"she was in touch with her Fido advisor ... 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 ..."
There's a popular perception that people you talk with for free are "advisors". Even with a large amount of assets at an institution, that's rarely the case. The people one talks with, e.g. "Private Client Advisors", are sales people. They're there to match you with for-pay services, and to give you warm fuzzy feelings about keeping your money with them. As you observed, it is all very generic.
On Fidelity's site I can no longer readily find the phrase "Private Client Advisor" or much of anything that suggests one's free investment "team" or lead provides advice.
For the most part the only place you'll find "advisor" mentioned is in the context of pay for service. See this Fidelity page on "How we can work together". No mention of advisor under DIY or its pure robo offering (Fidelity Go).
When you get to the next fee level (Fidelity® Personalized Planning & Advice), you find "1-on-1 financial coaching calls with Fidelity advisors". Wealth Management, the next fee level up, brings you "a dedicated Fidelity advisor". And finally for those with over $2M at Fidelity and willing to pay for the services, there's Private Wealth Management, with "a dedicated Wealth Management Advisor and team of specialists".
"Am I expecting too much...?"
Yes.
Years ago, Vanguard would provide customers with enough AUM a free financial plan prepared by a CFP. That's been gone for years. These days, TANSTAAFL.

I considered PIMIX a few years ago but didn't invest in the fund.
For many years, Pimco Income Fund delivered excellent returns with muted volatility.
The fund's managers made shrewd investments in legacy, non-agency residential mortgage-backed securities (RMBS) after the Global Financial Crisis.
Trailing 5 Yr. and 10 Yr. returns for PIMIX were in the top 1% of the Multisector Bond category as of 10/31/17.
The total AUM dedicated to vehicles using the same strategy, $124 B as of March 2017, gave me pause.
It would be difficult for Pimco Income Fund to maintain meaningful exposure to legacy, non-agency RMBS while the supply of these securities was decreasing in the future.
I also did not appreciate that Pimco has never closed a fund (to my knowledge) due to excessive AUM.
This is not a very shareholder-friendly stance in my opinion.
Having said that, Dan Ivascyn and Alfred Murata are renowned and talented managers.
Pimco is widely respected and it is a very well-resourced firm.
I still believe PIMIX is a decent fund but doubt the stellar performance of the past will be replicated.

Hank. When I had to take the RMD from my IRA in 2019, I set the percentage of Fed. taxes to withhold and did not have any Michigan taxes withheld. I do not recall a statement stating a mandatory withholding for Michigan.
No letters or other signed documents to Fidelity about this area.
When performing an electronic transfer from the IRA to a C.U. account, a series of brief questions and fill in the blanks is needed. This is where the tax withholding percentages are noted, being set to whatever percentage one desires or ZERO.
There was confusion in this area after the legislation for changing the pension(s) taxation of seniors in Michigan, by age grouping, was finalized in early 2012 (MI Supreme Court ruling).
I presume you may have already setup your financial institution account link for money into Fidelity or from Fidelity. Related to this, is that the normal travel time is 2 or 3 days; and of course, no fees.
Don't forget to set your beneficiary section and don't hesitate with any questions, either here; or via private message.
Take care,
Catch

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

@Crash
You noted:

But if a trade is disallowed until you speak to someone personally, that just tells me that the outfit has their heads up their asses, no? So, why would I want to use them at all? I can never tell if THEY know what they're doing. And they are the ones presuming to take my money and use it ?????

--- Municipal Bonds in an IRA (not a Fidelity written opinion below, but obviously shared by Fidelity)
***** One of the most critical considerations is to ensure you avoid placing municipal bonds (munis) in an IRA. The primary attraction of munis is that the interest on individual muni bonds and municipal bond funds is tax-exempt, which means that they also tend to offer lower pre-tax yields than taxable bonds.
The key to strategically using an IRA is to use the tax advantages of the account on investments that otherwise don't provide an advantage.
Since the interest and capital gains in an IRA are already tax-exempt, there isn’t any benefit to holding munis in the IRA. Instead, use a regular (non-IRA) account to hold munis and save the IRA for other investments that require a tax shelter. *****
>>> While there are time periods when one is able to have a decent profit from pricing in muni's, generally; taxable bonds are more appropriate in an IRA account. As @msf stated, a purchase for muni's may be made into an IRA, but not via the user online interface. Aside from a "disallowed" statement, Fidelity should add a full statement that such a trade is not beneficial into an IRA account; and to call if one really needs this purchase.
I view this purchase restriction as a form of a fiduciary electronic tap on one's shoulder about such an investment in an IRA.
Contact a financial advisor and ask the question: Should I hold muni bonds/funds in my IRA account?
You paint with a very broad brush of misunderstanding and distrust (that just tells me that the outfit has their heads up their asses, no? So, why would I want to use them at all? I can never tell if THEY know what they're doing.), based upon a small operational function within Fidelity.
Crash, you would be pleased, had you become a Fidelity account holder.

My limited knowledge of the subject tells me “Stablecoins” are not Bitcoin or Blockchain. Bitcoin’s purpose is not a “currency”.

My armchair perspective is that bitcoin and its cousins are mostly useful for money laundering, for speculation, and for increasing both the value of energy investments and the rate of global warming via their high energy demands. Also, bitcoin has found limited usefulness as a "currency" (Elon Musk dabbled in it as a payment method for several weeks).
CBDCs hold more promise for offering something secure and socially useful. Here is a quick look at a few potential benefits:

Central bank digital currency advocates...cite multiple advantages. Paramount among those reasons is giving unbanked people access to the financial system.
There’s also a speed consideration. Transfer payments, such as those provided by governments to people during the Covid-19 crisis, would be made faster and easier if that money could be deposited directly into digital wallets.
“New forms of digital money could provide a parallel boost to the vital lifelines that remittances provide to the poor and to developing economies,” Kristalina Georgieva, managing director at the International Monetary Fund, said in recent remarks at a joint meeting with the World Bank. “The biggest beneficiaries would be vulnerable people sending small value remittances: those most at risk from being left behind by the pandemic.”
Potential losers from the digital currencies include some financial institutions, both in traditional banking and fintech, that could lose deposits due to people putting their money into central bank accounts.

Digital Dollars

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1318342/000139834421011101/fp0065643_497.htm
497 1 fp0065643_497.htm
WCM International Small Cap Growth Fund
(Institutional Class Shares - Ticker Symbol: WCMSX)
A series of Investment Managers Series Trust
Supplement dated May 20, 2021 to the
Prospectus dated September 1, 2020,
Statement of Additional Information dated September 1, 2020,
as amended February 24, 2021, and Summary Prospectus,
dated September 1, 2020.
IMPORTANT NOTICE REGARDING PURCHASE OF FUND SHARES
Effective as of the close of business on June 18, 2021 (the “Closing Date”), the WCM International Small Cap Growth Fund (the “Fund”) will be publicly offered on a limited basis.
Effective as of the Closing Date, only certain investors will be eligible to purchase shares of the Fund, as described below (the “closure policy”). In addition, the Fund may from time to time, in its sole discretion based on the Fund’s net asset levels and other factors, limit the types of investors permitted to open new accounts, limit new purchases into the Fund or otherwise modify the closure policy on a case-by-case basis.
Effective as of the Closing Date, the following groups will be permitted to continue to purchase Fund shares:
1.Shareholders of record of the Fund as of the Closing Date may continue to purchase additional shares in their existing Fund accounts either directly from the Fund or through a financial intermediary, and they may continue to reinvest dividends or capital gains distributions from Fund shares.
2.Existing registered investment advisors, bank trust firms and broker dealers or other financial intermediaries that have an investment allocation to the Fund in a fee-based, wrap or advisory account may continue to add new clients and purchase shares.
3.New shareholders may open Fund accounts and purchase shares directly from the Fund (i.e., not through a financial intermediary).
4.Group employer benefit plans, including 401(k), 403(b), 457 plans, and health savings account programs (and their successor, related and affiliated plans) (collectively, “Employer Benefit Plans”), which made the Fund available to participants on or before the Closing Date, may continue to open accounts for new participants with the Fund and purchase additional shares in existing participant accounts. New Employer Benefit Plans may also establish new accounts with the Fund, provided the new Employer Benefit Plan approved and selected the Fund as an investment option by the Closing Date and the Employer Benefit Plan was accepted for investment by the Fund by the Closing Date.
5. Members of the Fund’s Board of Trustees, persons affiliated with WCM Investment Management, LLC, the Fund’s advisor, and their immediate families may continue to purchase shares of the Fund and establish new accounts.
In general, the Fund will rely on a financial intermediary to prevent a new account from being opened within an omnibus account established at that financial intermediary if the account would not otherwise satisfy the conditions outlined above. The Fund’s ability to monitor new accounts that are opened through omnibus accounts or other nominee accounts is limited, and the ability to limit a new account to those that meet the above criteria with respect to financial intermediaries may vary, depending upon the capabilities of those financial intermediaries. Investors may be asked to verify that they meet one of the exceptions above prior to opening a new account with the Fund. The Fund may permit you to open a new account if the Fund reasonably believes that you are eligible. The Fund also may decline to permit you to open a new account if the Fund believes that doing so would be in the best interests of the Fund and its shareholders, even if you would be eligible to open a new account under these exceptions. If all shares of the Fund in an existing account are redeemed, the shareholder’s account will be closed. Such former shareholders will not be able to buy additional shares of the Fund or reopen their account.
Please file this Supplement with your records.

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1494928/000139834421011115/fp0065693_497.htm
RiverPark Funds Trust
RiverPark Short Term High Yield Fund
Institutional Class (RPHIX)
Retail Class (RPHYX)
Supplement dated May 20, 2021 to the Summary Prospectus, Prospectus and Statement of Additional Information (“SAI”) dated January 28, 2021.
This supplement provides new and additional information beyond that contained in the Summary Prospectus, Prospectus and SAI and should be read in conjunction with the Summary Prospectus, Prospectus and SAI.
IMPORTANT NOTICE ON PURCHASE OF FUND SHARES
Effective as of 4 p.m. on June 18, 2021 (the "Closing Date"), Retail and Institutional Class Shares of the RiverPark Short Term High Yield Fund (the "Fund") are closed to new investors.
After the Closing Date, existing shareholders of Retail and Institutional Class Shares of the Fund and certain eligible investors, as set forth below, may purchase additional Retail and Institutional Class Shares of the Fund through existing or new accounts and may reinvest dividends and capital gains distributions.
Existing shareholders include:
• Shareholders of record of the Fund as of the Closing Date (although if a shareholder closes all accounts in the Fund, additional investments into the Fund may not be accepted).
• Clients of a financial adviser or planner who had client assets invested in the Fund as of the Closing Date.
After the Closing Date, the following eligible investors may open new accounts:
• New shareholders may open Fund accounts and purchase shares directly from the Fund (i.e. not through a financial intermediary).
• Any trustee of RiverPark Funds Trust, or employee of RiverPark Advisors, LLC or Cohanzick Management, LLC, or an investor who is an immediate family member of any of these individuals.
The Fund reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to determine the criteria for qualification as an eligible investor and to reject any purchase order. Sales of Retail Class Shares and Institutional Class Shares of the Fund may be further restricted or reopened in the future.
PLEASE RETAIN THIS SUPPLEMENT FOR FUTURE REFERENCE.

>> This idea that SS increases at 8% per year strikes me as fallacious. In "dollars," sure, but not in purchasing power ... the rate at which SS benefits are adjusted for inflation is only a fraction of the rate of inflation actually experienced by most people, especially seniors. Rerun those numbers with annual benefit increases that account for 4.0 to 4.5% inflation, a number more people are actually likely to face
Huh? The 8% figure is for delaying.
Not CoLA.

Absent COLA adjustments, the real value of waiting would be substantially less, and could even be negative. To take an extreme example, suppose prices doubled in a year. Then your 108% of benefits would be worth 54% of what your base benefit was worth a year before. That is, rather than getting an 8% return, one would suffer a 46% loss.
But because the payments would go up not 8% (nominal) but 8% in real terms, you really would get 8% more purchasing power by waiting a year.

CPI of course does not take into account (e.g.) property tax increases, or only very indirectly.

You might as well say that CPI of course does not take into account the cost of buying or financing a home. That's because homes are capital goods, and CPI measures consumables (services are considered consumables). So instead, CPI considers rent equivalent (what you'd have to pay in rent for the shelter you own).
The cost of rent incorporates all the landlord's costs that get past through, including property taxes. Just one step of indirection, not so tenuous.
https://www.bls.gov/cpi/factsheets/owners-equivalent-rent-and-rent.pdf

But on what bases do you state what you state?

That's the key question, because all we have here is a bald assertion about costs people are likely to face. Spot checking a few numbers ...
Not seasonally adjusted, April Y/Y inflation is 4.2%. Food is up 2.4%, energy is up 25% (with some components like gasoline up 50%). Used cars are up 21%. Car/truck rentals are up 82%.
Drug prices are down 1.5%. Medical care services are up 2.2%. Health insurance is down 3.0%. Shelter's up 2.1%.
While it may seem that inflation is outstripping COLA, it's worth taking a close look at everything, not just the high flying items that are catching your eye.
And the one figure that might matter most here: Financial service costs are down 0.2%.
All numbers above are from Table 2 in the latest BLS CPI news release.
https://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/cpi_05122021.htm#cpipress2

“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

This passage from Ben Inker's letter really struck me as a sign of the times in more ways than one:https://gmo.com/americas/research-library/1q-2021-gmo-quarterly-letter/

Something odd happened to me the other night. My cellphone rang at 2 AM, from a number I didn’t recognize. I let it go to voicemail, because there was no one I knew in Washington state that had a good reason to speak to me at that hour. I was not put out that the phone had rung in the middle of the night – I had to get up anyway so I could take our new puppy1 out for her nighttime walk. When I woke up the next morning, I was somewhat surprised to see that the caller left a voicemail, which I of course listened to. To be honest, it consisted mostly of expletives, but as near as I could tell the caller is quite angry with me for having suggested that retail investors would be left holding the bag when the market falls. I will admit to feeling a bit honored to be considered consequential enough to be a focus of some random person’s wrath, even if I’m a little confused as to why he singled me out as I hadn’t meant to pick on retail in the way he implied. So, to clarify to whomever it is that I offended by implying that retail investors might be left holding the bag when a speculative bubble bursts, the reason I mentioned retail investors is not because they are uniquely likely to lose money in the bursting of a speculative bubble. Lots of people and entities lose money when speculative bubbles burst. I mentioned retail investors because they are generally the only people who lose money in the bursting of a speculative bubble who are deserving of much sympathy. As the Archegos saga showed a few weeks ago, both sophisticated institutional investors and sophisticated financial institutions are more than capable of losing large sums of money when their speculative bets go bad. It’s just extremely hard to feel bad for them when it happens. When it happens to small investors who lost money they were counting on, however, it is hard not to feel sympathy even if they were doing the exact same thing as the big guys.

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."

From an email I just received from GP:
May 17, 2021
Dear Fellow Shareholders,
With the continued strength of global markets and the performance of the Grandeur Peak Funds, we find it necessary to announce the following fund closures effective as of market close on Friday, May 28, 2021.
Moving to Hard Closure[1]:
*Grandeur Peak Emerging Markets Opportunities Fund (GPEOX/GPEIX)
Moving to Soft Closure[2]:
*Grandeur Peak Global Reach Fund (GPROX/GPRIX)
As you know, we carefully review capacity at both the strategy and firm level. We are committed to keeping our investment strategies nimble to fully pursue their investment objectives without being encumbered by their individual asset base or the firm’s collective assets. Achieving performance for our clients remains our paramount objective as always.
As of June 1st, the Grandeur Peak Funds that remain open to all investors include:
*Grandeur Peak Global Stalwarts Fund (GGSOX/GGSYX)
*Grandeur Peak Global Contrarian Fund (GPGCX)
*Grandeur Peak US Stalwarts Fund (GUSYX)
To check the current open/closed status of all Grandeur Peak Funds at any time, please visit our website.
Thank you for your continued trust. If you have any questions, don’t hesitate to reach out to me or a member of our Client Relations Team.
Best Regards,
Eric
[1]"Hard Closure": means that these Funds will no longer accept purchases, from new or existing investors, through financial intermediaries unless the purchase is part of: (1) a retirement plan which held the Fund prior to this closure, (2) an automatic reinvestment of a distribution made by the Fund, or (3) a de minimis annual rebalancing approved by a member of the Grandeur Peak client team. The Funds will remain open to purchases from existing investors, and to new investors who purchase directly from Grandeur Peak Funds. The Funds retain the right to make exceptions to any Fund closure or limitation on purchases.
[2] "Soft Closure" means that the Fund will close to new investors seeking to purchase shares of the Fund through third-party intermediaries subject to certain exceptions for financial advisors with an established position in the Fund and participants in certain qualified retirement plans with an existing position in the Fund. The Fund will remain open to purchases from existing investors, and to new investors who purchase directly from Grandeur Peak Funds. The Funds retain the right to make exceptions to any Fund closure or limitation on purchases.
PDF from GP:
https://www.grandeurpeakglobal.com/documents/grandeurpeakglobal-pr-20210517.pdf

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/915802/000139834421010939/fp0065552_497.htm
497 1 fp0065552_497.htm
FINANCIAL INVESTORS TRUST: GRANDEUR PEAK FUNDS
GRANDEUR PEAK EMERGING MARKETS OPPORTUNITIES FUND
GRANDEUR PEAK GLOBAL REACH FUND
(Each, a “Fund,” and together, the “Funds”)
SUPPLEMENT DATED MAY 17, 2021 TO THE SUMMARY PROSPECTUS AND
PROSPECTUS OF THE FUNDS DATED AUGUST 31, 2020,
AS SUPPLEMENTED FROM TIME TO TIME
Effective as of the close of business on May 28, 2021, the Grandeur Peak Emerging Markets Opportunities Fund will no longer accept purchases, from new or existing investors, through financial intermediaries unless the purchase is part of:
● a retirement plan which held the Fund prior to this closure,
● an automatic reinvestment of a distribution made by the Fund, or
● a de minimis annual rebalancing approved by a member of the Grandeur Peak client team.
Also, effective as of the close of business on May 28, 2021, the Grandeur Peak Global Reach Fund will close to new investors seeking to purchase shares of the Fund through third party intermediaries subject to certain exceptions for financial advisors with an established position in the Fund and participants in certain qualified retirement plans with an existing position in the Fund.
The Funds remain open to purchases directly from Grandeur Peak Funds by existing investors and by new investors.
The Funds retain the right to make exceptions to any Fund closure or limitation on purchases.
INVESTORS SHOULD RETAIN THIS SUPPLEMENT FOR FUTURE REFERENCE

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

(No luck cutting and pasting this week. So here’s a few take-aways from this week’s Barrons.)
- There’s a lot of inflation discussion in this week’s issue. Randall Forsyth covers the story in his weekly column, as do some other writers. “Year-over-year” the latest month’s inflation figure came in at +4.2%. One home builder is quoted as saying that he can no longer obtain a firm price on lumber he orders. Prices are rising so fast that the lumber company he deals with won’t commit to a firm price until the day of delivery.
- The most recent U of M consumer confidence survey fell slightly. Barron’s attributes that to worries about inflation.
- There’s also a lengthy article about some new ETFs that allow investors to hedge against bond interest rate risk via various approaches. Several are mentioned. (As discussed in another thread here, Price’s Dynamic Income fund, RPIEX attempts to do the same by selling bonds short.)
- One knowledgeable fixed income trader describes TIPS as “very expensive” and advises against owning them.
- Somewhat curiously, Forsyth devotes considerable space to PRPFX which he views as a possible haven in light of mounting inflationary pressures and distorted asset valuations. Forsyth briefly references manager Michael Cuggino’s views on the current financial backdrop.
This seems like an exceptionally substantive issue, which I’ve only half read at best. The value to me of Barron’s is that it causes me to think a lot about different approaches to investing and different types of investments. Barron’s is not a “how to invest” or “what to buy” guide. Just a great thought provoker.

Here's a similar thread I started a couple of years ago.
https://mutualfundobserver.com/discuss/discussion/54511/administrative-nuisances-with-some-financial-institutions
The policies and procedures of different institutions are all over the map. I think that a rational argument can be made for requiring medallion signatures in some cases, but not to the extent that some places do.
To address @ET91's question about why a notarized signature isn't sufficient: A notarization validates your signature, but not the accuracy or even truthfulness of what you're signing. Consider a certified check. A bank will certify a check that you write only after if verifies that you have the money in your account and it puts that money aside to cover the check. Notarizing a check does not make it "as good as cash". Similar to check certification, medallion stanps guarantee that you do own the stated security in the stated institution.
It's not unreasonable for the institution guaranteeing the document to review what it is guaranteeing and to keep copies for its records. I agree that it used to be easier to get medallion guarantees - at least to the extent that institutions weren't so restrictive about what they would guarantee.
Then there are the banks .... I had a similar experience to what @catch22 described - with a relative for whom mobility (rather than distance) was a problem. No accommodation offered. Then there's the pettiness. The only time I've used BofA for a notarized signature (for which they require you to be a customer), the bank insisted on charging me the legal maximum for the service: $2! (I could have billed it to my HOA since I was getting a document notarized for the HOA, but I like to think I have better values than BofA ... at least $2 better :-) )

Snippets of rules and regs.....
The below is from BOA, but typical of other banks:
--- In order to add or remove an owner and add, remove or update a beneficiary on your Bank of America account, you'll need to schedule an appointment in a financial center. When adding an owner, all account owners will need to be present at the appointment and bring a valid government-issued photo ID.
Example: Parent or parents want to add an adult daughter(s) or son(s) to their savings/checking account at their bank or credit union. A very good idea in the event of impairment or death of the parent/parents. Control of the account may be maintained for bill paying, etc.; by the daughter(s) or son(s). Account beneficiary(s) as well as a Power of Attorney is a separate matter for this discussion. SO.....mom, dad and adult son (who lives nearby) have to be present together to sign new documents. Later, let's add 1 daughter who lives 100 miles away. Mom, dad, son and daughter all have to be present to sign another new document. Still later, let's add daughter number 2 who lives 220 miles away. Mom, dad, son and daughter number 1, with daughter 2 all have to be present with a bank officer to create another new document.
I asked a bank officer I know about this process. I asked about which provisions for all of this may be relative to the Patriot Act. She only stated that some policies of the bank were internal to their operation and that other policies were "noted" as a "follow the Federal rules" aspect.
2005.....Patriot Act compliance, then and renewed/expanded since
Patriot Act and banking

I recall an old pilot’s saying to the effect that you never have “too much” runway or altitude. The runway behind you or the sky overhead won’t do you any good if trouble arises.
Suspect that’s somewhat akin to financial resources. The money you’ve already spent / squandered or the investment opportunities you’ve overlooked won’t be of help if an unforeseen need arises.
Than there’s this.

Hello, @hank. I read all of that with interest. I don't own PRSIX. But I DO own RPSIX. That's where my remark about a possible typo comes in, above. i like your idea of using PRSIX as a comparison benchmark. I shall keep it in mind.
At the moment, my fund managers have me -6% in short positions. Cash and bonds.
57: bonds
39: stocks
"other:" 3
Net 4% in cash.
(Morningstar X-Ray.) ... So, I'm not trying to light the world on fire these days. I've been aiming for a traditional retiree's portfolio of 60 bonds and 40 stocks for years. My fund managers won't let me. :) Getting close, though. MFO has offered me a helluva financial education through the years.