Once upon a time, Wellstarde had access to many I share funds that were not available at Fidelity and Schwab + zero fees, but it wasn't a guarantee to be executed.
It was fun for a while for several of us until most/all left their terrible customer service and unreliable system.
It was great to get in for FREE and hold lower ER funds forever and then transfer them.
I left VG pretty early, within 1-2 years, and transferred everything to Fidelity. Everything was great, I found Schwab by mistake. My employer allowed us to use Schwab as part of our 401K. I found a great competitor.

Yep. 11.5% in the 80s The first house we bought ($35,000) however we assumed an FHA mortgage. The house was not our first choice, on a busy street etc, but we didnt want to hock our souls and then some to the Bank
Sold it two years later for $55,000. Only house we made much on. In CT we sold our house for 30% more than we paid for it, after 30 years. ugh

The mortgage on our first house was 10.5% in 1986. Our second house had a mortgage about 8%, but we refinanced to a 15-year loan at 6% a couple years later. We eventually paid it off at that rate.

Good useful summary, although the example of worse case losses being 2% a year seems a bit optimistic. Averaged over 10 years it comes closer.
He doesn't mention the importance of the source of the withdrawals, ie taking money from bonds when stock market down etc.
Delaying the inflation adjustment also saves the suggested portfolio in several other examples ie "The All Weather Retirement Portfolio" by Randy Thurman.
One of the most complex discussions of allocations and withdrawal rates I have read is "Living Off Your Money" by Michael McClung. It has dozens of allocations and methods of withdrawal, almost too many. But they are all back tested with 40 to 50 years of data

I have been in the decumulation phase for five years now. It’s not just a phase . The risk of loss of capital seems a bigger deal as the clock runs down. As someone who is not investing for future generations preserving capital must be balanced carefully against the risks that come with growing it. Just my 2 cents.

@jptak, good to know that you have been at MFO for MANY years. As there are many comments/complaints here related to M* or Morningstar, I often wondered if anyone from M* was here looking or monitoring.
BTW, we have also communicated at X/Twitter (@syouth1, @YBB_Finance).

Of all the people I've talked to at Schwab in the past 27 years, every one has been very pleasant and super polite. Unless you're getting very technical with something where they might connect you to a broker, they are knowledgeable and know their way around the website.
My only other experience with brokers was with Vanguard, 10 or so years ago, I was not impressed.

For the record. A few years back I did two direct rollovers. One 401 k going to Schwab & one to Vanguard. Oops one came as a check to me. Checked the amount of the check against 401-k account. No with holdings. I didn't sign the check , but wrote on the back for the benefit of >>>> into IRA account XXX. Sent it on it's way . So far so good !

FMILX - one manager, 1.3 yrs tenure, $100-500K invested
From M*: "The strategy underwent an entire portfolio management team change about a year ago".
Not quite your classic LCV fund!
The portfolio was LCV through 2021 and LC Blend in 2022. It's just the recent strategy change that overhauled the portfolio. M* generally uses a three year lookback in classifying funds, to ensure that a fund's classification isn't whipsawed because of momentary changes in portfolio style. Arguably M* should make an exception when there's a complete change of strategy and management.

Fund categories are much more stable, designed to avoid such noise by putting each fund into a peer group that best represents what its portfolio has looked like over the long term and is likely to look like in the future.
...
There are no hard-and-fast rules, but generally if a fund's style box has consistently differed from its category for three years or more, we'll consider moving it to a new category that's more in sync with its portfolio.

https://www.morningstar.com/articles/306244/why-is-my-funds-style-box-different-from-its-category
Who remembers what this fund was originally supposed to be? It was started in 1992 as a fund focused on new trends and a promise to close before it became another hulking Fidelity fund.
From the 1996 prospectus:

The fund's management style focuses on identifying future beneficiaries of social and economic change. FMR examines social attitudes, legislative actions, economic plans, product innovation, demographics, and other factors to learn what underlying trends are shaping the marketplace. Based on its interpretation of these trends, FMR tries to identify the industries and companies that will benefit, and then analyzes the fundamental values of each potential investment. ... The fund's strategy can lead to investments in small and medium sized companies, which carry more risk than larger ones. Generally, these companies, especially small sized ones, rely on limited product lines and markets, financial resources, or other factors. This may make them more susceptible to setbacks or downturns.

That hardly describes a fund holding the largest companies in the country.
And it did close as promised, while it was still small. I don't know of any other fund that Fidelity closed like that. "Effective the close of business on May 15, 1996, the fund was closed to new accounts."

I opened an account in the early 2010s, for access to TGBAX when it was still a solid fund. It filled a small hole in my portfolio (foreign bonds). Firstrade was the only game in town where one could access the cheaper Advisor class shares with a small min. Firstrade charged $9.95/trade back then.
Like much of the rest of the investing world, I abandoned TGBAX a few years later. No reason at the time to keep an empty account with Firstrade. Though I did like being able to walk into their office.
Firstrade didn't go transaction fee free until 2018, after I'd left.
https://www.firstrade.com/press/pr180824

I'm probably not going to be very useful but if you're looking to invest in the commodity there is this from Investopedia Top Natural Gas ETFs for 2023
Aside from that I have held an investment in EPD for about 10 years now. EPD is one of the largest Midstream Oil and Gas companies in North America.
Good luck with your research.

Hi there. Yogi is correct -- we decommissioned the stewardship grades some years ago when we rolled out the 'Analyst Ratings' (now called 'Medalist Ratings'), one pillar of which was 'Parent'. In essence, we relocated the stewardship assessments from the Stewardship Grade framework to the Parent pillar rating framework, but we didn't reduce our focus on these matters.
I hope this is helpful.
Let me know if you have any follow-up questions.
Kind regards,
Jeff Ptak
Morningstar Research Services

FWIW, my account was an IRA (good guess!). I closed it several years ago but the Firstrade still lets me log in though not trade, obviously. So I can pull up some info like this but cannot do things like test trades to see what happens.
Brokerages are often free to set their own mins. It's pretty well known that one can get institutional class shares with lower mins at many brokerages (typically with a TF). It works the other way, too. Sometimes brokerages set mins above the prospectus min. For example, many brokerages set a $100K min for RPHIX even though the prospectus requires only $50K.
Firstrade is just following the propsectus for MRFOX. $10K min for regular accounts, $1K for IRAs.
https://doc.morningstar.com/docdetail.aspx?ticker=MRFOX
The issue I have with Schwab's fee is that it applies to every purchase. I'm willing to pay the 49.95 basis point charge ($49.95 on $10K) one time to get access to an institutional share class of some fund that saves me 25 basis points per year with its lower ER. I'm a long term investor.
But I don't want to do that repeatedly with incremental investments. Fidelity's $5 "side door" - adding smaller amounts via auto-invest - makes the initial fee tolerable. (OTOH, Schwab offers funds with lower mins and seems to have a wider assortment.)

Thanks. May I ask why you closed Firstrade? Antiquated system but does offer a number of mutual funds institutional class without charge.

FMILX - one manager, 1.3 yrs tenure, $100-500K invested
FDSVX - two managers, 17 & 7 years tenure, both > $1 million invested

Near lowest in 25 years.
Please list best suggestions on how to play Nat Gas.

FWIW, my account was an IRA (good guess!). I closed it several years ago but the Firstrade still lets me log in though not trade, obviously. So I can pull up some info like this but cannot do things like test trades to see what happens.
Brokerages are often free to set their own mins. It's pretty well known that one can get institutional class shares with lower mins at many brokerages (typically with a TF). It works the other way, too. Sometimes brokerages set mins above the prospectus min. For example, many brokerages set a $100K min for RPHIX even though the prospectus requires only $50K.
Firstrade is just following the propsectus for MRFOX. $10K min for regular accounts, $1K for IRAs.
https://doc.morningstar.com/docdetail.aspx?ticker=MRFOX
The issue I have with Schwab's fee is that it applies to every purchase. I'm willing to pay the 49.95 basis point charge ($49.95 on $10K) one time to get access to an institutional share class of some fund that saves me 25 basis points per year with its lower ER. I'm a long term investor.
But I don't want to do that repeatedly with incremental investments. Fidelity's $5 "side door" - adding smaller amounts via auto-invest - makes the initial fee tolerable. (OTOH, Schwab offers funds with lower mins and seems to have a wider assortment.)

@Crash- I'll tell you what- when you find the perfect broker who meets each and every one of your non-negotiable demands, and has a record of perfect service for at least ten years, please let the rest of us know.

Ain’t that the truth? 90% success / satisfaction over time is pretty good in the business world. I’ve been with probably 15 different fund houses over 50 + years. Only two became so atrocious in service that I fled on account of it: Strong Funds and T.Rowe Price. Works out to about 87% success rate. And no one else has ever even come close to sharing in the dubois distinction possessed by the two afore mentioned.

@Crash, have you checked out local credit unions?

Now, THERE'S an idea. But I've just read a thing from someone else here. And I spoke to the wife. REAL customer service has been dead for many years. Among brokerages, TRP has lost my confidence. Schwab has to be better, even though Customer Service is dead there, too. Vanguard, according to many here, is downright stinky, if not stinky-poopy. And I don't cotton to Fidelity's website. ...So, Schwab it is.
____End____

msf "It's just economics. Some places do better than others (e.g. economies of scale, better training methods, more productive technology, etc.), but they are all subject to the same tradeoffs."
True for some but not all. I found over the years great tradeoffs, there are plenty of them. See examples below.
Restaurants: we love cheap, fast, good service at great prices.
Hotels: we usually stay in Fairfield Inn, Hamptons, and Holiday Inn Express. You get breakfast in all of them, they are cheaper than others and you get similar services.
Vehicles: A Camry is a much better buy than many others that cost more.
Auto, Home, and Umbrella insurance can be cheaper if you do the work as I do, and better too.
I pay nothing for Schwab services and they are better than others that would cost me more.
REI, the outdoor store has an excellent service and return policy, such as returning your shoes that you have worn for up to a year if you are not happy. Prices are good too.
I switched from cable to YouTubeTV, it's a lot cheaper for similar stuff. It's an example of big Tech, Google, eating up legacy companies.
Most of the auto mechanics I know charge a lot of money and some are not good. My mechanic has a small shop, very cheap and excellent.
Remember, more expensive doesn't guarantee better it just guarantees you will spend more.

In trying to look for clear & concise explanation of "Y" and "F" shares, I found this:
"If the ticker ends with the letter "Y", this means that it is not an F share, but a Y share."
OK, cannot argue with that at all (-:). But seriously, from the same link (from a legal outfit),
"Y shares designate American Depositary Receipts (ADR) that are being traded in the US market. Banks or other depositary institutions will hold foreign shares and issue receipts for them. This is called an ADR. The ADR will be denominated in a ratio of one ADR to X-number of foreign shares."
"While (F share) trades are executed in US dollars by US broker-dealers, the shares are settled, cleared and custodised in your local market.
An F share is created in the US when a broker-dealer files a Form 211 with FINRA (the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority) to create a US ticker symbol in order to report trades in the US in your company’s shares. This is not a new share. It is a reference to your existing shares via a newly created ticker symbol in the United States for reporting and trading purposes."
My story: from YEARS ago, I had a Canadian "F" share fund. Commission/fee was high - I don't remember if it was $50, but was much higher than $6.95. It had almost 3-day turnaround for trade confirmations (not for settlement!). When I complained, I was told that those don't really trade in the US. Some US aggregator/dealer trades them in Canada when he felt like it, and my broker could confirm only when he reported back. From that time on, I have avoided tickers ending in "F". Tickers ending in "Y" do trade within the US.
https://www.carstedrosenberg.com/post/what-are-f-shares