To those who would rather not discuss politics in this forum I understand. The discussion can and will likely mirror our national discourse or lack there of. And while politics might not impact our collective portfolios in the next quarter,,,, the possible collapse of our democracy will impact all aspects of our lives,,,, our portfolios includes. So we can bury our heads in the sand or try to understand what is happening and how it will inevitably impact our financial future. Just my opinion.

Edit: I read links in @msf post. I decided to pay off the CC. Please do not assume your situation will be similar to mine. Please do your DD. I do not want my posts resulting in financial draw backs (incl opportunity costs) for others. I am inclined to suggest you take advantage of opportunities but monitor (unlike me) and adjust as necessary after that.
Well said. No argument. Everybody’s situation is different. Thanks for sharing.

Well, this thread has legs. So many different facets of financial planning to ponder….

Yes, that kind of steep insurance increase is an eye-grabber. Let us know if you are able to confirm a link between the insurance increase and credit. I’m thinking probably not.( But I specialize in denial).
Thanks for sharing @BaluBalu.

There is no way for me to confirm causation of insurance increases to credit score, other than to make conclusions from reading whatever links you guys post. When I shopped for a new home insurance, I was required to give my DOB. I asked the agent why he needs my DOB when I am making a single upfront payment and he said his system will not allow him to quote without the DOB. I did not know what correlation there is between age and home insurance. (My presumption is that they need to check credit history if you are paying premiums in installments.)
I already confirmed that my credit score dropped ~ 7% (the only change in my life is carrying balances on that one credit card). That is a good enough motivation for me to pay off. I want to keep a high credit score so I can use it, if I need to, for something meaningful and not for deferring credit card payments for 18 months.
I Just looked into the alerts in my Experian account and see that after the second statement period close date for that CC, the credit rating dropped from Exceptional to Very Good. In many months, after I started that credit card account, the FICO score has been dropping about 10 points per month. June change is not posted yet. At this rate, by Fall, the rating can go to Good (<740) from Very Good.
Starting last month, Experian has been alerting an increase in balance in that credit card as soon as the CC statement period closed, which tells me Experian thinks it is a concern for them (Your BANK OF AMERICA account balance increased to $XX,XXX.00). Whether that is a correct assessment by the credit system or not, I am not one to quarrel with the weather. "Law or Not" is the operative phrase here for me.
For me to pay off seems to be a good answer. I can increase the credit score back and shop for home insurance again.
Edit: I read links in @msf post. I decided to pay off the CC. Please do not assume your situation will be similar to mine. Please do your DD. I do not want my posts resulting in financial draw backs (incl opportunity costs) for others. I am inclined to suggest you take advantage of opportunities but monitor (unlike me) and adjust as necessary after that.

The conference felt very odd to me. The impression that I'd share here, but not in the July issue, is of a dowager ... the woman of a certain age who's decided to show them all that the old girl still has it, so she buys a party dress, gets a new 'do, practices her Gen Z ("I've got the tea on that boujee NPC!") and heads out ... to cut a rug.
The keystone address was cued up with pounding music and a disembodied voice urging up to put our hands together for Ivanna Hampton, a Morningstar podcaster and senior multimedia editor, who was wearing a bright yellow suit and brought the energy and affect of a Ted talk to a room full of folks who look ... well, pretty much the way you'd think of roomful of financial planners would look. She promised to help us "soothe your clients" if we'd just "Evolve Ahead Together" which would happen if we "were all ready to hear Savita's bullish outlook on the markets!!"
The keynote speaker was a senior person at BoA/Merrill who ran through her slide deck (with four - six graphs per slide), didn't leave time for questions and left the conference despite the published plan to have her meet the media afterwards (which might speak to the importance of the conference to her schedule). The room was (mostly) full at least in part because Morningstar waived the registration fee for financial planners who agreed to sit through at least three sponsored meetings (which were definitely not sales pitches).
Most of the events other than the keynotes took place in a single, echo-y room the same of an airplane hanger. The Morningstar sales and service people occupied the center of the floor, with other exhibitors on three sides of them. (Fidelity reserved one five-foot folding table which was unstaffed most of the time, several others likewise with stalwarts like Ariel absent). Breakout sessions took place along one wall in a series of little corrals where the amplified speakers' voices rang out across the whole space. The sessions tended to earn CE credits and the ones I lingered near had a distinct podcast feel. Little data, lots of affirmation.
Pretty noticeably absent were, you know, portfolio managers. Messrs. Herro and Jain, in the conference's last time slot, were among the few distinguished exceptions.
I chatted with some of the Morningstar analysts, who allowed that conference attendance (and, presumably, sponsorship) had taken a hit since Covid and they were scrambling to find ways to rebuild its relevance. I like the Morningstar folks and respect their efforts to revitalize. I hope they succeed. I'd be curious to know, though, why they even bother with the conference? That is, is it primarily a way to market Morningstar's myriad services (one adviser reported being blindsided by a $13,000 price increase for exceeding the limits of his Morningstar Direct subscription) and connect with current and potential subscribers? If so, fine ... but don't be surprised if the investing community is increasingly reluctant to underwrite the enterprise. And as their enthusiasm for attending dwindles, the conference's draw might follow.
I'll share actual substance in another post or two.

My portfolio is taxable and is primarily buy and hold. High yield stock and utility stock sleeves were added to it in 2020 and were funded during 2020 and the first part of 2021. Most of the dividends earned are released for personal use. Fido says the portfolio is currently 73% invested in stocks. It is overweight in REITs, Financials, Energy, and Utilities (the Financial and Energy sector investments include BDCs and LPs). The portfolio's YTD total returns have averaged between perhaps 40% and 75% of the SP500 with the direction of its trend line in general corresponding with the trend line of the SP500. The portfolio fares better on a relative basis when the bond market focuses on the prospect the Fed may begin to cut interest rates sooner rather than later (or "never"). It will probably benefit more on a relative basis if the Fed actually does begin to cut interest rates as the REIT sector will likely stop being shunned.

M* is dumping its TAMP business for RIAs. There goes its reach for financial advisors.
It will stick to its own knitting - rating stuff (funds, stocks, bonds), making lots of money from its advise-platforms, managing assets in-house. Oh, and that ESG by Sustainalytics turned out to be another mistimed dud.
https://riabiz.com/a/2024/6/24/morningstars-sale-of-tamps-12-billion-book-of-business-to-assetmark-ends-two-year-run-that-fell-short-on-growth-whether-rias-stick-or-flee-will-determine-fate-of-deal

@BaluBalu, it should be no surprise that M* got it wrong. The numbers are as @BenWP reported.
I'm guessing some percentage would have been Super Micro, which graduated to the 500. There were probably others.
I'll grieve about it during the long winter nights.

I have been reading his blog an WSJ column for decades. His "Humble Dollar" provides good, if somewhat basic financial advice, and the comments and guest commentaries are always interesting
Last Saturday in a post " The C Word" Clements disclosed he has stage 4 lung Cancer with brain mets.
Typical of Jonathan, he followed the details of his diagnosis and treatment with a discussion of financial advice for someone facing death in a time sooner than he expected before the diagnosis.
He now is starting a forum where readers can post, changing from his previous format of longer articles edited with reader comments.
IF you don't know the site "Humble Dollar" it is worth looking at, especially for folks with limited financial experience. An equally f good reason is to boost the site views and support Jonathan in his upcoming treatment.

The fees are definitely significant. A few families refuse to pay even the 10 basis points charged for TF funds. This is why Schwab and Fidelity have started charging TFs of $74.95 and $100 respectively for a few fund families such as Vanguard.

Most TF funds pay Schwab an annual asset-based fee, typically 0.10% annually of the average fund assets held at Schwab, although the fee can range up to 0.25% annually.
...
Most NTF funds pay Schwab's standard OneSource/NTF fund fee of 0.40% per year; however, the annual fee can range up to 0.45% of the fund assets held at Schwab.
...
The information on this website was last updated May 1, 2024 and is subject to change without advance notice.

https://www.schwab.com/legal/financial-and-other-relationships#panel--text-49651

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/92500/000119312524165867/d854673d497.htm
497 1 d854673d497.htm 497
STEWARD FUNDS, INC.
on behalf of its series
Steward Covered Call Income Fund
Steward Equity Market Neutral Fund
Steward Global Equity Income Fund
Steward International Enhanced Index Fund
Steward Large Cap Core Fund
Steward Large Cap Growth Fund
Steward Large Cap Value Fund
Steward Select Bond Fund
Steward Small Cap Growth Fund
Steward Values-Focused Large Cap Enhanced Index Fund
Steward Values-Focused Small-Mid Cap Enhanced Index Fund
(the “Funds”)
Supplement dated June 21, 2024 to the Currently Effective Prospectus and Statement of Additional Information dated August 28, 2023
This Supplement reports the following changes to information in the Funds’ Prospectus and Statement of Additional Information dated August 28, 2023.
A.Upon the recommendation of Crossmark Global Investments, Inc., Steward Small Cap Growth Fund’s investment adviser (the “Adviser”), the Board of Directors of Steward Funds, Inc. has authorized, on behalf of Steward Small Cap Growth Fund, the Fund’s liquidation and termination, which will be effective on or about August 23, 2024 (the “Liquidation Date”). Accordingly, the Fund will redeem all of its outstanding shares on the Liquidation Date. The liquidation will be effected pursuant to a Plan of Liquidation and Termination. The operational costs of the liquidation, including the mailing of notification to shareholders, will be borne by the Fund but reimbursed by the Adviser, after taking into account applicable contractual expense caps then in effect by the Adviser to waive or reimburse certain operating expenses of the Fund. As the Liquidation Date approaches, the Fund’s assets will be converted to cash or cash equivalents and the Fund will not be pursuing its investment objective.
The Fund will be closed to new investors effective at the close of business on June 28, 2024. After that date, existing shareholders may continue to invest in the Fund and retirement plans that currently offer the Fund as an investment option may continue to offer the Fund to their participants until the Liquidation Date.
Prior to the Liquidation Date, shareholders may exchange their shares for shares of the same class of another Steward Fund or redeem their shares prior to the Liquidation Date, in each case at net asset value. Shareholders whose shares are redeemed by the Fund on the Liquidation Date will receive the net asset value per share for all Fund shares they own on the Liquidation Date. The exchange or redemption of Fund shares, on or before the Liquidation Date, generally will be a taxable event for shareholders, other than shareholders that hold Fund shares in a tax-advantaged account (e.g., an individual retirement account, 403(b), 401(k) or other defined contribution or defined benefit plan), but it is important that you consult your personal tax advisor and/or plan provider if you have any questions.
Shareholders that hold Fund shares through a financial intermediary should contact their financial intermediary if they have questions.,,

(Other firms charge transfer fees, so not a big surprise per se....but probably noteworthy for Vanguard)
Vanguard, the country’s second-largest financial-advisory firm, will start charging brokerage-account holders a slew of new fees starting July 1 — including a $100 processing fee to close an account or transfer assets to another firm. That fee, however, will be waived for customers with at least $5 million in assets.
The account-closure fee is a first for Vanguard, long a provider of low-cost investing options and a pioneer in passively managed index funds.
< - >
In addition to Vanguard’s new account-closure fee, the company will also charge $25 for broker-assisted trades of Vanguard funds (unless the customer holds $1 million or more in Vanguard assets or is enrolled in a Vanguard advisory service); $100 to process the deposit of physical share certificates; a 20% fee on funds recovered from class-action settlements on clients’ behalf; a 1% fee on gross dividends paid on foreign or American depository receipt assets held in U.S. dollars; and a $250 processing fee for research and removal of a restriction on securities in brokerage accounts.
< - >
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/vanguard-the-low-cost-investing-pioneer-will-now-charge-100-to-close-an-account-unless-youre-a-multimillionaire-09ef461c?mod=newsviewer_click

excluded are ... Treasury stock (buybacks that aren't cancelled).
Treasury shares are usually not counted (in the US) even before making a free-float adjustment. This is because indexes start with outstanding stock and Treasury shares are not outstanding. (They're issued but not outstanding, due to the buyback.)
From S&P Global Index Mathematics Methodology:

Shares Outstanding. This is the given company’s shares outstanding and provides total company level shares, as reported by stock exchanges, company press releases, and financial documents. Treasury shares are excluded

https://www.spglobal.com/spdji/en/documents/methodologies/methodology-index-math.pdf
OTOH, S&P's Float Adjustment Methodology gives a much more detailed and nuanced description of what is and isn't included in free float. Regarding Treasury stock it notes:

Due to local reporting patterns in some markets, S&P Dow Jones Indices may include treasury shares in total shares outstanding but exclude them from float.

https://www.spglobal.com/spdji/en/documents/index-policies/methodology-sp-float-adjustment.pdf
What it means by "local reporting" is country by country. Some countries include treasury shares in their outstanding stock calculations, others don't. MSCI clarifies this somewhat:

For most countries, treasury shares are included in the determination of the total shares outstanding, and therefore MSCI includes them in the calculation of free float. In countries like United Kingdom, USA, Canada where treasury shares are excluded from the determination of the total shares outstanding, they are accordingly not included in the calculation of free float.

https://www.msci.com/index/methodology/latest/FreeFloatData (pdf)
Conceptually, yogi's first sentence says it all:
The use of free-float in indexes is sensible as that is the float that is publicly available.
If one cares about the nitty gritty, see pp. 3-4 of the S&P Float Adjustment Methodology doc. (FWIW, it's fairly short but still more than I care to know.)

@stillers. Perhaps another universe is oddly phrased, but my financial life would be entirely different if I had a pension check roll in every month. Many decisions would be looked at differently.

Oh, now I get it!
And agreed, our collective SS and Pension incomes result in negligible, if any in some years, annual income gap. Makes a world of difference in all of our financial and investment decisions. We played it close to the vest in our first five years of retirement, but have swung for the fences in our last seven. To our credit though, we started planning for our retirements and this very situation on Day 1 of our first professional jobs in 1980. Well, I did at least. The missus got on board a wee bit later!

@msf said, ”If China is doing so well, should one be investing more in China, despite the political risks involved?”
That would be a contrarian bet for sure. All my sources (various financial writers / commentators / pundits) are really down on China as an investment, chiefly because of what they see as deterioriating relations with the U.S. However, in Orwell’s 1984 alliances were constantly shifting - sometimes overnight. So one never knows. And TMWOT the pundits as a group are wrong more often than they are correct on the big issues.

It seems as if that only works if the income for the special distribution was not accounted for in the TR prior to their distribution. I can't think of how that could happen over the course of a full year? If it were being accumulated, wouldn't the NAV have risen along the way?
This kind of gets back to the idea that distributions are 'free money' that have nothing to do with the price assigned to the individual shares. Invariably, anything you take out through distributions or selling reduces the value of what remains invested. Unless your TR is positive, this requires an ever-increasing percentage return to support a fixed distribution from a decreasingly-valued investment.
Corporations/businesses are simply not going to give you something for nothing. The idea that investments with a high distribution are somehow inherently more advantageous than ones which simply generate profits and increase price is, imo, a naive one. Of course, you can get price dislocations and there are certainly advantages to having a way to get predictable income from an investment at times when the investment is struggling. These are issues of convenience, however. and not of financial advantage.

About this allocation: 55% Moneymarket, 45% Fixed Income: 51% Treasury, 49% CDs
Note that while we have outrageously conservative investments at this time, I'm now 85. Our situation is almost identical to Tarwheel, and when we were at his point our investment spectrum was very much like his. It's only in the last couple of years that we've pulled in our horns. Why mess with a good situation?
There have been a number of threads/comments lately regarding investment simplification driven by a partner's lack of interest in financial affairs, and consequent inability to navigate within a brokerage website. My wife has always been interested in our financial situation, but has never really been comfortable with complex internet sites.
As a radio tech for SF 911 I was the "documenter" for our group. So I told myself that I needed to use that skill set to print a step-by-step for navigating the Schwab website.
I am both proud and happy to report that, armed with her new guide, my wife is now reasonably comfortable there and can now perform all of the basic operations. And she is eager to continue learning some of the more complex operations such as finding and purchasing CDs and Treasuries. That's next.

Confirmation statements for my UMB HSA Saver account have been unavailable for mutual fund purchases
made since 04/22. I first contacted UMB regarding this issue on 05/10.
I've sent or received six emails/phone calls related to this matter.
The Customer Care Manager was unable to provide an estimated resolution date when we last spoke on 06/05.
I've finally decided to send an email to the Chairman/CEO of UMB Financial Corporation
and to the President of UMB Financial Corporation.
I'm not familiar with UMB's internal applications/systems but it shouldn't take over a month to resolve this issue.
Edit/Add: The email to the Chairman/CEO and President was composed and scheduled to be sent on 06/18.
I cancelled sending this email and submitted a BBB complaint instead.
If the issue is not resolved within a reasonable time, I'll then send an email to the Chairman/CEO and President.

You wrote that you were "hoping with heavy inflows [MRFOX] also would be able to buy new or more promising investments."
During the period in question (the one ending Aug '23 with zero turnover), MRFOX increased the number of its positions by almost 20%. One of the new positions (Disney DIS) was clearly undervalued at the time according to M*. M* pegged its fair value around $145 while its price hovered around $90.
Given these facts, could you clarify your hopes and whether the addition of Disney failed to meet those hopes? Discover Financial Services DFS, also added by the fund in this period, was similarly undervalued.
Perhaps, since M* currently rates DIS and DFS as 3*, what you were hoping was that the fund would dump these recent acquisitions, seeing as they have met some sort of target?
---
Many people assume that low or zero turnover means that a fund isn't changing its positions - a misunderstanding that your post reinforced, intentionally or not. I attempted to address that misunderstanding by providing M*'s definition of turnover and by using MRFOX as a case study.
One wouldn't know the precise definition by looking at MRFOX's website, as its footnote says only that "turnover is a measure of how frequently assets within a fund are bought and sold by the manager."

@stillers. Perhaps another universe is oddly phrased, but my financial life would be entirely different if I had a pension check roll in every month. Many decisions would be looked at differently.