@Devo thanks for the tip.
Just quickly checked out AVALX. I like that it is underweighted in technology and it looks to have had a pretty good run over the last 5 years. Definitely, on par with PKSFX.
But the -39%/-50% max drawdowns at AVALX vs -18%/-18% at PKSFX over 5/10 year windows under same managers - at least, if you believe Mstar - are worrisome.
Open to any other suggestions.

I've recently inherited some DC & 403(b) funds which - by the grace of Fido - ended up in an Estate account.
I've talked to several CPAs / CFFs and still could not get a clear picture re how many years I have to distribute the funds out of these accounts. For a regular inherited retirement account the answer is pretty straightforward, but for an estate IRS website alone seems to give no less than 3 different answers.
Does anyone here have a clue or a good reference?

Thanks, Mona!
It's interesting that Vanguard is considering external candidates for the CEO position.
Perhaps they're seeking transformational change in order to maintain or improve
their standing in the ultracompetitive asset management industry?
"Vanguard’s next leader should be 'someone who can fix their technology,'said Dan Wiener,
a New York asset manager and cofounder of the Independent Adviser for Vanguard Investors newsletter."
“'They need to fix their tech and service,' concurs the newsletter’s publisher and Wiener’s longtime chief of research, Jeff DeMaso, citing investor complaints."
Messrs. Wiener and DeMaso have disclosed Vanguard's tech and customer service deficiences for years. Maybe, just maybe, Vanguard will ameliorate these issues someday!

The hypocrisy of a state supposedly devoted to individual freedom and "small government" telling its citizens where they can and cannot put their money is too rich for words.
The lists do not make sense in the context of The Texas Permanent School fund which is an institutional investment fund supporting Texas schools, not a 401k or pension fund. While Blackrock managed some of their money they obviously did to use retail mutual funds to do so.
Blackrock has come under fire recently for abandoning it's "green" goals and not doing enough to stop funding oil companies etc, but Texas is obviously aiming at Larry Fink for having raised such concerns about Climate Change several years ago. His backing off isn't enough and now he is being picked out as a political target and to make headlines for Abbott and Paxton.
I doubt it is a coincidence that this comes just as Paxton's criminal trial for investment fraud is about to start.
Many other US firms, not on the list, have huge "ESG" commitments and funds, such as the seven Billion dollar Blackstone Green Private Credit Fund (the largest fund of it's type), and GMO Climate Change Fund, but they are not on the list.
I wonder if the mutual fund list is aimed at the The Texas teachers Retirement fund both a defined benefit plan and a 403b plan with mutual funds that people can choose.
The mutual fund list doesn't make sense either. It is only a fraction of "Climate Change Funds" available, and seems like it was selected by running a screen ( maybe at MFO?) for 0% energy investments, "ESG " in the name ( but there are dozens of funds not here) or based on M* Sustainability score or some such other marginal criteria.
As most fund companies have ESG funds, a complete list would eliminate almost all companies
Why didn't they prohibit investments in the entire families of those funds, like Vanguard and Fidelity, also? Maybe because they would be open to plan participants suits for not managing the retirement accounts in the most cost effective manner possible. Yale Hospital just had to cough up $1,000,000 in a class action suit for not negotiating downward a Fidelity fee.
The spreadsheet is very useful for screening for Climate Change funds. I own several.

Texas has identified 10 firms with which it will not invest because their ESG screened funds "immeasurably damages our state’s oil and gas economy." The firms affected are, almost without exception, European firms (Schroders PLC) with some American operations. The list of 348 individually banned funds and ETFs includes the Brown Advisory Sustainable Growth Fund (BIAWX) which is in my portfolio and all versions of the ESG-screen S&P 500. The link downloads an Excel spreadsheet. Tab one are the forbidden companies and two tab are the forbidden funds.
The largest move pursuant to that policy is the newly announced decision by the Texas State Board of Education to pull $8.5 billion from BlackRock for suspicion that it's pursuing sustainable investments as a way of "privileging liberal goals." BlackRock argues that it factors in ESG metrics because they are financially significant data points. Illustrating what some might perceive as hypocrisy, BlackRock and others also highlight the fact that they continue to invest heavily in the fossil fuel industry. Fox News describes the withdrawals as "a stunning blow to the ESG movement."
In related news, as of 19 March 2024, the ESG-screened version of the S&P 500 has outperformed the full S&P 500 over the past year. And the past two years. Also the past three years, four years and five years (per Morningstar interactive chart of SNPE versus VOO.
Across multiple time periods, ESG screened funds with some US equity exposure (US centered, global, mixed asset) perform about as well as non-screened funds; that is, 51-55% have top half returns since inception, over three years, over five years ...

Unless you can stand volatility, I would avoid China for now. Investing in a country without the rule of law and where one man can decide to take over entire industries is a risky proposition. That is unlikely to change in the near future although Xi has probably learned a lesson the hard way since he threw Ma in jail.
The unknown debt situation,overbuild CRE ( you think the US is bad?) and collapsing property companies are not good signs. It will take several years before they sort this out and they may never.
What if Xi decides he needs a nice little war to divert the public's attention from his mismanagement?

EM ex-China was in response to Fed TSP move to shift its I Fund from broad MSCI EAFE to something ex-China/HK, and that is now MSCI ACWI ex-China/HK.
So, a reality is that such ex-China/HK indexes have been developed after some huffing and puffing. Whether this commercially catches on, $78 billion TSP I Fund won't care.
A few years ago, Asia ex-Japan indexes were developed for commercial reasons when Japan just couldn't get up. Let us see how they will do in the current Japanese market run to new all-time highs (in yen; still ways to go in $s).
https://www.govexec.com/pay-benefits/2023/11/tsp-board-oks-new-international-fund-index-time-without-china/392049/
https://www.tsp.gov/plan-news/2024-02-05-I-Fund-benchmark-index-change-in-2024/

… of the Fund into the abrdn Emerging Markets ex-China Fund (the "Acquiring Fund"), a series of the Trust.

As the geopolitical friction rises between China and the west, many managers ask the question of whether China is

investible from investor’s perspective. Additionally, China’s economy has not fully recovered since their second wave of COVID pandemic. And their +30 % weighing in major EM indices adds to their underperformance.
Other mutual funds have already offer EM funds excluding China, iShares also made several ETFs excluding China such as EMXC.

Agree with the geopolitical tensions, but from what I see - i don't see a ton of advisors choosing EM ex china funds nor clients asking for that. That's a level of granularity I don't know if people care about? There are 15+ EM ex china funds on the market and none of them are sizable with what looks liek flows continuing to passive EM (with china) funds.
I do wonder if this EM ex China is a real thing or just a sign of the times and will be irrelevant in 5 years.

JUQA GQLIX ( or USBOX or QLTY) pretty close to FUQIX over 3 5 years
Not much difference.

am a GMO philosophy fan, but not of their expensive offerings.
here is what didn't happen :
45 years ago, GMO had only one fund based on their quality metrics, and never needed to offer anything else.

This thread has gone in many directions.
Some points I would like to make.
Banks, TSA (and some others) have secrecy by the law. They aren't supposed to tell you the details. It may seem unfair, but don't blame the Reps.
Just ask Warren Buffett when he was visited by the FBI a few years ago when he made several cash withdrawals around $10K (not even pocket change for him?) from his local bank - his folksy explanation was that his wife only liked cash (not cards or checks), while the FBI wanted to make sure that he wasn't being blackmailed. Or, the late Senator Ted Kennedy whose name was on TSA no-fly list for some reason while he himself may not have been the target - he even mentioned his airport TSA experiences in frustration in a Senate speech and asked the President to do something about it.
I have good experiences with chats too, except some robo-chats. In one instance, I thought that robo-chat would transfer to a human-chat, but it didn't. So, I responded, that the issue was beyond a robo-chatter, and he/she/it replied, sorry that I felt that way and wished me a good day.

From the Wall Street Journal's analysis of the economic assumptions released with the Biden budget:

Economic forecasts released Monday as part of the White House’s 2025 budget proposal assume that three-month Treasury bill rates will average 5.1% this year, the same as in 2023, before declining to 4% next year and 3.3% in 2026.
The White House sees the average 10-year Treasury note yield rising to 4.4% this year from 4.1% last year and then declining gradually to 3.7% by the end of this decade.

My recollection is that 5% is dead average for the 10 year note over the past century. Good news: I recall hearing it from Kai Ryssdal on a Marketplace podcast. Bad news: can't track it down.
Those sort of interest rates remind investors that there is an alternative to stocks, which might well occasion a shift from equities and at least the tiniest bit of discipline on the part of managers (fund and otherwise). Jon Sindreu at the Wall Street Journal published an interesting project that suggests that cash might handily beat stocks over the next 12 years and would be pretty competitive with them over the next couple years. His projection of asset class returns, based on "quarters similar to today," puts the two-year APR for stocks at 7.something percent, cash at about 7% and bonds at over 8%. The dominance of stocks would return unless you had a time horizon of five years or more ("How to Invest? More than ever, it depends on who you are?" Wall Street Journal, 3/15/2024)

I wish the White House (or anybody else) a lot of luck trying to predict where interest rates will be a year or two out.
I also recall hearing, years ago, that the long-term average for the 10 year Treasury being around 5%, but I know I didn't hear it from your source.
I have to laugh, or maybe yell, at young people today whining about 6-7% mortgage rates (which are also normalized, if memory serves). I bought my first house in 1975 and paid 8.5% which was the going rate. It went up into double-digits a few years later.
Maybe the era we're in with "high" (normalized) interest rates will encourage young people to not borrow so much, and instead try to live more within their means. I learned that valuable lesson from my father, who was a struggling young man when the Great Depression hit. Most people today cannot comprehend what those people went through.
As for cash being competitive with other asset classes, I have about 11% of my retirement portfolio in a 5.2% money market, which makes for a nice stable portion, yet still earning something -- unlike it would have a few years ago when "cash is trash."

@crash, I have had experience with a number of large brokerages. They have their ‘pros’ and ‘cons’ as our needs evolve over time. In recent years we consolidated to a few; some were our former 401(k) administrators and we get assess to unique planning tools. Fidelity meets majority of ours needs. While many posters are Schwab customers, but our needs may be quite different. So I will leave it at that. At least I am glad you move on from T. Rowe Price.

I dont think it is the employee's fault as I suspect they are rushed through training and put to work ASAP
although I have to say there are some strange things going on at Fidelity.
My wife and I moved a small (LT 10%) of her account to Schwab to make it easier to gift our kids some stock.
We got five daily phone calls from a fidelity rep wanting to know why.

Well that struck a chord. About a dozen years ago, I moved a small (LT 10%) annuity from Fidelity. And I got a call from my rep at Fidelity (back when Fidelity assigned reps), who harangued me for about 15 minutes before putting a specialist on the phone. All in all, about an hour with them telling me why the Fidelity product was so much better than where I was moving to, how they could stop the transfer before it was complete if I okay'd that.
Something else about this call. As a rule I don't use a cell phone. (I have one, pay $10/year to keep the line active, but rarely turn it on; the flip phone makes a great pocket watch.) I don't give out my number because people just leave messages that I don't hear for months.
Somehow Fidelity got that number, and rather than call me on my preferred home number, they called the cell phone. I was on a business trip to California (which is why my phone was on). So I wound up on a one hour call with Fidelity at 6:30 AM, being remarkably coherent in explaining why their particular offering didn't best meet my needs.
Reps get paid in part by AUM of their customers; this is scaled by how lucrative each dollar is - more for an annuity. They also get paid for retaining assets. So my transfer out must have hit the rep's pocketbook hard.

Interesting that the OP has some idea and the a/c is frozen until the internal investigation is complete. It could be a trade violation or something else.
Banks are worse. There are many reports on social-media that banks (including big banks) are suddenly closing personal and business accounts for what they think are suspicious activities but they don't provide any explanations or advance warning. Some customers had those a/c for years. But one day, their accounts are locked or closed with balance sent by check within a few days. When people go to branches, the personal bankers try to look up the a/c in question, but then say that sorry, they cannot disclose anything. If one relies on one bank a/c, this may become a huge problem.

at Firstrade ... To check on other funds the only precise way is to open an account and put in a test trade which will tell you if it the fund is available and the minimums which for the majority is way under 10k.

I still have a login there many years after closing an account. I have assumed that the fund information I see after logging in (min, open/closed, etc.) is accurate. (I cannot trade in a closed account.)
Have you run across a fund where the test trade showed something different than the info provided on the trade page? Or are you just being extra careful by doing test trades?

My recollection is that 5% is dead average for the 10 year note over the past century. Good news: I recall hearing it from Kai Ryssdal on a Marketplace podcast. Bad news: can't track it down
TheMarketplace piece was actually written by Sabri Ben-Achour, though read by Kai Ryssdal. At the 2:15 mark (or in the text) you'll find:

“You know, actually, historically speaking they’re not that high,” said David Krause, emeritus professor of finance at Marquette University. He pointed out that on average over 100 years, long-term Treasury yields were 5.2%. Close to where they are now.

https://www.marketplace.org/2023/10/23/why-are-bond-yields-so-high-right-now/
I'm still trying to harmonize the second piece mentioned in the OP (by Jon Sindreu) suggesting cash yielding 7%/year over the next two years with the first piece quoting White House economic forecasts for cash (3 mo. Treasuries) averaging 5.1% this year and 4% next year. Even if that forecast is a bit rosy (costing the Treasury less in interest), I don't see how one gets to 7%, not just in the near future (next few months) but sustained over a period of two years.
Reading the 3/14/2024 online version of the WSJ piece I don't find mention of a two year timeframe. It does say that looking at quarters similar to today, " On a one-year performance basis, stocks weren't just riskier, they also returned less on average than bonds and cash." Print version must have more, or is at least different.

From the Wall Street Journal's analysis of the economic assumptions released with the Biden budget:

Economic forecasts released Monday as part of the White House’s 2025 budget proposal assume that three-month Treasury bill rates will average 5.1% this year, the same as in 2023, before declining to 4% next year and 3.3% in 2026.
The White House sees the average 10-year Treasury note yield rising to 4.4% this year from 4.1% last year and then declining gradually to 3.7% by the end of this decade.

My recollection is that 5% is dead average for the 10 year note over the past century. Good news: I recall hearing it from Kai Ryssdal on a Marketplace podcast. Bad news: can't track it down.
Those sort of interest rates remind investors that there is an alternative to stocks, which might well occasion a shift from equities and at least the tiniest bit of discipline on the part of managers (fund and otherwise). Jon Sindreu at the Wall Street Journal published an interesting project that suggests that cash might handily beat stocks over the next 12 years and would be pretty competitive with them over the next couple years. His projection of asset class returns, based on "quarters similar to today," puts the two-year APR for stocks at 7.something percent, cash at about 7% and bonds at over 8%. The dominance of stocks would return unless you had a time horizon of five years or more ("How to Invest? More than ever, it depends on who you are?" Wall Street Journal, 3/15/2024)

Crash, FWIW: After 27 years at Schwab, I have never had any kind of problem like this where it wasn't resolved quickly. Maybe try to go over this guy's head . . . ?

My favorite bitcoin story is the son of a patient of mine who Dad said maybe 10 years ago his kid had some huge amount of Bitcoin on a thumb drive in his safe deposit account. Even then it was worth several million dollars. He said they were never going to sell it as it was going to infinity.
Since I retired I lost touch witht he Dad but I always wonder if his son held on to it.