Hi @ Ralph
Nope, not too old; but some digging around is needed.
The link below (PREMIUM) should take you to the sign-up page for Premium membership.
I do read in the statement that membership is $100, this is NOW $120.
I will tag @David_Snowball in this, so that he may confirm the link and price are correct.
PREMIUM
Premium page #2, is more descriptive of Premium, but also has clickable links in the text to allow for membership.
PREMIUM PAGE #2
Mailing address: (for check payment)
Mutual Fund Observer, Inc.
5456 Marquette Street
Davenport, IA 52806
Take care of you and yours,
Catch

Wellesley (VWIAX) is better than TRRIX for performance + risk attributes + lower ER. See the results (here)

performance information is being updated, a little behind real time in my experience, and sometimes you have to start over w the single listing, in other words not just punching F5 for a refresh of the five you were comparing ...

David Snowball's Portfolio Pruning Primer ("PPP?) contains a gem of a comedic sentence:
"You have no more prospect of keeping track of 15 funds running around your portfolio than you have of keeping track of 15 toddlers running around your house." Five minutes later, after I was done laughing, I thought to myself, "but wait, a minute, last time he posted his own portfolio it contained more than 10 investments, and that's more than the fingers on the hand recommendation? "
David, have I got that wrong? What am I missing?

added to VPCCX and VTI recently.
also bought Michelin Tire bonds mature 2026s YTM 5.4% 382550BF7 few days ago

Hi guys,
Going to ponder mostly. Most things are at 52-week highs. In my IRA, I guess that's good. I bought several funds last month and have coverage. The energy sector seems to be very volatile. The MIP I own still pays well, so will add on weakness. I have seen new oil fields will come on line next year. There also is a con tango in the futures markets in oil. The Economist (I love this magazine, mind you) has sent out its end of year and 2020 preview. I'm reading now.
Buying very little right now.....maybe YAFFX. It seems to be dead in the water. Will not add to bonds 'til things hit 2% on the 10. I think it's a loser play before that. Still hearing overseas bonds and stocks. How will that work with U.S. and China slowing? The dollar has to fall.....will that happen?
Seems to me a lot of jibber from people who don't want you to sell.......just saying......
God bless
the Pudd

"Vanguard’s flagship funds charge about 10 bps for wrapping the entire stock market, SPY (an ETF, which structurally has lower costs) does it for 4 bps"
Since Vanguard funds have an ETF share class, they share the structural cost advantage of ETFs viz. being able to offload trading costs onto authorized participants. Meanwhile, SPY has a structural disadvantage relative to index funds (whether in ETF or OE format), in that it is organized as a UIT, forcing it to endure cash drag.
SPY invests in 500 stocks, a far cry from the entire stock market. Its ER is 9.5 bp, not 4 bp. VOO costs 3 bp for wrapping the same 500 stocks. (VFIAX is 4bp.) Similarly, VTI which does wrap the entire stock market (at least the US part) also costs 3bp, and VTSAX costs 4bp.
---
"“Sweeping” is a term of art by which money automatically leaves the brokerage accounts to rest peacefully on the balance sheet of a bank every night and then be back in the brokerage ready for the morning bell. ... All discount brokerages have a sweep available"
That's certainly a "sweeping" assertion. What about VBS (Vanguard)? It pays enough on its MMF that a bank sweep would be a losing proposition. Though as Vanguard notes, MMFs are not FDIC insured.
Speaking of which, if the money is back in the brokerage ready for the morning bell, how do brokerages advertise FDIC-insured sweep accounts? The blogger is conflating the practice of banks doing "overnight sweeps" to enhance their profits with brokerages offering sweep accounts.
One can infer he is thinking about the former from his passing reference to bank regs and capital sufficiency ratios - this is a part of why banks sweep money out of customers' bank accounts overnight. See the first full paragraph of this ICI paper on p. 44 (pdf p.54).
Rather, brokerages sweep money into bank accounts until it is needed for settlement, not just overnight. Here is Schwab's disclosure, describing how it keeps most of the money in a Schwab Bank MMA and a small amount in a DDA (demand deposit account, aka checking account).
And E*Trade's disclosure of its Extended Sweep Deposit Account program, which says that you're not FDIC-insured until the money actually hits the target bank. Also, that the money is withdrawn from the deposit banks in order to cover debit balances in the brokerage. Not to move the balance back to the brokerage daily.
---
Payment for order flow? The blog presents this an an unalloyed good; better than market execution plus a cash bonus. Better, but not best. One often winds up losing this way.

It creates an incentive for brokers to send orders to whoever pays the most, rather than the place that might get the best outcome for customers. ...
Canada has banned the practice. The United Kingdom recently put it under review and said in September that nearly all UK-based brokerages acting in an agency capacity had stopped accepting payment for order flow.
For their part, market makers say they give, on average, a better price than the market is offering, usually a fraction of a penny per share.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-brokers-fees/u-s-online-brokers-still-profiting-from-dumb-money-idUSKBN1WN1UD (Oct 8, 2019)

Hi @Vegomatic
I particularly enjoy this statement from your linked article:
"Registered Investment Advisors (RIAs) aren’t discount brokers and yet have to be mentioned in a discussion of them. A RIA is, basically, an investment salesman who moonlights as an amateur psychologist with better math skills than most psychologists. They mostly charge a percentage of your net worth for amateur psychology, worksmanlike math, and non-expert-but-credentialed investing advice. The investment stores are happy to provide backend services to investment salesmen, because RIAs control a huge portion of the mass affluents’ investable assets."
I'm not picking on RIA's; as they likely save the arse's of many folks who don't know how twitchy they become when their investment choices don't travel the expected path.
I've known numerous folks who have RIA managed accounts and for the most part are probably better monetarily postitioned for not having meddled on their own behalf. My biggest grudge against the large organizations through which RIA's operate is the sweep account methods. At request, I've reviewed several portfolios from those who trust my input (devil's advocate). I found too often, what I considered mismatched investments based on the account holders age, their perceived risk tolerance and other assets; and oversized amounts of account money parked in the "cash" sweep account paying almost zero yield. 'Course we understand this is cash flow at some point for whatever institution the RIA is affiliated. The first sweep accounts I first became aware of were RIA's connected with the U.S. arm of RBC (Royal Bank of Canada, Wealth Management).
I noted to those asking me a few questions, that when 20% of your money is parked in the sweep account waiting for an investment opportunity by your RIA, this portion of your account has a yield of .15% or whatever the number might be at the time; which is likely similar to the yield for a bank or credit union savings account.
This isn't a problem, unless this 20% cash position seems to always be in the account waiting for opportunity. A million dollar account has a $200k portion not even beginning to keep up with inflation.
Have a good remainder.
Catch

https://www.nasdaq.com/articles/rethinking-risk-in-equities-2019-11-25
Rethinking risk in equities
If we’re investing for a long-term goal — and most of us do have horizons of five years or more — then why are we so obsessed with the daily headlines and the gyrations they can spark in asset prices

Yeah - D&C seems to be a “stickler” on the medallion signature guarantee, even for small dollar amount transfers out - as I understand them. I’ll need to move a few K from Invesco after the new year to TRP and am already sweating it a bit. My guess is they won’t require the signature guarantee. Most seem not to for amounts under around $50,000.
My local CU’s been good about providing signature guarantees in the past. But many institutions, including some local banks, now refuse to provide one without substantial documentation and assurance directly from the institution you are coming out of - essentially “guaranteeing” the money is on deposit with them and will be provided. Apparently this reluctance stems from recent court decisions holding the agent granting the signature guarantee liable for any monetary losses stemming from misrepresentation / criminal intent.
Nuts - I’m old enough to remember when obtaining a medallion signature guarantee was a relatively simple matter. Over the past 25 years they have gotten harder to obtain. Best bet is bank where you do business. I’m told by those who issue these that requests for them are rare. It’s something they’re not very familiar with or comfortable granting.

TRRIX's ER is 0.51% which is reasonable.
Similar to this 40/60 balanced fund is Vanguard Wellesley Income fund (35/75 stock/bond allocation). The admiral shares' ER is 0.16% with $50K mininium.

Simple transaction - move IRA cash, trustee to trustee, from one existing account to another. I hit the trifecta - three different institutions doing what they can to make this difficult.
Vanguard (recipient): Hard to transfer cash to existing mutual fund platform account. System automatically opened a brokerage account nd prefilled form with new account. I had to call Vanguard to have the cash go into my existing account.
Vanguard requires all transfers to be submitted by paper.
Merrill Edge (sender): Requires all transfers of $50K out of an IRA to have a medallion guarantee. They have a different limit for a transfer into an IRA, and a different limit for a taxable account.
I asked Merrill on the phone if I could walk into a BofA office to get the guarantee and was told they would only guarantee money coming into Merrill, not out.
Schwab:Won't provide a medallion guarantee to its customers unless the paperwork itself involves Schwab. Even then, my local office isn't able to stamp the docs. What's the point of having a local office if they can't handle the stuff that must be done in person?
IMHO none of these hurdles would disqualify an institution (how often does one move money from one account to another). But surely two decades into the 21st century they could be a little more tech savvy and a bit more customer friendly.

What in the world is the writer referencing? A stand alone IRS rule/reg change or an indirect reference to the Secure Act? Tis not too difficult to link some reference, either internal to M* or a valid outside source.
Gzzzzzzzzzzz.....wasted electrons for the write, IMHO.
From Aug. 2019 regarding the Secure Act
Click SECURE ACT link in the linked MFO write just above.

FYI: T. Rowe Price Retirement Balanced features an inspiring mix of funds.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.morningstar.com/articles/957550/a-well-built-balanced-fund-for-retirees

FYI: But these changes will only help so much.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.morningstar.com/articles/957702/the-irs-takes-a-big-step-toward-a-small-reduction-in-rmds

But barring a serious recession, a 7% return is quite reasonable over the next 3-5 years

Wow, 7% return sounds a bit stretched.

FYI: For decades, Charles Schwab Corp. quietly plotted to unleash its ultimate weapon against rivals: $0 fees.
Schwab considered eliminating charges in the 1990s after the advent of online trading, and again in the 2000s during the financial crisis, according to a person with knowledge of the matter. Each time, it dismissed the idea as too risky — a danger to its own bottom line.
But with investing costs collapsing across Wall Street, the San Francisco-based company finally took the leap in October — and, in a matter of weeks, it drove a major rival into its arms.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.google.com/search?sxsrf=ACYBGNTBIJnksn8sukNgSElRoUEaMiQEZQ:1574851570290&source=hp&ei=8lPeXaLXDtHwsAWsnKAI&q=Schwab+muscles+its+way+to+the+top+of+a+zero-fee+world&oq=Schwab+muscles+its+way+to+the+top+of+a+zero-fee+world&gs_l=psy-ab.3..33i160.3139.3139..4163...1.0..0.98.98.1......0....2j1..gws-wiz.Bo2jz6-elV0&ved=0ahUKEwiimKyjm4rmAhVROKwKHSwOCAEQ4dUDCAc&uact=5

SEC press release: https://www.sec.gov/news/press-release/2019-242
SEC proposed rule: https://www.sec.gov/rules/proposed/2019/34-87607.pdf
The proposal would apply not only to ETFs, but "to mutual funds (other than money market funds), exchange-traded funds (“ETFs”), registered closed-end funds, and companies that have elected to be treated as business development companies (“BDCs”) under the Investment Company Act."
It is based on limiting a fund's "value at risk" (VaR) relative to that of a benchmark, e.g. not more than 150% as much risk. I confess to not being familiar with the (apparently commonplace) term VaR. Briefly:

It is the probability that a portfolio will experience a mark-to-market loss that exceeds that of a specific predetermined threshold value.
Essentially this means that value at risk is measured in three variables:

1. The amount of potential loss,
2. The probability of that loss, and
3. The timeframe.

https://marketbusinessnews.com/financial-glossary/what-is-value-at-risk-var/
A more extensive discussion, including VaR's uses and limitations, and various ways it may be calculated: http://people.stern.nyu.edu/adamodar/pdfiles/papers/VAR.pdf

Crossing Wallstreet ran this several days ago!