I found this segment in a lengthier 'undated' article:
Management's Discussion of Fund Performance ("MDFP")
"Currently, a mutual fund is required to include MDFP in its prospectus unless the information is included in the fund's latest annual shareholders report. While many funds already include MDFP in their annual reports, the SEC is proposing to require that the MDFP be included in the annual report to enable investors to assess the information provided by the MDFP together with other "backward looking" information in order to better understand a fund's performance over the prior year.
The obvious purpose of this proposed requirement is to create consistency in the location of such information and to ensure that the certifications made by a mutual fund's principal executive and financial officers regarding the information contained in the fund's annual reports cover the MDFP."
Full article here

https://journalistsresource.org/studies/economics/personal-finance/academics-take-on-financial-services-megafirm-morningstar/
Are 30% of bond funds riskier than they appear? Three finance professors say yes. Morningstar disputes their findings.
There’s a big problem in the multi-trillion-dollar bond market, according to a recent National Bureau of Economic Research working paper: A substantial portion of bond funds might be riskier bets than they seem.
If course everything is risky except CDs. Many bonds and funds went down significantly in 08_09 crash

(
Administrative nuisances with some financial institutions
Here is a thought. Have the financial institution that you are moving the assets to use the ACAT system to make the transfer. The link below will describe how this works.
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/a/acat.asp
Old_Skeet November 30 in Fund Discussions
First I was interested if anyone here ,MFO'ers, or visitors have used ACAT ? Second question . Can anyone answer as to how much this would cost ? I checked the link & didn't find anything related to the cost. I guess I''ll google ACAT & see what shows up.
@Old-Skeet; Thanks for the link & just for the record I sold the few shares of BHF @ $3.50/ share commish& moved on.
Derf
Added:
Came up with this fee schedule , but I don't know how dated it is plus one may encounter closing fees !!
List of brokers and their ACAT fee:
WellsTrade: $95
Bank of America: $75
TD Ameritrade: $75
SogoTrade: $75
E*Trade: $60
Charles Schwab: $50
Zecco: $50
Sharebuilder: $50
TradeKing: $50
FirstTrade: $50
OptionsXpress: $50
Scottrade: $0
Fidelity: $0

https://www.financial-planning.com/list/vanguard-blackrock-fidelity-mutual-funds-and-etfs-have-largest-inflows-of-2019
Funds with the largest inflows of 2019
With an eye on market volatility and rate cuts from the Fed this year, the bond fund universe has seen a surge of new money.
The 20 mutual funds and ETFs with the largest year-to-date inflows are home to more than $2.5 trillion in combined assets under management, according to Morningstar Direct. These funds, mostly index-trackers, underline the continued trend toward low-cost investing, says Greg McBride, senior financial analyst at Bankrate.

Hi David,
If I were prone to conspiracy theory I would be doing a head scratch with this from September 18, in Reuters (I did read the article linked below twice and scratched my head then. I thought I posted this at MFO...did not).
From the article:
More information is needed to assess whether the moves are a sign of a broader problem, other investors said.
“It’s probably nothing,” said Willie Delwiche, investment strategist for Baird. “But there is a risk that there is some trouble in the monetary plumbing in the economy.”

Complicating matters is the recent departure of two key markets experts, leaving vacancies at the New York Fed that some worry may have slowed down the U.S. central bank’s response to the volatility this week.
The two market-focused officials abruptly departed in June: Simon Potter, who oversaw the New York Fed’s trading desk, and Richard Dzina, who ran the bank’s financial services group. To date, neither has been replaced, leaving the central bank without permanent leadership in a key part of its operations.
>>>Abruptly, being a key word with the above statement. I've witnessed several abrupt departures over many years at a corporate level and knew the problem was an operational disagreement between individuals, a how to run the business problem.
Perhaps there exists an operational disagreement at the NY Fed. Perhaps the large banks are attempting to have rule changes made for reserve requirements, and then they'll rejoin the repo party. Perhaps there exists a serious problem in the monetary system that is way past my understanding.
Full Reuters story HERE.
Lastly, aside from the normal written story search, Youtube offers some videos discussing the REPO markets; as well at Khan Academy.com.
Regards,
Catch

A bunch of news outlets reported today or yesterday that "The Federal Reserve Bank of New York added $95.56 billion in temporary liquidity to financial markets Tuesday. The intervention came in two parts. One was via overnight repurchase agreements, or repos, that totaled $77.8 billion, and the other was via 14-day repos totaling $17.76 billion." Wall Street Journal in that case.
Two thoughts: (1) this might resonate with the concerns we reflected in our December liquidity story. (2) If you Ecosia "fed adds liquidity" - I'm experimenting with the Ecosia web search engine and figured that if that other search engine can be turned into a verb, so can these guys - it appears that a quick hundred billion is becoming a near-monthly event. Same thing was needed in November.
David

I agree with everything @LewisBraham says above and thank him for the presentation. I’ll add that our marvelous free press and its investigative reporting is imperiled by factors both financial and political. Every time I curl up with a fresh copy of the NYT or other great publication, I’m reminded that we may not be so blessed in the future.
If you’re still with me ... I’m reminded of a short story, “The Portable Phonograph” by Walter VanTilberg Clark I used to use with students back in the 70s. The story depicts the existence of a few “post-civilization” survivors holed up in a cave following a devastating war. Each clings to some great literary masterpiece or other relic from the past. The title is a reference to an old man who treasures a collection of aging phonograph records:
“The records, though,” said the old man when he had finished winding, “are a different matter. Already they are very worn. I do not play them more than once a week. One, once a week, that is what I allow myself. ...More than a week I cannot stand it; not to hear them,” he apologized.
Link to brief summary of story: https://www.enotes.com/homework-help/short-story-portable-phonograph-why-author-634741
Link to complete story (5 pages):
http://www.mscruz.yolasite.com/resources/The Portable Phonograph.pdf
-
Some added thoughts re the points Lewis made so articulately.
I obtain / read all my subscription periodicals through Amazon’s Kindle service. I’d feel better sending my money directly to publishers. On the other hand, I assume they are being adequately compensated (big assumption) by Amazon or they wouldn’t agree to have their publications re-sourced. Here’s why I use the Kindle editions:
- Add-free. I wouldn’t mind if online papers included static “print-type” ads that didn’t detract from my reading (as hard copy newspapers did for a century or more). However, invariably these ads flash, blink, flicker, change color and dance about. I cannot read text with such distractions.
- Ease of starting and stopping subscriptions. Amazon allows you to cancel a subscription at any time and refunds the unused portion of any subscription amount paid. By contrast, I’ve encountered much difficulty cancelling online subscriptions from Barron’s. Once, I had to have my bank pull my charge card and issue a new one as it was the only way I could keep from being charged monthly after repeated attempts to cancel through the publisher.
- Formatting. In my opinion nobody does this better. Amazon pioneered the e-reader and remains miles ahead in providing a format (suitable for many different devices) that’s easy to access, fine-tune, read and navigate.
- One-stop billing and ease of accessing / changing account settings,
Just a few thoughts. I’d say Amazon ranks relatively low on the list of factors damaging the free press. I’d cite a continued dumbing down of the populace, addiction to internet, TV and electronic media, free-loaders who pay nothing, and attacks from the far right as more influential causes of journalism’s plight.

A few things I would note are:
1. There wouldn't be much click-bait journalism if Google/Facebook/Amazon hadn't killed journalism and basically bankrupted many publications.
2. Publications are now desperate for clicks to sustain their remaining ad revenue.
3. Readers, including--at least in the past--many on this site, assume news should be "free" with the implicit assumption that journalists don't deserve to get paid. They happily cut and paste entire articles and show other readers various means around paywalls.
4. Many pubs are now so broke they pay journalists pennies per word.
5. Shoddy click-bait journalism often exists because pubs are so broke/greedy--both, really--they hire writers who are really professionals in another industry seeking to promote their own businesses and journalism is really an advertisement for their businesses, be it financial planning or money management. Those writers come cheap because journalism really isn't their end goal when they write an article. It is self-promotion.
6. Journalists at mainstream publications generally don't write their own headlines. I know I don't. Headlines are written by a team at the pub seeking "search engine optimization" or SEO to generate clicks.
7. Investigative journalism is expensive, time consuming and often draws negative backlash from powerful interests, be they corporate or government, or both. It rarely leads to additional ad revenue for a publication. Pubs are thus less interested in doing it.
And so good journalism is dying.

The Matthews fund is pretty much sui generis. In the US market, I can find only two other funds that are vaguely comparable, Harvest Asia Bond and Aberdeen Asia-Pacific Income. One other Asia bond fund liquidated a couple years ago. That makes it hard to construct a meaningful peer comparison. Morningstar had it as "world bond," where it was a four-star fund then moved it to "emerging markets bond," where it is a four-star fund.
That said, it's a poor fit - for purposes of benchmarking - with the group. I checked the correlations between the six Great Owl EM bond funds, looking at both their correlations with one another and their correlation with Matthews. Their inter-group correlation is in the mid-90s, their correlation with Matthews is in the mid-70s.
I own shares and have since launch. I'm impressed with Ms. Kong and am persuaded by her argument about the shift in the world financial capitals from New York and London to Asia. Modest correlation to the US bond market, about .53.
"Strategic" was all the rage in fund naming once. Not so much now. These things come and go.
David

@hank,
I wonder if you were able to do this through a brick & mortor office of TRP rather than thru their online service if transfers would work better? In this way, the medallion seal could be affixed on the spot, if required, without you having to find another financial institution that would affix their medallion seal for your signature guarantee on the required paperwork.
Please let us know how this upcoming transfer works out for you.
Old_Skeet

Here is a thought. Have the financial institution that you are moving the assets to use the ACAT system to make the transfer. The link below will describe how this works.
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/a/acat.asp

Simple transaction - move IRA cash, trustee to trustee, from one existing account to another. I hit the trifecta - three different institutions doing what they can to make this difficult.
Vanguard (recipient): Hard to transfer cash to existing mutual fund platform account. System automatically opened a brokerage account nd prefilled form with new account. I had to call Vanguard to have the cash go into my existing account.
Vanguard requires all transfers to be submitted by paper.
Merrill Edge (sender): Requires all transfers of $50K out of an IRA to have a medallion guarantee. They have a different limit for a transfer into an IRA, and a different limit for a taxable account.
I asked Merrill on the phone if I could walk into a BofA office to get the guarantee and was told they would only guarantee money coming into Merrill, not out.
Schwab:Won't provide a medallion guarantee to its customers unless the paperwork itself involves Schwab. Even then, my local office isn't able to stamp the docs. What's the point of having a local office if they can't handle the stuff that must be done in person?
IMHO none of these hurdles would disqualify an institution (how often does one move money from one account to another). But surely two decades into the 21st century they could be a little more tech savvy and a bit more customer friendly.

FYI: For decades, Charles Schwab Corp. quietly plotted to unleash its ultimate weapon against rivals: $0 fees.
Schwab considered eliminating charges in the 1990s after the advent of online trading, and again in the 2000s during the financial crisis, according to a person with knowledge of the matter. Each time, it dismissed the idea as too risky — a danger to its own bottom line.
But with investing costs collapsing across Wall Street, the San Francisco-based company finally took the leap in October — and, in a matter of weeks, it drove a major rival into its arms.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.google.com/search?sxsrf=ACYBGNTBIJnksn8sukNgSElRoUEaMiQEZQ:1574851570290&source=hp&ei=8lPeXaLXDtHwsAWsnKAI&q=Schwab+muscles+its+way+to+the+top+of+a+zero-fee+world&oq=Schwab+muscles+its+way+to+the+top+of+a+zero-fee+world&gs_l=psy-ab.3..33i160.3139.3139..4163...1.0..0.98.98.1......0....2j1..gws-wiz.Bo2jz6-elV0&ved=0ahUKEwiimKyjm4rmAhVROKwKHSwOCAEQ4dUDCAc&uact=5

SEC press release: https://www.sec.gov/news/press-release/2019-242
SEC proposed rule: https://www.sec.gov/rules/proposed/2019/34-87607.pdf
The proposal would apply not only to ETFs, but "to mutual funds (other than money market funds), exchange-traded funds (“ETFs”), registered closed-end funds, and companies that have elected to be treated as business development companies (“BDCs”) under the Investment Company Act."
It is based on limiting a fund's "value at risk" (VaR) relative to that of a benchmark, e.g. not more than 150% as much risk. I confess to not being familiar with the (apparently commonplace) term VaR. Briefly:

It is the probability that a portfolio will experience a mark-to-market loss that exceeds that of a specific predetermined threshold value.
Essentially this means that value at risk is measured in three variables:

1. The amount of potential loss,
2. The probability of that loss, and
3. The timeframe.

https://marketbusinessnews.com/financial-glossary/what-is-value-at-risk-var/
A more extensive discussion, including VaR's uses and limitations, and various ways it may be calculated: http://people.stern.nyu.edu/adamodar/pdfiles/papers/VAR.pdf

For new and seasoned investors, the rule of "do your homework" still applies, eh? Read as much as you need for your understanding comfort level, and ask questions about a particular investment to be comfortable with the fit in your perception of risk tolerance and how the investment fits into a portfolio for your age and other financial circumstance. In the below case I knew there must be a typo. FAGIX had a loss of -5.79% in 2018 and is YTD about +15.4%. A -5.79% loss for 2018 became a -58% (very close number types with throwing away a decimal and rounding). Yup, we all have brain farts from time to time.
So here's the deal. I read the linked article from the perspective of a seasoned individual investor/boomer familiar with FAGIX. I also thought about the article from the perspective of a relatively new investor attempting to understand investments. Mr. Kinnel starts the write directing the reader to only the years of 2019 and 2020 and possible investment scenarios for the funds mentioned. He writes in the EXAMPLE below of FAGIX rebounding from a 58% loss.
FROM Russel Kinnel: As investors review their results for the year and plot a course for the future, some will no doubt be tempted to dump the holding that did worst and reallocate that money to the managers who did best. Yet a review of the greatest turnarounds this year suggests that your biggest winner in 2020 might be one of your biggest disappointments from 2019. At a minimum, be sure you aren't selling simply because the fund's style is lagging.

EXAMPLE from the article:Fidelity Capital & Income (FAGIX) is yet another Notkin vehicle. In this case, it's a high-yield bond fund that rebounded from a 58% loss to a 15.2% gain. As I mentioned, the equity version has higher highs and lower lows, but the drivers are similar. Notkin has about 20% of the fund in many of those same stocks as Fidelity Leveraged Company Stock, and his aggressive style is on display with his bond selection, too.
Good evening,
Catch

Strange day. My funds, and those I track, are all over the place. Conservative (40/60) TRRIX dropped .26%, while Index 500 VFINX lost only .15%. Obviously rates somewhere along the yield curve spiked. T Rowe’s tech-heavy blue chip fund TRBUX held up reasonably well with a modest .23% loss, while Hussman’s defense oriented HSGFX lost more than twice that much. The REIT fund I formerly owned (OREAX) got clocked pretty good, down more than 1.5%, consistent with an increase in rates. And my usually sedate alternative fund TMSRX experienced a .30% loss, signifying that even five separate teams of brains working together couldn’t figure out how to profit from today’s market gyrations. Just a few observations here .... None of this should supplant @Ted’s rigorously thorough market summary.
Edit: DODBX bucked the trend with a .30% gain. They’ve been overweight financial stocks that might benefit from higher rates. Generally, DODBX has been catching up with its peers after a slow start to the year. Overall, there seems to be much market fixation on where rates are headed. Federal Reserve is always front and center. Perhaps not unlike Alice in Wonderland - “Sentence first–verdict afterward."

FYI: U.S. stocks edged lower Thursday as investors assessed conflicting signals on prospects for the U.S.-China trade talks.
The Dow Jones Industrial Average dropped 0.20%, a day after the gauge of blue-chip stocks logged its biggest fall of the month. The S&P 500 slipped 0.16%, and the Nasdaq Composite slid 0.24%. All three major U.S. indexes earlier this week notched the latest in a string of recent all-time highs.
Investors continued to monitor the drumbeat of headlines on attempts to resolve trade tensions between the U.S. and China.
China’s chief trade negotiator late last week invited his American counterparts for a new round of face-to-face talks, according to people briefed on the matter, The Wall Street Journal reported Thursday. Chinese officials hope the negotiations can take place before the Thanksgiving holiday, but the U.S. side hasn’t committed to a date.
That report came less than a day after President Trump criticized China’s efforts to reach a trade agreement, escalating concerns that the world’s two biggest economies won’t reach a deal this year.
Overseas, the pan-continental Stoxx Europe 600 index retreated 0.4%, led by losses in sectors most exposed to the global economic impact of worsening trade tensions.
Investors who parsed Federal Reserve meeting minutes released Wednesday found central bank officials said little about what would prompt them to resume interest-rate cuts when they signaled a pause following last month’s rate reduction.
The health of the U.S. economy has been a focus of investors, and a recent drive into shares of economically sensitive companies, like banks and manufacturers, has suggested optimism about the economic outlook. New data Thursday showed the number of Americans applying for first-time unemployment benefits held steady at a near five-month high last week, above the level expected by economists surveyed by The Wall Street Journal. The recent rise in jobless claims could be an early indication of a cooling labor market, or it could reflect seasonal volatility around the holidays.
The yield on the benchmark 10-year U.S. Treasury was 1.781%, up from 1.737% Wednesday. Bond yields rise as prices fall.
Energy shares led gains among S&P 500 sectors, rising 1.1% as U.S. crude oil rose 2.3%.
Company-specific news drove swings in individual stocks. Shares of Charles Schwab jumped 6.6% after CNBC reported that the brokerage is in talks to buy TD Ameritrade Holding and a deal could be announced as early as Thursday. TD Ameritrade surged 18%. Rival E*Trade Financial dropped 9%.
Shares of Tiffany rose 2.6% following a Reuters report that LVMH Moët Hennessy Louis Vuitton SE has gained access to the jewelry retailer’s books after it improved its takeover offer to nearly $16 billion.
Regards,
Ted
Bloomberg Evening Briefing:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-11-21/your-evening-briefing
MarketWatch:
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/us-stock-futures-pare-losses-after-report-chinas-liu-cautiously-optimistic-over-trade-deal-2019-11-21/print
WSJ:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/stocks-fall-on-dimming-hopes-for-u-s-china-trade-talks-11574315113
Bloomberg:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-11-20/asia-stocks-set-for-caution-on-u-s-china-tensions-markets-wrap
IBD:
https://www.investors.com/market-trend/stock-market-today/dow-jones-down-239-points-for-week-china-concerns-tesla-stock-hits-buy-point/
CNBC:
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/11/21/us-stocks-wall-street-in-focus-amid-earnings-data-and-trade-talks.html
Reuters:
https://uk.reuters.com/article/us-usa-stocks/wall-street-muted-on-doubts-over-progress-in-u-s-china-trade-deal-idUKKBN1XV1GM
U.K:
https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-stocks/uk-stocks-fall-as-trade-fears-labour-manifesto-weigh-idUKKBN1XV0UN
Europe:
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-europe-stocks/trade-woes-knock-european-shares-for-the-fourth-day-thyssenkrupp-slumps-idUSKBN1XV12X
Asia:
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/11/21/asia-markets-november-21-us-china-trade-hong-kong-protests-currencies.html
Bonds:
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/11/21/us-treasury-yields-amid-us-china-trade-tensions-jobless-claims.html
Currencies:
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/11/15/forex-markets-us-china-trade-deal-in-focus.html
Oil
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/11/21/oil-markets-us-china-trade-deal-in-focus.html
Gold:
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/11/21/gold-markets-us-china-trade-deal-in-focus.html
WSJ: Markets At A Glance:
https://markets.wsj.com/us
Major ETFs % Change:
https://www.barchart.com/etfs-funds/etf-monitor
SPDR's Sector Tracker:
http://www.sectorspdr.com/sectorspdr/tools/sector-tracker
SPDR's Bloomberg Sector Performance Pie Chart:
https://www.bloomberg.com/markets/sectors
Current Futures:
https://finviz.com/futures.ashx

Hi, guys.
Several months ago a reader asked if we could include brokerage availability information with all of our single-fund articles (profiles, Elevator Talks, Launch Alerts). That seemed like a reasonable request, so I started hunting. The information used to be available on Morningstar.com but no longer is.
I was in conversation with the folks at Morningstar and they offered to provide their master list of brokerage availability to use with our articles; the only condition was that the list of "for internal use only," which means that I can extract information about an individual fund's availability in the course of an article but I can't give folks access to the list itself.
Fair enough. Generous, actually.
Here's the place where I'd like your help. How much brokerage information should we list? The easy answer is "all of it," but "all of it" is a swamp. FAMEX, for example, has 80 listed brokerage options including multiple listings for many platforms (Schwab One Source, Schwab NTF, Schwab Institutional ...). Here's what it looks like, straight from the master list:
Ausdal Financial Partners Inc;Cetera Advisors LLC;Cetera Advisor Networks LLC;E TRADE Financial;Mid Atlantic Capital Corp;Pershing FundCenter;EP Fee Small;Shareholders Services Group;JPMorgan;Merrill Lynch;T. Rowe Price;TD Ameritrade Trust Company;LPL SAM Eligible;Fidelity Retail FundsNetwork;Fidelity Retail FundsNetwork-NTF;Fidelity Institutional FundsNetwork;Fidelity Institutional FundsNetwork-NTF;DATALynx;Dreyfus NTF;Federated TrustConnect NTF;Mony Securities Corp;SunAmerica Securities Premier / Pinnacle;Vanguard NTF;ETrade No Load Fee;SunGard Transaction Network;Royal Alliance;Bear Stearns No-Load Transaction Fee;CommonWealth Universe;Robert W. Baird & Co.;JPMorgan INVEST;WFA MF Advisory Updated 2/01/2019;RBC Wealth Management-Network Eligible;DailyAccess Corporation RTC;DailyAccess Corporation FRIAG;Sterne, Agee & Leach, Inc.,;EP Fee Large;ING Financial Ptnrs PAM and PRIME Approv;Ameritas NTFN;Ameritas NTF P;Firstrade;Scottrade NTF;Standard Retirement Services, Inc.;TIAA-CREF Brokerage Services;Pershing FundVest NTF;Matrix Financial Solutions;Trade PMR Transaction Fee;ING Financial Advisers - SAS Funds;Mid Atlantic Capital Group;HD Vest - Vest Advisor;Securities America Advisors;Bear Stearns;Securities America Advisors Top Rated;Protected Investors of America NTF;JP MORGAN NO-LOAD NTF;JP MORGAN NTF;JP MORGAN NO-LOAD TRANSACTION FEE;TD Ameritrade Retail NTF;TD Ameritrade Institutional NTF;TIAA-CREF NTF;MSWM Brokerage;WFA Fdntl Choice/PIM Updated 2/01/2019;DailyAccess Corporation Mid-Atlantic;RBC Wealth Management-Wrap Eligible;E-Plan Services, Inc.;Investacorp NTF;ING Financial Partners Inc.;Securities America Inc.;Nationwide Retirement Flexible Advantage;JP Morgan No Load;Merrill Edge;DailyAccess Corporation Matrix;DailyAccess Corporation MATC;LPL SWM;Schwab All (Retail, Instl, Retirement);Schwab OneSource & NTF (No Load & No Transaction Fee);Pershing Retirement Plan Network;HD Vest;Commonwealth (NTF);Commonwealth (NTF - PPS/Advisory);Commonwealth (PPS/Advisory);
Uh ... ick.
This project is being handled by David Welsch, who is learning to do all of the technical stuff as part of our business continuity planning. Good guy. Bright. Good spirited. But not a fund industry obsessive, so I'll need to provide very specific directions to keep it manageable and consistently high quality.
The easiest option is to include every platform, but just once. That cuts JPMorgan from six to one, and reduces the list from 80 to 43:
Ameritas NTF P; Ausdal Financial Partners Inc; Bear Stearns; Cetera Advisors LLC; Commonwealth (NTF); DailyAccess Corporation RTC; DATALynx; Dreyfus NTF; EP Fee Large; E-Plan Services, Inc.; ETrade No Load Fee; Federated TrustConnect NTF; Fidelity Retail FundsNetwork; Firstrade; HD Vest; ING Financial Advisers ; Investacorp NTF; JP MORGAN NO-LOAD NTF; LPL SWM; Matrix Financial Solutions; Merrill Lynch; Mid Atlantic Capital Group; Mony Securities Corp; MSWM Brokerage; Nationwide Retirement Flexible Advantage; Pershing FundVest NTF; Protected Investors of America NTF; RBC Wealth Management; Robert W. Baird & Co.; Royal Alliance; Scottrade NTF; Securities America Advisors; Shareholders Services Group; Standard Retirement Services, Inc.; Sterne, Agee & Leach, Inc.; SunAmerica Securities SunGard Transaction Network; T. Rowe Price; TD Ameritrade Retail NTF; TIAA-CREF NTF; Trade PMR ; Vanguard NTF; WFA Fdntl;
So the Ausdal's of the world continue to clutter the list and lots of those brokerages have details (SWS versus SAM in the case of one firm, Fdntl for another) that are significant but not worth our time to suss out.
The second option is to include only the top tier brokerages, once we fiqure out who those are (it's Schwab but is it LPL? Baird?). So:
The fund is available through 80 platforms or programs including ETrade, Fidelity, Firstrade, JP Morgan, Merrill Lynch, Pershing, Robert W. Baird & Co., T. Rowe Price, TD Ameritrade, TIAA-CREF and Vanguard.
Which works only if we agree on which names to have David look for. It also strips out the infinite variety of fee levels; JPMorgan had six entries because it is sometimes NTF, sometimes Institutional, sometimes Load ...
Curious, as ever, about your thoughts.
David

Following up on Shadow's round 2, and the original thread "Transition your Vanguard account to a Brokerage Account".
https://mutualfundobserver.com/discuss/discussion/36197/transition-your-vanguard-account-to-a-brokerage-account
https://mutualfundobserver.com/discuss/discussion/41030/vanguard-brokerage-account-conversion-round-2
I've gotten a couple of emails from Vanguard in the past few days, and its site puts up a dialog box (Action needed: Your account needs to be transitioned) when I log in. Vanguard's getting aggressive now. Or, given that this is Vanguard, is that passive aggressive? :-)
I expect that pretty soon they'll push everyone onto their brokerage platform. Highlights from the last email received:
We're retiring our old investment platform, which is what you're using today. We'll need you to take a few minutes to complete a 3-step transition to our new investment platform. [This is also essentially what's in the dialog box.]
Why do we need you to do it?
Having all of our clients on a single, more flexible platform will allow us to save money and make service improvements faster. Ultimately, this will benefit you as we expect to lower costs and improve your client experience.
What actually happens?
To illustrate what happens when you transition, we'll use a hypothetical example. Let's say you have a Traditional IRA today. Once you complete the transition, we'll take the investments in that Traditional IRA and move them into a new Traditional IRA Brokerage Account (a brokerage account is just the financial industry's name for a general investment account).

I gather you've been watching the esurance commercials ("Let's be honest. Nobody likes dealing with insurance.") :-) See video below.
That aside, IMHO people focus too much on cost as opposed to value received, but only from some products and services. Do people complain about how little Apple products cost to manufacture compared with the price they're paying? To keep it in the financial industry, does it bother you that banks pay you so much less in interest than they make by lending your money out? Or do you just shop for higher APYs?

Rational life cycle consumers with no interest in leaving a bequest would always choose to annuitize 100 percent of their wealth. After all, they face a choice between a traditional investment with a market return and an annuity with a market return plus a mortality credit.

You appear to be saying that because the insurance company is skimming some unknown ("true cost") amount, you're getting less than "a market return" with the annuity. Fair enough, but because of mortality credits, one still comes out better than making "a traditional investment with a market return." The paper uses the net value of immediate annuities, so its results do incorporate their underlying costs.
Health insurance companies are required to spend at least 80% (85% in the case of large employer plans) on actual health care (Medical Loss Ratio). The amount they are allowed to spend on administrative costs and profits combined is limited to 20%. These figures are already audited, and I've received checks back from my insurer because it spent less than 80% for a couple of years.