any discount. Average coupon yield is 5.32% vs. 3.90% for its peers. It's coupon, not discount, accounting for high YTM.
For whatever discount is due to OID, the fund declares and distributes accretion (progression toward par value/reduction of discount) annually. Consequently at maturity all OID is accounted for. In short, OID bonds do not realize a big gain at maturity or sale.
Market discount is different. The rule is that investors (whether individuals or funds) can treat it the same way as OID (declaring it as annual income, gradually accreting), or defer all accretion (gain) until maturity or sale. It sounds like the latter is what you are concerned about.
However, this portfolio has a roughly counterbalancing amount of premium bonds (weighted average price is 99.27). So ISTM gains on discount bonds (generally treated as ordinary income) could be balanced out by losses on premium bonds (sometimes treated as negative ordinary income).
The links below give details on taxation of discount and premium bonds and how funds are required to handle OID "phantom interest" - what the last reference calls a "situation".
Schwab, When Should You Pay Taxes on Discount Bonds?
Baird, Tax Treatment of Bond Premium and Discount
K&L Gates, Introduction to Original Issue Discount
(last couple of slides describe how OID bonds in a mutual fund portfolio creates a "situation")