helocs ... typically entail an initial draw as well in order to get best term
With any of these financial "products" you're effectively buying insurance. There are a whole range of possible terms with different tradeoffs of costs, risks, benefits. How likely are you to draw on the line of credit? How long are you going to need that loan? How much sunk cost are you willing to spend to mitigate the risks, and how much risk (how large a draw, certainty that the line is there when you need it) do you want to "insure"?
Do you want/need a higher line of credit that a proprietary reverse mortgage could provide above a HECM? Is it worth giving up some of the government protections that come with a HECM?
So it's not necessarily simply opening a line and letting it sit idle for use much later on.
Exactly.

@bee: Corrected Pfau link
While I'm generally a fan ofr Dr. Pfau, ISTM he skipped over some details and created some misimpressions. The first is that he appears to use HECM and "reverse mortgage" synonymously. Rather, an HECM is but one of three types of reverse mortgages. Being the most common type, and the one backed by HUD and providing some government protections, it is the type I'd likely look at first. But different types do exist, with different benefits, costs, and risks.
https://www.consumer.ftc.gov/articles/0192-reverse-mortgages#types
"With a HECM, the home title is never turned over to the bank." Okay, but so what? One has the same risk of foreclosure regardless of who holds the title. When you buy a home, do you care whether you take out a mortgage (where you keep title), or you borrow the money using a deed of trust (where the trust gets legal title)? While foreclosure procedures differ, you're still subject to foreclosure either way.
https://www.lendingtree.com/home/mortgage/deed-of-trust-vs-mortgage/
FWIW, here's what the FTC says about title: "In a reverse mortgage, you keep the title to your home. That means you are responsible for property taxes, insurance, utilities, fuel, maintenance, and other expenses." Of course you'd expect that in any case.
https://www.consumer.ftc.gov/articles/0192-reverse-mortgages#how
"They need to have full equity in the home; there can’t be any other lien on the property." HUD begs to differ on HECMs: "You must ... Own the property outright or paid-down a considerable amount"
https://www.hud.gov/program_offices/housing/sfh/hecm/hecmabou
Dr Pfau gives four different approaches to managing sequence of return risk (I've cited this before). One is to use a cash buffer.. He describes three different ways of implementing that approach, one of which is to use a reverse mortgage line of credit. What I haven't seen him discuss (perhaps I have not looked hard enough) is why he advocates using a HECM over other types of reverse mortgages, let alone other types of credit.
ISTM that if you're looking at this for use as a cash buffer - a line of credit for a temporary loan that you might never call upon - a HELOC with lower up front costs could have lower total costs. OTOH, if you're thinking of using a reverse mortgage for something else, then you might still expand your search beyond HECMs. The FTC writes:

If you’re considering a reverse mortgage, shop around. Decide which type of reverse mortgage might be right for you. That might depend on what you want to do with the money.

https://www.consumer.ftc.gov/articles/0192-reverse-mortgages#shopping.
Dr. Pfau mentions using reverse mortgages as a SS bridge (to delay benefits). A 2017 "CFPB report found, in general, the costs and risks of taking out a reverse mortgage exceed the cumulative increase in Social Security lifetime benefits that homeowners would receive by delayed claiming."
https://www.consumerfinance.gov/about-us/newsroom/cfpb-report-warns-taking-out-reverse-mortgage-loan-can-be-expensive-way-maximize-social-security-benefits/
Finally, the "gotcha" that concerns me with reverse mortgages (and I like the idea of reverse mortgages if obtained at reasonable cost and rates for a well defined purpose), is that you have to pay the money back when you move. How do you buy a new home if you have spent down your equity? It looks like there is a risk of being locked into your home for life, because you won't have enough equity left to move anywhere else.
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau: What happens if I have a reverse mortgage [HECM] and I want to sell my home?
https://www.consumerfinance.gov/ask-cfpb/what-happens-if-i-have-reverse-mortgage-and-i-want-sell-my-home-en-2095/
HECM risks and disadvantages (citing CFPB): https://www.elderoptionsoftexas.com/article-reverse-mortgage-pros-and-cons.htm

I believe you can purchase these if you work with a financial advisor who uses Schwab for managed accounts...doesn't have to be a Schwab financial advisor.

updated:
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1027596/000089418920004855/oshaughnessy497eliquidatio.htm
497 1 oshaughnessy497eliquidatio.htm O'SHAUGHNESSY 497E
O'Shaughnessy Small Cap Value Fund
Class I: OFSIX
Supplement dated June 15, 2020 to
Prospectus dated November 28, 2019
O’Shaughnessy Asset Management, LLC, the Advisor to the O’Shaughnessy Small Cap Value Fund (the “Fund”), has recommended, and the Board of Trustees of Advisors Series Trust has approved, the liquidation and termination of the Fund. This decision was made due to the unfavorable economies of operating a small fund with no realistic prospect for future growth.
The liquidation is expected to occur after the close of business on July 27, 2020. Pending liquidation of the Fund, investors will continue to be able to reinvest dividends received in the Fund.
Effective June 16, 2020, the Fund will no longer accept purchases of new shares. In addition, the Fund’s Advisor will no longer be actively investing the Fund’s assets in accordance with the Fund’s investment objective and policies and the Fund’s assets will be converted into cash and cash equivalents. As a result, as of June 16, 2020, the Fund will no longer be pursuing its stated investment objective. Shareholders of the Fund may redeem their investments as described in the Fund’s Prospectus. Accounts not redeemed by July 27, 2020 will automatically be closed and liquidating distributions, less any required tax withholdings, will be sent to the address of record.
If you hold your shares in an IRA account directly with U.S. Bank N.A. you have 60 days from the date you receive your proceeds to reinvest your proceeds into another IRA account and maintain their tax-deferred status. You must notify the Fund or your financial advisor prior to July 22, 2020 of your intent to reinvest your IRA account to avoid withholding deductions from your proceeds.
Please contact the Fund at 1-877-291-7827 or your financial advisor if you have questions or need assistance.
Please retain this Supplement with the Prospectus.

https://cnn.com/2020/06/23/tech/wirecard-ceo-markus-braun-arrested/index.html

Wirecard (WCAGY) acknowledged on Monday that €1.9 billion ($2.1 billion) in cash included in financial statements — or roughly a quarter of its assets — probably never existed in the first place. The company withdrew its preliminary results for 2019, the first quarter of 2020 and its profit forecast for 2020.

I can't tell you the number of times I've seen this company as a top holding at international small cap funds such as Wasatch's, Artisan's, Oakmark's and Grandeur Peaks. Although I don't think it's a top holding anymore, this CEO Braun has been in charge for many years and I wonder as with the Sequoia Fund/Valeant and Oakmark/Washington Mutual cases what it says about active management that such frauds go undetected for years. Active fund managers get paid a lot of money to ostensibly do deep research on companies. Yet when these scandals happen you usually don't hear boo about it from them, and I wonder if they either completely missed the fraud despite their deep research or, worse, kept quiet about it. Do managers/analysts report financials that look weird to authorities? And why do they so rarely say anything about the fraud after the fact? I'm not pointing at any particular manager. I'm saying this in general always makes me a little more skeptical about managers' abilities. It seems like this fraud may have been ongoing for years, just like it was in the other examples.

John’s been betting on economic and stock market collapses forever. We finally got the 30% bear market he’s been prophesying for about ten years and 20,000 Dow points. Unfortunately, it only lasted like two weeks and the market immediately rebounded. That’s got to be frustrating, waiting all that time to be right and then being right for a different reason and then it comes and goes in a blink anyway…

something-to-hate-for-everyone/
Hussman's Petition:
house-committee-on-financial-services-senate-banking-committee-stop-the-federal-reserve-from-printing-money-to-buy-junk-bonds?

Again, again, why post this drivel?
This MIchael Lee guy does not know historical correlations of taxation and returns.
>> As controversial as President Trump is, market pros would contend that these types of moves upward in equities wouldn’t necessarily happen if the market was sniffing out the real possibility of a blue wave and higher taxes under a president Biden. There is still time for that pricing in to happen if Trump continues to stumble in the polls, but to Lee’s point the market may simply view Trump as friendlier to one’s investments and the economy at large and that sticking around for four more years.
“I do think for the overall economy, a Trump administration would benefit the masses more than those with financial assets,” Lee adds.

Laughable.
I do not know the longer term, but if Trump loses, the market the next day will jump yugely, I think, just from relief.

perhaps of interest; taken, though not verbatim, from email and docs making the rounds at GS
Subject: Some assorted market stats and anecdotes about what has happened in the last months

It has been a few months of records. They say a lot about the relationship between risk-taking by economic policies and financial conditions.
1. 2020 has likely featured the sharpest -- but the shortest -- recession in US history (certainly since the 1850s for the US, and since WWII on a global scale).
2. in turn, we’ve just seen the strongest rally out of a bear market since ... 1932.
3. the US alone had conducted $2.3T of QE in the past three months (Treasuries + mortgages). For those keeping score at home, that’s an average of around $35B of bond buying per business day since mid-March.
4. GIR expects zero interest rates in the US for several more years -- until the economy reaches 2% inflation and full employment -- which is perhaps not until 2025.
5. largely thanks to fiscal support, GIR expects US disposable income to grow 4.0% in 2020.
7. USTreasury planned to borrow $3T in Q2 alone; despite that supply glut, we’re just off the alltime low yields in US 2y notes and 5y notes.
8. in that same general context, US 30yr mortgage rates are down to alltime lows .
9. the past six weeks have seen the largest amount of global equity issuance on record, at $205B.
10 and 11 are driven by the Fed purchases of corporate bonds:
10. March saw record outflows from corporate bond funds (-$42B); we’re now witnessing record inflows to corporate bond funds (+$85B since the start of April).
11. it’s not just that we’re witnessing record new issue in the credit markets, it’s that we’re also seeing record low corporate financing costs (e.g. AMZN raised $10B of capital at the lowest 3/5/7/10 and 40y yields ever).
What is the rationale for buying 40y bonds now? Don't they want more flexibility? Don't they think that there is a high probability that underlying conditions will change well before 40 years?
One possible explanation: as yields get lower, investors have to go out the yield curve (thus take more duration risk) in order to obtain higher yields (think of a pension fund that needs to generate a fixed return). This would be one example of the portfolio-rebalancing effect of QE. Also note that few investors ever hold bonds to maturity, and a 40y bond would "enjoy", because of its longer duration, a large price appreciation should interest rates fall further (of course the opposite is true if rates increase). Recall that, in 2018-19, the Austrian 100y bond doubled in price as yields declined from 2 percent to 1 percent.
So this would be investors betting that interest rates will not increase from here and may decline further.
12. March saw record outflows from equity mutual funds and ETFs; one can argue we’re now seeing legitimate signs of retail investor euphoria (e.g. a record # of account openings at US retail brokers).
13. subject to interpretation: the market cap of MSFT is larger than the entire US HY market.

Please read the whole tragic story:
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/06/18/young-trader-dies-by-suicide-after-thinking-he-racked-up-big-losses-on-robinhood.html
Quoting the article:
"It was less than 24 hours after Alex had checked his account at the wildly popular trading app, Robinhood. In his note, he said he thought he had quickly racked up a negative $730,165 cash balance. But Alex may have misunderstood the Robinhood financial statement, according to a relative.
“He thought he was exposed, he thought that ending his life would protect his family from the exposure,” Bill Brewster, a cousin by marriage and an analyst at Sullimar Capital, told CNBC in a phone interview. “He got on his bike and never came home.”

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1413594/000110465920074561/a20-22854_2497.htm
497 1 a20-22854_2497.htm 497
ABERDEEN FUNDS
Aberdeen Diversified Alternatives Fund
Supplement dated June 18, 2020 to the Summary Prospectus, Prospectus and Statement of Additional Information dated February 28, 2020, as supplemented to date
On June 17, 2020, the Board of Trustees of Aberdeen Funds (the “Trust”) approved a Plan of Liquidation for the Aberdeen Diversified Alternatives Fund (the “Fund”) pursuant to which the Fund will be liquidated (the “Liquidation”) on or about August 17, 2020 (the “Liquidation Date”). Shareholder approval of the Liquidation is not required.
Suspension of Sales. Effective after market close on June 19, 2020, shares of the Fund will no longer be available for purchase by investors with the exception of: (1) existing shareholders (including shares acquired through the reinvestment of dividends and distributions); (2) employer sponsored retirement plans; or (3) fee-based programs sponsored by financial intermediaries that have selected the Fund prior to market close on June 19, 2020. Effective after market close on July 31, 2020, the Fund will be closed to all investments except shares acquired through the reinvestment of dividends and distributions.
Liquidation of Assets. The Fund will depart from its stated investment objective and policies as it liquidates holdings in preparation for the distribution of assets to investors. During this time, the Fund may hold more cash, cash equivalents or other short-term investments than normal, which may prevent the Fund from meeting its stated investment objective. On the Liquidation Date, the Fund will liquidate and distribute pro rata to the shareholders of record as of the close of business on the Liquidation Date such shareholders’ proportionate interest in all of the remaining assets of the Fund in complete cancellation and redemption of all the outstanding shares of the Fund. See “IMPORTANT INFORMATION FOR QUALIFIED ACCOUNT HOLDERS” below if you are a qualified account holder. Contingent deferred sales charges will be waived in connection with any redemptions prior to the Liquidation Date. The Fund’s investment adviser, Aberdeen Standard Investments Inc., will bear all expenses of the Liquidation to the extent such expenses are not part of the Fund’s normal and customary fees and operating expenses; however, the Fund and its shareholders will bear transaction costs and tax consequences associated with turnover of the Fund’s portfolio in anticipation of the Liquidation.
Alternatives. At any time prior to the Liquidation Date, the Fund’s shareholders may redeem all or a portion of their shares or exchange their Fund shares for shares in the corresponding class of another series of the Trust pursuant to procedures set forth in the Trust’s Prospectus. If you wish to exchange your shares of the Fund into another series of the Trust, or would like to request additional copies of the Prospectus and Statement of Additional Information for the Trust, please call Aberdeen Funds Shareholder Services at 866-667-9231.
Holders through Financial Intermediaries. If you are invested in the Fund through a financial intermediary, please contact that financial intermediary if you have any questions. If you are invested in a tax qualified account, please see important additional information below.
Income Tax Matters. The liquidation of the Fund, like any redemption of Fund shares, will constitute a sale upon which a gain or loss may be recognized for state and federal income tax purposes, depending on the type of account and the adjusted cost basis of the investor’s shares. Please contact your tax advisor to discuss the tax consequences to you of the Liquidation.
IMPORTANT INFORMATION FOR QUALIFIED ACCOUNT HOLDERS
Fund Direct IRA Accounts
Fund Direct IRA accounts are those created for investment in the series of the Trust for which UMB Bank N.A. acts as custodian. Unless a shareholder, or other financial intermediary on behalf of such shareholder, provides instructions otherwise, Fund shares held on the Liquidation Date in Fund Direct IRAs will be redeemed in cash and the proceeds sent directly to the beneficiary of the account, which may result in the imposition of tax penalties.
If you wish to avoid tax penalties that may be imposed if your Fund shares are liquidated, you must contact your financial intermediary or Aberdeen Funds Shareholder Services at 866-667-9231 before the close of business on August 14, 2020 in order to exchange your shares for those of another series of the Trust. If you have any questions about your individual tax situation, please contact your tax advisor or financial intermediary. If you wish to exchange your shares into another series of the Trust, or would like to request additional copies of the Prospectus and Statement of Additional Information for the Trust, please call Aberdeen Funds Shareholder Services at 866-667-9231.
Non-Fund Direct Traditional IRAs, Roth IRAs, SIMPLE, SEP, or SARSEP IRA and 403(b) Custodial Accounts (“Non-Fund Direct Retirement Accounts”)
If you are invested in the Fund through a Non-Fund Direct Retirement Account and Aberdeen Funds Shareholder Services does not receive instructions from you or the account trustee or custodian prior to close of business on August 14, 2020, the Fund will send a liquidating distribution to the trustee/custodian for the benefit of your account, which the trustee/custodian will process according to its own policies and procedures.
401(k), Pension and Profit Sharing Plans and other Tax-qualified Retirement Plans (“Retirement Plans”)
If you are invested in the Fund through a Retirement Plan, and Aberdeen Funds Shareholder Services does not receive instructions from you or the Retirement Plan administrator or other plan fiduciary prior to close of business on August 14, 2020, the Fund will send a liquidating distribution to the Retirement Plan, which the Retirement Plan will process according to its own policies and procedures.
The pending liquidation of the Fund may be terminated and/or abandoned at any time before the Liquidation Date by action of the Board of Trustees of the Trust.
Please retain this Supplement for future reference.

Jeremy Grantham made some big calls correctly in past decades. His track record in the current era of massive Fed interventions has not been so good. He is now making another one of those big calls. Here is an article and a link to a video presentation. I don't see that he laid out a clear case regarding what will cause the markets to turn away from their Pavlovian "buy response" to ever increasing amounts of monetary -- and perhaps now also fiscal -- stimulus. But, it is probably still worth listening to what he has to say.

‘My confidence is rising quite rapidly that this is, in fact, becoming the fourth, real McCoy, bubble of my investment career. The great bubbles can go on a long time and inflict a lot of pain but at least I think we know now that we’re in one. And the chutzpah involved in having a bubble at a time of massive economic and financial uncertainty is substantial.’

https://marketwatch.com/story/stock-market-legend-who-called-3-stock-market-bubbles-says-this-one-is-the-real-mccoy-this-is-crazy-stuff-2020-06-17

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.marketwatch.com/amp/story/guid/B9CDB964-AFD7-11EA-885A-481D889F3439
This year’s stock-market run has an uncanny resemblance to 2009, analyst says, with big upside for stocks ahead
By Andrea Riquier
Expect stocks to spin their wheels for a while and then rally toward the end of the year, this analyst thinks
If the topsy-turvy financial markets of 2020 have you scratching your head, you’re not alone. But you may be overthinking it, according to one longtime market watcher.
“2020 is just like 2009,”

Looking at the prospectuses (something one should always do before investing in a security), there are at least three differences that would make BulletShares®'s numbers seem better. Call risk looks to be the most significant, and is even greater than you're suggesting.
iBonds® Dec 2023 Term Muni Bond ETF prospectus.
Invesco Exchange-Traded Self-Indexed Fund Trust prospectus.
iBonds track an S&P AMT-Free Muncipal Series December 20xx Index™ while BulletShares track a proprietary Invesco BulletShares®MunicipalBond 20xx Index.
The first difference is obvious from the names of the indexes. iBonds invest in AMT-free munis. Consequently they may pay a little less interest. The last major change in tax laws made AMT moot for most investors. So generally there's no advantage in accepting a lower yield to get AMT-free payments. I suspect the difference in yields between AMT-free and private activity munis is not so large for the same reason.
The second and most important difference is callability. The S&P indexes include only "non-callable U.S. municipal bonds maturing in 20[xx]." The Invesco indexes "may include callable, puttable, and pre-funded bonds." The corresponding ETFs explicitly include call risk among their principal risks. Call risk is not mentioned in the iBonds prospectus. So it appears that the difference in call risk between the ETFs is not just quantitative (more or less call risk), but qualitative (is there call risk or not?).
The third difference, related to callability is how the maturity year is determined. Obviously with noncallable bonds (iBonds), the year of maturity is, well, the year the bonds mature. But with BulletShares, a callable bond may mature in 2024 (or even Jan 2025) and be considered a 2023 bond, so long as the first call date is within 13 months of maturity (and if the call is at par). That would seem to mean that the fund could include some 2024/2025 bonds trading at a discount (so YTW = YTM). This would make the SEC yield higher, since you're really buying 2024 bonds rather than 2023 bonds. But it would also seem to subject the bonds (and thus the ETF) to greater interest rate risk.
I haven't worked through all the differences in the yields, durations, etc. There could be more going on. Still, this is a reasonable start at identifying the fundamental differences. I would add another: S&P has much more experience in designing indexes than Invesco (or its predecessor, Accretive Asset Management [acquired by Guggenheim]), and Blackrock (with its predecessor, Barclays) has earned a reputation for well managed index funds. I don't know how well Invesco runs its index funds.
Finally, according to the fact sheets, both 2023 ETFs have the same 0.18% ER.
iBonds 2023 (IBML) fact sheet.
BulletShares 2023 (BSMN) fact sheet.

sorry, thought it would open per the bing sequence above
https://www.ft.com/content/2a6ec6aa-492e-4e7d-85f8-83789a2bc481

Top US pension fund aims to juice returns via $80bn leverage plan
Calpers hopes bold move will boost efforts to achieve its 7% return target
John Plender in London and Peter Smith in Wagga Wagga JUNE 14 2020

Calpers is to move deeper into private equity and private debt by adopting a bold leverage strategy that the $395bn Californian public sector pension fund believes will help it achieve its ambitious 7 per cent rate of return.
In a presentation to the Calpers board, Ben Meng, chief investment officer, said the giant fund would take on additional leverage via borrowings and financial instruments such as equity futures. Leverage could be as high as 20 per cent of the value of the fund, or nearly $80bn based on current assets. The aim is to juice up returns to help the scheme, the largest public pension in the US, achieve its growth target.
The move comes after a 2019 investment strategy review that found Calpers needed greater focus on the excess returns potentially available from illiquid assets compared with public equity and debt. Under Calpers’ previous asset allocation strategy it was estimated to have a less than 40 per cent probability of achieving its 7 per cent return target over the next decade.
Calpers’ assets represent just 71 per cent of what it needs to pay future benefits to the 1.9m police officers, firefighters and other public workers who are members of the scheme.
The US stock market slide this year has increased the long-term structural problems across the entire US public pension system, particularly for the weakest plans that have ballooning unfunded liabilities. The weak funded position of these funds poses a huge long-term risk for millions of US employees and retired workers.
Mr Meng hopes Calpers’ deeper push into illiquid assets over the next three years will help it exploit its structural strengths. Its perpetual nature allows it to make longer-term investments, while its size gives it access to top managers in private equity markets where performance is widely dispersed.
“Given the current low-yield and low-growth environment, there are only a few asset classes with a long-term expected return clearing the 7 per cent hurdle. Private assets clearly stand out,” Mr Meng said. “Leverage will increase the volatility of returns but Calpers’ long-term horizon should enable us to tolerate this.”
He added that leverage would not “be tied to any specific strategy, asset, fund or deal”.
Mr Meng has terminated relationships with more than 30 external fund managers since 2019, redeploying $64bn of capital with savings of more than $115m in annual fees. Holdings of global equities are now 95 per cent internally managed, while 80 per cent of the total fund is managed in-house. It invests in more than 10,000 public companies.
Mr Meng has faced criticism this year for abandoning a hedging strategy for tail risk, the risk of low probability but highly costly events, before the market crash in March.
He countered that Calpers had developed ways of raising cash at short notice to meet unexpected demands on the fund, an approach that was less expensive than high-cost hedging strategies.
Calpers’ portfolio has also been de-risked by increasing its holdings in longer-dated US Treasuries and switching more assets from capitalisation-related equity indices to factor-weighted equities. These use indices that focus on investment styles such as price momentum or volatility.
According to Mr Meng this strategy protected the fund from losses of $11bn in the pandemic-induced market slide, which far outweighed the $1bn profit forgone on tail risk hedging. He said that unlike in the financial crisis of 2008 Calpers was not forced to sell assets into a depressed market in March. “Too little liquidity can be deadly but too much is costly,” he said.

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1027596/000089418920004600/oshaughnessy497eliquidatio.htm
497 1 oshaughnessy497eliquidatio.htm O'SHAUGHNESSY 497E SUPP
O'Shaughnessy Small Cap Value Fund
Class I: OFSIX
Supplement dated June 15, 2020 to
Prospectus dated November 28, 2019
O’Shaughnessy Asset Management, LLC, the Advisor to the O’Shaughnessy Small Cap Value Fund (the “Fund”), has recommended, and the Board of Trustees of Advisors Series Trust has approved, the liquidation and termination of the Fund. This decision was made due to the unfavorable economies of operating a small fund with no realistic prospect for future growth.
The liquidation is expected to occur after the close of business on July 27, 2020. Pending liquidation of the Fund, investors will continue to be able to reinvest dividends received in the Fund.
Effective June 16, 2020, the Fund will no longer accept purchases of new shares. In addition, the Fund’s Advisor will no longer be actively investing the Fund’s assets in accordance with the Fund’s investment objective and policies and the Fund’s assets will be converted into cash and cash equivalents. As a result, as of June 16, 2020, the Fund will no longer be pursuing its stated investment objective. Shareholders of the Fund may redeem their investments as described in the Fund’s Prospectus. Accounts not redeemed by July 27, 2020 will automatically be closed and liquidating distributions, less any required tax withholdings, will be sent to the address of record.
If you hold your shares in an IRA account directly with U.S. Bank N.A. you have 60 days from the date you receive your proceeds to reinvest your proceeds into another IRA account and maintain their tax-deferred status. You must notify the Fund or your financial advisor prior to July 22, 2020 of your intent to reinvest your IRA account to avoid withholding deductions from your proceeds.
Please contact the Fund at 1-877-291-7827 or your financial advisor if you have questions or need assistance.
Please retain this Supplement with the Prospectus.

Call it confirmation bias, but I generally agree with Clements. At least a couple of years ago I wondered (and posted) whether low rates coupled with interest rate risk rendered the value of bonds over cash dubious. I've written favorably about Buffett's propsed allocation, 10% short term (effectively cash), 90% equities. Though I disagreed with his singleminded focus on the S&P 500. This cash/equity approach is also essentially Evensky's 1985 two bucket strategy.
Figuring on a 4% withdrawal rate, the 10% cash could buffer a bear market taking 2.5 years to recover. Clements suggests 25% cash, or around a 6 year buffer. I might split the difference and put half of that 25% in cash, half in vanilla bonds, figuring that the bonds will do better even with modestly rising interest rates, if one waits 3 years or more.
As Clements noted, the expectation value of SS is greater if one delays taking benefits. This is especially true if one is focused on one's own lifetime and not on legacies. If one has a financial need for monthly checks before age 70, one can fill the gap with a temporary life annuity.
Which brings us to annuities. Dr. Wade Pfau says much the same thing as Clements - that the lower the current interest rates, the bigger the bargain annuities are, thanks to mortality credits. "Essentially, while the cost of funding retirement with an annuity increases as interest rates decline, the cost of funding retirement in other ways increases even faster than for the annuity. Therefore, the annuity becomes a better relative deal."
Speaking of Dr. Pfau, while he and Michael Kitces suggested seven years ago that a rising glidepath might provide a slightly higher probability of success (not running out of money over 30 years), subsequent research by Dr. David M. Blanchett showed that a traditional declining glidepath would work better in an environment with low interest rates and highly valued stocks. As it was in 2015 when he wrote his paper, and as it is now.
They had an ongoing exchange about this. Here's one part:

I re-ran the analysis that Michael and I did in our initial article, but I switched to the new capital market assumptions I use which allow for increasing bond yields over time while keeping a fixed average equity premium over bonds. ... It does indeed seem that retiring at times with particularly low bond yields, which can be expected to increase over time, may not favor rising equity glidepaths during retirement. It essentially causes the retiree to lock in low bond returns and even capital losses on a bond fund as bond yields gradually increase (on average) over time.
This is not to say that rising equity glidepaths are never a good idea. ... If interest rates were at a higher initial starting point, I’m guessing that rising glidepaths would look much better in his analysis.

@WABAC said,

I have also seen activity attributed to sports bettors with no place to go.

Another reference:

Robinhood added more than three million funded accounts in the first four months of 2020, and half of customers who opened accounts this year said they were first-time investors, according to Nora Chan, a spokeswoman for the Menlo Park, California-based firm. E*Trade Financial Corp. had 329,000 net new accounts in the first three months of the year, with 260,000 added in March alone, the firm said in its first-quarter earnings statement. That was more than the company’s previous best annual net record.
While day trading can be risky and Portnoy might not be the best role model for young investors, Emanuel and Geraci said they think younger investors entering the market is positive for the long-term.
“The danger to the accessibility of it is very clear because you are bringing people in who may not be terribly qualified,” Emanuel said. “You learn more when you’re losing.”

barstool-sports-dave-portnoy

https://money.usnews.com/investing/funds/slideshows/best-t-rowe-price-funds-for-retirement
These funds stand out in a crowded market.
When you’re choosing how to invest for retirement, T. Rowe Price funds are a recognizable name. T. Rowe Price retirement funds vie for investors’ attention alongside options from other large brokerages such as Vanguard and Fidelity. However, these funds feature some unique characteristics that set them apart from the competition. “Their goal seems to strive for steady and consistent returns without the razzle-dazzle of some other firms,” says Steve Azoury, financial advisor and owner of Azoury Financial in Troy, Michigan. “They don’t go for home runs and they rarely strike out, making them one of the most steady and respected firms in the investment business.” With a wide range of mutual fund options to choose from, it’s possible to build a customized retirement portfolio centered on your needs and goals. Here are seven of the best T. Rowe Price funds to consider when investing for retirement.
The seven best T. Rowe Price retirement funds:
— T. Rowe Price Growth Stock Fund (PRGFX)
— T. Rowe Price Blue Chip Growth Fund (TRBCX)
— T. Rowe Price Retirement 2040 Fund (TRRDX)
— T. Rowe Price Retirement 2030 Fund (TRRCX)
— T. Rowe Price Capital Appreciation Fund (PRWCX)
— T. Rowe Price U.S. Bond Enhanced Index Fund (PBDIX)
— T. Rowe Price Health Sciences Fund (PRHSX)

Ironic wasn't quite the word I was thinking of but we can go with that.
I also strongly agree with the statement "Brokerage accounts should show total returns rather than price returns to a position, and financial-information providers should display total-return graphs or indexes."
If I were to believe Fidelity my reinvested dividends, especially in my Roth IRA account, show that the shares obtained didn't cost me a cent. This leads to a lower cost basis per share for my entire position on a selected holding but it is not a true reflection of the gain/loss for that holding.
In the same vein it would be more helpful if a fund company report showed the gain/loss in/on their lists of holdings rather than the number of shares and the total market value of those shares. So what? My calculator works and I can figure that out but the report doesn't tell me if that holding is contributing to the value of the fund.

TRMCX is now open. A spot check suggests that it remains closed at most brokerages.
Closed: Fidelity, Schwab, TD Ameritrade, Vanguard
Open: Merrill Edge (according to its website)
Here's TRP's page showing funds that are closed, and funds that while open may be closed at brokerages. RPMGX is still on the former (closed) list, while TRMCX has moved to the restricted (closed at brokerages) list.
https://www.troweprice.com/financial-intermediary/us/en/investments/capacity-constrained-funds.html