@dtconroe,
Here’s what PRWCX manager David Geroux said recently about IG bonds as an investment:
“What I would tell you about rates today is that the risk/reward on Treasuries or IG [investment grade] is so poor, it gets a situation where if rates stay static, you make very, very low returns. If rates revert back to more normalized levels, you lose a lot of money. And if rates go down, you don't have a lot of room for rates to go down … So, it's a really negatively skewed risk-adjusted return … As a result of that, we have a very short duration in our fixed-income portfolio, probably the shortest duration we've had since I've been running this strategy. Our duration today is 1.5 years” LINK
Your attempts to immunize the thread from mention of PRWCX or manager David Geroux’s views on the question “Why do you still own Bond funds?” sounds to me a bit cocoonish. Why would your view, or my view, or that of anyone else here on the question supersede that of Mr. Geroux as both verbalized by him publicly and as practiced thru his management approach?
-
“David Geroux is a five-time nominee and two-time winner of Morningstar's Fund Manager of the Year award in the allocation category. David’s fund has also won 15 "Best Fund" awards 2 from Lipper. “ LINK

Thinking about the original question, I've tried to take a step back and reformulate the question a bit: what is a bond, and why would one own a bond (or in the aggregate a bond fund)?
From a business finance perspective, a bond is a way to raise cash without selling part of a company. Funds are characterized as bond funds if they hold these financial instruments; not if they behave like traditional bonds. This is an important distinction because it affects what we mean when we talk about bond funds.
From an investor perspective, a traditional IG bond is a way to get a better return than in a bank. In exchange, one takes on a modest amount of risk, some of which can be diversified away in a fund. IG bonds preserve nominal principal, though inflation gradually reduces their value over time.
One diverges (slightly) from this traditional perspective of bonds as pure income streams when one starts trading bonds in an attempt to increase total return. This began in the 70s, largely with Bill Gross and total return funds. These funds take on a measure of equity characteristics, especially as they add junk bonds. At this point, ISTM one is at the edge of crossing over from "bonds" to "allocation" funds, in behavior albeit not in name.
Moving on, multisector bond funds behave significantly like allocation funds. But because they're still bond funds from a finance perspective, people can feel good about eating their vegetables - investing in "bonds" while getting better returns.
Here's Portfolio Visualizer's correlation matrix of a "pure bond" (albeit leveraged) multisector fund PDIIX, a multisector fund with a 13% equity kicker RPSIX, and a rougly 40/60 allocation fund (disregarding cash) FTANX. The five year time frame I selected is the period covered by PDIIX's current management team including Ivascyn.
They're all pretty well correlated. Further, annualized standard deviations are quite close together, ranging from 5.62% to 5.84%. In terms of risk and performance these multisector funds feel like hybrid funds.
I do own a multisector fund (none of the funds here), but I expect it to behave like a hybrid fund. It's just another way for me to get that risk/reward profile.
To the extent that I use IG bond funds, they're there to serve as the last bastion before dipping into equities should stocks swoon for several years. On the short end, I use short/ultrashort funds as backup to pure cash - a bit more return in exchange not drawing upon them monthly in case of hiccups.
I've no bond funds for a traditional, widows and orphans, monthly pension type cash flow.

10 year treasury bond slid to 1.54% this morning (June 8), down from around 1.57% yesterday morning.
While financial stocks (like banks) have soared this year on the expectation longer term interest rates would rise substantially, the circuitous path of 10-year tells a different story. Peaked near 1.7% about a month ago, but falling since.
(Schwab apparently called attention to the above inconsistency in an advisory of some sort today.)
The retrenchment of bond yields may be a short term aberration. Many market observers still expect the 10 year bond to hit 2% by year’s end. Some of the decline might be due to Fed meddling at the long end.
This does have some implication for value oriented funds, since they’re often loaded with banks and other financials. However, I wouldn’t make too much of it yet.

”You can use an ETF as a savings account. But you're going to have to manually move money into the "checking" account (core fund) if you want to use it.”
*** Have to? Are we simply talking sound financial practice here? Or, does Fido prevent you from using the more direct route between ETF and another purchase or sale?
What I kind of surmise is that buying directly out of an ETF would take at least 1 extra day to settle, making the intended purchase more susceptible to price fluctuation. If true, that would be enough to convince me to use a money market fund for transactions.

Have to. There is no "direct route". With a fund distributor, you place can a single order to literally exchange shares of one fund for another. But when you trade on the secondary market (selling an ETF and buying something else), there are three parties involved - you, the party you sell the ETF to (and receive cash from) and the party you purchase your new holding from (and pay cash to).
There are two separate transactions. The broker literally brokers (makes the connections for) each of these transactions. But it doesn't connect your ETF buyer directly to the seller of your new investment. Same idea if you're going between two different fund families - there are still three parties involved (aside from the broker).
I don't trade ETFs frequently, so I was trying to remember what the rules were the last time I did (earlier this year). I was able to sell shares of an ETF and on the same day place an order to purchase a T. Rowe Price mutual fund. I just had to wait until the sale executed to know the amount of the proceeds. This was at Merrill Edge.
They acknowledged that it didn't make much sense because they were floating me the cash for a day (in an IRA) since the purchase would settle a day earlier than the sale. I was told that somehow, because I was good for the money, the trade was permissible.
This turns out to be an advantage of ETFs. The instant the trade executes, you know the amount of cash you (will) have available so you can immediately enter a purchase order using 100% of the proceeds. Still, this is not a "direct route".

And at TRP they won’t allow you to sell 99% of a non-money market fund because the system is set up to retain a certain % in case of daily price fluctuation. Found that out the hard way recently when I tried to sell / exchange most, but not all, of TRBUX from IRA to my TOD account. (However, you can do so by selling all and closing the account.)

I believe you could have sold 99% of your shares. Though as you said, you couldn't ask TRP to raise cash equal to 99% of yesterday's close, because there was no assurance you had enough shares for that.

”You can use an ETF as a savings account. But you're going to have to manually move money into the "checking" account (core fund) if you want to use it.”
*** Have to? Are we simply talking sound financial practice here? Or, does Fido prevent you from using the more direct route between ETF and another purchase or sale?
What I kind of surmise is that buying directly out of an ETF would take at least 1 extra day to settle, making the intended purchase more susceptible to price fluctuation. If true, that would be enough to convince me to use a money market fund for transactions.
And at TRP they won’t allow you to sell 99% of a non-money market fund because the system is set up to retain a certain % in case of daily price fluctuation. Found that out the hard way recently when I tried to sell / exchange most, but not all, of TRBUX from IRA to my TOD account. (However, you can do so by selling all and closing the account.)
Re cap gains. This is a tax deferred account. But the headache caused by using TRBUX as a checking account is the reason I began using Price’s short term and money market muni funds. And did see @Investor’s comment on the matter.
I’m one not to worry about putting cash at an elevated level of risk. I know others don’t feel the same. Even 0.5% earned on an ultra short bond fund looks better than 0.0%. :)
Thanks for all the thoughts.

Another read:
Optimal Retirement Asset Decumulation Strategies: The Impact of Housing Wealth

A considerable literature examines the optimal decumulation of financial wealth in retirement. We extend this line of research to incorporate housing, which comprises the majority of most households' non-pension wealth.
We estimate the relationship between the returns on housing, stocks, and bonds, and simulate a variety of decumulation strategies incorporating reverse mortgages. We show that homeowner's reversionary interest, the amount that can be borrowed through a reverse mortgage, is a surprisingly risky asset. Under our baseline assumptions we find that the average household would be as much as 24 percent better off taking a reverse mortgage as a lifetime income relative to what appears to be the most common strategy: delaying tapping housing wealth until financial wealth is exhausted and then taking a line of credit. In addition, the results show that housing wealth displaces bonds in optimal portfolios, making the low rate of participation in the stock market even more of a puzzle.

Link to Full Text:
optimal-retirement-asset-decumulation-strategies-the-impact-of-housing-wealth

Not necessarily. Advisors don't need loads to make money.
"Financial advisors would switch from selling funds that charged commissions of any kind to selling funds that lacked commissions, while levying asset-based fees. That change has indeed occurred. Per McKinsey’s “The state of North American retail wealth management,” more than two thirds of revenues for its surveyed financial advisors now come from asset-based fees, rather than commissions."
https://www.morningstar.com/articles/1000749/asset-based-fees-are-not-intrinsically-better

Financial advisors will not disappear anytime soon. Thus, loaded mutual funds will be around for awhile.

You're talking about bonus dividends, which are paid by customer-owned institutions.

Why don’t credit unions keep things simple with just “checking” and “savings”? It’s because the “share” in question is your financial share in the organization. At a credit union you aren’t just a customer: you’re a member with a financial stake in the union.

https://www.penfed.org/learn/share-account-instead

Based on the success of our credit union, the board of directors, at its discretion, may declare a bonus dividend to all members. The board will be responsible for establishing the terms, conditions and dividend rates on share accounts. Payments are based on the member’s principal balance.

https://www.aodfcu.com/bonus-dividends/
Technically, these bonus dividends are authorized by 12 U.S. Code § 1763
It's not just credit unions that pay bonus dividends to its customers (shareholders). It's mutual insurance companies.

Just as a public company is owned by its stockholders, mutual insurance companies are owned by policyholders. Mutual insurers generally try to match the rates they charge to the amount they expect to pay out, plus expenses. But when they do better than expected, they may pay dividends.

https://www.nerdwallet.com/article/insurance/car-insurance-savings-dividends
Then there's the well known(?) example of TIAA Traditional.

The TIAA Traditional Annuity’s primary goal is to protect an investor’s principal while proving the highest rate of return possible. This return comes in the form of a guaranteed return (1% to 3%) with the addition of a dividend (or additional return) at the discretion of the TIAA Board of Trustees.

https://www.brightscope.com/financial-planning/advice/article/6208/Tiaa-Cref-I-Cant-Get-My-Money-Out/

"Congress will investigate." If one of the two major Parties does not block the move. And would it do any good, anyway? "That's all we need, amiright?" Congress can't even get out of its own way.
This whole thing will not end well. Financial literacy NEEDS to be taught to young people. Everyone else would do well to learn about it, without a doubt. I've got "pre-approved loan" offers ready for me to view and take advantage of when I log-in to my credit union account. If I was very stoopid, I'd hop right on and take them! ORK.

“Online brokerage Robinhood touts its willingness to lend money to customers so they can multiply their returns just like Wall Street pros, even likening investing with borrowed money to the thrill of riding a motorcycle. What the company doesn't say is that its lending strategy has put clients — who tend to be younger and less experienced at playing the market — in financial peril even before many piled into the shares of struggling video game retailer GameStop in January.
“Robinhood's lending so customers could "buy on margin" — in which someone takes out a loan to buy stock, options or other securities — more than doubled in the first six months of 2020, all too often with negative results. Regulatory filings reviewed by CBS MoneyWatch show that investors who borrowed money from Robinhood were nearly 14 times more likely to be unable to repay the loans than investors who borrowed from rival brokerages eTrade, TD Ameritrade and others.”
(Sorry / Article a bit dated.(References 2020) Likely, more relevant today than then)
Story

I think a good portion of this argument relates to the issue of whether cash or longer duration fixed-income holdings are better to hold at this period in time. Looking at the macro picture (including historically low global rates) I’d say it’s a tough call. Younger more aggressive investors probably shouldn’t even be thinking about this one. But for older investors, looking to lower portfolio volatility, it may be an important consideration.
The problem I always have in bond fund discussions is that they (bond funds) come in so many different colors and stripes it’s hard to make meaningful comparisons. Corporate or government? Domestic or international? investment grade or lower quality? Duration? Fees? Indexed or managed? Does the income fund hold equities in addition to bonds (as does RPSIX)?
I refuse to get hung up on whose bond fund is better. For the small commitment to bond funds I hold, I’m mostly inclined to look at (1) credit quality, (2) duration, (3) fees & other costs and (4) hot-money indicators. Re the last, a fund that excels during good times may be a hazard to your financial health if a large number of holders decide to exit at the same time. Yes, for really serious bond investors there are some fund managers who have excelled in fixed income in the past. Pimco and Loomis Sayles come to mind.
The issue of bloat seems to gain traction here only when a fund is struggling. If you really want to avoid bloat, why would you own PRWCX?

“Almost three months after markets stumbled when after China’s top banking regulator said he’s ‘very worried’ about risks emerging from bubbles in global financial markets (and China's property sector) sparking concerns about further tightening in the world’s second-biggest economy and slamming risk assets, China has done it again and on Saturday Liang Tao, vice chairman of China Banking and Insurance Regulatory Commission, said at the International Finance Forum in Beijing that recent interest rate hikes by emerging economies could lead to a bursting of global financial asset bubbles which have been made even bigger by unprecedented pandemic easing measures by developed countries (i.e., Biden's trillions).
And just in case it wasn't clear whose fault this is, Tao added that developed countries are sticking with ultra-low rates even as emerging economies raised their borrowing costs, ‘potentially resulting in the re-pricing of global assets.’ In short, China is already pre-emptively pointing the finger at the US and western central banks as the parties responsible not only for bursting the biggest asset bubble in history, but for creating it in the first place.”
(Take this for what it’s worth. ISTM a few members here have voiced similar concerns and / or divested themselves of some risk assets over past year.)
Source:
Related How China Could Derail the Commodities Super-Cycle - Barron’s May 28, 2021
“A few words from the Chinese government can go a long way. A one-sentence statement on May 23 promised “zero tolerance” for “abnormal transactions and malicious speculation” in commodities markets. The local price of iron ore and steel promptly tanked by 7%.That isn’t the end of the story. If China can’t quite command world metals prices, it can certainly slam the brakes on the new commodities supercycle many investors are counting on.
“Net long positions on commodities of all types are at a 25-year high globally, says Arthur Budaghyan, chief emerging markets strategist at BCA Research. Developments in Beijing could mean a lot of those bulls get burned. “Over the next six months, metals will move significantly below current levels,” he says. Such a slump would also drag down highflying mining stocks such as Vale (VALE), Glencore (GLEN.UK) and Anglo American (AAL.UK).”
May not link.

"she was in touch with her Fido advisor ... He mentioned dollar cost averaging, Fido’s wealth management service and separately managed accounts, outside advisors Fido works with, and tax-loss harvesting. It was all very generic ..."
There's a popular perception that people you talk with for free are "advisors". Even with a large amount of assets at an institution, that's rarely the case. The people one talks with, e.g. "Private Client Advisors", are sales people. They're there to match you with for-pay services, and to give you warm fuzzy feelings about keeping your money with them. As you observed, it is all very generic.
On Fidelity's site I can no longer readily find the phrase "Private Client Advisor" or much of anything that suggests one's free investment "team" or lead provides advice.
For the most part the only place you'll find "advisor" mentioned is in the context of pay for service. See this Fidelity page on "How we can work together". No mention of advisor under DIY or its pure robo offering (Fidelity Go).
When you get to the next fee level (Fidelity® Personalized Planning & Advice), you find "1-on-1 financial coaching calls with Fidelity advisors". Wealth Management, the next fee level up, brings you "a dedicated Fidelity advisor". And finally for those with over $2M at Fidelity and willing to pay for the services, there's Private Wealth Management, with "a dedicated Wealth Management Advisor and team of specialists".
"Am I expecting too much...?"
Yes.
Years ago, Vanguard would provide customers with enough AUM a free financial plan prepared by a CFP. That's been gone for years. These days, TANSTAAFL.

I considered PIMIX a few years ago but didn't invest in the fund.
For many years, Pimco Income Fund delivered excellent returns with muted volatility.
The fund's managers made shrewd investments in legacy, non-agency residential mortgage-backed securities (RMBS) after the Global Financial Crisis.
Trailing 5 Yr. and 10 Yr. returns for PIMIX were in the top 1% of the Multisector Bond category as of 10/31/17.
The total AUM dedicated to vehicles using the same strategy, $124 B as of March 2017, gave me pause.
It would be difficult for Pimco Income Fund to maintain meaningful exposure to legacy, non-agency RMBS while the supply of these securities was decreasing in the future.
I also did not appreciate that Pimco has never closed a fund (to my knowledge) due to excessive AUM.
This is not a very shareholder-friendly stance in my opinion.
Having said that, Dan Ivascyn and Alfred Murata are renowned and talented managers.
Pimco is widely respected and it is a very well-resourced firm.
I still believe PIMIX is a decent fund but doubt the stellar performance of the past will be replicated.

Hank. When I had to take the RMD from my IRA in 2019, I set the percentage of Fed. taxes to withhold and did not have any Michigan taxes withheld. I do not recall a statement stating a mandatory withholding for Michigan.
No letters or other signed documents to Fidelity about this area.
When performing an electronic transfer from the IRA to a C.U. account, a series of brief questions and fill in the blanks is needed. This is where the tax withholding percentages are noted, being set to whatever percentage one desires or ZERO.
There was confusion in this area after the legislation for changing the pension(s) taxation of seniors in Michigan, by age grouping, was finalized in early 2012 (MI Supreme Court ruling).
I presume you may have already setup your financial institution account link for money into Fidelity or from Fidelity. Related to this, is that the normal travel time is 2 or 3 days; and of course, no fees.
Don't forget to set your beneficiary section and don't hesitate with any questions, either here; or via private message.
Take care,
Catch

Quite a few column inches devoted to one particular type of bank account, TD Bank's "Preferred Chequing". It talks about one customer who's had the account for 25 years.
What isn't mentioned is that the reason such a long time customer was used as an example is that all customers of this account have had it for at least two decades. Preferred Chequing was discontinued in 2001 except for grandfathered customers.
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/investing/personal-finance/household-finances/article-was-this-big-bank-too-nice-in-giving-some-clients-a-break-on-fees/
The disproportionate coverage of this one particular account type to the exclusion of all others suggests that this is a corner case and not necessarily representative.
The customer is quoted as asking: "In an environment where people have lost their jobs, they're on furlough, they're trying to get CERB payments, who's going to be able to keep $5,000 in their bank account to not get service fees?"
The article could have responded to this by noting that since 2003, low-cost accounts (with minimum requirements set by the government) have been available at many banks, including TD Bank.
https://www.canada.ca/en/financial-consumer-agency/services/banking/bank-accounts/low-cost-no-cost.html
Or that TD Bank is not raising monthly maintenance fees or min balance requirements on its current offerings, and is eliminating the paper statement fee on its Student Chequing Account. Though it is converting Youth Accounts to Student Chequing Accounts, resulting in a new cap of 25 transactions/mo w/o fees.
https://www.tdcanadatrust.com/document/PDF/accounts/513796.pdf
Or that CERB shut down before these fee hikes. If the point is that many people are dealing with reduced cash flows (notably, lower income), that's whom low cost accounts are designed for.
Certainly some Canadian bank fees are going up, and while the government is doing something to help, it could always do more. But this article does not present the typical account nor does it present a broad picture of banking fees in Canada.
It's a little dated (2014), but here's a Canadian government study of banking fees.
https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/canada/financial-consumer-agency/migration/eng/resources/researchsurveys/documents/bankingfees-fraisbancaires-eng.pdf

@Crash
You noted:

But if a trade is disallowed until you speak to someone personally, that just tells me that the outfit has their heads up their asses, no? So, why would I want to use them at all? I can never tell if THEY know what they're doing. And they are the ones presuming to take my money and use it ?????

--- Municipal Bonds in an IRA (not a Fidelity written opinion below, but obviously shared by Fidelity)
***** One of the most critical considerations is to ensure you avoid placing municipal bonds (munis) in an IRA. The primary attraction of munis is that the interest on individual muni bonds and municipal bond funds is tax-exempt, which means that they also tend to offer lower pre-tax yields than taxable bonds.
The key to strategically using an IRA is to use the tax advantages of the account on investments that otherwise don't provide an advantage.
Since the interest and capital gains in an IRA are already tax-exempt, there isn’t any benefit to holding munis in the IRA. Instead, use a regular (non-IRA) account to hold munis and save the IRA for other investments that require a tax shelter. *****
>>> While there are time periods when one is able to have a decent profit from pricing in muni's, generally; taxable bonds are more appropriate in an IRA account. As @msf stated, a purchase for muni's may be made into an IRA, but not via the user online interface. Aside from a "disallowed" statement, Fidelity should add a full statement that such a trade is not beneficial into an IRA account; and to call if one really needs this purchase.
I view this purchase restriction as a form of a fiduciary electronic tap on one's shoulder about such an investment in an IRA.
Contact a financial advisor and ask the question: Should I hold muni bonds/funds in my IRA account?
You paint with a very broad brush of misunderstanding and distrust (that just tells me that the outfit has their heads up their asses, no? So, why would I want to use them at all? I can never tell if THEY know what they're doing.), based upon a small operational function within Fidelity.
Crash, you would be pleased, had you become a Fidelity account holder.

My limited knowledge of the subject tells me “Stablecoins” are not Bitcoin or Blockchain. Bitcoin’s purpose is not a “currency”.

My armchair perspective is that bitcoin and its cousins are mostly useful for money laundering, for speculation, and for increasing both the value of energy investments and the rate of global warming via their high energy demands. Also, bitcoin has found limited usefulness as a "currency" (Elon Musk dabbled in it as a payment method for several weeks).
CBDCs hold more promise for offering something secure and socially useful. Here is a quick look at a few potential benefits:

Central bank digital currency advocates...cite multiple advantages. Paramount among those reasons is giving unbanked people access to the financial system.
There’s also a speed consideration. Transfer payments, such as those provided by governments to people during the Covid-19 crisis, would be made faster and easier if that money could be deposited directly into digital wallets.
“New forms of digital money could provide a parallel boost to the vital lifelines that remittances provide to the poor and to developing economies,” Kristalina Georgieva, managing director at the International Monetary Fund, said in recent remarks at a joint meeting with the World Bank. “The biggest beneficiaries would be vulnerable people sending small value remittances: those most at risk from being left behind by the pandemic.”
Potential losers from the digital currencies include some financial institutions, both in traditional banking and fintech, that could lose deposits due to people putting their money into central bank accounts.

Digital Dollars

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1318342/000139834421011101/fp0065643_497.htm
497 1 fp0065643_497.htm
WCM International Small Cap Growth Fund
(Institutional Class Shares - Ticker Symbol: WCMSX)
A series of Investment Managers Series Trust
Supplement dated May 20, 2021 to the
Prospectus dated September 1, 2020,
Statement of Additional Information dated September 1, 2020,
as amended February 24, 2021, and Summary Prospectus,
dated September 1, 2020.
IMPORTANT NOTICE REGARDING PURCHASE OF FUND SHARES
Effective as of the close of business on June 18, 2021 (the “Closing Date”), the WCM International Small Cap Growth Fund (the “Fund”) will be publicly offered on a limited basis.
Effective as of the Closing Date, only certain investors will be eligible to purchase shares of the Fund, as described below (the “closure policy”). In addition, the Fund may from time to time, in its sole discretion based on the Fund’s net asset levels and other factors, limit the types of investors permitted to open new accounts, limit new purchases into the Fund or otherwise modify the closure policy on a case-by-case basis.
Effective as of the Closing Date, the following groups will be permitted to continue to purchase Fund shares:
1.Shareholders of record of the Fund as of the Closing Date may continue to purchase additional shares in their existing Fund accounts either directly from the Fund or through a financial intermediary, and they may continue to reinvest dividends or capital gains distributions from Fund shares.
2.Existing registered investment advisors, bank trust firms and broker dealers or other financial intermediaries that have an investment allocation to the Fund in a fee-based, wrap or advisory account may continue to add new clients and purchase shares.
3.New shareholders may open Fund accounts and purchase shares directly from the Fund (i.e., not through a financial intermediary).
4.Group employer benefit plans, including 401(k), 403(b), 457 plans, and health savings account programs (and their successor, related and affiliated plans) (collectively, “Employer Benefit Plans”), which made the Fund available to participants on or before the Closing Date, may continue to open accounts for new participants with the Fund and purchase additional shares in existing participant accounts. New Employer Benefit Plans may also establish new accounts with the Fund, provided the new Employer Benefit Plan approved and selected the Fund as an investment option by the Closing Date and the Employer Benefit Plan was accepted for investment by the Fund by the Closing Date.
5. Members of the Fund’s Board of Trustees, persons affiliated with WCM Investment Management, LLC, the Fund’s advisor, and their immediate families may continue to purchase shares of the Fund and establish new accounts.
In general, the Fund will rely on a financial intermediary to prevent a new account from being opened within an omnibus account established at that financial intermediary if the account would not otherwise satisfy the conditions outlined above. The Fund’s ability to monitor new accounts that are opened through omnibus accounts or other nominee accounts is limited, and the ability to limit a new account to those that meet the above criteria with respect to financial intermediaries may vary, depending upon the capabilities of those financial intermediaries. Investors may be asked to verify that they meet one of the exceptions above prior to opening a new account with the Fund. The Fund may permit you to open a new account if the Fund reasonably believes that you are eligible. The Fund also may decline to permit you to open a new account if the Fund believes that doing so would be in the best interests of the Fund and its shareholders, even if you would be eligible to open a new account under these exceptions. If all shares of the Fund in an existing account are redeemed, the shareholder’s account will be closed. Such former shareholders will not be able to buy additional shares of the Fund or reopen their account.
Please file this Supplement with your records.