Supposedly the buy-side and sell-side 'analysts' don't coordinate the timing of release of their guidance, but I still don't trust Wall Street to play fair, even if it's the law or SEC regulation. A Chinese-firewall sort of thing, I think.
Nevertheless, a good rule of thumb is that when Joe/Jane Retail Investor see something in the media or as a research note from their firm, the information's already long-since known by others with far deeper pockets so it's not a surprise to everyone and depending on what's discussed, the 'easy' money could already have been made.
An even better rule of thumb is to never act blindly on what big-bank 'analysts' and prominent CIOs put out no matter how loudly their prognostications might be. You could've made a fortune fading (taking the opposite position) on such statements from, for example, Goldman's various CIOs over the years or Cramer's TV picks. Frankly, to me, the more I see them on TV or the financial press/social media, the less credence I give them.
By contrast, senior investment analysts or CIOs who eschew the media and rarely do interviews or make prognostications, or smaller folks running tiny funds or doing newsletter analysis might be worth paying more attention to in terms of their assessments and opinions - such as David Giroux of TRP or Jason Kelly. But even there, you still have to do your own diligence!

Congress passed a massive year-end spending bill that included enhancements to retirement savings known as the SECURE Act 2.0. These changes build on the SECURE Act of 2019 and address issues that were not part of the original act, with the ultimate goal of increasing retirement preparedness for Americans.
McLean is hosting a webinar to provide insight into the meaningful changes brought by this new legislation. Moderated by Brian Bass, you will hear from McLean thought leaders Wade Pfau, Rob Cordeau, and Jason Rizkallah as we discuss what has changed and what financial planning opportunities are possible due to SECURE Act 2.0.
Topics include:
Required Minimum Distributions (RMDs)
529 College Savings Plans
Qualified retirement plans - both Traditional and Roth
Charitable planning
SEP and SIMPLE Roth accounts
Employer contributions to Roth accounts
Updates to benefit retirement savings

webinar secure act 2.0

The thing about a properly run S&P 500 index fund is the unknowns are “known unknowns.” We never know how the market will perform in the future, but if you own a low cost index fund that tracks the market well, you know you will get that market return. That brings a certain level of comfort psychologically that other strategies do not bring, and that comfort enables many investors, especially unsophisticated ones, to stick with their investment strategies to achieve their financial goals.
But with any other strategy, the truly unknown unknowns can upset investors. When the active or smart beta fund is underperforming the market, many investors get upset and sell, often at the worst time near the bottom. And when the fund is outperforming the market, investors can’t help chasing that performance, and buy, again often at the worst time, near the peak. I’ve seen such performance chasing even with sophisticated investors, sometimes even on this board. A number of studies reveal how investor returns in funds are often significantly less than the funds themselves because of such poor timing. This is especially so in volatile but top-performing funds. Investors tend to fare better in low-volatility active and smart-beta strategies. In this way, SCHD could still work for the patient long-term investor. Just don’t assume the moon.

The other new twist is you can convert up to $200,000 ( used to be $160,000 I think) or 25% of your IRA into a QLAC tax free, so you can lower your RMD. I have not dug into it yet, but I think you can pick an annuity date at anytime in the future, and one that would still return money to your heirs.

I feel that deferred income annuities are one of the rare positive innovations in financial services in years. But that doesn't make QLACs a great idea.
As Kitces wrote in 2015, using QLACs for the purpose of reducing RMDs, doesn't pay off. It's their value as longevity insurance, not as an RMD reduction mechanism, that makes them worthwhile.
https://www.kitces.com/blog/why-a-qlac-in-an-ira-is-a-terrible-way-to-defer-the-required-minimum-distribution-rmd-obligation/
He also suggested that the 25% limit helped people to avoid a liquidity squeeze - where they didn't have enough left in their IRA to fund retirement before their deferred annuity started monthly payments.
What SECURE 2.0 changed:
- instead of a $125K limit, adjusted for inflation (that's where the $160K figure comes from), it is reset to $200K, still adjusted for inflation;
- the 25% limit is removed
- QLAC monthly payments, once they begin, can be used to satisfy not only the RMD requirement of the annuity but also of the remaining IRA balance, potentially lowering the RMD withdrawals required of the non-annuity portion of the IRA.
https://www.klgates.com/SECURE-20-Act-Legislation-Includes-Significant-Changes-to-Individual-Retirement-Accounts-1-31-2023
What did not change:
- must start payments by age 85
- return of principal to heirs is permitted
Original QLAC regs

@TheShadow, are those Hennessy Financial Funds remnants of the prior (old) FBR Funds?

Bank of Princeton was to be acquired some years ago by Investors Bank in NJ; however, the deal fell through. Investors was later acquired by Citizen Financial Group early last year.
Earnings news release from the SEC website:
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1913971/000119312523016226/d441956dex991.htm

There is Hennessy Large Cap Financial and Small Cap Financial Funds.
https://go.hennessyfunds.com/Hennessy-Large-Cap-Financial-Fund-Q3-Holdings.pdf
https://go.hennessyfunds.com/Hennessy-Small-Cap-Financial-Fund-Q3-Holdings.pdf
If you don't mind a load fund, there is RMB Mendon Financial Services Fund also.
https://rmbfunds.com/sites/default/files/2023-01/2022-12-31 Holdings - RMB Mendon Financial Services Fund.pdf

Great to see he's adding some support for the fund. This helps assuage my concerns that they might liquidate it because of its small size. Not that much info that I can find on Brent Clayton. Found this:
"Brent Clayton has been investing in frontier and emerging markets equities for the past ten years at LR Global, a boutique asset management firm that spun out of the Rockefeller family office. He joined LR Global as an equity analyst in 2007 and became a co-portfolio manager in 2012 in conjunction with the launch of the firm’s Frontier Markets -dedicated equity strategy. He also has helped build, train, and manage a Hanoi-based fundamental research team in support of this fund.
Brent received a B.A., cum laude, from Dartmouth College with a concentration in Government and a minor in Portuguese. He is also a Chartered Financial Analyst charterholder."

I have also read that Powell was added LATE to the agenda of Economic Club in DC, and the purpose is to CORRCT some impressions - intended or unintended - at the last FOMC presser. So, the above + his WRONG comment about financial conditions that he said remain tough, but have moderated in the last few months.

”I liked the "old" Barron's far better. I could leisurely mull over the articles all weekend … Unfortunately, I can't even get the print edition delivered at my house anymore. Now it is mailed so it doesn't arrive until Tuesday some weeks.”

Not in a position to compare the “old” and “new” Barron’s. Read the paper edition regularily in the 80s before losing interest. Only in the past 3 or 4 years have I again become a regular reader. But I do find Barron’s better at what it does than any other financial publication I’ve sampled in recent years. I’d guess you’re correct if you believe it was “better” 25+ years ago. I find virtually every print magazine or newspaper I read to fall into that category. Recently resubscribed to The New Yorker. While still worth the price of admission, it doesn’t compare in content to 10 years ago.
As you might be aware, the Amazon Kindle editions of WSJ & Barron’s are essentially the same as the print editions in terms of stories and photos / art work. Look forward to my Barron’s arriving every Saturday morning. However, there may be some omitted charts / data. The Kindle format doesn’t support such very well. Not an issue for me because so much data can still be pulled up for free online.
* Those reading Barron’s on a Kindle app may find it necessary to re-format it (using various embedded settings) to make it appear correct. I suspect some don’t read it on Kindle due to not being familiar with all the available settings.

The other new twist is you can convert up to $200,000 ( used to be $160,000 I think) or 25% of your IRA into a QLAC tax free, so you can lower your RMD. I have not dug into it yet, but I think you can pick an annuity date at anytime in the future, and one that would still return money to your heirs.
I have searched long and hard for a simple spreadsheet that would allow different iterations of this conversion question, and take into account current and future tax rates, state tax rates, estimated inflation etc and returns.
Can't find one. Anybody else have any luck?
https://maxifiplanner.com/ comes the closest but it is an all around program designed to maximize your retirement income
My daughter finally wrote a simple spread sheet that works pretty well.
I concluded IRA conversions can save a substantial amount of taxes in the long run, but you have to be willing to pay the taxes now out of your taxable accounts.
That is the hard part. Who wants to substantially increase your tax bill this year? So we chose numbers that would not push us into the next bracket. Probably should have done more
Guess I could break down and hire a financial planner but if have never been impressed.

'Herding Cats'. In my mind, I envision perhaps 12 pieces of data that is the most important for the FED; but is also difficult to pin down for a given time frame and the FED 'watch'; to guide the economy. So, at times; the task is likely to resemble attempting to 'herd cats'.
My overall quick take on the FOMC discussion period this week was a 'new' soft touch version. The first 15 minutes were 'normal' talk, the second 15 minutes were 'relaxed', a kind of 'we're going to be nice and do no harm. Disinflation was uttered by Mr. Powell.
--- Wednesday, A bond love-fest, by those so inclined, after 2:30pm FOMC Q&A. Pricing rose nicely in many bond sectors.
--- Friday. HOT! HOT! HOT! Employment: January payrolls increase 517,000 versus estimate of 188,000. This isn't a data entry error, is it? January unemployment rate falls to 3.4%, a rate last seen in 1969. January average hourly wages, +.3%. AND of course, the bond folks gave back a lot of the Wednesday love.
--- disinflation v. deflation
Deflation means prices are falling and the inflation rate is in the negative, while disinflation means a slowdown in the rate of inflation while still remaining in the positive. Disinflation occurs more commonly than deflation.
Note: On the disinflation front.....reported that chicken wings and avocado prices are down about 22% YTD; and before the Super Bowl parties, too. Big move !!! I have not verified this locally.
--- U.S.$ UP 1.22% on Friday, for a +1.02% for the week.
The Money Market thing. FZDXX and two other Fido core MM's will be receiving yield bumps, although FZDXX usually leads first. 'Course, this comes from the Fed. Funds rate hike. I'm anticipating a 4.6% yield within the next week or so; and likely that MM yields will be at 5% or more in the summer. Other investment houses will provide similar yields.
*** See FOMC thread from Wednesday and current 'Real Yield' for other bond related information.
My non-qualified quick overview: Mr. Powell would have had a different tone, during the FOMC Q&A, if the employment/labor info was released Wednesday morning. Most bond sectors, although positive for the week, gave back a lot of gains on Friday, some at -1% for the day. 'Course, profit taking should be expected, regardless of financial health reports. TIPS funds did not find love by the end of this week. Common core MM's at fund companies may find a yield of 4.5% this summer.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOTE; An excellent request was presented to add more important bond sectors to the list. The new adds are included below.
---Several selected bond funds returns since October 25, 2022. I'll retain this date, as it is a recent inflection point when bonds began to have positive price moves. We'll need to watch if this was just a 'blip'.
NOTE: I've kept the prior dated reports in the beginning of this thread; and have added YTD to this data.
For the WEEK/YTD, NAV price changes, January 30 - Febuary 3, 2023
***** This week (Friday), FZDXX, MMKT yield moved a bit to 4.33% . The core Fidelity MMKT's have continued a slow creep upward to 4.04%. The holdings of these different funds account for the variances at this time.
--- AGG = -.02% / +3.17% (I-Shares Core bond), a benchmark, (AAA-BBB holdings)
--- MINT = +.16% / +.94% (PIMCO Enhanced short maturity, AAA-BBB rated)
--- SHY = -.1% / +.59% (UST 1-3 yr bills)
--- IEI = -.12% / +1.84% (UST 3-7 yr notes/bonds)
--- IEF = -.21% / +3.16% (UST 7-10 yr bonds)
--- TIP = -.85% / +1.66% (UST Tips, 3-10 yrs duration, some 20+ yr duration)
--- VTIP = -.3% / +.56% (Vanguard Short-Term Infl-Prot Secs ETF)
--- STPZ = -.32% / +.6% (UST, short duration TIPs bonds, PIMCO)
--- LTPZ = -2.6% / +4.7% (UST, long duration TIPs bonds, PIMCO)
--- TLT = +.25% / +7.4% (I Shares 20+ Yr UST Bond
--- EDV = +.48% / +10.4% (UST Vanguard extended duration bonds)
--- ZROZ = +.74 / +10.9% (UST., AAA, long duration zero coupon bonds, PIMCO
--- TBT = -.4% / -13.5% (ProShares UltraShort 20+ Year Treasury (about 23 holdings)
--- TMF = +.22% / +21.3% (Direxion Daily 20+ Yr Trsy Bull 3X ETF (about a 3x version of EDV etf)
*** Additional important bond sectors, for reference:
--- BAGIX = +.2% / +3.23% (active managed, plain vanilla, high quality bond fund)
--- LQD = -.05% / +4.81% (I Shares IG, corp. bonds)
--- BKLN = +.47% / +3.67% (Invesco Senior Loan, Corp. rated BB & lower)
--- HYG = -.01% / +3.44% (high yield bonds, proxy ETF)
--- HYD = +.4 /+4.27% (VanEck HY Muni
--- MUB = +.12 /+2.45 (I Shares, National Muni Bond)
--- EMB = +.02 /+4.77% (I Shares, USD, Emerging Markets Bond)
--- CWB = +1.2 / +7.5% (SPDR Bloomberg Convertible Securities)
--- PFF = +.76 / +10.2% (I Shares, Preferred & Income Securities)
--- FZDXX = 4.33% yield (7 day), Fidelity Premium MMKT fund
*** FZDXX yield was .11%, April,2022. The rate of rise began an upward path again on Friday (Feb. 3).

Comments and corrections, please.
Remain curious,
Catch

There are some Barron’s stories that are online and meant for Barron’s financial advisor channel. This is one of them, so it won’t appear in the magazine. But basically the premise is correct that fee waivers at Vanguard have disappeared because interest rates have gone up. What the story also looks at is how Vanguard paid for those waivers as it is ostensibly an “at-cost” manager which has no extraneous operational costs. At competitors like Schwab and Fidelity they waive fees by reducing some of their profits. During zero rate environments, they see money market funds as loss leaders to get investors into other profitable products. But Vanguard says it has no profits to reduce. So, how did it pay for the waivers on products that can’t cover their own costs themselves when rates are zero? Vanguard also doesn’t call them waivers but “expense limitations.”

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/313212/000174177323000146/c497.htm
497 1 c497.htm EEM STAT AND SUM STICKER 2.2.23
T. Rowe Price Emerging Europe Fund
Supplement to Prospectus and Summary Prospectus dated March 1, 2022, as supplemented
Effective Friday, February 17, 2023, the T. Rowe Price Emerging Europe Fund will close to all purchases. Accordingly, the summary prospectus and prospectus are updated as follows:
In the summary prospectus and section 1 of the prospectus, the disclosure under “Purchase and Sale of Fund Shares” is supplemented as follows:
Effective at the close of the New York Stock Exchange on Friday, February 17, 2023, the fund will close to all purchases from new and existing shareholders.
Section 2 of the prospectus is supplemented as follows:
CLOSED TO NEW PURCHASES
Currently, the fund is generally closed to new investors and new accounts, subject to certain exceptions. Effective at the close of the New York Stock Exchange on Friday, February 17, 2023, the fund will close to all purchases from new and existing shareholders. After February 17, 2023, even investors who already hold shares of the fund either directly with T. Rowe Price or through a retirement plan or financial intermediary may no longer purchase additional shares.
Shareholders with existing accounts may reinvest dividends and capital gains so long as they own shares of the fund in their account. In addition, the fund reserves the right, when in the judgment of T. Rowe Price it is not adverse to the fund’s interests, to permit certain types of purchases. The fund’s closure to additional purchases does not restrict existing shareholders from redeeming shares of the fund.
The date of this supplement is February 2, 2023.
F131-043 2/2/23

Notes from FOMC Statements & Powell's Presser
Fed funds rate hikes +25 bps to 4.50-4.75%; (bank) reserve balance rate 4.65%; discount rate 4.75%; gradual rate hikes with at least "a couple more" hikes. Wait to see the FOMC Minutes for discussions related to pause/pivot. The QT continues at -$60 billion/mo for Treasuries and -$35 billion/mo for MBS (total QT -$95 billion/mo).
Financial conditions remain restrictive. Stock and bond markets are just one factor. The Fed and the bond market differ on how fast the inflation will be coming down. The Fed thinks that we are far from +2% average inflation target as PCE is +5.0, core PCE +4.4%. Price declines are visible in goods, but not in services yet. Housing has weakened, but the labor market and wage growth remain strong. Covid-19 is no longer seen as an economic risk.
Debt-ceiling must be raise timely to prevent chaos; the Fed is an agent of the Treasury and cannot protect from consequences of failure; there is no coordination with the ongoing QT.
State and local governments are flushed with cash and those projects may contribute to economic activity.
Overtightening is preferred over under-tightening.
Soft landing is possible and recession may be avoided.
In the market actions that I kept an eye on, the stock market was strong and in the bond market, all Treasury rates fell (on a day of Fed rate hike announcement).
https://ybbpersonalfinance.proboards.com/thread/158/fomc-statements-6-7-weeks?page=2&scrollTo=918

The Secure Act 2.0 has been discussed here, but during the busy holiday period; so I'm placing this review.
In particular, for my emphasis, the immediate below for IRA RMD's. While you or yours may not turn 72 in 2023, you may know someone who is.....so, pass this along, as many are unlikely aware of the change for RMD's. The link below reviews Secure Act, 2.0.
*** The age at which owners of retirement accounts must start taking RMD's will increase to 73, starting January 1, 2023. The current age to begin taking RMDs is 72, so individuals will have an additional year to delay taking a mandatory withdrawal of deferred savings from their retirement accounts. Two important things to think about: If you turned 72 in 2022 or earlier, you will need to continue taking RMDs as scheduled. If you're turning 72 in 2023 and have already scheduled your withdrawal, you may want to consider updating your withdrawal plan.
Review of Secure Act 2.0 legislation passed in December, 2022. Note: One may reject 'all cookies' and still read the article.
Remain curious,
Catch

"Do you look at the posts by category? "
Absolutely. I keep two permanent tabs on my browser...
https://www.mutualfundobserver.com/discuss/discussions/discussionsplus
https://www.mutualfundobserver.com/discuss/categories/off-topic
... and select whichever I'm interested in. Years ago there was such dissension among MFO posters because of the extreme intrusion of political comments and agendas that the "Off-Topic" section was deliberately "sealed off" from the investment sections so that the posters who come to MFO strictly for financial information are not constantly looking at political controversy.
I believe that my social credentials are not exactly a secret here. Lifelong Democrat, West Coast center-left, totally repulsed by whatever remains of a once legitimate Republican party. And yes, at times I too cross the line in my posting. But I do respect the guidelines set out by David Snowball years ago, and believe that all of us have a responsibility to do that.
To continuously disrespect those guidelines, saying whatever we want, wherever we want, only emulates the behavior of the Trumpian Republicans and leads to the continued destruction of the social fabric.

”The dash for cash on Wall Street is back on. Investors have added about $135 billion to global money-market funds over the past four weeks … through Jan. 18. That is the best stretch since the four-week period ended May 2020, when those funds logged roughly $175 billion in net inflows …
“Increased cash allocations are the latest sign of caution among investors who are questioning whether the recent rebound in stocks and bonds will continue … The average return on U.S. money-market funds this month is 4.12%, the highest yield since the 2008 financial crisis … The S&P 500, on the other hand, has a dividend yield of about 1.6%.”
“By the end of December, assets sitting in money-market funds hit a record $5.18 trillion … That surpassed the previous high of $5.16 trillion from May 2020 … In December, individual investors slightly lowered the share of cash in their portfolios to about 21.8%, below the historical average of roughly 22.5% … The reading still marks one of the highest levels since May 2020. In comparison, stock and stock fund allocations are at about 63.9%, above the historical average of around 61.5%.”
Excerpted from: The Wall Street Journal (Print Edition) January 26, 2023 (Narrative edited for brevity. Attribution to data sources omitted for brevity).
You’ll likely need a WSJ subscription to access story online.

University auxiliary services (bookstores, dorms, dining halls, gyms, sports, stadiums, etc) have their own operating budgets and are not part of the academic budgets (tuition, faculty/staff salaries).
Public university tuitions have gone up because state supports have declined significantly. At my university, state support was about 70-80% when I started, but only 10-15% by the time I retired. Some joked that we could stop using the state's name and be free but the explanation was that it wasn't simple - as land-grant university, we got lot of land, and buildings that were from separate capital budgets, and it would be impossible to pay for those.
In as much as out-of-state tuitions are attractive to universities, several have strict limits on nonstate enrollments. This is because for each nonstate student admitted, there may be a qualifying state student not admitted.
Private university tuitions are going up because many rich folks are willing to pay for the name and prestige; but lot of students get financial aid (via scholarships, grants, loans, campus work) and their effective tuition may be about half the listed tuitions.
Community colleges/2-yr colleges are mostly funded locally (property taxes, etc); there is some state funding too. Often, one has to a resident in the district to qualify for low tuition.

While I have my own issues with student loan forgiveness, I can understand the perspective of Millennials and Gen Zs who think it’s hypocritical that many in the older generation were perfectly fine with two massive government taxpayer funded bailouts of financial markets in 2008-09 and 2020 in which the younger generations have little invested because in part they are laden with student debt. Not to mention the fact that in some cases I imagine they are indebted to the very banks that were bailed out with taxpayer dollars in 2009. That is on top of the bailouts “small businesses” got in 2020, which the government defines as any company with less than 500 employees—many large companies qualified.
And finally, the cost of tuition is astonishing today even at public universities, when the older generations had much more affordable educations. The average cost of attendance for a student living on campus at a public 4-year in-state institution is $25,707 per year or $102,828 over 4 years. Out-of-state students pay $43,421 per year or $173,684 over 4 years. Private, nonprofit university students pay $54,501 per year or $218,004 over 4 years. This in a country where tuition at public universities was once exceedingly low and in certain cases free. It is also true that it is extremely difficult for anyone to have a middle class life today without a college degree when this was not the case in earlier generations. Well-paying Industrial blue collar jobs that don’t require a degree have largely disappeared in 2023. So kids have to go to college and they end up in debt because of it.