Well, we have 'Two for Tuesday' (FM radio); and a 'Warm for Wednesday' (Powell/Fed. statement). Warm and fuzzy feeling, for the most part; the Fed. rate increases may back down a tad. Then, 'Freaky Friday', from the jobs and wages reports. Too many new jobs and folks making too much via hourly wage. Damn, can't catch a break, eh? Speaking of breaks, these 'hotter' numbers may give more pause to the Fed and any notion about going easy on the rate increases and for how long. Sorry, companies and you worker bee folks; you're going to have to stop this economic expansion. We'll help you going forward, okay? Bond yields/prices hopped around a bit; with many bond areas giving the 'bird' to the FED, for the week in total. About midday Friday, bond yields dropped and resulting nice price gains came forth to support a direction for the week. As shown in the below list, the longer duration of IG bonds continues to provide the best performance. Those who have bonds in their investment mix now have more support in this area. The recent, apparent bottom in bond pricing from October 25 continues to find support from those levels.
ALGO FED: Perhaps the FED should try operating their mandates via an ALGO program using 20 economic data points of their choice; to discover the results for managing the U.S. economy, in this manner.
Several selected bond fund returns since October 25.
NOTE: I've kept the prior dated reports in the beginning of this thread; and have added YTD to this data.
All listed etf's below have nice price gains for this past week, except the 'bear/short' etf.
For the WEEK/YTD, NAV price changes, November 28- December 2, 2022
--- AGG = +1.5% / -11.2% (I-Shares Core bond etf) widely used bond benchmark, (AAA-BBB holdings)
--- MINT = +.22% / -1.4% (PIMCO Enhanced short maturity, AAA-BBB rated)
--- SHY = +.47% / -3.8% (UST 1-3 yr bills)
--- IEI = +1.2% / -8.4% (UST 3-7 yr notes/bonds)
--- IEF = +1.8% / -12.8% (UST 7-10 yr bonds)
--- TIP = +2.65% / -9.5% (UST Tips, 3-10 yrs duration, some 20+ yr duration)
--- STPZ = +1.2% / -3.5% (UST, short duration TIPs bonds, PIMCO)
--- LTPZ = +6.8% / -25% (UST, long duration TIPs bonds, PIMCO)
--- TLT = +4.3% / -26.2% (I shares 20+ Yr UST Bond
--- EDV = +6% / -33% (UST Vanguard extended duration bonds)
--- ZROZ = +6.5% / -34.5% (UST., AAA, long duration zero coupon bonds, PIMCO
--- TBT = -8.2% / +68.6% (ProShares UltraShort 20+ Year Treasury (about 23 holdings)
--- TMF = +12.5% / -65.6% (Direxion Daily 20+ Yr Trsy Bull 3X ETF (about a 3x version of EDV etf)
--- BAGIX = +1.56% / -12% (active managed, plain vanilla, high quality bond fund)
*** Other, for reference:
--- HYG = +1.2% / -9.1% (high yield bonds, proxy ETF)
--- LQD = +1.9% / -15.1% (corp. bonds, various quality)
--- FZDXX = 3.81% yield (7 day), Fidelity Premium MMKT fund
*** FZDXX yield was .11%, April,2022. The rate of rise in the yield is stagnate for this past week, versus the past six months.
Remain curious,
Catch

From the Hoya Capital blog:
Blackstone Redemptions • Mixed Jobs Data • REIT M&A
'Blog' reports are supposedly readable by anyone but just in case here's a snippet.
"Real estate asset manager Blackstone (BX) was in focus today after its massive $70B nontraded REIT platform - BREIT - announced that it has begun limiting withdrawals after a wave of redemption requests that exceeded its monthly and quarterly limits. An issue that we predicted in our State of the REIT Nation Report last month, BREIT reported that its Net Asset Value has increased 9.3% this year through September 30 - claiming roughly 40% outperformance over the public REIT indexes despite paying "top-dollar" to acquire a half-dozen public REITs over the past two years whose closest public REIT peers are trading lower by an average of 30% this year. Naturally, investors have seized on the opportunity to redeem shares at these premium valuations. We've discussed the risks of non-traded REIT ("NTR") space across many reports over the past half-decade and continue to watch the area for signs of stress given their typically-high leverage and sensitivity to investor fund flows - which we expect could eventually become an area that's "ripe for picking" for the more conservatively-managed REITs."

And in current "crypto" news:
Crypto lender BlockFi files for bankruptcy after FTX collapse-
Chapter 11 bankruptcy filing as fall of FTX continues to reverberate across industry
Following are excerpts from a current report in The Guardian:

The crypto lender BlockFi has become the sector’s latest big operator to declare bankruptcy, as the fallout of the collapse of offshore cryptocurrency exchange FTX continues to spread.
BlockFi, which operates in a similar fashion to a conventional bank, paying interest on savings and using customer deposits to fund lending, says it has $256.9m cash in hand. According to court documents, its creditors include FTX itself, to which it owes $275m, and the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), to which it owes $30m.
In a statement announcing its Chapter 11 bankruptcy filing, BlockFi said: “This action follows the shocking events surrounding FTX and associated corporate entities and the difficult but necessary decision we made as a result to pause most activities on our platform.
“Since the pause, our team has explored every strategic option and alternative available to us, and has remained laser-focused on our primary objective of doing the best we can for our clients.
“These Chapter 11 cases will enable BlockFi to stabilise the business and provide BlockFi with the opportunity to consummate a reorganisation plan that maximises value for all stakeholders, including our valued clients.”
The SEC levied a $100m fine on the company in February for violating securities laws, arguing that the investment products the company offered qualified as unregistered securities. The outstanding $30m debt is apparently the unpaid portion of that fine.
BlockFi has already stumbled close to bankruptcy once already this year, in the wake of spring’s crypto crash.
After chief executive Zac Prince said the company needed an injection of capital to stave off a liquidity crisis, it signed a deal with none other than FTX, which gave the company access to $400m in loans. The price of the deal was an option from FTX to buy the lender for about $240m, a sharp decline from a peak valuation of $3bn.
That option was never exercised, and the collapse of the cryptocurrency exchange sparked a bank run at BlockFi, seen by customers as dangerously entangled with Sam Bankman-Fried’s company, that proved terminal. Without the ability to draw on the credit line, nor access its own funds stored on the FTX platform, BlockFi was forced to file for Chapter 11 bankruptcy.

With all due respect to Elizabeth Warren, Dick Durbin and Tina Smith, IMHO cryptocurrency is no more unsuitable today for employer-sponsored plans than it was a month ago. Their current letter is more or less a followup to a similar but more extensive letter sent by Senators Warren and Smith in May. That in turn came after DOL issued guidance on cryptocurrency in 401(k) plans in March, emphasizing its risks.

Fidelity isn’t the first company to give 401(k) participants access to cryptocurrency assets. Another industry provider, ForUsAll Inc., has linked workers with cryptocurrency exchanges through brokerage windows for several years. Fidelity takes a different approach with its Digital Asset Accounts product, which doesn’t rely on outside exchanges or brokerage windows.

Employee Benefit Plan Review, October 2022, Volume 76, Number 8, pages 16-19. CCH Incorporated.
(Published before FTX's collapse)
The genie has been out of the bottle since brokerage windows were allowed. Fidelity just provided another route to the same investments. That's not to say that plan sponsors have no responsibility for how those windows are used. The DOL guidance hints at that. Quoting again from CCH:

DOL provides a clear and definite warning to plan fiduciaries:

The plan fiduciaries responsible for overseeing such investment options or allowing such investments through brokerage windows should expect to be questioned about how they can square their actions with their duties of prudence and loyalty in light of the risks described above.

While the focus of this guidance is on 401(k) plans, the DOL’s warnings also extend to plans and plan fiduciaries responsible for allowing cryptocurrency investments through self-directed brokerage windows.

One way of addressing this is to set limits. As stated in the OP, Fidelity sets a 20% limit. So the 20% Bitcoin decline in value lamented in the senators' letter would have resulted in a 4% or less decline in a participant's plan value. Significant but not catastrophic. And ForUSAll sets an even tighter limit, just 5%.
Finally, note that while some senators are advocating caution, others welcome wild west investing in retirement accounts.

Update: A Partisan Divide

The Department of Labor's cryptocurrency guidance has provoked contrasting responses on Capital [sic] Hill.

On May 5, Sen. Tommy Tuberville, R-Ala. introduced legislation that would prohibit the DOL from limiting the kinds of products workplace retirement savers can invest in through self-directed brokerage accounts.
A day earlier, Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., criticized Fidelity Investments for its decision to launch a new 401(k) cryptocurrency product, in a May 4 letter to Fidelity CEO Abigail Johnson.

https://www.shrm.org/resourcesandtools/hr-topics/benefits/pages/dol-guidance-could-crimp-401k-brokerage-windows.aspx (Limit 3 free articles per month)

@YBB, whether it's "fair" to compare FCNTX to PRWCX I'll leave to others but this description is from the T Rowe Price website regarding PRWCX:
"Investment Objective
The fund seeks long-term capital appreciation by investing primarily in common stocks. It may hold fixed-income and other securities to help preserve principal value.
Strategy
The fund invests primarily in the common stocks of established U.S companies we believe to have above-average potential for capital growth. Common stocks typically constitute at least half of total assets. The remaining assets are generally invested in other securities, including convertible securities, corporate and government debt, foreign securities, and futures and options."
Granted one could make the case that it's not an apples to apples comparison BUT the manager of PRWCX does have the ability to go all stock if they believe that's where the possibilities are best, whereas the manager of FCNTX can invest in non-stock choices for similar reasons.
Also I drew my first attention to the 2006-2022 time period. No intention to deceive. I used PV and don't know how to choose a start period mid-year (e.g.June) as you pointed out.

@BenWP
I checked the page in question and I reposted the link from Brown Capital. I cannot post the direct link to the distributions. You need to click the link I included above, then click on the "distributions" link under Key Documents heading. I just retried the link above and opened the related PDF link which worked.
The long-term CG distribution is $11.78 for investor and institutional classes of the small cap fund.

Brown Capital's link, above, did not result in my finding the 2022 estimated distributions. Curiously, several days ago it did work and I learned that BCSIX will make a 17% of NAV distribution. I have sold and will rely on NEAIX (which distributed nada this year) for my SCG. FWIIW, Brown Advisory remains an opaque site when one seeks distribution information.

Bond bottom, Oct. 25 ??? One calendar month, 23 trading days. Just the numbers. Global central bankers remain in group think mode hoping they can fix what, in many cases, could partially fix itself; via the consumer. Let us hope that central bank egos don't stand in the path of a positive economic direction, eventually.
Eight random bond etf's returns for the past month, from the recent bottom (?).
CHART
NOTE: I've kept the prior dated reports in the beginning of this thread; and have added YTD to this data.
All listed etf's below have nice price gains for this past week, except the 'bear/short' etf.
For the WEEK/YTD, NAV price changes, November 21- November 25, 2022
--- AGG = +1.07% / -12.5% (I-Shares Core bond etf) widely used bond benchmark, (AAA-BBB holdings)
--- MINT = +.14% / -1.6% (PIMCO Enhanced short maturity, AAA-BBB rated)
--- SHY = +.15% / -4.3% (UST 1-3 yr bills)
--- IEI = +.46% / -9.5% (UST 3-7 yr notes/bonds)
--- IEF = +1.02% / -14.3% (UST 7-10 yr bonds)
--- TIP = +1.3% / -11.8% (UST Tips, 3-10 yrs duration, some 20+ yr duration)
--- STPZ = +.58% / -4.65% (UST, short duration TIPs bonds, PIMCO)
--- LTPZ = +4.35% / -29.9% (UST, long duration TIPs bonds, PIMCO)
--- TLT = +3.3% / -29.3% (I shares 20+ Yr UST Bond
--- EDV = +4.65% / -36.8% (UST Vanguard extended duration bonds)
--- ZROZ = +5.1% / -38.5% (UST., AAA, long duration zero coupon bonds, PIMCO
--- TBT = -6.2% / +83% (ProShares UltraShort 20+ Year Treasury (about 23 holdings)
--- TMF = +9.8% / -69% (Direxion Daily 20+ Yr Trsy Bull 3X ETF (about a 3x version of EDV etf)
--- BAGIX = +1.08% / -13.4% (active managed, plain vanilla, high quality bond fund)
*** Other, for reference:
--- HYG = +1.05% / -10.8% (high yield bonds, proxy ETF)
--- LQD = +1.85% / -16.6% (corp. bonds, various quality)
--- FZDXX = 3.81% yield (7 day), Fidelity Premium MMKT fund
*** FZDXX yield was .11%, April,2022. The rate of rise in the yield is slowing for this past week, versus the past six months.
Remain curious,
Catch

Value Line funds have posted at https://vlfunds.com/gains

Funds from operation (FFO) is a measure of cash flow that is calculated simply by taking net income and "backing out" depreciation and amortization. That intuitively makes sense in terms of cash, since depreciation is a bookkeeping figure, not "real" cash that is flowing out of a business' bank account.
Many types of businesses present a non-GAAP (and non-standardized) EBITDA figure to give a "truer" (read: more favorable) picture of income. This is net income after backing out depreciation, amortization, interest and taxes.
Even though EBITDA is focused on income and FFO is focused on cash flow, they look very similar. That's especially true in real estate where depreciation and amortization can constitute the vast majority of tweaks. So if it helps, think of FFO as income without accounting "tricks".
You can see how massive an impact depreciation and amortization have. For PSTL in the third quarter:
net income =     $1,150K
deprec,amort = $4,616K
FFO =               $5,766K
https://investor.postalrealtytrust.com/Investors/news/news-details/2022/Postal-Realty-Trust-Inc.-Reports-Third-Quarter-2022-Results/default.aspx
M* says that free cash flow over trailing twelve months was 6.88x net income. (That's a bit higher than the 5x for the third quarter.) Take the 94% payout based on cash flow and multiply by 6.88, and you get roughly the 653.57% payout ratio that M* reports. The small difference is likely due to rounding (95% x 6.88 = 653.6).
Given this huge difference between net income and payouts, one might think that the divs can't all be income. And one would be right. Over the past year, about a third of the divs represented return of capital (lowering your cost basis). I'm not going to venture a guess as to how one comes up with that 1/3 figure; I'm just reporting it from the PSTL filings:
https://s29.q4cdn.com/654642337/files/doc_downloads/dividend-tax-information/Dividend-Tax-Treatment-of-2021.pdf
https://s29.q4cdn.com/654642337/files/doc_downloads/dividend-tax-information/Form-8937-2021.pdf (see line 15 for adjustment to cost basis)
https://www.hrblock.com/tax-center/income/investments/nondividend-distributions/

Over the last few weeks I added a sizable position of PKSAX in my retirement account. From my screens it is one of the few equity funds that held up very well in both bear markets of March 2020 and the current one. Long term performance is also quite good. It is only available in my retirement account….closed at Schwab and other fund supermarkets. I also added NXPI, TXN, and V over the last month.

@Sven
I would caution folks about paper filing, if you depend on the refund. We are still waiting for my mother's refund from 2020, which had to filed on paper because she passed in early 2021. I am certain they received it. Not only did we send it certified I recently got correspondence from IRS listing Mom as "dcd". But still no refund
While the IRS may process paper returns from living people more quickly, I have heard it still takes months and months

Columbia funds cap. gains at https://www.columbiathreadneedleus.com/binaries/content/assets/cti/public/2022_cap_gains_year_end.pdf but no word of income.

Three US Senators have urged Fidelity to stop its 401(k) sponsor partners from offering bitcoin exposure — likening crypto investing to “catching lightning in a bottle.”
In a Monday letter penned to Fidelity CEO Abigail Johnson, Democrat Senators Elizabeth Warren, Dick Durbin and Tina Smith argue that crypto markets have become riskier following FTX’s sudden collapse, making bitcoin unsuitable for retirement plans.
Boston-based Fidelity began allowing employees to put as much as 20% of their retirement savings into bitcoin exposure this fall.
The crypto industry considered the move a strong sign of shifting institutional sentiment toward the 12 year old asset class, although bitcoin has shed some 60% of its value since Fidelity flagged the 401(k) move in late April.
Fidelity, which overall boasts some $9.6 trillion in assets under administration, is the largest individual retirement plan (IRA) provider in the US — supporting more than 35 million IRA, 401(k) and 403(b) retirement accounts. As of 2020, FIdelity controlled more than a third of the retirement fund market in the US, maintaining $2.4 trillion in 401(k) assets.

https://blockworks.co/news/senators-fidelity-stop-offering-bitcoin-401ks
For full disclosure, Fidelity was my past 401(k) plan administrator. The choices were solid and their service, phone or online, were second to none. Outside of that, they also have been our main brokerage for many years.

@Ben,that what we have done for many years until 2020 pandemic. I understand that paper filing requires an IRS agent to enter your data manually and they are prone to human error. Also you get your refund longer to complete. Some takes over 6 months, presumably they have lengthy returns. We will go back to that route this year.

@Catch22

What sectors or specific companies are allowed to be a 'money making operation'; assuming the research capital is not government funded ???

It comes down to the difference between human wants and human needs. Nothing wrong with making a profit off a flat screen TV. Something very wrong with controlling and making a profit off the water supply when people are dying of thirst.
To elaborate, capitalism tends to work for humanity when both supply and demand are elastic, flexible, so that consumers can find a substitute if supply is low or prices are too high because of an attempt to gouge consumers. But when supply is inelastic, limited and demand is inelastic--big problem for consumers. Capitalist investors by the way love this quasi-monopolistic situation. Gouging consumers is hugely profitable.
Healthcare is a case where the supply of doctors and medicine is by design limited while the demand for these products is either inelastic or worse potentially unlimited. If you or a loved one are truly sick, what wouldn't you pay for the cure? Hospitals, medical device makers and drug makers know this. That leads to terrible inequalities in power. It's the reason why healthcare bills have long been the biggest cause of bankruptcy in the United States.
At the very least, if healthcare shouldn't be a right, it should be much more strictly regulated than it currently is. A person getting a medical test like an MRI should know exactly what it will cost them before getting the test and be able to comparison shop with different providers. A person getting a non-emergency but necessary procedure should know what the cost is too in advance and how much exactly their insurance will cover. That still isn't the case. So, you end up with these absurd sticker shock situations.
I can't think of another kind of consumer transaction in the U.S. where I both have to buy the product and have no idea what I'm going to pay for it until after I've already bought it. If we walked into a store and asked, "How much is this candy bar?" and the proprietor said, "Well, that depends. I have to check this obscure Candybar Chargemaster List, which you can't see, and I won't be able to tell you how much until after you've eaten the candybar," we'd walk right out.

@Crash
What sectors or specific companies are allowed to be a 'money making operation'; assuming the research capital is not government funded ???

You seem to enjoy baiting me, catch.
Healthcare as a human RIGHT militates against the profit motive. What's happened previously, before people RECOGNIZED it as a RIGHT, is no justification, going forward.
Want to talk about car tires? Plastimers? Cold fusion? Maritime shipping? Aluminum extrusion? Shoemaking? Ad infinitum? Make money with THOSE things, eh?

@Crash
What sectors or specific companies are allowed to be a 'money making operation'; assuming the research capital is not government funded ???

SWVXX has a cumulative (not annualized) return of 1.218% from March 16, 2020 through Nov 15, 2022. (Fund pays divs in mid-month.) Schwab data source.
RPHIX has provided a cumulative return of 7.20% over the same time span. M* data source.
Recent performance (1 month/3 month, through 10/31):
RPHIX 0.47% / 0.69% (from Morningstar performance page)
SWVXX 0.25% / 0.63% (from Schwab's page for this fund)
As I've explained, extrapolating from today's yields is always risky, but FWIW, here are some yields (7 day for the MMF and 30 day SEC for the Riverpark funds).
RPHIX 3.68% (as of 10/31)
SWVXX 2.97% (as of 10/31)
What is it about RPHIX's performance pattern that leads you to feel that you "can get better returns through Schwab Money Market accounts"? There are a lot of factors beyond the raw numbers above that one might look at. I've suggested option adjusted spreads as one factor to throw into the mix. Others?

Similar to previous comments, I own RPHIX, but have reduced it to a very small position since March of 2020. I can get better returns through Schwab Money Market accounts or short term CDs, but will reconsider RPHIX when I start to see a performance pattern that is more competitive.