It's not just the big banks that play these games. Many institutions do. One can counter by being ever vigilant and moving money around from bank to bank. I did this for a time when I was between homes and had cash proceeds from the sale of my old home. Now I find it more practical to stick with an institution that consistently pays moderately high rates even if not the very top rates. (And to use MMFs, T-bills, etc.)
Whatever you do, keep your hand on your wallet at all times.
Speaking of wallets and not trusting Big Banksters with a penny of your money, what's in your wallet? If you have Fidelity's card, that's issued by Elan Financial Services, a subsidiary of US Bank, the fifth largest US Bank. Though you wouldn't know that by asking Google what it thinks are the largest banks; it omits US bank from its list.
Elan is behind CCs issued by 1300 different banks and credit unions. As CFSB writes, "The name that you are looking for [may not be] the actual issuer's name (for example, "ABC Card" is issued by XYZ Bank)."
Here's CFPB's page that has the institutions actually issuing cards.
https://www.consumerfinance.gov/credit-cards/agreements/issuer/us-bank-national-association/
250 largest banks and 250 largest credit unions by assets held (Dec 2023):
https://personetics.com/resource-center/largest-banks-and-credit-unions-in-the-united-states/
Bank holding companies with the 20 largest credit card loan portfolios (March 2024):
https://www.americanbanker.com/list/20-bank-holding-companies-with-the-largest-credit-card-loan-portfolios-at-the-end-of-q4

An annuity-like distribution is certainly possible. I'm using a combination of funds such as SCHD, DIVO, NEAR, JPIE and a handful of dividend paying stocks and CEFs ...
Color me skeptical. Money managers like Vanguard and Fidelity tried to do this and failed.

Payout funds got their start during the 2007-2008 financial crisis when Vanguard and Fidelity both launched the products. The idea was appealing: Convert a retirement savings pool into a reliable income stream and offer investors peace of mind that they’d get a monthly paycheck, regardless of the market’s ups and downs.
...
Vanguard initially had three payout funds but merged them into one fund in January 2014. Fidelity developed a series of Income Replacement funds, paired with an optional monthly payout feature, but Fidelity rebranded the funds in 2017 as “Managed Retirement Income” with more of a high-income focus rather than managed payouts.
One hurdle: Managed payout funds have long had trouble hitting their income targets without dipping into capital—simply giving investors part of their money back. Annuities work similarly, though they have an insurance component that can keep the income flowing if the portfolio runs out of money.

Barron's, Vanguard Throws in the Towel on Its Managed Payout Fund, Feb 28, 2020
The insurance component is what is missing in DIY (or professionally managed) alternatives. In order to guarantee (self insure) that you won't run out of money in your lifetime, you have to overfund. That may be okay if you're planning on leaving a legacy and are willing to dip heavily into that legacy if things don't work out. But it reduces the income stream that you could otherwise have.
A similar point about underspending is made in the originally cited paper:

[U]sing a relatively simple model we estimate consumption could increase by approximately 80% for retirees if assets were converted to lifetime income streams, where the improvement rates are significantly higher for joint households

What annuities do is pool risk. Some people die early, others later. Instead of each individual self insuring (collectively overinsuring), individuals pool their risk through an insurance company. This provides larger income streams safely.
The risk is in outliving your money. A traditional immediate annuity is not the only way to protect against this tail risk. A longevity annuity (a form of immediate annuity where payouts are deferred) will also do the job.
T. Rowe Price recognized this and recently came out with a product for employer-sponsored plans (401(k)s, etc.). Its Managed Lifetime Income product provides a managed payout investment for 15 years followed by a QLAC (qualified lifetime annuity contract).
I don't see any reason why one cannot do this oneself, self-managing a portfolio (as @PRESSmUP described) and adding a longevity annuity (either QLAC or nonqualified).
Alternatively, one can annuitize a variable annuity.

Variable payout annuities provide protection against longevity risk and allow for some participation in the higher (but more volatile) returns of corporate equities and other real assets. They also avoid the annuitization risk because their benefit payments vary with investment performance and are not fully determined by the prevailing conditions at the time of retirement. But VPAs are exposed to investment and inflation risks ...

The Mechanics and Regulation of Variable Payout Annuities (50 pages. TL;DR)

Regarding Reverse Mortgages -
Wouldn’t it be smarter to do a traditional refinance of your existing home for whatever you can pull out? Then invest the money and draw it down as you need it? The bank or other institution would of course hold a lien against the property. I’ll add that at 7% (+-) interest rates this would be a last resort. However, it sounds better than a reverse mortgage. Guess I don’t understand RMs very well.
Oops - I should have read @msf’s above link first:
”A reverse mortgage loan, like a traditional mortgage, allows homeowners to borrow money using their home as security for the loan. Also like a traditional mortgage, when you take out a reverse mortgage loan, the title to your home remains in your name. However, unlike a traditional mortgage, with a reverse mortgage loan, borrowers don’t make monthly mortgage payments. The loan is repaid when the borrower no longer lives in the home.”
Psychologically, I’d find that difficult to adjust to. It defies everything I’ve been taught about sound financial management - an open-ended lien. Alas, the concept does have some logic behind it.
@bee - I think @PRESSmUP’s above response / suggestion is spot-on. If you can cope with an occasional down year or two it should be possible to construct a portfolio that at least keeps pace with inflation and allows relatively small annual drawdowns. Let’s assume that pulling out 5% (maybe a bit more) a year isn’t going to kill the goose even if the portfolio sustains 2 or 3 back-to-back negative years, His suggested investments are excellent. Obviously, the more additional risk you can afford comfortably to take the better you’ll do over longer (3-5 year) periods.

I thought I knew a lot about investing until opening a brokerage account at Fido 4-5 years ago. Much wider landscape to work with than just having investments at a few different houses. So am still learning. But I do know my 2022 (bear market) return was better by 2 or 3 points then it would have been if stuck in the previous fund houses. From my (broad) family experience of 70+ years the real issue is convincing someone to save during their working years, Without having something to invest, all the coaching in the world can’t help you in retirement.
I’ll vote for better financial education: ”Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish, and you feed him for a lifetime.”
Great discussion. Thanks @stillers for the lengthy comment.

According to the Morningstar definition of "other":
"Other"
"The proportion of the fund invested in other securities such as property or other financial instruments"
When I use to do a lot of bond oef investing, and you broke down the funds holdings, "other" often linked back to Derivatives.

Barron’s Funds Quarterly+ (2024/Q4–January 13, 2025)
https://www.barrons.com/topics/mutual-funds-quarterly
(Performance data quoted in this Supplement are for 2024/Q4 and YTD to 12/31/24)
(No Supplement – it’s all within the main issue)
Pg 12:2024 was tough for stockpickers. So, look at the holdings of the top funds – LC-PAGDX, LC-BRAGX, MC-RCMFX, SC-HFCGX. Those included Magnificent 7, big tech, financials, energy. What may work for 2025? AI, energy, materials, infrastructure, travel.
Pg 14: In this Trump market, just follow the leaders. Watch cryptos, the best M* category (Digital Assets) of 2024, followed far behind by the MLPs. Trump and sons have a crypto venture called World Liberty Financial. Bonds and rate sensitive plays (utilities, real estate, etc) were laggards with the exception of financials that should benefit from coming deregulations. Funds related to Trump’s circle of friends did very well – PTIR (2x PLTR), TSLL (2x TSLA), MLXIX (9.6% in ET).
SP500 has 33% in tech and 13% in financials and did quite well in 2024 with +25% despite softness in stocks in 2024/Q4. The total ETF AUM was over $10 trillion with 4 ETFs among the top 10 being the SP500 ETFs. Inflows into ETFs, including the active ETFs, were strong. Mutual funds had outflows. Foreign funds didn’t do well (the US investor returns were also hurt by a strong dollar). (By @LewisBraham at MFO)
More on Funds & Retirement
RETIREMENT. Super Catchup for 401k/403b from 2025. Another Secure 2.0 provision for catchups for 401k, 403b, government 457 and federal TSP kicks in 2025.
For 55+ $7,500 (regular)
For 60-63 $11,250 (higher of $10,000 and 150% of regular catchup)
SIMPLE retirement plan catchups are also adjusted: 55+ $3,500, 60-63 $5,250.
Priority order – 401k to employer match, Roth IRA, HSA, top off 401k.
Barron’s weekend issue has CASH TRACK charts showing 4-wMA of flows.
https://i.ibb.co/dDw0rm1/Barrons-Cash-Track-011125.png
Q4 Top 5 Fund Categories (MFOP)
https://i.ibb.co/5x4xYCK/MFOP-Quarterly-Top5-010925.png
Q4 Bottom 5 Fund Categories (MFOP)
https://i.ibb.co/R69M4pz/MFOP-Quarterly-Bottom5-010925.png
LINK

My parents have an advisor who is about to retire. he said he'll take care of them for as long as he's alive (my father is clergy and helped him through some losses) so thats nice but he's 5 years older than my parents!
I know what they are invested in and nothing is too out of bounds. I'd do it differently in all likelihood but nonetheless I don't want the hassle.
My dad wants me involved in all the meetings which is fine. I assume advisors roll their eyes at the idea of a novice stickign their nose in.
That said, I know one of the guys at his firm and he knows I know my stuff and has tried to get me to turn to a life of financial advice (blech) so its fine.
He asked me one day if I had any ideas I'd like to discuss. I was like I know you agreed to handle this for my parents and I appreciate that, but would it be better to move these 8 funds into a singular balanced fund that spits out a distribution that they can w/d or not w/d for their expenses? It seems like it woudl be easier for everyone involved. He's like thats a great idea but I'm not dead yet lets look at that later on.
I manage my fathers stock account (largely vtsax and john deere) that we use for charitable giving.

I don't have any "urge to manage friends and families investments"! I have a hard enough time just managing the investments for me and my wife. I will encourage families and friends to do as much self-education as possible, and then decide for themselves if they need help from a professional Financial Advisor, or if they want to do it themselves. On these Financial Forums, I try very hard to avoid offering advice to others, but am willing to tell others what I am doing with my own personal investments. I view these forums as opportunities for posters/investors to learn from each other, but ultimately each poster/investor has to decide on what is best for themselves.

Seems to me to be two completely different skill sets-
• A): Insuring that numbers are being computed and accounted for properly, according to established accounting principles.
• B): Manipulating numbers in an attempt to increase their values and sums to the maximum extent possible, while also remaining reasonably consistent with safety.
And like most skill sets, there may be some degree of natural interest or aptitude involved, but education and training are the most important factors.

Yeah, you seem to have missed my point. And other posters routinely missing my points is the primary reason why I don't post a lot. That said...
I said earlier "Conversely, the women, many highly educated and certified in high level finance positions, were largely uninterested, uneducated and inexperienced in wealth mgmt."
I cited their FEAR as the primary reason for this.
Having education and work experience in accounting, finance and bizness administration IMO should increase the likelihood that a person understands investing more than the next person, and is less FEARful in investing. (Duh, we not only read financial statements, we create them, audit them and issue findings and recommendations related to them!)
My family was blue collar. Nobody in my family ever owned a stock or bond until I did. We were collectively FEARful of markets, primarily due to inexperience and lack of financial intelligence.
I did not start investing until I got my degree. I would have remained terrified of financial markets had I not had my base level, formal education in accounting, then LT employment in accounting. So, I overcame my FEAR of markets largely due to formal, financial education and work experience.
Over the course of my 35+ years in the financial work force, and a similar amount of time assisting friends and relatives with their investments, I saw the exact same effect on other men. I did not see the same effect on women.
BUT, when the women I knew who did overcome their FEAR, they generally went on to be highly successful investors. And as some studies show, women tend to be better investors as men. The biggest problem appears to be overcoming their FEAR about it all. (The study I linked notes "stress." Stress is the condition. FEAR is the resulting emotion that is expressed.)
YMMV.

Are there AA-AAA rated companies that would do seller financed purchases, with or without life estate (i.e., lease back)? If not, I would think there is a lucrative market for this product.
I'm having trouble making sense of some of this.
"Do seller financed purchases". What does "do" mean? Are you thinking of brokering (arranging) purchases? That is, finding an interested buyer and/or handling the paperwork? For those types of services I don't see what difference a company's credit rating would make.
Or does "do" mean taking the buyer side in the transactions? There, the credit rating of the company (as borrower) would matter. But what's the business model? Would the company build up an inventory of homes that it is buying "on time" and resell them to other buyers?
"lucrative market"
Would the profit come from paying well under market value, as "we buy homes for cash NOW" companies do? But then the seller wouldn't have any motivation to provide financing.
Or would such a company pay a better price for the seller financed homes? It might hope to make a profit from the use of the cash (full price) it receives from the sale of inventory homes.
It would pay the original seller one rate of interest (the seller financing rate) and earn another rate of interest on the proceeds from reselling the home. But where's the spread? The company would be borrowing long term from the original seller. Or would you expect seller-financed sales to be relatively short term (say, five years) with a correspondingly lower rate of interest?
Can you offer an example of a transaction "done" by such a company? I don't get what you have in mind.
"life estate (i.e., lease back)"
These are two different things. A life estate is actual ownership of property. A lease back is a rental where someone else owns the property. If you want more clarification, look up the difference between freehold estate (ownership) and leasehold estate (rental). See, e.g. here (it's not letter perfect, but gets across the general idea).
As far as Selleck is concerned, it's not a bad ad.

Unfortunately, his message to “explore the potential” has been confused as a recommendation older homeowners should get one. This may not always be the case.
Obviously, the time restrictions of TV commercials limit content. To his credit, though, he created national awareness of a less-known and frequently misunderstood resource that has the potential to increase and extend financial security – a hugely common fear among aging Americans.

https://southshoresenior.com/2024/05/what-tom-selleck-did-not-say-about-reverse-mortgages/

These commercials do a good job of introducing the reverse mortgage product. However, the decision to secure the loan can be complicated and confusing.

https://www.boldin.com/retirement/tom-selleck-reverse-mortgages-telling-truth/

When you take out a reverse mortgage, the lender deducts an upfront fee. It also charges interest over the life of your loan. Reverse mortgage interest rates are usually higher than conventional mortgage interest rates, but similar to rates on home equity loans.

Kiplinger, 10 Things You Should Know About Reverse Mortgages

FDIC is important in my world of investing, with my use of CDs and banks in general. I am now starting to venture into Credit Unions, where the SIF insurance is the FDIC counterpart for government protection. For older Fixed Income investors, there are vivid memories of the 2007/2008 financial crisis, and the many banking failures. I had CDs in numerous banks that failed during that financial crisis periods, and so now I try to use Deposit Insurance tools to evaluate the financial health of banks, in addition to making sure I stay within the limits of FDIC and SIF insurance, for each bank/credit union I use.

There's no sale involved in a reverse mortgage (who would the buyer be?). You may be conflating Yogi's two paragraphs. One is about reverse mortgages where you gradually borrow money against the value of your home. The other is about seller financed transactions where you loan the full sale amount and are gradually repaid.
Since they are different types of transactions, the mechanisms for continuing to live in your home are different. With a mortgage (forward or reverse) you continue to own the property so long as the mortgage isn't foreclosed. With a sale (seller financed or other), the buyer owns the home. You need to make some sort of arrangement (as a renter or as the holder of a life estate or owner for some period of years, or ...) to continue to use the property.

A reverse mortgage loan, like a traditional mortgage, allows homeowners to borrow money using their home as security for the loan.

Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, What is a Reverse Mortgage?
FHA-approved reverse mortgage lenders
https://www.hud.gov/program_offices/housing/sfh/hecm/hecmlenders

@ Art
My portfolio holdings were generally unchanged in 2024 except for a little tweaking within sectors (mostly during pullbacks to limit taxable gains). The Info Tech and Financial stock sectors contributed the most to my 2024 total portfolio returns. The lower level of Info Tech dividends paid by its holdings during 2024 contributed to the year-end increase in the stock % held in that sector. The higher level of dividends paid by my REIT and Financial sector holdings during the year contributed to their year-end stock sector % declines.
% of Stocks .... % of Stocks
12/31/24 ........ 01/01/24
20% .. Real Estate .. 24%
20% .. Info. Tech. .. 14%
12% .. Utilities .. .. 11%
17% .. Financials .. .. 18%
13% .. Energy .. .. 13%
82% .. Total .. .. 80%

I see mostly men posting about the lack of financial interest from their wives. Individually find out the root cause for yourself and your role in it. As Yogi said, others can guess but can be wrong. If you need help, ask another woman for the cause. There may be a few in this forum.
Great post YBB.

I don't think it is a gender issue. I think is a marital relationship issue, and what is unique in that marital relationship regarding finances and investing.

Per this source, um, it is at least part gender issue, or at least it can be stratified as such:
https://www.newyorklife.com/newsroom/2024/survey-highlights-existing-financial-confidence-and-knowledge-gaps-between-men-and-women
Excerpt (BOLD addded):
NEW YORK - The latest findings from New York Life’s Wealth Watch survey provide insights into the existing financial confidence and knowledge gaps between men and women. Confidence is the top emotion that men report feeling toward managing their household finances (45%) while stress is the leading emotion for women (38%). The survey found that women report feeling the most knowledgeable about paying bills, maintaining good credit, and saving for emergencies. However, they report feeling significantly less knowledgeable than their male counterparts about building wealth, creating investment portfolios, understanding protection products like insurance, and legacy planning.
Plenty of other stratified M/F data included in study for anyone interested in facts over opinions.
That said, the data pretty much ties to what my 40-50 years of work and investing experience has taught me and what I've posted previously here.
Aside: I worked in audit shops my entire career. By chance, the composition was generally skewed more towards women than men. Many were VERY bright people, including plenty of MBAs, CPAs and CAOs, with our reports going to upper mgmt and high level clients.
I always wanted to discuss investments, portfolios and wealth management with anyone else interested, including auditees and those to whom we reported. So did the vast majority of the men I worked under/managed. Conversely, the women, many highly educated and certified in high level finance positions, were largely uninterested, uneducated and inexperienced in wealth mgmt.
Puhleeease don't take these remarks as sexist. They are not and I am not. Take them for what they are: my real-life experiences in the financial world. These experiences are what convinced me the best way to tend to my wife's financial future if I pass first was to educate her as best I could on wealth management.

I see mostly men posting about the lack of financial interest from their wives. Individually find out the root cause for yourself and your role in it. As Yogi said, others can guess but can be wrong. If you need help, ask another woman for the cause. There may be a few in this forum.
Great post YBB.

I don't think it is a gender issue. I think is a marital relationship issue, and what is unique in that marital relationship regarding finances and investing.

I see mostly men posting about the lack of financial interest from their wives. Individually find out the root cause for yourself and your role in it. As Yogi said, others can guess but can be wrong. If you need help, ask another woman for the cause. There may be a few in this forum.
Great post YBB.

Good point BB.
I've (gratuitously) managed ports for at least 10 women over the past 40+ years. The most often cited reason from them for not wanting to manage their ports is FEAR.
Yeah, ALL CAPS! True FEAR! FEAR of all kinds of things related to management of investments or doing anything of material financial consequence.
FEAR related to investment portfolio mgmt is as really tough obstacle to overcome. But as part of managing their ports, I've had as a goal for each of them to one day be confident and capable of managing their own ports. I've only been able to do that with one woman who took over the mgmt of her port and is doing remarkably well. Conversely, with a couple of others, we know that we can only even talk to them about their ports for about five minutes before they nearly pass out or break out in hives.
Both widow's ports who had spousal written plans that we currently manage are the same:
Intense FEAR of everything related to the process, especially their own acumen
Distrust, near hatred, of their dearly departed (sic) hubbies handled their finances
Which is all to say, whatever a spouse has written in their plan for their surviving spouse stands a reasonable chance of not being executed/executed as planned due to FEAR, distrust and/or a lack of acumen.

I see mostly men posting about the lack of financial interest from their wives. Individually find out the root cause for yourself and your role in it. As Yogi said, others can guess but can be wrong. If you need help, ask another woman for the cause. There may be a few in this forum.
Great post YBB.

Great post @yogibearbull.
Me and the missus have been together since we were kids. Back in the 70's-80's, she easily (and proudly for her) would have been on a Top 10 List nationally of spouses who had ZERO interest in all things financial, especially investments.
After all these years, that interest level of ZERO might now at least be a ONE or TWO.
Yeah, her interest level is still a challenge for me.
BUT, over all these years, I felt it was my duty and obligation to not concentrate on her interest level, but rather address her acumen by educating her on all things financial, especially investments.
So I did, albeit with her kicking and screaming in the early years!
And now, after ~50 years, despite still negligible interest, she is a walking, talking authority on US stock OEFs and ETFs and CDs (our investment vehicles of choice), well, at least the ones that are worthy of our investment dollars.
Leaving a written plan might help the dying spouse feel that they've done their part in the marriage. But good luck to the surviving spouse with all that, as yogi has so eloquently detailed.
Aside: We currently manage the portfolios of several friends and relatives, including two widows whose hubbies had left them written plans that they had ZERO interest or ability in following.
YMMV. As may your take on how this critical element should be handled.

Several people have mentioned that they plan to leave detailed written instructions for their spouses to follow.
I informally help several friends. IMO, those written instructions won't be effective.
A spouse who has not been interested in financial affairs won't have confidence to just follow what is written and may even fear that they don't understand the written instructions well.
They will find a trusted friend or a financial advisor.
I have seen other family dynamics at work as well. Recently widowed spouses want to keep some financial matters private - so they don't want to tell their kids about them. This view may change as they age and start to feel that they won't be around for long. It's for sociologists to figure out why, although I have guesses.
In a recent situation, when a friend's health has deteriorated, I did make the family aware of some financial details - maybe they knew or not, but my concern was that some accounts may become inactive or abandoned.

@dtconroe- Well sir, while I surely respect your thoughts on all of this, I must demur with respect to the "spousal" element of the conversation. From my many years of frequenting MFO I can confirm that this question is actually a very important one with respect to older investors, and one which has been discussed numerous times over the years.
I personally have a similar situation, and have attempted to simplify and structure our financial resources to accommodate my wife's abilities to deal with the various financial "systems" that must be involved. I'm always very interested to read about how others might handle this subject, as there's always something to be learned here.
Thanks for initiating this thread.
OJ