@hank

Diversification doesn’t guarantee better returns. Generally, diversification reduces risk and lowers longer term performance. If you can, throw 100% into a single low cost S&P index fund, shut your eyes for 40-50 years while ignoring the markets. Then take a look. Chances are you’ll have more money after 40 or 50 years than you would have had in a more diversified portfolio.

The above is a myth. All you have to do is see the performance in the last 15 years of SPY compared to SPY+IWN+EEM or compared to PRWCX. Both PRWCX+SPY have better performance and lower volatility = higher Sharpe ratio. When US LC doing well it's difficult to beat them.
See results (link).

Most people who lived through the Great Depression beginning in 1929 wanted nothing to do ever again with investing. By some accounts, it was around 1950 when equities got back to their 1929 levels. Not many of us date back quite that far. However, most of us here lived through the ‘07–08 ”great financial crisis”. Domestic blue chip stocks / stock funds tanked about 50% over that 16-17 month period. International stock funds fared worse, some falling 60-70%. Only the very highest rated bond funds held up. Some funds invested in junk bonds lost 50-60% over that time.

You have just proved my point. Did diversification in other stock categories help you?
The only true diversification is thru bonds, but again, it depends on the holdings.

“… tips on how to diversify my holdings in order to increase my portfolio over time.”
Diversification doesn’t guarantee better returns. Generally, diversification reduces risk and lowers longer term performance. If you can, throw 100% into a single low cost S&P index fund, shut your eyes for 40-50 years while ignoring the markets. Then take a look. Chances are you’ll have more money after 40 or 50 years than you would have had in a more diversified portfolio.
But, is the above realistic?
Most people who lived through the Great Depression beginning in 1929 wanted nothing to do ever again with investing. By some accounts, it was around 1950 when equities got back to their 1929 levels. Not many of us date back quite that far. However, most of us here lived through the ‘07–08 ”great financial crisis”. Domestic blue chip stocks / stock funds tanked about 50% over that 16-17 month period. International stock funds fared worse, some falling 60-70%. Only the very highest rated bond funds held up. Some funds invested in junk bonds lost 50-60% over that time.
How would you react 10-12 months into the above saga with your portfolio down 35% from the previous year’s peak and the media ablaze with horror takes of loss and predictions of doom?
By a strange quirk of math, the % gain needed to get back to “break-even” is greater than the % lost. If your portfolio falls by 25% in one year you’ll need a 33% gain the following year to get back to break-even. If you lose 50% of your portfolio you’ll need a 100% return to get back to your old level.
Just food for thought.
All the recommendations in this thread are excellent. Putting a portfolio together is a very personal thing. No “one-size” fits all. My only “tip” would be to become a regular Barron’s reader. No single publication has done more to help me invest over the past 50 years. It’s not glamorous. It’s not really about mutual funds. And the articles are anything but consistent. You’ll read “bulls” and “bears” in the same issue. But it will get you thinking about money … money and risk.
Added Thought …
I like looking at model portfolios. T Rowe Price is noted for being a good asset allocator.
This LINK will take you to one of their web pages and a discussion of allocation, complete with pie charts. I have one minor gripe. That is they don’t include commodities in these sketches. While they can sometimes jump up and bite you, I think having 2%-5% in commodities / precious metals is a pretty good idea.

Empower Personal Dashboard is a browser app, there is nothing to download to PC or Mac. It also has decent Android and iOS versions (I use both but the mobile apps are not full equivalents of browser)
https://www.empower.com/personal-investors/financial-tools
https://www.empower.com/signup-v1
If one is not going to use the account aggregation feature and use it in 100% manual mode, makes sense to remain anonymous but keep in mind that Empower requires 2FA so you can't be 100% anonymous with a disposable e-mail address (unless you have a throw-away mobile number of course!)

Thank you, @StayCalm. I started with M* portfolio tracking and I manually update my changes. Does Empower allow manual tracking? I am a bit hesitant to give one service provider access to all my financial accounts for them to pull info into one place. I wish someone who tried both M* and Empower would comment which one is better for portfolio tracking. M* does suffer from the occasional end of day stale prices (updates).

On the topic, Empower dashboard has definitely deteriorated from a stability perspective after Personal Capital was sold to Empower.
I poked around with a few competitors in order to move on but unfortunately had to return back to Empower because it is still the best imo. It is an outstanding tool for free, I would happily pay a reasonable annual subscription fee for a better product.
How do folks here track financial footprint, net worth and allocations? For me personally, pulling everything into a spreadsheet will not work.

@Graust- Yes sir, thank you very much. Overtly political rants have absolutely no place in the financial sections of MFO. The Off-Topic arena is the proper place for that sort of thing... a concept that only one or two posters seem to have a problem understanding.
Baseball would be a complete mess if a few players were allowed to frequently ignore the rules and act out whenever they wanted to. It's ironic that that someone who professes to appreciate a rules-based contest feels free to ignore the rules and act out whenever he feels like it here on MFO.

@BaluBalu. The Invesco site is a bit thin on explaining methodology. However, the fund’s universe is the S&P Mid Cap 400, from which are chosen semi-annually some 80 stocks that exhibit characteristics of “momentum,” or rising prices. Not terribly surprising.
Overlap with XMHQ is 52%, quite a lot. Thanks to @WABAC for reminding me to check ETFRC. Applying rules twice a year obviously does not require a lot of attention. Still, I wonder how that process results in a T.O. ratio of 132.
https://www.invesco.com/us/financial-products/etfs/product-detail?audienceType=Investor&ticker=XMMO

@Dennis Baran, thanks again for not only your reply but also soliciting a reply from a principal at the fund company. Very helpful.
@BaluBalu... getting back to you with my reply... I've made it clear in prior threads that I'm extremely risk averse... I do have substantial financial assets ( 8 figures) and am not looking to get greedy. Furthermore, I'm of the opinion that the markets have been juiced by insane fiscal and monetary inputs as well as the somewhat ponzi structure of it due to index fund flows and stock options issuance as well as buy backs. Not sure.
So I'm on the look out for what some have recently described as boomer candy. Exposure to markets but with a shock absorber approach that might mitigate a severe downturn in the markets.
PHEFX t Rowe hedged equity is one fund mentioned prior but I also believe that VELIX likely is a very good candidate. I also really like that you have a veteran running the fund along with a still experienced and well educated co manager who is younger also at the helm.
VELA will see some of my investment monies in the near future... I'll be phasing in slowly over the next several months.
Thanks again,
Baseball fan

“Morningstar's John Rekenthaler starts with a simple but unusual observation that if 2 assets have the same long-term (LT) TR, then rebalancing will definitely benefit the TR." In all other cases, rebalancing hurts TR, but does control risk.”

Absolutely. Good distinction to make. To myself, and from what I’ve seen over the years, it’s the second reason that receives more of the attention - especially from the financial press. . Every now and than when equity markets appear frothy you’ll get this suggestion to rebalance as part of a lengthier piece on cutting risk, dealing with high equity valuations, planning for the future or some other broader topic. Not new in that sense.
Rekenthaler goes a step farther and dissects the idea into the 2 categories @yogibearbull observes. Good article. Thanks to @bee and Yogi for posting. Great minds think alike.

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1342947/000121390024062820/ea0209708-01_497.htm
497 1 ea0209708-01_497.htm 497
BBH TRUST
BBH PARTNER FUND – SMALL CAP EQUITY
(BBHSX)
SUPPLEMENT DATED JULY 19, 2024 TO THE
PROSPECTUS
AND STATEMENT OF ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
DATED FEBRUARY 28, 2024
The following information supplements, and, to the extent inconsistent therewith, supersedes, certain information in the Prospectus and Statement of Additional Information. Unless otherwise noted, capitalized terms used in this supplement have the same meaning as defined in the Prospectus and Statement of Additional Information.
I. FUND LIQUIDATION
On July 19, 2024, the Board of Trustees of BBH Trust (the “Trust”) approved a Plan of Liquidation for the BBH Partner Fund – Small Cap Equity (the “Fund”) pursuant to which the Fund will be liquidated (the “Liquidation”) on or about the earlier of (i) September 30, 2024 and (ii) the date in which all shareholders have redeemed their respective shares in the Fund (the “Liquidation Date”). Shareholder approval of the Liquidation is not required.
Beginning on July 19, 2024 through the Liquidation Date, the Fund may depart from its stated investment objective and policies as it liquidates holdings in preparation for the distribution of assets to investors. During this time, the Fund may hold more cash or cash equivalents than normal, which may prevent the Fund from meeting its stated investment objective. Shareholders of record as of the close of business on the Liquidation Date will receive their proportionate interest in all of the net assets of the Fund in complete cancellation and redemption of all the outstanding shares of the Fund. Payment will be made in accordance with instructions from each shareholder. If a shareholder has not provided instructions by the time proceeds are distributed, that shareholder’s liquidation proceeds shall be distributed based on the payment instructions on file for such shareholder with the Fund’s Transfer Agent. For those accounts with no bank instructions on file with the Fund’s Transfer Agent, the Transfer Agent shall issue a check. If required by the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, the Fund will make an income distribution prior to the Liquidation Date.
Shareholders of the Fund may redeem their investments as described in the Fund’s Prospectus prior to the Liquidation Date.
If the Fund has not received your redemption request or other instruction by the Liquidation Date, your shares will be redeemed on the Liquidation Date, and you will receive your proceeds from the Fund, subject to any required withholding.
The Adviser will bear all expenses of the Liquidation to the extent such expenses are not part of the Fund’s normal and customary fees and operating expenses. However, the Fund and its shareholders will bear transaction costs and any potential tax consequences associated with turnover of the Fund’s portfolio.
The liquidation of the Fund, like any redemption of Fund shares, will constitute an event upon which a gain or loss may be recognized for state and federal income tax purposes, depending on the type of account and the adjusted cost basis of the investor’s shares. The tax year for the Fund will end on the Liquidation Date. Please contact your tax advisor to discuss the tax consequences to you of the liquidation.
II. CLOSURE OF THE FUND TO PURCHASES
Effective as of the close of business on July 19, 2024, the Fund will be closed to purchases of Fund shares, however, the Fund’s closure to purchases of Fund shares does not restrict any shareholders from redeeming shares of the Fund.
The Fund’s ability to enforce the closure of the Fund to purchases with respect to certain retirement plan accounts and accounts held by financial intermediaries may vary depending on systems capabilities, applicable contractual and legal restrictions and cooperation of those retirement plans and intermediaries.
Please contact the Fund at 1-800-575-1265 if you have any questions.
PLEASE RETAIN THIS SUPPLEMENT FOR FUTURE REFERENCE.

Ok, I got it.
MM pays now 5+% but for years it pays under 1%. A couple of year from now it will be much lower. I can always find pretty good risk/reward bond funds but that's my specialty.
Logins at 4 weeks interval and not interested too much tell me Fidelity is better for you.
How can $250K sit idle? Suppose I sell 1 million and buy $950K(5% less than a million) it's only $50K. To have $250K sitting idle means you sold $5 million. I'm a stickler in that dept, if I see $100 left, I invest it.
Taking care of my money and logging in 10 minutes 2-3 times per week is worth it. I always check all my other financial institution sites too. IMO, It's a must in the digital world to protect and verify your assets.
I only invest in funds/ETFs, very rarely, I trade leveraged CEFs for hours/days when I see a good trade, like 2020, or 2022.
What does someone pay for RIA services?

Beware of nonbank fintech apps promising good yields.
What did these people think they were getting from Yotta that they couldn't get from an actual bank?
It turns out that there's a lot to unpack here. I had not taken a look directly at Yotta. Not surprisingly, it's a "gamified" site designed to attract young customers. But surprising (at least to me) is its banking arrangement.
Unless I'm missing something, it pays just a 0.10% base rate. Though because it offers chances of winning money, its effective average rate is closer to 2.5% depending on where/when you read figures. So what one gets is the thrill of the chase in addition to (on average) a halfway decent rate of interest.
Further, it looks like a customer's agreement is directly with Evolve Bank (and perhaps Synapse), not with Yotta. So technically, the customers may in fact be getting their services from an actual bank after all!
Here's the sample customer agreement. It starts:

Synapse Financial Technologies, Inc. (“Synapse”) is providing this Agreement to you on behalf of Bank. ...
This Consumer Interest Checking Account Agreement (this “Agreement”) governs the interest-bearing consumer demand account (the “Account” or “Interest Checking Account”) made available to you by Evolve Bank & Trust (“Bank”), [member FDIC] in partnership with Synapse, as a technology service provider of Bank. ... Access ... is available only through ... Yotta.

As to watching out for nonbank fintech apps promising good yields - Yotta's promised yield is okay but not great. In contrast, Raisin (formerly SaveBetter) appears to be a well established fintech though which one can get better rates from specific banks than one would get by going directly to those banks. Much as one can sometimes get better CD rates from a bank by going through a broker than going directly to the bank.
I agree that caution is warranted, as it is for any financial investment. But there doesn't seem to be any substantial additional risk in using Raisin rather than going directly to the banks it works with. While I haven't used it, it looks like a good source of no-penalty CDs.
Raisin review - Business Insider
Top savings rates (with several Raisin arrangements) - Deposit Accounts

• Largest Catholic mutual fund family in the U.S.


• Diverse group of six funds that enable investors to align financial goals with moral beliefs


• Value investors utilizing proprietary criteria to screen out companies that promote or support activities contrary to the core moral teachings of the Catholic Church


• Place equal emphasis on investment performance and moral criteria in selecting securities


• Serve institutional and individual investors


• Advised by Schwartz Investment Counsel, Inc., a registered investment adviser established in 1980


• Professional portfolio managers and analysts average over 20 years of investment experience


• 100% no-load mutual fund family

I believe RCMFX is actually secular, but same advisor.

stayCalm

That said Fidelity and Vanguard imo are still better imo because one is not forced to manually enter a 2nd MMF trade for every single buy/sell.

Most should don't trade, and most shouldn't own MM.
This is such a small thing, no need to worry about, even if you didn't do the second buy, the yearly difference is meaningless.
You still need to look at the TOTALs.
Vanguard? no thank you, bad servicess.
Fidelity? sure. But, as I said, waving commissions is probably about $2K for me. The ability to invest 99% on day one when I switch funds at Schwab can generate another $K
These are all peanuts.

Regards your Catch 22 comment

I made a generic comment not related to you. All I can tell you is that I met probably at least with 30-40 financial advisors, and I wasn't impressed. Most are just salespeople who repeat what is fed to them.
Most are not real fiduciaries, even if their title says so. A good one should assess your goals in a couple of hours, set a plan for years to come, and only make changes at pivotal points.
They also should put you in up to 5-7 funds, at least half indexes, it's not a brain surgery.
That means charging you maybe $1000-1500 first time and nothing for years, hardly any of them will do it. Fiduciaries should look at their clients interests, not charge them every year, and never by the size of their portfolios.
Good luck.

Thanks for chiming in @BaluBalu. I was a little uncertain myself to what post of mine @Graust referred. I’ve strived to stay away from politics on the investing side, but do engage in politics a bit in the off-topic section. Always, we should endeavor to remain civil whether here or over in off-topic. I think yours is a noble attempt to discuss the Bloomberg Businessweek content absent political bickering. Good luck!
@Graust is a longtime “regular”. He may not make a lot of comments, but they are always substantive based on an obvious deep knowledge of financial matters. He has helped me on countless occasions over the years. I am grateful.

Thanks BaluBalu.
I extracted the paragraphs below from our 2021 MICUS report. A bit dated, but I believe M* has continued to grow its business even higher in the 3 years since.
The Business
If attendance at Morningstar The Conference was down this year, it does not reflect the success of Morningstar The Business, in spite of COVID or perhaps helped by it. Since Kapoor took over CEO in 2017, employees have doubled, as have MORN’s valuations. The company’s market cap has nearly quadrupled.
Adding to its acquisition of private equity tracker Pitchbook, the company acquired credit rating firm DBRS in 2019 and ESG rating firm Sustainalytics in 2020.
Since most people probably think of Morningstar as just the “Good Housekeeping” of the fund industry, it’s probably worth listing all their current products:
• DBRS Morningstar – Independent rating services and …
• Morningstar Advisor Workstation – Investment research, financial planning, client reporting …
• Morningstar Data – Global equity, managed investments, and market data …
• Morningstar Direct – Advanced portfolio analytics and performance reporting …
• PitchBook – Data, analysis, industry news, and in-depth reports on the private and public markets …
• ESG Investing Solutions – Assessments of ESG risks and opportunities across asset classes …
• Financial Planning Solutions – Web-based financial planning tools for advisors
• Sustainalytics – Sustainable investment strategies and security-level ESG research and ratings …
• Morningstar Office – Web-based portfolio and practice management …
• Morningstar Research – Independent, comprehensive evaluations on equities, funds …
• Morningstar Annuity Intelligence – Annuity research for professional investors
• Morningstar ByAllAccounts – Account-aggregation and financial-management tools…
• Morningstar Commodities & Energy – Research and data in the commodities and energy sectors …
• Morningstar Credit Information and Analytics – Credit tools and research …
• Morningstar Enterprise Components – Configurable, ready-to-integrate enterprise software …
• Morningstar Essentials – Investment statistics and ratings for institutional marketing professionals
• Goal Bridge – Goal-setting and investment planning for financial advisors
• Morningstar Investment Research Center – Comprehensive investment resources for library patrons
• Morningstar Reporting Solutions – Marketing materials, regulatory documents, and other custom …
• Manager Selection Services – Manager selection and investment analysis for financial advisors
• Morningstar Total Rebalance Expert – Tax-aware rebalancing for financial advisors
• Morningstar Indexes – Product benchmarking & creation for financial institutions and asset managers
• Managed Portfolios – Mutual fund, stock, and exchange-traded fund portfolios …
• Morningstar Retirement Manager – Workplace retirement account service for plan sponsors
• Advisor Managed Accounts – Managed accounts for registered investment advisors
• Morningstar Fiduciary Services – Investment selection, portfolio monitoring, and portfolio reporting …
• Morningstar Plan Advantage – Comprehensive retirement-plan management …
• Target-Date Solutions – Target-date funds for plan sponsors
• Morningstar Premium – Analysis of stocks, funds, and markets, plus tools …
• Morningstar Investor Newsletters – Investment strategies and in-depth analysis …
Morningstar’s founder and chairman, Joe Mansueto, retains about 45% of outstanding shares, representing a current value of about $5 billion. If there is someone vested in Chicago’s recovery, it would be him. He purchased the historic Wrigley Building in 2018 and most recently the Waldorf Astoria Chicago. He owns Major League Soccer’s Chicago Fire. He remains a large donor to the University of Chicago, his alma mater.

One of the businesses Morningstar entered just under three years ago was their own brand of mutual funds, which replaced other funds in its Managed Portfolios business. The nine funds have accumulated $5.3B in AUM, or about $44M in additional fees for Morningstar.
At the time, it seemed awkward to us [here’s David’s Take] and it remains awkward for Morningstar to offer its own competing funds. What’s worse is that so far they have performed unremarkably, as can be seen in the table below. As a fiduciary, I would be hard-pressed to defend why these funds were chosen over others recommended by Morningstar’s own research teams. None of the funds will qualify for Morningstar’s “5 Star” rating when they soon reach the 3-year mark. Morningstar is also a sub-advisor of five other funds for ALPS. These five ETF asset-allocation portfolios suffer even worse performance; in fact, Morningstar itself ranks the ALPS family “Below Average.”

Baby bonds (I believe) are bonds that are traded on exchanges in denominations less than $1,000….usually $25, although some are $50 and some are $100 (or other par prices). There are also preferred stocks that trade similarly (in denominations, exchanges, etc.), but baby bonds are higher in the capital stack, have call and due/maturity dates, and generally trade more muted (lower volatility) than preferred stock (which are closer to equity—or the bottom—of the capital stack).
I know trading individual baby bonds (or any other security) can be a PITA, but if you spend some time looking at individual baby bonds, you can get yields easily of 6% or higher (usually called stripped or current yield), with built in capital gains if buying under par, that adds to the return (usually called yield to maturity or yield to call).
PIMCO also has a fund that invests in baby bonds and preferreds….PFANX is the A share version of it.
I have invested in several individual preferreds and baby bonds, so am happy to answer any more questions; usually ETF or mutual fund versions that hold these funds have several limitations (usually liquidity and excessive exposure to financial companies because these are the most likely to issue these securities) that hurt longer term returns.

I own XMHQ but I am hesitant to recommend non-active in the SMID space. But SMID ETFs in a trading account are OK.

I think the X's make an interesting contrast to the pricey boutiques Barrons likes to tout. As yogi's charts point out, mayflies are in season.
I don't have a trading account, but there are reasons I gave FMIMX a headstart on the 5th, and won't hold momentum in the IRA. It should go without saying that people should stick to what they are comfortable owning. But as my grandfather used to say, if it's worth saying once its worth repeating from time to time.
I find XMHQ's thesis simple to understand. I suspect that many active managers consider the factors in their rule set. Of course, it only has a five-year track record to weigh.

Dinky linky:

XMHQ is a passively-managed portfolio of 80 securities that tracks the S&P mid-cap 400 Quality Index. The equities are selected based on the highest quality score, calculated by the following three equally-weighted fundamental factors: (1) return-on-equity (2) accruals ratio, and (3) financial leverage ratio. The index is being weighted by the total of its quality score multiplied by its market capitalization and is rebalanced semi-annually. Prior to June 24, 2019, the fund traded as Invesco Russell mid-cap Equal Weight ETF (EQWM) and followed the Russell mid-cap Equal Weight Index.

I'm supposed to be dealing with the garage, so enough procrastinating.

@Old_Joe,
I do not need any stats to know if Schwab is milking their customers more than their competitors. Personal experience is more than sufficient. Milking can be in the form of money and / or other frictions, and their brokerage sweep feature and mandatory cash holding in Robo accounts speak for itself.
I am not one to quarrel with the weather. I had given many suggestions to Schwab to improve, including written suggestions. I have then decided to adapt and use them for what they are tolerable and use Fido for everything else.
Incidentally, I opened both Schwab and Fido accounts the same day 20 years ago. My Fido assets were about 10 times larger than my Schwab assets before TD accounts were transferred to Schwab. Fido never offered me any freebies or asset transfer bonuses. I use all investment vehicles, except interval funds. I do not use advisory services.
I have had my head taken out for being ahead of others in sharing negative info about brokerages and other financial institutions. It seems I offend forum members in my sharing. So, I will stop.
On a separate note, I, as a customer, once had a very poor experience with United Health - prior to ACA. I thought they were A holes and switched to other carriers. What I failed to consider was to look into their business financials and buy UNH stock. If they can try to screw me so blatantly, may be they have some sort of moat. Given that experience, I should look into if Schwab has a moat that allows them to provide poor customer experience and then buy Schwab stock.

The TIAA VAs that yogi is writing about are the CREF annuities. TIAA invented variable annuities for the predecessor of 403(b) plans back in 1952. These qualified annuities are different from the non-qualified annuities that Catch is asking about.
Non-qualified annuities are funded with after tax dollars. From an IRS perspective they are similar to non-deductible T-IRAs. Like IRAs, they have a penalty if you take withdrawals before age 59½. One difference is that unless you annuitize, the non-deductible dollars are the last ones out, unlike non-deductible T-IRAs, where withdrawals are prorated between pre- and post-tax dollars.
If one disregards typically expensive optional bells and whistles (enhanced death benefits, GLWBs, etc.), VAs can be used as non-deductible T-IRAs after maxing out one's IRA contributions. Unlike T-IRAs, they do not have RMDs at age 73 or so; however they do require one to withdraw money or annuitize at an age specified in the contract (usually somewhere between 85 and 90 or 95).
VAs all carry a variety of charges. Each contract sets its own rates, just as each mutual fund sets its own fees. Morgan Stanley (see link below) does a good job of giving industry ranges. Read the paper if you care to know what these fees are for:
Mortality and Expense Risk (M&E): 0.20% - 1.80%
Administrative and Distribution Fees: 0.00% - 0.60%
Annual Fee: $30 - $50, waived with high enough balance (typically $50K)
Contingent Deferred Sales Chage (CDSC) - think "class B shares" - 0% to 9% declining
https://www.morganstanley.com/content/dam/msdotcom/en/assets/pdfs/wealth-management-disclosures/understandingvariableannuities.pdf
As you can see from these ranges, there are some VAs with low "wrapper" fees (the first three charges), and that don't charge a fee to get out (no CDSC). The Fidelity Personal Retirement Annuity mentioned by catch (0.25% wrapper fees) is one such annuity. Until 2019 Vanguard had its own VA. At the time I believe its wrapper fee was 0.30%. There are others.
Of note, especially since yogi mentioned TIAA, is TIAA Intelligent Variable Annuity. Its fees depend on the size of the annuity, ranging from 0.50% (plus $25 if under $25K) to 0.35% (at $100K) and 0.25% (at $500K). The kicker is that after ten years, the wrapper fee drops to 0.10% regardless of balance. See prospectus.
Schwab sells a low cost VA (Genesis Life from Protective Life) with a 0.45% wrapper fee. There are a few others (I recall Pacific Life being one); search for no-load variable annuities.
As with 401(k)s, one also needs to consider the costs of the underlying portfolios. Like mutual funds, these come in multiple share classes. So it's not enough to simply look at the VA portfolio fund, but its share class. For example, both Fidelity and TIAA sell Pimco VIT Commodity Real Return Strategy. But Fidelity sells the Administrative class shares (see the prospectus it links to) with 1.48% ER after waivers, while TIAA sells the institutional class shares with an ER of 1.33% (see its fund prospectus).
Last and probably least :-) are a couple of comments about M*'s coverage of VAs. When comparing star ratings (if you can find them) M* has two different sets of ratings. One is for the fund itself (could vary by share class), the other is for the fund within the VA, i.e. including the wrapper fees. Most funds will tend to get high star ratings in the low cost VAs simply because they cost about 3/4% less than in "average" VAs. All those 4 and 5 star ratings are relatively meaningless if what you're interested in is the risk-adjusted performance of the underlying funds.
Second is that one can still eke out some VA info from M*. One has to search for a hidden "ticker" symbol of the fund of interest. That ain't easy. For example, here's the google search I did for dfa VA international value portfolio. It turned up a FT page with a ticker-like value of 0P00003CY8. In M*'s portfolio manager, create a portfolio with this as the sole holding, you'll be able to get a little info, including its YTD gain of 9.48%. And if you have premium membership, you'll be able to x-ray that portfolio to find that it is 98% foreign, with 54% in LCV.
If you add "pdf" to the search string, you might even turn up a 2 page M* report on the portfolio, such as this one at Pacific Life. (Just check the date to make sure you found a current report.)