"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

I’ve been very pleased with Fidelity and their breadth of funds offered at No Load or No Fees. Had one service hiccup with them in many years re: linked accounts and trying to get in on an IPO I was eligible for. Otherwise, very happy with them. Family member in Vanguard and they like Vanguard but have complained to me that they wish they had access to the funds Fidelity offers. FWIW Good wishes to you.

There was an interesting article in The Guardian (UK) today about the global plastics nightmare which is set to get even worse in the coming years. Among other apalling facts, the article details how some of the major world banks have invested tens of billions of dollars in single use plastics producers. Here's the link:
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/may/18/twenty-firms-produce-55-of-worlds-plastic-waste-report-reveals
This got me wondering how many ESG funds are actually invested in these banks. And if they are, then how can they claim to be ESG funds? I had time only to conduct a brief survey of six ESG mutual funds, but will continue my research. Five of the six funds held at least one of the offending banks in The Guardian article. Two funds held two or more of the banks, and one fund held the top four worst offenders. Only only fund, Brown Advisory Sustainable Growth, held none of the banks.
It pays to dig deeper. If you are sleeping soundly at night believing your ESG fund is doing the world a favor wake up and think again.

“Fidelity Investments Inc. plans to open the door to a new generation of investors who will be able to trade stocks even before they learn how to drive or head to college. Fidelity said Tuesday it will issue debit cards and offer investing and savings accounts to 13- to 17-year-olds whose parents or guardians also invest with the firm. The accounts will let teens buy and sell U.S. stocks, Fidelity mutual funds and many exchange-traded funds. Similar to how it works for adults, the service won’t charge account fees or commissions for online trading.
“The offering marks Fidelity’s latest move to position itself as a lifelong financial adviser to millions of Americans. Once known for the stock-picking mutual funds it sold through other brokers, the firm has spent the past few decades building direct connections to individual investors. Today, Fidelity runs one of the world’s biggest brokerages and the nation’s largest servicer of 401(k) plans and other retirement accounts offered by employers.
“Fidelity and other major wealth managers slashed their stock-trading commissions to zero in recent years. Eliminating those costs had set the stage for the industry’s banner 2020, when many individual investors rediscovered the allure of trading stocks. Many brokerage and wealth-management firms reported a surge in enthusiasm and new accounts, especially among younger participants. Fidelity is among them. In the first three months of 2021, the company added 1.6 million accounts from investors 35 years old or younger—more than triple the number of new accounts from that demographic a year earlier, Fidelity said.”
The Wall Street Journal - May 19, 2021

With a comprehensive personal investment strategy an investor can avoid the inevitable, repetitive and difficult questions like those asked in the OP. Or, at least have the answers at the ready.

@Stillers: I agree with you that the total of 3 Discussion Topics you have posted for the community in the 16 months since you arrived are all vastly superior to any topic @Derf or I have offered up. That #3 - “Your tax dollars at work” sounds particularly compelling.
As to your investment prowess, I’ve been wanting to thank you for the tip on DODFX back during the first half of December.
“The conclusions that should be drawn are: DODFX is a mediocre FLV stock fund that has only kept pace with IC+ bond fund DODIX for the past ten years. DODFX is inherently a much higher risk fund than DODIX and the chance of it not meeting investors return expectations is significantly higher.” - Posted by @Stillers, December 2020.
Admittedly, it’s only been 5 months. But here’s what’s happened since your post:
- DODIX -5% (or more) / DODFX +14%.
- DODFX has outpaced DODIX by approximately 20% over the 5 months.
- DODFX is now in the top 20th percentile of its peer group based on recent performance (Lipper).
- Meanwhile, DODIX peaked December 17 at $14.98 and has been falling ever since. Looks like you caught the high. Sure glad I listened and sold my depressed DODFX at that time, while putting the money into high flying DODIX.

… Fidelity's holding period to avoid early redemption fees is 60 days, compared to Schwab's 90 days.
Thanks @carew388,
That’s an unexpected issue for me. I shuffle a fair amount of $$ around at TRP (and Invesco). Not selling entire fund - just adding or subtracting. During periods like March & April 2020 you want to be moving from less aggressive into more aggressive funds. Usually abide by a self imposed 30 day rule - in addition to TRP’s own 30-day block.
*Question: Is that early redemption fee only applied to the most recent shares bought? First in / first out perhaps? Makes a heck of a difference!
I did find this …..
“Fidelity charges a short-term trading fee each time you sell or exchange shares of a FundsNetwork NTF fund held less than 60 days. This fee does not apply to Fidelity funds, money market funds, FundsNetwork Transaction Fee funds, FundsNetwork load funds … “
That’s good news. But still trying to figure out whether first in / first out applies in the NTF cases.
Ahhh … Fidelity sounds fine (as does Schwab). Fido has a lot of good funds of its own - and there’s no short term trading fee. Used to play around with their sector funds when younger.
I’ve dealt with TRP for 25 years. Their online system is great 99% of the time. Pretty slick. But the method of switching over to electronic delivery is a bit gimped up. My talk with them today reminds me of the old line: A man said to the Universe … “Sir, I exist …”

“Decades ago, Fidelity nudged all investors off of their mutual fund platform onto their brokerage platform. (Who remembers T-account numbers?) Vanguard is in the middle of that process now.”
Thanks. Wondered about that based on some past discussions here. And the Fido rep I spoke with today never mentioned that little detail.
There is a difference. With a fund-to-fund exchange, it goes through at that day’s closing price. That’s handy if it’s a sector or very volatile fund and you’re watching the market. But in a brokerage, as I understand it, it takes 1 extra day to clear. One reason I never got into a brokerage. Admittedly, that kind of timing’s less important to me than years ago. (Still, OPGSX jumped over 5% yesterday.)
The way around that, I guess, is to buy and sell ETFs …. if you want the latest market price … Right?

FWIW - I have been with Fidelity for over 50 years with hardly a hiccup. Any problems (all minor) were handled promptly with less than a 10 min phone call. No hassles working through their phone menu to obtain an actual human on the other end.
What they don't have is possibly every last mutual fund you'd like to own with or without purchase fees but they have a large selection as you've already documented. A nice recent option was the incorporation of many TRP funds in their stables. Great research options across the board. I've been quite happy.

@msf, thank you very much for your analysis. Always appreciated, but living until 100 to gain a$67k advantage in the game of life still doesn't seem significant to me. Yeah, $67k is a lot of money in today's dollars, but what does it mean 30 years from now. 1 extra year of withdrawal potential maybe? That is what makes this decision a toss of a coin or of little significance either way for me. I may very well live to 100. I have pretty good genes, but will I care or even remember this "when-to-take-SS" decision on my death bed? Pretty sure not.
Squeezing the last penny from your potential SS is a game. It can be won or lost by many factors.

How can this be? Surely you jest. See, e.g.
Flawed Paperwork Aggravates a Foreclosure Crisis, NYTimes, 2010
https://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/04/business/04mortgage.html
(Just the first random article I happened to hit.)
IMHO there are at least two important takeaways:
1. Always check your statements. The boilerplate verbiage from financial institutions to do this is there for a couple of reasons:
- Actually checking helps find problems like the ones written about when they first occur.
- The verbiage protects the institutions in case there is a problem and you failed to check. This is a defense mentioned in the article.
2. Hold onto your statements "forever", or at least until there's no more money left to trace. Financial institutions may destroy records after a finite period of time, as allowed by law, e.g. "TD does retain records for RSP accounts for seven years, in accordance with applicable provincial laws."

Having gone through this exercise a few years ago when vanguard unfairly dropped their decently integrated banking services, I was on the verge of moving to Fidelity and hit 2 roadblocks :
1. their may be some funds that are restricted from transfer, probably the good ones. (e.g., admiral and primecap for vanguard). serious golden handcuffs.
2. the moved funds may not count towards your asset limit to get the best benefits. in which case, you may have to move cash-like assets, or worse, realize tax gains just to get a similar holding.
in the end, i had to open a conventional online bank account with needed services (capital1 , a nightmare in itself since it took almost 9 months to set up due to repeated administrative hassles)
let us know if there is a silver bullet solution.

Thanks for your figures. Now I can be more specific to your particular "what if". Since I'm still making estimates, feel free to adjust the calculations as needed.
For the sake of argument, let's assume that your SS benefits are 50% taxable. (It could be as high as 85%.) Let's also assume that you're working part time until age 70 so that we don't have too many different intervals to compute.
Finally, let's assume a fed marginal tax rate of 22% and a state marginal rate of 6% for a combined 28% rate. We have to pick some figure to work with to make this concrete.
I gather from your followup that you need an extra $20K/year (after tax) over and above your part time income for your expenses until you fully retire (assumed age 70). The fact that you'd be drawing from your IRA for this money suggests no money in taxable accounts - since that's what conventional wisdom says to deplete first.
So if you defer benefits, you'll need to draw $27,778/year from the IRA. (72% of this gives $20K post tax).
OTOH, if you take benefits at age 67, you'll get to "bank" $14,028/year, assuming you bank it in that same deductible T-IRA:
$35K pre-tax SS benefits = $20K for expenses + $14,028 to IRA + $972 taxes
[ net taxes = tax on SS benefits - tax savings on deductible IRA contribution
$972 = (28% x 1/2 x $35K) - (28% x $14,028) = $4,900 - $3,928]
So from age 67 to age 70, you're either reducing your IRA by $27,778/year or growing it by $14,028. That's a difference of $41,806/year for three years. In pretax dollars. In post-tax dollars (72%), that's $30.1K.
I already explained how to account for the growth of this amount in an earlier post in this thread. So I'll just give the results here:
Expected value of $30.1K (post-tax) difference/year over three years: $104K (portfolio visualizer), $93K in real (inflation adjusted) dollars.
After age 70, if you've deferred SS, you'll be receiving 132%/108% x $35K, roughly $42.8K/year.
Compared with the $35K you'd get by starting at age 67, that's a $7.8K/year difference pre-tax, real dollars. Post tax, the difference is $7.8K - (28% x $7.8K x 1/2) = $6.7K/year.
The extra savings and growth ($93K real dollars to age 70) that you get by taking SS at age 67 can on average be expected to cover this $6.7K shortfall through age 87 (portfolio visualizer).
That's a tad under what the new RMD table1 (single life) gives as the expected lifetime (88.2) for someone now age 67.
The comment "by the way your dead at the end anyway" suggests that you're not giving much weight to the risk of loss once you're dead, since, well, you're dead anyway. OTOH, the risk of having less money while you're alive is going to matter. A risk averse person who values these two risks (dying before "breaking even", and living "too long") differently will tend to make the choice that reduces the more important risk.
In addition, the estimate that by deferring benefits one will begin pulling ahead around age 87 is a result subject to wide variations. Maybe the market will not produce 7%/year (the figure I used as input), maybe it will swoon early in your drawdown period. Maybe you'll do much better, maybe you'll do much worse.
In contrast, SS is a steady (inflation adjusted) income stream. All else being equal, the risk averse person will take the sure thing.
A final note on the numbers. The calculations above incorporate the effect of taxes and account for investment growth. Your potential shortfall by taking benefits at age 67 and living to 100 still comes out to nearly triple magnitude you hypothesized: ""$10k, 20k, 30k maybe?" Or maybe $87K (13 x $6.7K, post tax, in real dollars).

It depends on whether the securities are "covered" or "uncovered". If they are covered, institutions are required to transfer what they think the cost basis is. If they are uncovered, they're not required to transfer this information.
Sounding like a broken record - what a brokerage thinks your cost basis is and what it actually is can be different. You and you alone are responsible for reporting the true cost basis.
For example, a few years ago I had a wash sale of covered securities across two brokerages. The brokerage where the wash sale took place could not possibly report the correct (adjusted) cost basis of the shares sold since it was unaware of the repurchase in the other brokerage. The brokerage with the replacement shares could not possibly record the correct (adjusted) cost basis of those shares because it was unaware of the wash sale in the first brokerage.

lost extra income over 30 years minus gained extra income over first three years =
30 years x 12mo/year x ($2112 - $1728) - $62,208 = $138,240 - $62,208 = $76,032.

@msf, This synopsis is a pretty straight forward, narrow view. But for everyone there are the "what ifs".
What if during the years I wait from 67 to 70, I had to withdraw $20k a year
from an IRA to make up the income deficit for cutting back or eliminating work income? $20k x 3 years is $60k potential growth loss. So, that kind of makes your extra $76,032 gain IF I live until 97 more of a pittance in the scheme of things in my opinion. There is a much greater chance of not living until 97 than doing so statistics say. Factor in that $20k from an IRA is fully taxed. SS is partially taxed. And lets factor in the excess SS I will receive at 67 that I don't need to make up my reduced work income. Still using the $20k needed to fill my income deficit, I now have $15k to bank for 3 years = $45k (I should receive ~$35k/year SS now, (35ss - 20 needed income = 15 excess to save).
Bottom line in my mind, that straight forward formula you gave can easily be affected by real life factors everyone has. With all those factors and probably more factors we may not be aware of heading down the road, using your wait until 70 formula has huge variability for being accurate. I think some of the articles posted in this string are saying a similar view.

FAIRX added medallion guarantee requirements in the prospectus dated March 16, 2009. One can compare that with the March 31, 2008 prospectus that did not have those requirements.
FAIRX went from $3.7B as of Nov 30, 2006 to $6.5B as of Nov 30, 2007 to $6.7B as of Nov 2008, to $8.2B as of May 31, 2009, to $10.6B as of Nov 30, 2009.
Annual figures from 2010 prospectus
May 2009 figure from 2009 semi-annual report
There does not appear to have been a deep drawdown around the time the requirements were added. There were however at least a couple of other notable changes made that March.
First, and my guess for why the policy was changed is that the fund changed distributors. For the past two years it had used Quasar Distributors (an affiliate of US Bancorp Fund Services). It switched to PFPC Distributors (an indirect subsidiary of PNC Financial Services Group).
Second, the fund made a major change in investment policies regarding securities it could invest in. Previously it could invest "in securities of public companies including ... equity securities, such as common stocks, partnership interests, business trust shares, convertible securities, and rights and warrants [to purchase such securities]".
After March 16 it would "achieve the Fund's investment objective by investing in a focused portfolio of equity and fixed-income securities." Emphasis added.
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1096344/000094040009000260/fairhm77q1.txt

"But why stress over that choice? Whats the + or - going to be, $10k, 20k, 30k maybe? A piddly amount in the scheme of things?"
Here's a quick look at the magnitude of the risk, worst case. According to SSA, the average retiree monthly check (as of Dec 2020) is $1,544. That is likely less than what the average PIA (primary insurance amount - amount one would get at normal retirement age) is, because so many people take SS benefits early. For our back-of-the-envelope purposes, $1600 seems like a reasonable amount to use for the typical full retirement monthly benefit.
Someone born in 1954 retiring in 2021 (age 67) would receive 108% of PIA if they started benefits at age 67, and 132% of PIA if they waited until age 70.
https://www.ssa.gov/benefits/retirement/planner/1943-delay.html
https://www.ssa.gov/benefits/retirement/planner/delayret.html
So we can compare a benefit of $1728/mo for an extra 36 months to a benefit of $2112/mo starting at age 70. Worst case if delaying is 36 x $1728 = $62,208 (dying right before turning 70). If we use 100 years old as an upper bound on living, the "worst" case (living too long) of not delaying is:
lost extra income over 30 years minus gained extra income over first three years =
30 years x 12mo/year x ($2112 - $1728) - $62,208 = $138,240 - $62,208 = $76,032.
That's about 2.5x as big a variation as suggested. But that's not the key point. The key point is that by deferring benefits risk of a lower cash flow in very old age is being reduced, and risk reduction has real value. At least for the risk averse.
(FWIW, one of my grandparents lived to near 100, and while 1 in 4 aren't the best odds, it's enough to offer hope and for me to use age 100 for my own planning purposes.)
In short, the piddly (or not so piddly) variation in possible legacies may pale in comparison to the value of the risk reduction achieved should one have the "bad luck" of living a long life.