It has been years since the annuity rate was anything.
Yea, options aren't great on the where-to-go front. Perhaps short-term a little F and, yes, S. At no time before have I considered TSP to be too limited but, now, it does. Maybe I am becoming limited faster???

Kinnel seems to imply you have to subscribe to M* Institutional database to run the screen. I haven't tried it in Fund investor. But why publish articles for individual investors based on a screen only available to high end clients?

It was never possible to replicate his screen at the M* retail level. Years ago he wrote how to approximate his screen with Premium Screener and with some third party screeners.
https://www.morningstar.com/funds/making-fund-screeners-fantastic
Here's the 2017 "Fantastic 43" version that he mentions.
https://www.morningstar.com/funds/kinnel-43-fantastic-funds
In it, he answered your question "why include closed funds" in much the same way that @WABAC did: "Many people still own them and want to know if they still make the grade."
He stated the purpose of his (then) $25K limit on min investment as "to help you get a list you can use."
Comparing how one could use the old Premium Screener as described in the piece with today's Investor screener reveals just how far M* has fallen in supporting retail users.
M* used to have a whole series of articles each with a different screen that Premium subscribers could run. They even contained a link to run the screen. Here's one example (via Wayback Machine):
Finding Stock Funds with Big Yields
Unlike Kinnel's "Fantastic" and "Thrilling" series where he gives all the results, these other pieces named only a few of the results (3 of 19 in the Big Yields piece). While somewhat helpful, they carried a whiff of a sales pitch, telling you that if you were a Premium subscriber you could see all the results.
"That's where Morningstar's Premium Fund Screener comes in."

Well that's disappointing, though the limit was so low that it doesn't really affect much.
... and losses in US Mail are cited as reasons
If you've got a problem, don't fix it (improve USPS), avoid it.
The USPS lost one of my refund bonds a few years ago. That was a pain to replace. Wait months to ensure bond was really lost before one can request a replacement, wait for replacement to arrive in the mail (with luck), then mail it back to convert to electronic form.
It's not just paper savings bonds that are being discontinued. You used to be able to have the Treasury Dept retain part of your refund to buy electronic savings bonds (this didn't increase your $10K limit). That's also being eliminated. No great loss there.
The newest draft of Form 8888 contains this little What's New item:

Purchase of savings bonds discontinued. The program allowing for your refund to be deposited into your TreasuryDirect® acccount to buy savings bonds, as well as the ability to buy paper bonds with your refund, has been discontinued. Form 8888 is now only used to split your direct deposit refund between 2 or more accounts or to split your refund between a direct deposit and a paper check. For more information go to https://treasurydirect.gov/research-center/faq-irs-tax-feature/.

https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-dft/f8888--dft.pdf

If you don't like TRAIX as an example of a fund share class that slipped through the cracks, here's another share class that Kinnel missed: NCRLX.
Kinnel requires just one manager to have invested $1M. It doesn't even have to be the longest tenured one. For example, in VEXPX, only 1 of 9 managers has $1M invested, and it isn't the most senior one. Likewise, in NCRLX, one of the managers, Bradley Tank, has $1M invested. That's enough.
There's also the matter of the fund outperforming its benchmark for the duration of a manager's tenure. Here too, Kinnel doesn't say that has to be the longest tenured manager, just one with at least five years on the job. So I looked at performance during Tank's stay. He started in April 2009.
The M* performance chart (set for "month end") shows that for the past 10 years (from Sept 2014 through Aug 2024), NCRLX modestly outperformed its benchmark index, 1.79% annualized to 1.57% annualized. I compared the performance of NCRLX with AGG between April 2009 and Aug 2014 and it was no contest. Portfolio Visualizer shows that NCRLX returned a total of about 50% while AGG returned just half of that.
That's not a misquote or an error on my part. The vast majority of the difference came from 2009. That's confirmed in the 2010 prospectus. For all of 2009, NCRLX returned 18.13% vs. 5.93% for the US Aggregate Bond Index.
The other screening criteria:

• Lowest quintile expense ratio in category (i.e. fee level - broad): low (per M* screener)
  
• M* risk lower than high: Above average (per M* screener)
  
• M* medalist (Bronze+): Bronze
  
• Parent pillar better than average: Above average
  
• Share class accessible to investors with min not more than $50K: Accessible at Vanguard w/$500 min
  
• Not a fund of funds: holds nearly 900 individual bonds
  
• Rated by M* analysts: 100% analyst driven

How did Kinnel miss NCRLX?
My guess is that it was because he was looking at the "official" min for shares. But all that is required is that the share class be accessible somewhere for not more than $50K.
With respect to expense ratios, he was clear in saying that the figures come from the prospectuses. With mins, he didn't impose that restriction. Possibly because lots of funds are available through brokerages with lower mins than stated in their prospectuses.

Thank you for the summary, @observant1.
Two points are of particular concern.

US debt to GDP ratio was probably 50% or 60% but is now at 120%.
The Fed balance sheet has grown 10 times during the past 20 years!

Thank you racqueteer. Great handle by the way. I used to enjoy playing racquetball in my younger and much more mobile years. My wife and I are considering pickle ball now that we are empty nesters.

Despite the recent flood of criticism, I've been using 2 covered call funds for a number of years and feel they serve their function quite well within my portfolio. I do prefer funds which write calls to a nominal portion of the portfolio. DIVO (a Great Owl) and QQQX offer a 4.46 and 6.79% distribution respectively, which I do not reinvest.

The criticism is interesting considering some of the other things that are popular, and touted, around here.

Well, everyone has to do what they’re comfortable with. If I would show my top 5 holdings, folks here would think I’m nuts.

:)

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/923184/000119312524209917/d812678d497.htm
497 1 d812678d497.htm FORM 497
MATTHEWS INTERNATIONAL FUNDS
dba MATTHEWS ASIA FUNDS
Supplement dated August 29, 2024
to the Prospectus dated April 29, 2024, as supplemented
For all existing and prospective shareholders of the Matthews Asian Growth and Income Fund – Institutional Class (MICSX) and Investor Class (MACSX):
The Board of Trustees (the “Board”) of Matthews Asia Funds (the “Trust” or the “Funds”) has approved the tax-free reorganization (the “Reorganization”) of the Matthews Asian Growth and Income Fund, a series of the Trust (the “Target Fund”), into the Matthews Emerging Markets Equity Fund, a series of the Trust (the “Acquiring Fund”). The Reorganization does not require the approval of the shareholders of the Target Fund or the Acquiring Fund.
The Target Fund’s investment adviser, Matthews International Capital Management, LLC (“Matthews”), proposed that the Target Fund be reorganized into the Acquiring Fund because approximately 80% of the companies comprising the emerging markets equity investment universe (as represented by the MSCI Emerging Markets Index) is located in Asia, and therefore there is an increasing overlap between an investment strategy focused on emerging market equity securities and one focused on growth and income-generating securities in the Asian region. Further, Matthews noted that the broader emerging markets universe in which the Acquiring Fund operates should benefit shareholders of the Target Fund and will have the potential to improve long-term performance for those shareholders. Matthews further believes that it is in the best interests of the Target Fund to combine the Target Fund’s assets with a fund with a lower overall expense structure and generally better performance, recognizing that the Acquiring Fund has a shorter operating history. Matthews also believes that the Acquiring Fund’s investment objective and strategies make it a compatible fund within the Trust for a reorganization with the Target Fund. Matthews believes that continuing to operate the Target Fund as currently constituted is not in the long-term best interests of the Target Fund. Matthews also believes that both Funds may benefit from potential operating efficiencies and economies of scale that may be achieved by combining the Funds’ assets in the Reorganization. As a result, Matthews determined it prudent to recommend the Reorganization to the Board of Trustees of the Trust.
The Acquiring Fund and the Target Fund have compatible investment objectives. The Target Fund seeks long-term capital appreciation, with a secondary investment objective to seek income. The Acquiring Fund’s current investment objective is to seek long-term capital appreciation; effective upon completion of the Reorganization, the Acquiring Fund will adopt, as part of its principal investment strategies, a policy to invest at least 20% of the Acquiring Fund’s net assets in income-producing securities.
The Target Fund currently operates with two fundamental restrictions that the Acquiring Fund has not adopted: (A) the Target Fund is prohibited from owning more than 10% of outstanding voting securities of any one issuer; and (B) the Target Fund is prohibited from investing more than 5% of its assets in companies that are under three years old. Effective upon completion of the Reorganization, the Acquiring Fund will adopt these fundamental restrictions, such that the fundamental investment restrictions of the Target Fund and the Acquiring Fund will be the same following the Reorganization.
To effectuate the Reorganization, the Target Fund will transfer its assets to the Acquiring Fund. The Acquiring Fund will assume all of the liabilities of the Target Fund and will issue shares to the Target Fund in an amount equal to the aggregate net asset value of the outstanding shares of the Target Fund. Immediately thereafter, the Target Fund will distribute these shares of the Acquiring Fund to its shareholders. After distributing these shares, the Target Fund will be terminated as a series of the Trust.
When the Reorganization is complete, the Target Fund’s shareholders will hold the same class of shares of the Acquiring Fund as they currently hold of the Target Fund. The aggregate net asset value of the Acquiring Fund shares received in the Reorganization will equal the aggregate net asset value of the Target Fund shares held by Target Fund shareholders immediately prior to the Reorganization. The Reorganization is expected to be completed on or about November 8, 2024.
Effective after the close of business on October 25, 2024, shares of the Target Fund will no longer be offered to new shareholders, and shareholders holding shares of any other series of the Trust will not be able to exchange their shares for shares of the Target Fund.
While the portfolio managers of the Acquiring Fund anticipate retaining a portion of the Target Fund’s holdings following the closing of the Reorganization, they do anticipate selling a material portion of the holdings of the Target Fund in preparation for the Reorganization. The extent of these sales is primarily because certain of the current holdings of the Target Fund are deemed not to be appropriate for the Acquiring Fund. Matthews anticipates that the proceeds from such sales will be reinvested in assets that are consistent with the Acquiring Fund’s investment process before and after the closing of the Reorganization. During this period, the Target Fund may deviate from its principal investment strategies.
Matthews has agreed to pay 30% of the expenses incurred in connection with the preparation and distribution of the Prospectus/Information Statement to be sent to shareholders, including all direct and indirect expenses and out-of-pocket costs other than any transaction costs relating to the sale of the Target Fund’s portfolio securities prior to or after the closing of the Reorganization. The remaining expenses will be shared by the Target Fund and Acquiring Fund in proportion to each Fund’s net assets, subject to applicable expense limitations.
If you do not want to participate in the Reorganization, you may redeem your shares of the Target Fund in the ordinary course until the last business day before the closing. Redemption requests received after that time will be treated as redemption requests for shares of the Acquiring Fund received in connection with the Reorganization.
In connection with the Reorganization, a registration statement on Form N-14 will be filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”). The registration statement may be amended or withdrawn and the information statement/prospectus it contains will not be distributed to Target Fund shareholders until the registration statement is effective. Investors are urged to read the materials and any other relevant documents when they become available because they will contain important information about the Reorganization. After they are filed, free copies of the materials will be available on the SEC’s web site at www.sec.gov.
This communication is for informational purposes only and does not constitute an offer of any securities for sale. No offer of securities will be made except pursuant to a prospectus meeting the requirements of Section 10 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended.
Investors should carefully consider the investment objectives, risks, fees and expenses of the Funds.
Please retain this Supplement for future reference.
Emerging Markets Equity Fund (investment changes) :
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/923184/000119312524209922/d812678d497.htm

Despite the recent flood of criticism, I've been using 2 covered call funds for a number of years and feel they serve their function quite well within my portfolio. I do prefer funds which write calls to a nominal portion of the portfolio. DIVO (a Great Owl) and QQQX offer a 4.46 and 6.79% distribution respectively, which I do not reinvest.

The criticism is interesting considering some of the other things that are popular, and touted, around here.

Well, everyone has to do what they’re comfortable with. If I would show my top 5 holdings, folks here would think I’m nuts.

Bill Wilby, former portfolio manager for Oppenheimer Global Fund, is the featured guest this week.
He's concerned about "unknown unknowns."
Specifically, his major areas of concern are Private Equity (PE) and Private Credit.
S&P 500 leverage ratio is 1.6 while PE leverage ratio may be 5 or 6 (difficult to discern).
PE returns may decline significantly in the next 3 or 4 years.
Backward-looking endowments/pension funds will probably decide to pull back if this happens.
Wilby doesn't think this is a 2007/2008 caliber problem but doesn't know for certain since data is lacking.
Consuelo asked Mr. Wilby how investing has changed over the past 20 years.
Much more money is being run in quantitative strategies.
The public market has shrunk relative to the private market.
US debt to GDP ratio was probably 50% or 60% but is now at 120%.
The Fed balance sheet has grown 10 times during the past 20 years!
Not surprisingly, the market cap of gold (hedge against debasement?) has gone up 10 times as well.
Wilby owns individual stocks and cash (~70%/30% mix) while avoiding bonds in his personal portfolio.
His one investment for a diversified portfolio is AMSL which he also recommended last year.
I really enjoyed this episode.
https://wealthtrack.com/great-investors-retirement-portfolio/

Posters familiar with options know what they are doing.
But my concerns are the investors who have poor/no knowledge of options but are buying options-based funds thinking that they are all-weather income funds.
Call-writing (-selling or -shorting) funds are a bull market phenomenon. They turn capital gains (CGs) into options income, but don't protect the downside. They have grown like weeds in this bull market due to lots of marketing hype.
Moreover, the traditional application of call-writing uses boring but steadily growing (mature?) stocks that don't move around much. So, investors holding those boring stocks can write calls and boost income some with the call premiums. Call-writing on volatile things like QQQ, on the other hand, is nontraditional and counts on rising markets that trigger written calls again and again to transform possible LT-CGs into ST options income. You may want to hold these in tax-deferred/free accounts.
It isn't as if JPM has found some secret sauce for JEPI (AUM $34.8 billion, inception May 2020) and JEPQ (AUM $15.7 billion, inception May 2022). Granddaddy of options-based fund is GATEX / GTEYX that has been around since December 1977 (soon after options started trading in the US) and in those 46+ years, it has gathered an AUM of $6.6 billion. FWIW, it never impressed me much. Gateway is now a neglected part of French Natixis that also owns some more visible boutiques - Oakmark/Harris, Loomis Sayles.
Natixis https://www.im.natixis.com/en-us/home

@BaluBalu

If you are OK disclosing, what function do these funds serve within your portfolio?
Why do you own the covered call strategy on QQQ in a CEF? In your experience, what portion (in a range) of the portfolio does the manager write the calls on?

Simply put, I use both items simply as contributors to fully fund my annual spending via their distributions.
Why a CEF? I've owned QQQX for several years, and frankly, option overlays in an ETF wrapper weren't widely available at the time. There may be better options available currently, but this works for me and I'm comfortable with its longer track record and balance between distributions/asset growth.
As for portfolio coverage, Nuveen states: "During the quarter, the core
option overwrite level varied between 41% and 66% of the equity portfolio's value with an average level of 56%". Their option strategy is discussed in the attached link, which I found interesting.
https://documents.nuveen.com/Documents/Nuveen/Default.aspx?uniqueId=378e5e6a-448d-49f8-b723-f56fc1f5876c

I went to Kinnel's article in the OP in the hope of finding his screener so I can eliminate the fees and Manager investment criteria but restrict only to mid cap and large cap funds and re-run the screen.
I have not used M* screener in years. I could not maneuver the screener (under tools) in the new M* site. If anyone has a path to Kinnel's screen, please share.
I admit to not reading the rest of the thread.

Despite the recent flood of criticism, I've been using 2 covered call funds for a number of years and feel they serve their function quite well within my portfolio. I do prefer funds which write calls to a nominal portion of the portfolio. DIVO (a Great Owl) and QQQX offer a 4.46 and 6.79% distribution respectively, which I do not reinvest.

The criticism is interesting considering some of the other things that are popular, and touted, around here.

YBB, yeah when I read the official fact sheet I was less enthused than I sounded in my earlier post. Still a move in the right direction, though.
I am impressed with (voluntary) daily-disclosure ETFs from CG and TRP that launched in the past few years, though.

Despite the recent flood of criticism, I've been using 2 covered call funds for a number of years and feel they serve their function quite well within my portfolio. I do prefer funds which write calls to a nominal portion of the portfolio. DIVO (a Great Owl) and QQQX offer a 4.46 and 6.79% distribution respectively, which I do not reinvest.

I am not against covered call strategies when done right, though I never own any. I had looked at DIVO in a discussion with @WABAC and liked it.
If you are OK disclosing, what function do these funds serve within your portfolio?
Why do you own the covered call strategy on QQQ in a CEF? In your experience, what portion (in a range) of the portfolio does the manager write the calls on?
My questions are out of curiosity.

Despite the recent flood of criticism, I've been using 2 covered call funds for a number of years and feel they serve their function quite well within my portfolio. I do prefer funds which write calls to a nominal portion of the portfolio. DIVO (a Great Owl) and QQQX offer a 4.46 and 6.79% distribution respectively, which I do not reinvest.

FD1000,
Wow, there's lots to unpack in your commentary!
I'll just comment on two topics.
"Obamacare had a huge affect long-term."
You're correct that "Obamacare" had huge long-term effects:
1) More than 16 million Americans obtained coverage within five years' passage of Obamacare.
2) People with preexisting conditions can't he denied health insurance.
3) Prescription drug costs are more affordable for many Medicare participants.
4) More screenings and preventative services are covered with low copays or deductibles.
5) Insurance companies can no longer set lifetime limits for coverage.
"After the embarrassing exit from Afghanistan, Putin realized that Biden is a weak pres and why he invaded Ukraine."

Both Trump & Biden were eager to withdraw US troops from Afghanistan.
Trump struck a deal for withdrawal by May 1, 2021.
Biden inherited this deal but delayed the withdrawal date.
The withdrawal was problematic, to say the least,
but to blame this entirely on Biden is disingenuous.
https://www.factcheck.org/2021/08/timeline-of-u-s-withdrawal-from-afghanistan/
Edit/Add:
"On the first week of Biden's presidency, "Biden’s orders direct the secretary of the Interior Department
to halt new oil and natural gas leases on public lands and waters,
and begin a thorough review of existing permits for fossil fuel development.
Do you think the above has nothing to do why oil started to go up?
Oil is a huge resource in our economy, don't you think it increased inflation?"
Many different factors can influence oil prices.
You may want to contemplate potential causes before rushing to judgement and playing the "blame game."
https://usafacts.org/articles/what-impacts-the-price-of-oil/

No need to be extreme. The pres in office can have a big affect on many things.
Obamacare had a huge affect long-term. IMO, it was one of the worst legislation. I priced what healthcare would cost me and my wife prior to Medicare.
Before Obamacare it was $400 monthly with a $3K deductible.
After Obamacare it was $1200-1300 monthly with a $5-6K deductible. That was years ago. I know several people who pay now about $1000 per person and 7-9K deductible.
(link) On the first week of Biden's presidency, "Biden’s orders direct the secretary of the Interior Department to halt new oil and natural gas leases on public lands and waters, and begin a thorough review of existing permits for fossil fuel development.
Do you think the above has nothing to do why oil started to go up? Oil is a huge resource in our economy, don't you think it increased inflation?
After the embarrassing exit from Afghanistan, Putin realized that Biden is a weak pres and why he invaded Ukraine. He also did on Obama watch but not during Trump.
How much money does the US allocate to Ukraine? easy over $100 billion.
Why did 4 Arab countries sign a peace agreement with Israel during Trump, which is the first time ever, while the Middle East is on fire now?
When Harris said she wants price control, don't you think it would affect us in a big way?
So yes, several presidents are more influential than others.

From the article,
"In years where stocks declined, eg the global financial crisis in 2008 or the bear market in 2022, the call options expired worthless but did provide investors with additional income that reduced the drawdowns*."
*(YBB Note) By tiny amounts. Basically, covered calls didn't provide downside protection unless some puts were bought using the covered call income.

I will do this on positions with large gains that I wish to protect (ideally a zero-cost 'collar'), such as large dividend payers. I don't do it very often, but it can work well in that scenario. But CCs alone are rarely worth doing unless it's on a stock that doesn't really move very much -- which also means the premium you might get for the call makes it more trouble than it's worth.