Reading @Catch22’s post above …
I assume the owner of the account (you or I) makes the final decision as to when to take the RMD (in compliance with the governing law). Fido may indeed calculate an amount and send reminders.
Actually, my read of the law is that RMDs do not have to come evenly from various fiduciaries. You are allowed to pick and choose where to take it. I’ve no problem taking distributions from their cash account when / if I decide to do it. Now only 25-30% in Traditional IRAs. Pull more out most years than the calculation calls for. Prefer to pay taxes on distributions now and let the Roth grow as a % of invested assets.
Took my RMD early this year for rather complex reasons related to rebalancing. Essentially, through a “merry-go-round”, the proceeds ended up in PRHYX as part of my portfolio’s bond component. (But it’s complicated.)
One further note: We’ve discussed Michigan’s mandatory withholding here before (the “pension tax” as it’s called). ISTM Catch did once report having filed the Michigan W 4-P with one or more of his custodians years ago. And, likely it remains in effect until he changes it. (Obviously, my recollection might be wrong). I’ve always thought TRP was being overly restrictive on that issue.
I’ve read before (but don’t have time to research it) that the state even withholds tax from Roth distributions w/o the W 4P being on file. Completely illogical. Of course you’d get the money back at tax time.

In case people read quickly and see a conflict between my post and catch's regarding mandatory withholding, note that the rules are different for different types of accounts. Withholding rules on IRA distributions tend to be more flexible than withholding rules on pension and 401(k) distributions.
Also, though Fidelity (and many institutions) will calculate your RMD automatically, still check it yourself. Even Fidelity can get it wrong, as it did one year on my Roth RMD. Fidelity put in an amount that was about 4x the correct amount - easy to catch.
If you have an inherited IRA, pay particular attention to the RMD calculation in 2022. The tables are changing, and the change for these RMDs is not as simple as looking up the updated life expectancy in the new tables. One has to look up the updated life expectancy for your age when the RMDs started, then subtract the number of years from then until to 2022. That's the updated divisor to use for the RMD calculation. It's not all that complicated, but it opens the possibility of miscalculation.

Just wanted to get this learned community’s input on our situation.
A couple years ago, due to a number of fortuitous events, Mrs. Ruffles acquired a significant amount of cash that she parked at Fido for convenience’s sake. Due to the overheated markets, she’s been reluctant to invest it for fear of incurring a substantial loss. A much more significant amount of funds is fully invested in her retirement accounts here and elsewhere. Her salary more than covers her annual expenses.
When she first acquired her cash, she was in touch with her Fido advisor but decided it was better to do nothing than rush into something. The advisor recently reached out to her so we had a teleconference with him. We thought he might have some ideas but he kept expecting us to drive the conversation.
I mentioned that it wasn’t imperative to invest all the cash right away due to her other investments and that, if she were to invest, our concerns included downside protection and tax minimization. He mentioned dollar cost averaging, Fido’s wealth management service and separately managed accounts, outside advisors Fido works with, and tax-loss harvesting.
It was all very generic so I asked that he forward us more details on some of the strategies he mentioned. In response, he emailed us links to the website pages on wealth management services, managed accounts, and planning services - nothing I hadn’t seen before. To say the least, we were both underwhelmed.
I responded asking for more details (performance, risk, costs, etc.) on the strategies he mentioned so that we could make some informed decisions. After two days, crickets - not even a simple acknowledgement.
Am I expecting too much or should this be in the advisor’s wheelhouse? What have others experienced in working with advisors at Fido and other brokers?

Thanks a lot Bee for commenting and correcting me.
Initial withdrawal - 4% annually
Will claim SS at the age of 70 (corrected)
PV - overlooked - based on the historical analysis - value of portfolio increased with 4% withdrawal in the last 5 years. So 1st option is simplest and manageable. Thanks for the backstop provided by Central Banks.

Congratulations.
That's too bad about T. Rowe Price. Over the years I've found them extremely helpful, whether it was in setting up my individual 401(k) or with issues in managing it, or in navigating their closed fund rules, or with steps to distribute assets from an estate.
(OTOH, it took me six months to get a correction distribution out of a rollover IRA that came from a 401(k). There had been an excess contribution in the 401(k) that needed to be undone. No institution is perfect.)
As I recall, you have some D&C funds directly with the family. If you want to consolidate them at Fidelity, you may be able to do that without increasing your costs too much. D&C funds are transaction fee funds, but once you have positions in the funds at Fidelity (via transfer in kind), it may be possible to add more shares for a $5 fee and sell with no fees.
You first have to check whether Fidelity allows automatic investments for these funds. It does for most, but not all. To add to your position, you set up a series of automatic investments, then after the first one executes you cancel the rest. This gives you control and costs you $5/buy. Selling is done as usual, by placing a same-day sell order.
Whether it's worth the nominal fee and small lag time in making purchases (automated investments are not supposed to be set up as same-day purchases) is a matter of personal preference.

Quite a few column inches devoted to one particular type of bank account, TD Bank's "Preferred Chequing". It talks about one customer who's had the account for 25 years.
What isn't mentioned is that the reason such a long time customer was used as an example is that all customers of this account have had it for at least two decades. Preferred Chequing was discontinued in 2001 except for grandfathered customers.
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/investing/personal-finance/household-finances/article-was-this-big-bank-too-nice-in-giving-some-clients-a-break-on-fees/
The disproportionate coverage of this one particular account type to the exclusion of all others suggests that this is a corner case and not necessarily representative.
The customer is quoted as asking: "In an environment where people have lost their jobs, they're on furlough, they're trying to get CERB payments, who's going to be able to keep $5,000 in their bank account to not get service fees?"
The article could have responded to this by noting that since 2003, low-cost accounts (with minimum requirements set by the government) have been available at many banks, including TD Bank.
https://www.canada.ca/en/financial-consumer-agency/services/banking/bank-accounts/low-cost-no-cost.html
Or that TD Bank is not raising monthly maintenance fees or min balance requirements on its current offerings, and is eliminating the paper statement fee on its Student Chequing Account. Though it is converting Youth Accounts to Student Chequing Accounts, resulting in a new cap of 25 transactions/mo w/o fees.
https://www.tdcanadatrust.com/document/PDF/accounts/513796.pdf
Or that CERB shut down before these fee hikes. If the point is that many people are dealing with reduced cash flows (notably, lower income), that's whom low cost accounts are designed for.
Certainly some Canadian bank fees are going up, and while the government is doing something to help, it could always do more. But this article does not present the typical account nor does it present a broad picture of banking fees in Canada.
It's a little dated (2014), but here's a Canadian government study of banking fees.
https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/canada/financial-consumer-agency/migration/eng/resources/researchsurveys/documents/bankingfees-fraisbancaires-eng.pdf

I'm a big fan. Or rather, I was. The profitability of those "Big 5" banks is the closest thing to a sure bet in investing I've ever seen.
CM
TD
RY
BMO
BNS
But I cannot any longer ignore the unethical way that these banks treat their customers. It's been going on for years. Tonight on CBC's The National, I saw a news story that "broke the camel's back." And their customers = 90% of all money on deposit in Canada. Now, despite MAKING A PROFIT during the Covid ordeal, they are raising minimums in order for customers to avoid paying fees, and raising the fees, as well. And add to this, the fact that in-person service has been cut back to a bare-bones level. On this basis, I will not be buying. Until there is a sea-change, somehow.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/bank-fee-increases-1.6032824

Hank, yes; I noted about mis-pricing during some time periods for muni bonds vs taxable bonds. I considered several years ago an investment in NHMRX, but other sector investments were performing nicely and the transaction didn't happen. All of my accounts are either T or Roth IRA's, and the online buy (muni fund) wouldn't have been processed.
Below, is the current message returned when attempting to buy a muni fund for a T or Roth IRA at Fidelity. All online buys require a "preview the trade" before being processed. As @msf noted, the message doesn't prevent the transaction in total, but not via electronic channels.
----- (010386) The security you are attempting to trade is a tax-free mutual fund. Retirement accounts are prevented from buying or exchanging into tax-free mutual funds through the electronic channels. For more information, contact a Fidelity representative at 800-544-6666. -----
@Crash. It is not stated in this thread that you can not have a muni investment in an IRA; but that you can not process the transaction electronically.

I’ve never had a trade “disallowed” by any firm (unless it violated some 30-day block). But at TRP and anywhere else I’ve been at their website alerts you prior to trying to execute such a trade that it’s not allowable along with the reason.
Re munis - there have been rare occasions over the years where it actually made sense to own them in a tax sheltered account due to mispricing between taxable and non taxable securities. Doesn’t happen often, but it does occassionally occur, as I think @msf has inferred.
I’m confident TRP would (with due diligence) allow one to buy munis within a tax sheltered account - though I’ve never tried. Generally, TRP is very supportive of investors and easy to work with on those kinds of matters. It’s the “nuts-and-bolts” account servicing (things like changing a a preferred email or phone contact or how statements are delivered ) that seems to have become more error prone lately.
Here’s a typical example: Several years ago I needed to call them from a hotel while traveling. When the agent requested a “call back number” in case we got cut off, I gave him the number for the cheap prepaid tracfone I carried back than only when traveling. I was emphatic that this was a temporary phone number and not to be used for anything other than this one time need. A month or so later I noticed when logged in to my account that they had changed my phone number of record from what it had been for many years to that of the temporary tracpone number. Explicitly against my request. It’s things like that that drive me up a tree.

“ISTR that Fidelity doesn't allow the purchase of municipal bond funds in traditional or roth iras. In fact, my purchase of FSTFX for both my ira accounts was just denied by Fidelity !”

Don’t like the sound of that last sentence (though I practice denial all the time). :)
“TOD” (Transfer on Death) is the code TRP uses for non-retirement accounts. I wondered about that myself years ago when I began making deposits from my bank account into one of their cash equivalent funds. Some of the money in the TOD account more recently came from RMD money that wasn’t needed at the time. I like PRIHX (despite rather low ratings) and have been building the balance in that TOD account as an adjunct to other retirement savings.

Lots of semi-random comments:
Hank's The [Fidelity] 30-day limitation for in-house funds is perfectly reasonable - roughly what TRP insists on.
This reflects each fund house's excessive trading policy - something similar to but different from short term redemption fees. A key difference is that redemption fees are "just" money. Excessive trading rules can lock you out of trading. No Fidelity fund has a short term fee, and I believe the same is true for TRP funds.
TRP's policy can be found in each fund's statutory prospectus. It bars you from buying shares in a fund account if you sold shares from that account within 30 days. Notice the time constraint is on sell followed by purchase. All you need are two transactions (sell followed by buy) to trigger a restriction. Vanguard has a similar policy.
Fidelity's policy is more complex. It defines a short term round trip as a buy followed by a sell within 30 days. The policy begins to take effect only if you execute two round trips within 90 days of each other.
This seems somewhat less restrictive: you're allowed to buy/sell/buy in any time frame with no consequences. It's only the second short term (30 day) sell that triggers a freeze. But if triggered, it lasts longer than at TRP; at Fidelity the bar against purchases lasts 85 days and you're placed on a watch list.
Fidelity's Excessive Trading Policy and 2020 Update
In Mona's boglehead's link, the OP writes: HSA w/ company which im maxing out and investing it in Vanguard Real Estate Fund.
There's no response to this part of the post, but Fidelity offers the cheapest, broadest HSA around (it's a regular brokerage account). Many employer HSAs have fees or restrictions attached. What one can do is contribute to the employer's HSA (to get added employee tax benefits and match) and then transfer the money to an external (Fidelity) HSA. One can even buy a share class of Vanguard Real Estate Fund VNQ with no commission in a Fidelity HSA.
I agree with much of what sma3 wrote (also having had accounts at Vanguard, Fidelity, and Schwab for years). Though here are some items that reasonable people can view differently:
Vanguard is clunky
Likely true for many operations; I find it easy to use for the only thing I care about there: buying and selling mutual funds
Fidelity has ... an easy website
Yes, but the more they change it to look like their small screen ap, the worse it gets. Fidelity recently changed its bill payment interface so now I have to go through multiple screens to accomplish what used to be easier. And I can no longer give it a list of payees to display by default; it always starts with every one I've left in the system.
Vanguard is ... putting up more and more restrictions on nonV funds
It doesn't let you buy or sell leveraged/inverse ETFs. OTOH, to buy aggressive funds like PQTAX, Fidelity requires you to sign an agreement and set your account investment objective to most aggressive, while Vanguard just puts up a dialog box informing you that you should be aware of the risks.
A few years ago, Schwab stopped selling load funds (unless they were sold load-waived). I believe Vanguard has a similar policy. Fidelity still sells funds with loads. The way this may play out is that, e.g. for NMFAX, Fidelity will sell the A shares with a load, Schwab will have arranged for them to be sold NTF, and Vanguard won't sell them.

I am glad to hear of the TRP issues as I was thinking of moving some of their funds I own at Fidelity to TRP directly.
I have had accounts at Schwab, Fidelity and Vanguard for years and can offer the following
Vanguard is clunky, irritating and putting up more and more restrictions on nonV funds. Major advantage is only place I know of to get Admiral funds. Best used for only Vanguard funds. No dedicated personal rep, rather now a "team", unless you pay for advisor. Occasionally there are funds here I can't get anywhere else. Still have my wife's money in mutual fund account, rather than brokerage. Lot's of complaints in Vanguard Advisor news letter about back office service, mistakes in accounting etc.
Schwab has good list of most funds, lots of Load funds without load, but $25 more expensive as noted than Fido for fees. Good customer service, can get a single rep if you want who will call you occasionally to see if he/she "can help". Web site not as easy to navigate as FIDO
Fido has better graphs and data on positions and an easiest website. Very easy transfers from other brokerages, all done electronically. Have never used their personal reps, although they pester us all the time to "sign up".
I don't like to have all my assets in one basket, but if I had to pick one would go with Fido, with Schwab close second.
I was always a little leery about having to use a private firm ( Fidelity) that did not have to report their finances to the public. I am not sure if this is still a big issue, as Fido has massive amounts of retirement accounts and these folks probably watch things pretty carefully. However, you will not be told if there are problems, if you do not participate in a massive 401k ( My wife got stuck in a busted 401k years ago). Vanguard is just as opaque, as their mantra of " the fund investors own the firm" is window dressing only as fund investors do not get to elect the board or vote on salaries etc.

*** Glad folks have been able to expand the thread to address other needs or concerns.
Personally, TRP was always the “old reliable” safe haven I could move money to when somebody else failed to meet expectations. So, my initial question is one I never expected to even ask. Waiting with baited breath for TRP to resolve any remaining account problems before taking any drastic steps.
@MikeM - Wow. What a coherent well written testimony. to your faith in Schwab.
Some rambling thoughts …
- With advancing age comes a move more toward income funds and other less risky (less profitable) investments. Thus, ER becomes increasingly important. A 1-2% ER might not hurt you too much in an equity fund capable of posting double-digit years. But in a GNMA or short term bond fund anything north of 0.5% is a severe hit to your return. While TRP isn’t best in class, fees have been coming down. When you throw in their exemplary research capability you might even argue many of their fees are a bargain.
- I’ve never liked moving significant amounts of money between custodians. If it’s going from / to cash or moderate income funds … no foul. But moving money that’s committed to more volatile investments entails the risk of a drastic market move while the money is being transmitted. Envision being essentially in cash as your money makes its way from the old to the new custodian … and the asset class your moving jumps 5-10% over the few days it’s in transit. In that case you end up buying in at a premium and missing out on the gain. If you like roulette wheels, maybe it’s not bothersome to you because there’s a roughly “even” chance the market will drop during that time and you’ll come out a winner. (I don’t like roulette wheels.)
- Admittedly, you can try to pre-position assets so most of the transfers end up being in cash. But, it’s a hassle involving numerous transfers at both custodians if you’re moving a diversified portfolio of funds.
- The early redemption fees at Schwab and Fido bother me. I suppose folks might criticize me for sometimes buying and selling a fund within 60 days … but I’m not here to defend my approach or teach others how they should invest. Different strokes … The 30-day limitation for in-house funds is perfectly reasonable - roughly what TRP insists on. Picking up new investments (ie Fido funds) entails a learning curve, making some mistakes in the process. I think I can say with confidence that 3 of 4 current TRP funds did not exist when I signed on with them in 1995. So I’ve had a chance to become familiar with most of their offerings one or two at a time. Rather daunting is the thought of having to learn about an entirely new stable of funds (assuming one wants to avoid the early redemption issue involving NTF purchased funds).

With comparable returns (both funds returned the identical 43.21% over the past year ending 5/21/21, and were within 1 basis point annualized over the past three and five years), I'd prefer the one that didn't impose a tax drag on my returns.
Sure Schwab's TTM yield is higher. The fund recognizes and distributes capital gains. This is a good thing?
SWPPX has been continually distributing capital gains, sometimes even short term gains, year after year after year. Though it did manage to break its streak last year.
2015: 32.45¢ LTG
2016: 18.05¢ LTG + 1.13¢ STG
2017: 1.66¢ STG
2018: 6.97¢ LTG + 0.87¢ STG
2019, 8.91¢ LTG
VFIAX hasn't had a cap gains distribution this century. Admittedly it has an advantage because the fund has an ETF share class that enables the fund to spin off cap gains. But isn't that the point, that it has an advantage?
As article after article has stated, there's more to "best" or even "cheapest" than stated ER.
In terms of raw performance, there's a MUTUAL FUND that SWPPX has been unable to beat in even a single calendar year over the past decade. Even though that fund has "a cost factor DOUBLE schwab 0.04%". It's VINIX. A Vanguard fund.
M* ratings are a measure of risk adjusted performance within a category of funds. SWPPX gets four stars. Rarely do index funds get five stars, so that rating isn't surprising. But it does make one wonder about whether it really is "the best". Especially since there are other index funds in its category that have five star ratings, like VFIAX and VINIX.
Schwab is a boutique fund house. It's got a slew of target date funds and index funds, but sizeable holes elsewhere. No government bond funds, no mortgage funds, no core plus, no taxable high yield. On the equity side, no growth funds, foreign or domestic, aside from a pair of domestic large cap growth funds. This is just the basic stuff, the minimum one would expect to find at a one-stop shop.
Schwab is a great brokerage. And I'll continue to laud it. But as a fund house, it's far from top tier. Some of us still remember its Yield Plus fund. Maybe that's why it no longer offers an ultrashort term bond fund.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/lessons-from-schwabs-yieldplus-debacle/

My limited knowledge of the subject tells me “Stablecoins” are not Bitcoin or Blockchain. Bitcoin’s purpose is not a “currency”.
When I first read Powell’s commentary, my initial thought was… I wonder if they’ll create something called a “debit card” where you could pay for goods with a currency that was tied to the fiat in your digital bank account… Wait - I thought we had that. Maybe I’m missing something…
A nationalized central digital bank. I wonder how the current banking system will react to this development that is projected to take 3 years or so to develop. It will be interesting to watch. It seems the train has already left the station.

"BTW- Anybody remember a time they phoned Price’s mutual fund support team and weren’t greeted with the following message: “We are experiencing higher than normal call volume. Your wait time may be longer …” (followed by some crappy music)? Logically and mathematically, it would seem impossible for something to remain “higher than normal” indefinitely."
*************************
TOTALLY true! But it's become "boilerplate." Why? Because "customer service" became a bad joke YEARS ago. DECADES ago--- just as soon as it became possible to keep you on HOLD forever. And a new feature--- presented as a convenience: "if you want us to call you back (instead of waiting on HOLD,) press 4 now. OK, NOW, punch-in your phone number. Screw that. You make me an offer, then I have to do the work? Shit, that's like self-check-out at the supermarket.
To say nothing of "customer service" provided by someone who is not even close to proficient in English. (I should apologize for needing English? I think not.)

MikeM - Thanks for weighing in.
The “disconnect” is in my brain. My question assumed there were still plenty of conventional and competitive fund houses similar to Price from which to choose. From the discussion it seems the whole universe is moving to brokerages..
Why? I suspect it’s more cost effective for a firm like Fidelity to staff just one support team geared to the brokerage type customer rather than two distinct teams. Might even be a reason TRP’s once stellar mutual fund support team has been allowed to slide. They too offer a brokerage feature. I suspect they’d not be unhappy if their mutual fund customers shifted to their brokerage.
This has been an education. As I think @MikeM correctly guessed, I’m more comfortable with traditional fund / fund houses based on 50+ years of doing it that way.
BTW- Anybody remember a time they phoned Price’s mutual fund support team and weren’t greeted with the following message: “We are experiencing higher than normal call volume. Your wait time may be longer …” (followed by some crappy music)? Logically and mathematically, it would seem impossible for something to remain “higher than normal” indefinitely.

@hank, you are getting great advice here from everyone on new brokerages. Products, services (online, office) and your specific needs are the key as a customer. Brokerages continue to evolve for the better or worse over time. As pointed out here this pandemic brings out the brokerage's shortcomings.
Like Mark and several people here we have been with Fidelity for many years and they meet our need very well. We kept Vanguard since they were our former 401(k) administrator and we have several closed Vanguard funds and instutional shares of index funds. Service is sufficient for us since we do most of the transactions online. We moved away from TRP for the same reasons you are, but several years earlier. They really dropped the ball on phone support whereas Fidelity has done a good job. TRP funds are now available on NTF platform at Vanguard and Fidelity. We transferred all TRP funds out as "in-kind" transfer and life is good.

All a bunch of bullsheet. So. You invest in a ESG fund to do good but you live in a house instead of multi family... you're using up more energy than you need... credit card companies handcuff folks with less means to pay off high interest charges somewhat indefinitely, are minorities more affected by that? Amazon driving a tube of toothpaste out to your house cause you already paid for prime,. Did you travel by plane in the last several years? Are you wearing leather shoes? Do you pay taxes in the USA. You are supporting the massive weapons industry indirectly
Where does the logic start and end? All marketing, social justice signalling, tell others how to act and live...you are being played
Baseball Fan

I don’t know how to thank everybody for the great response. Am humbled by how little i knew about Fidelity, Schwab & brokerages in general. This thread will be saved and referenced repeatedly. For now, I’m staying put with Price. Hopefully, the technical related issues will be resolved. Suspect I (and some of you) understand how to navigate and utilize their website better than many of the current phone reps - for reasons unclear to me.
FWIW - Later in the evening Tuesday after reading all the responses, I researched practically every fund house on the attached list. Went right to their website. Late into the night. The changes in the mutual fund business since I joined TRP around 1995 are unbelievable. Only the strong survive. Many merged out of existence. With possibly a dozen exceptions (counting the big brokerages), all the houses on the Barron’s list appear to be front loaded, And few offer a diversified stable of funds for individuals. Several cater to institutions or very large investors. And none can compete with the 4 or 5 giants on fees. Their top rated house, Manning & Nappier is interesting. Not front loaded, but their 12B-1 fee is considered a “level load.” I actually like some of their allocation funds - but the added fee reduces attractiveness compared to TRP.
Looks like increasingly the fund universe is dominated by a few mammoth houses. The big get bigger - which explains Fidelity’s current push to bring the “teeny-boppers” under its umbrella. I’ll pursue @msf’s use / suggestion of online banks which would negate the already limited need for checkwriting at a fund house. If the local bank on the corner you’ve been with for 15 years is unable to provide a medallion signature guarantee when you walk in the front door without your having to jump through hoops, what value is there to staying with them?
Barrons List of 50 Best Mutual Fund Families in 2020 (From February, 2021)
Manning & Napier Advisors $5,755 72.54 26 3 6 4 2
2 54 Guggenheim Investments 40,034 70.56 20 16 15 1 11
3 10 Vanguard Group 1,836,704 66.07 8 19 26 5 9
4 9 Fidelity Management & Research 1,779,875 64.79 16 24 8 8 35
5 47 Morgan Stanley Investment Management 77,902 62.95 1 10 18 51 52
6 35 Transamerica Asset Management 48,738 62.46 10 8 9 48 23
7 14 Lord Abbett 175,300 61.26 9 31 3 46 30
8 51 Brinker Capital 14,011 60.52 2 9 7 53 48
9 28 American Century Investment Mgmt 154,321 60.50 18 13 19 27 6
10 4 Columbia Threadneedle Investments 179,658 59.90 13 32 14 15 42
11 2 Virtus Investment Partners 48,912 59.41 28 36 1 39 4
12 20 T. Rowe Price 761,480 59.38 32 17 4 24 33
13 25 Saratoga Capital Management 1,251 59.23 50 4 24 2 53
14 53 American Funds 2,290,068 58.93 43 12 35 3 18
15 23 John Hancock 188,266 58.74 27 22 13 17 40
16 27 First Trust Advisors 33,377 58.07 4 43 12 40 39
17 45 Thrivent Mutual Funds 30,089 57.97 6 46 22 19 24
18 13 BlackRock 340,679 57.69 24 15 21 18 47
19 6 Nuveen 233,819 57.19 14 7 16 47 32
20 52 AssetMark 3,952 56.21 3 52 31 13 36
21 21 PGIM Investments 163,978 55.94 7 1 52 42 27
22 8 Putnam Investment Management 82,302 55.78 11 26 20 41 26
23 46 SIT Investment Associates 1,826 55.22 21 6 2 52 49
24 18 J.P. Morgan Asset Management 454,621 55.16 12 18 29 34 29
25 42 UBS Asset Management 12,563 55.00 23 37 10 43 10
26 29 BNY Mellon Investment Management 63,649 54.41 5 34 38 32 25
27 26 Amundi Pioneer Asset Management 46,209 53.07 34 2 36 38 28
28 15 Wells Fargo Funds 88,736 52.93 19 28 44 9 44
29 38 Pimco 415,290 51.95 17 51 25 29 5
30 32 Ivy Investment Management 60,875 51.78 38 20 17 35 34
31 31 Delaware Management 64,045 51.53 41 14 51 6 1
32 30 Federated Investors 84,141 51.41 47 11 33 7 45
33 3 DWS Group 30,427 50.36 42 21 23 23 37
34 1 MFS Investment Management 370531 49.79 36 39 27 12 38
35 11 Natixis Investment Managers 151,678 49.49 45 5 34 31 51
36 49 Affiliated Managers Group 88,905 49.38 30 40 11 49 7
37 12 Hartford Funds 114,072 48.78 25 27 46 25 12
38 36 Neuberger Berman 38,096 48.40 35 48 32 10 43
39 34 Goldman Sachs Asset Management 120,060 48.01 37 38 39 14 22
40 7 State Street Bank & Trust 22,867 47.96 49 47 5 30 31
41 22 Invesco 324,250 47.28 39 25 45 20 20
42 5 Principal Global Investors 183,536 47.16 46 30 28 28 21
43 39 MainStay Funds 66,624 46.44 29 44 37 37 3
44 43 USAA Investments** 60,434 45.25 22 45 48 21 14
45 48 Franklin Templeton Investments 472,488 44.74 33 35 49 26 17
46 24 Northern Trust Investments 28,110 43.75 53 23 40 16 16
47 37 SEI Group 97,141 42.75 48 50 42 11 13
48 33 Eaton Vance 106,755 42.36 52 29 30 33 19
49 17 Victory Capital Management** 36,030 42.32 44 33 50 22 8
50 50 Russell Investments
Barron’s February 19, 2021