Frankenmuth is a small Michigan based insurer. Also does business in Ohio. Been with them forever.
Long story short …. Rented car totaled while waiting for a red light to change in Florida 15 years ago. “No-fault” state. When the steeply padded bill from Budget arrived a few weeks later insurer settled with them fully. To this day I avoid buying expensive rental insurance.

I can report this re Chubb: A couple of years ago my Toyota Tacoma was parked and a woman (somewhat under the influence of something or other) took out a rear fender while attempting to park behind me. She had Chub and they paid quickly and in full on one estimate.

Beer googles?

Definition from Oxford Languages:
"Beer goggles" - used to refer to the supposed influence of alcohol on one's visual perception, whereby one is sexually attracted to people who would not otherwise be appealing,
when applied to financial markets becomes:
"Beer GOOGLs" - used to refer to the supposed influence of AI on one's analytical perception, whereby one is financially attracted to stocks that would not otherwise be appealing,
(all strictly in the spirit of this commentary, of course).
While a long-time fan of Cinnamond's fund management, I also own (a rather smaller) position in VSMIX. To be fair, VSMIX has had an amazing run over the last 3+ years, but it might be worth keeping in mind that on the 10-y basis it's posted max DD / alpha of < -47% / -3.70 under the same management per M*. On the flip side, I do not recall Cinnamond getting much below -20% DD in his entire managerial carrier across four different funds.

@Low_Tech
I made a concerted effort several years ago to find out what the CEO et at VG REALLY make.
Sometimes you can find their published salaries but the key employes get to participate i a sort "profit sharing plan" similar to stock options.There is absolutely no information about that.
Even Fidelity publishes more information.
If you chose, you can buy shares of Schwab and go to meetings and tempt to question people about compensation etc.
VG makes such a point about "our investors own our firm" but it is total fiction because we investors have no information no control etc

FWIW: In 27 years, Schwab has never pushed anything on me, nor even hinting at it with one exception: They did when they came out with their "Robo Advisor" 8-10 years ago.
I told them I was not at all interested, and they've never brought it up again.

But it also used to be that a Private Client customer at Fidelity was assigned a specific rep. No more at either brokerage.

Fidelity still assigns you an individual Premier Services Advisor.
@msf did they also used to assign another kind of "specific rep" as well?

As a matter of fact, they've assigned a Private Access Account Executive, a Private Client Group Account Executive (same person, different title), a Senior Account Executive (same person), an Account Executive (same person), and a Financial Consultant (same person).
Then the musical chairs began. No title changes, but in the span of three years, three different "Financial Consultants". Then a year later, when the last one left Fidelity, I was not assigned any specific rep, whatever title you wish to give to them.

@msf I think you might want to consider calling Fido and just asking for one.
In my case, I was offered an individual PSA several times, but declined because I thought it might lead to more marketing, to which I am quite averse. Finally, something made me try, so I just let them know and was promptly assigned one.

Merrill? 4.71%, but that's non-sweep and requires a $100K min.

I think this is in reference to their Preferred Deposit account. If so, this is only an initial investment min, hence one would conceivably put in $100K then take them out leaving, say, $1 and then add/withdraw funds as needed - manually, as this is indeed a non-sweep account. I believe they also have several sweep accounts paying 5.17% atm, but these require a greater commitment shown here.
(To be clear, I've never had a Merrill account before but have recently decided to try them out and am in the process of transferring some funds over. The above information has been confirmed with a phone rep, but I have not had a chance to verify it myself.
Btw, so far I have found their customer service to be surprisingly helpful and competent, though I have only had minor issues to address until now. One odd thing I've encountered with Merrill is that they do not allow you to ACAT in-kind any money market funds - even those that Merrill itself offers - which is a bit of a nuisance, iyam.
Incidentally, I was also told that one can trade against their mm fund balance at Merrill - the same way one can do, say, at Schwab - can anyone confirm this?)

@hank - No sir- we've had this coverage with at least four different companies over the years and that has never come up. As Yogi mentioned though, it's a add-on requiring another underlying policy.

I do understand @BaluBalu’s point that the fund is lagging peers this year. And, like him, I try to stay broadly diversified across asset classes. Still, that +3.63% YTD would translate into something close to a 10-11% annual return if it continues. Not too shoddy - especially following last year’s +18.8%.
Looks like the fund has some high fliers in its equity portfolio, including Microsoft. So I’d look to the 32% in bonds for clues to any underperformance. Do its peers hold that high a percentage? Would depend on duration. But most bonds have been hammered this year - even at the relatively short end. There was some turn-around late last week, and bonds are looking good in the overnight trading with the 10-year currently near 4.5% after topping out around 4.7% before Powell’s press conference..
Folks know I’m agnostic on Mr. Giroux’s fund. But cannot dispute the performance and well deserved M* gold rating. I hope the fact I don’t own the fund doesn’t exclude my participation. I did own it for over 20 years,
Interesting thread.

After years of delay, Boeing to try again with Starliner space capsule
An excerpt from The Washington Post:

Before a door-size panel blew out of a Boeing 737 Max, leaving a gaping hole in the side of an Alaska Airlines aircraft shortly after takeoff; before whistleblowers came forward to say they were threatened for bringing up safety issues at the company; and before the Justice Department opened a criminal investigation into the blowout incident, Boeing was struggling with another set of issues, on another high-profile vehicle.
Its Starliner spacecraft, designed to fly astronauts to orbit under a $4.2 billion contract from NASA, had suffered a series of problems that put its launch with astronauts years behind schedule. Its onboard computer had failed during its first test flight. A second test flight was scrubbed after valves in the vehicle’s service module stuck and wouldn’t operate. Then, after the craft finally flew a test mission successfully without anyone on board, Boeing discovered that tape used as insulation on wiring inside the capsule was flammable and would need to be removed. The parachute system also had problems, which forced the company to redesign and strengthen a link between the parachutes and the spacecraft.
Now, a decade after NASA awarded Boeing a contract to fly astronauts to the International Space Station, Boeing will finally attempt to fly its Starliner spacecraft with people onboard. If all goes to plan, at 10:34 p.m. on Monday, the company is set to fly a pair of veteran astronauts, Sunita Williams and Barry “Butch” Wilmore, on a mission that will be one of the most significant tests for Boeing’s space division — and for NASA — in years.
The flight is intended to see how the spacecraft performs in space with a crew onboard. If all goes well, the spacecraft will catch up with the space station — which travels at 17,500 mph — about a day after lifting off. Along the way, the crew members will test manually flying the spacecraft before it docks autonomously with the station. NASA and Boeing will also be eager to see how the spacecraft’s heat shield and parachutes work as it brings Williams and Wilmore back to Earth after about eight days.
NASA officials express confidence in Boeing and say the company has gone to extraordinary lengths to ensure that the mission will be successful. They are eager to have another spacecraft, in addition to the one SpaceX flies, that can ferry astronauts to the station. “I can say with confidence that the teams have absolutely done their due diligence,” James Free, NASA’s associate administrator, said at a briefing last week.

I hesitate to engage with this tread in light of the poster’s negative experience at Vanguard. Like all brokerages, their unique fee schedules continue to evolve. Apparently this change at Vanguard strikes a nerve with many investors.
With that said, we have invested with Vanguard for over 30 years for our retirement and college 529 plans. And now, we use Vanguard’s advisory service. For Flagship customers, there is a special phone number that speeds up the connection. At the same time, we have equally size of asset at Fidelity and the combination of the two provide the best of both world, at least for us.

The fund has received the most inflows in the last 12 months than during any other 12 month period in the last 10 years.

I hate hearing that, but I suppose opening up that institutional ticker, TRAIX, added to the inflows. I wish they didn't do that.
@Roy posted this prospectus/ manager commentary in a post early in the year. Some of the favorites listed have not come through so far, but the year is young.
Personally, I have close to a 18-20% of portfolio stake in PRWCX and I added another 10% to PRCFX, so I'm heavily indebted to David G. To be honest, the slow YTD numbers do not concern me.
https://prospectus-express.broadridge.com/summary.asp?
From Roy's post early in the year.
Giroux discusses AI and utilities.
Sees value in:
1) GARP stocks.
2) Utilities
3) High quality high yield and loans.
4) Software.
5) Healthcare.
6) Energy. (Unusual for the fund)
Does not see value in:
1) Growth & tech that does not benefit from AI.
2) Staples. He REALLY dislikes staples.

I track a few Mod Allocation funds, though I am mostly in PRWCX. Of these funds, PRWCX has underperformed all of them YTD, which is unusual. According to M* performance page, YTD it is 39 percentile which is the lowest in 10 years. The fund has received the most inflows in the last 12 months than during any other 12 month period in the last 10 years. The PM was out promoting his other new fund launches during this past year, and that may have resulted in PRWCX inflows too.
How has the fund been positioned YTD (causing it to underperform relative to its own history)?
(I ask this to see if I want to adjust my other allocations so I compensate for what PRWCX is doing to my portfolio, provided my conviction is different from the PM's relative to his allocation decreases and increases or if he is overallocated to something. He may decrease allocation to a position if it has grown to be too big but his conviction on that may not changed. So, not all his changes are an indication of his change in conviction.)
Thanks for your thoughts on PRWCX positioning.

Mona, I am somewhat confused by your description of the situation. However, I will offer an explanation of how I handled a situation that might be comparable. I have Rollover IRA and Roth IRA accounts with Fidelity. My Roth IRA was originally with TR Price until I transferred it to Fidelity a few years ago, but it still has a number of TRP funds. My TRP foreign fund had performed poorly and I wanted to replace it with a fund from a family with better options. I sold it and bought FIVFX with some of the proceeds.
I also owned ARTKX in my Rollover IRA, and its performance has been excellent. So I converted a portion of the ARTKX shares in my Rollover account to my ROTH account. Once the conversion was complete, I was able to buy more shares of ARTKX in my Roth IRA. So, I was able to upgrade my foreign holdings in my Roth IRA while also increasing my overall holdings in ARTKX.
I did a similar thing with the balanced fund (TRPBX) in my Roth IRA because its performance had been declining for a while. I converted a portion of the FBALX shares in my Rollover account to my Roth account. Then I sold all of the share's in TRPBX and bought more FBALX in my Roth. Since TRP would not let me buy PRWCX, I also bought shares in TCAF and PRCFX.
Long story short, I did a series of conversions from my Rollover IRA in order to add additional funds that I want in my Roth IRA.

Hopefully, I can explain the situation and my objective.
I have retirement accounts and non-retirement accounts at two institutions. I set this up because I did not want to have all at one institution plus I was able to purchase funds at one that I could not at the other. These dual objectives remain, but as I will explain, two funds are in focus. The below four accounts are all retirement accounts and being that I no longer have earned income, I can no longer contribute to a retirement plan.
Institution A
I am not certain where the names of these accounts came from.
I have a “Rollover Brokerage Account”. I have no problem selling any fund that is currently in this account - $460k current value.
I have a “Roth IRA Brokerage Account” (converted to a Roth many years ago). In this account, I own Artisan International Value (ARTKX) and T. Rowe Price Capital Appreciation (PRWCX) - $501k current value.
Institution B
I am not certain where the names of these accounts came from.
I have a “Rollover IRA Account”. I have no problem selling any fund that is currently in this account - $535k current value.
I have a “Roth Conversion Account” (converted to a Roth many years ago). In this account, I own Artisan International Value (ARTKX) - $176k current value.
As I recall, I have kept some of these fund separate (pure) mainly for asset protection (right or wrong). I believe that the “Rollover IRA Account” in Institution A came from an IRA. I believe the “Rollover Brokerage Account” in Institution B also came from an IRA. I now have an umbrella policy for which the coverage exceeds the value of all my retirement accounts.
My objective is to buy more ARTKX and PRWCX and I can't do this in my “Roth IRA Brokerage Account” at institution A or in my “Roth Conversion Account” in institution B. I could purchase all equity TCAF (which would be fine) without any maneuvering, but that does not address the problem with ARTKX. Either ARTKX or PRWCX can be purchased at A or B and a purchase fee is a non-factor.
I do not see an obvious solution. Combining both Roth accounts does not do anything for me other than allow me to allocate between ARTKX and PRWCX. Combining Traditional IRA's does not do anything for me because I do not own ARTKX or PRWCX in either. I have to check if either of the “Rollover” accounts in A and B are Roth accounts. If so, that would be an answer, but I doubt either are as they do not contain the word “Roth”. That seems to leave a Roth conversion in A or B, which I do not want as I am in a 24% marginal and 18% effective tax bracket, and to purchase a good amount of ARTKX or PRWCX, I would have to Roth an amount that would even put me in a higher tax bracket.
Am I boxed out of purchasing more ARTKX and PRWCX?

I received the notice about new fees in the post today. The $100 fee for closing an account is particularly puzzling. If someone has a non-Roth IRA when they reach a certain age they are required by law to take annual distributions. That's the R in RMD. After a number of years the Vanguard investor (or heirs) will have received all the money in the IRA account. Presumably the account will then be closed. But Vanguard is going to keep $100 of the final distribution for themselves? Can that be legal?
What about a non-retirement account? In the past I have redeemed all my shares in certain mutual funds (both Vanguard and not) and the account has remained open with no money in it. That has been the actual case at Vanguard for years for me. I never requested that the account be closed and so it wasn't. If I redeem all shares of a Vanguard fund that does have money invested in it and don't request that the account be closed I wonder if they will steal, er, I mean keep, $100 of my money. Why would anyone insist that an account be closed anyway? AND, they don't say that the fee will be charged. They say that it "may" be charged.

Glanced at Mark’s linked article. Didn’t take away much. But that’s Barron’s for you. Good at highlighting a number of different investment approaches and those who practice them to the point you get the sense you should buy one thing one week, sell it, and buy something else the next.
Personally, not into dividends per-se. As long as whatever I own goes up I’m happy.
Can’t help mentioning TRP’s PRFDX. When I began taking an active role in investing in the mid-90s it was considered possibly the best fund for everyday investors in Price’s much smaller stable. Brian Rogers, the manager in the 90s and beyond was a household name and was often a guest on Wall Street Week. Performance suffered for a few years after Rogers left. PRFDX’s younger brethren PRWCX took its place as perhaps the most touted TRP fund. (And David Gerioux became a household name.) But it looks like PRFDX has rebounded in recent years. And the +11.62% return going out 15 years is pretty impressive. Don’t own. Did for a while 25 years ago or so.

Well, I logged in to VG this morning and everything was back to normal. Thanks everyone for your replies.
In this mornings mail I received VGs amended Brokerage Account Agreement.
$25 commission for telephone trades.
$100 fee for account closure or transfer of account to another firm.
Plus several other changes and charges.
All effective June 1.
I'll have to study it more later.
I have been with VG for years. I wonder if other firms charge such fees?

That's another trick … Have you looked at ETFs of CEFs?

Yes, there anre some ETFs of CEF’s .
CCEF appears to be quite risk averse. If I had to recommend one, that would be it - just based on my experience in two other Calimos funds. But it is only a couple months old. Another which @yogibearbull has mentioned before is Boaz Weinstein’s CEFS which I recently sold. For my own purposes the closed end fund (of closed end funds) noted earlier works better.
Weinstein uses leverage on that one (CEFS) in addition to the leverage inside the CEFs it holds. (”Double your pleasure.”) He’s been very successful at his activist approach. He’s been on Blackrock’s tail recently trying to force them to convert at least one of their CEFs to an OEF and “unlock” shareholder value. He shorted treasuries in recent years which helped the fund greatly. His is a great fund based on past performance and Weinstein’s reputation. Just depends on what you need.
*The near 5% fee on CEFS is an eye-popper. But the actual management fee is around 1%, with the rest coming from acquired fund fees and interest on leverage,

@sma3 - I can't argue that about SCHD at all. All I was trying to say originally is that it wasn't paying enough to suit my goals for that type of investment.
When I set out on this path (i.e. dividend growth investor) I was looking for stocks that had a track record of consistent, long-term dividend growth with the opportunity for capital appreciation as a secondary objective. The funds I scoured (many) all seemed to be paying yields that one could easily increase (often substantially) by simply investing in their top-5 or 10 picks. TIBIX was the fund I was using back then but after a few years of doing as advertised, building their income, it stagnated and eventually came to a halt. I wasn't smart enough to figure out why that happened and I wasn't sure any similar fund wouldn't do exactly the same.
As also previously mentioned, I get that it's not everyones cup of tea. I'll also admit that holding my current choices may constrain the capital appreciation aspect but the income continues to increase which was my primary objective.

But it also used to be that a Private Client customer at Fidelity was assigned a specific rep. No more at either brokerage.

Fidelity still assigns you an individual Premier Services Advisor.
@msf did they also used to assign another kind of "specific rep" as well?

As a matter of fact, they've assigned a Private Access Account Executive, a Private Client Group Account Executive (same person, different title), a Senior Account Executive (same person), an Account Executive (same person), and a Financial Consultant (same person).
Then the musical chairs began. No title changes, but in the span of three years, three different "Financial Consultants". Then a year later, when the last one left Fidelity, I was not assigned any specific rep, whatever title you wish to give to them.