+1 Yes-you could have done a lot worse than paying the 3 and 5% load on FCNTX and SGENX in the early 1990's and staying in those fund sthe last 30 years !

Keep subtracting one. So that one goes from, say, dividing by 19 years to dividing by 18 years ... down to dividing by 1 year. At that point, one must take everything out.
Which is a good thing. Otherwise one would have to divide by zero the next year :-)
https://www.irs.gov/retirement-plans/required-minimum-distributions-for-ira-beneficiaries

@msf, thanks for added info. I agree that firms can and do make mistakes in not using the proper table, etc.
A common mistake people make with RMDs (when required) for Inherited IRAs is that they keep using the table every year. But for Inherited IRAs, one is supposed to use the table only to find the INITIAL divisor, and then keep SUBTRACTING -1 each year.

Couple thoughts. Not my expertise.
- If I were very young and saving for 25+ years out, a good actively managed time tested global fund is what I’d use. Heck, with a 25-35 year time horizon until even the first withdrawal, that’s about all I’d use. TEMWX was a great fund in the 70s and for several years beyond. (Went downhill after Franklin took over).
- Here’s one of the first things I learned from our plan’s advisor (whom I don’t begrudge for the 4% commission he was raking in). Says Bob: “Global’s better because if the U.S. becomes overvalued they’ll simply take the money and move it to other areas of the world that aren’t overvalued.” Made sense to me than and still does.
- You might already be invested in a global fund without realizing it. Recently I looked at the Lipper stats for sedate conservative PRSIX which I’ve long held. It’s currently invested 61% in North America. I can pin down about 25% shown to be on other continents. Doesn’t add up to 100. Might be that the fund’s substantial cash & “other” holdings aren’t assigned to any particular geographic area.

RMDs for inherited IRAs are grandfathered - if you have an existing inherited IRA from which you are taking RMDs, you can continue as if nothing had changed. You do not need to deplete them within 10 years.
https://www.irahelp.com/slottreport/stretch-ira-lives-some-beneficiaries
These RMDs cannot be combined with RMDs for all other T-IRAs.
And as I noted in a previous post above, calculating the RMDs for these IRAs under the new tables is not as simple as merely looking them up. I am concerned that there is a nontrivial chance that custodians will err in their OPTIONAL calculations.

I am a lifetime member of AAII. Its annual membership is very low and comes with monthly AAII Journal and good online access. I track its weekly AAII Sentiment Survey in other venues. The AAII Journal is really a magazine for general public although occasionally it may publish articles on rather dense topics. Note that the Trinity study on withdrawal rates was published in the AAII Journal in 1998. Lately, AAII is quite aggressive in selling lots of other stuff but I don't buy any of those. AAII location in Chicago is not that far from M* and they seem to have good mutual interactions.

RMDs for all T-IRAs can be combined and taken from ANY ONE T-IRA. Brokers'/funds' calculations are OPTIONAL services they offer - I subscribe to those to just double-check my own calculations. Some firms also have contractual signups for calculating AND distributing RMDs but they are good only for straightforward situations.
RMDs for all 403b can be combined and taken from ANY ONE 403b.
Then the spoiler. RMDs for 401k must be taken from each 401k (i.e. they cannot be combined like the 2 situations above).
Note that the RMD tables are changing on 1/1/22, and the IRS will come out with 2022 RMD worksheets LATER so as not to confuse people. But the new RMD tables were decided in 2019/2020, and were initially to go into effect on 1/1/21, but that was delayed to 1/1/22.
RMDs from Inherited IRAs - the old rule requited annual RMDs. But with the IRA stretch gone, the IRAs must be depleted within 10 years and one can do it in any way, gradually, or all at once by the 10th year.

As an aside for those of you looking for a COVID booster, most pharmacies are requiring an appointment. The demand is overwhelming as many of those patients seeking boosters originally had their first shot(s) at mass administration public sites that are not doing the additional dose--so they are all funneling into the pharmacies. Many locations are enduring the same staffing issues as the economy at large--open positions with few if any qualified applicants.

I tried to setup an appointment for a Covid-19 booster shot last Thursday.
I used an app to search national/regional/local drugstores, supermarkets, and hospitals.
Since I assumed there was ample supply, I was surprised most available appointments were two or more weeks out. After a lot of searching, I was fortunate to get one of the few available appointments at a local primary care practice the next day.

...Every Investor makes.
Courtesy of Peter Lynch:

TRP is trying to get some of their bigger investors away from the online mutual fund supermarkets so they can reduce the amount of their management fees they have to pay to Fidelity, Schwab, etc.
For several years I've considered returning our accounts directly to TRP out of loyalty and appreciation for the excellent investment management our accounts have received through PRWCX and Giroux. Around 80% of our investments are in TRP funds (primarily PRWCX). I moved our accounts first to TDA and now at Schwab, why should they be getting a big chunk of the management fees, what are they adding to our investment returns in those funds?
But, up until now there has been no personal financial incentive otherwise to make the move back to TRP. Now that the new Summit program has dramatically lowered the hurdle to access institutional shares ($50,000 rather than $1 million) at the lower ER and also gives access to closed funds like PRNHX, I'm seriously considering making the move. Any non-TRP funds we want to invest in can still be done so through a TRP brokerage account. Being able to park our investments in the institutional shares will potentially add TENS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS to our returns over the next number of decades if we are blessed to live that long.
I've wondered why more fund shops haven't followed the lead of organizations like Grandeur Peak who will let shareholders purchase the cheaper institutional shares at far lower minimums if they invest directly with the fund rather than through brokers. Kudos to TRP for finally coming around.
Please let me know if I am overlooking something here.

+1 old joe If I was as successful as FD, I would be sharing a $50 million yacht parked off St Bart's with Shakira, Zoe Saldana or Halle Berry !

+1

update:
summary prospectus
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/935015/000119312521330193/d220805d497k.htm

There are several references to articles in Barron's. For those interested, I have been doing weekend summaries from Barron's for several years that are released on Saturday mornings. Some recent ones can be found at this link at the open read-access site,
https://ybbpersonalfinance.proboards.com/board/12/market-insights

A very good point,@yogibear. BRUFX has lost assets every year since 2016. I was one who bailed a couple of years ago.

Here's an interesting and perhaps unprecedented factor that's helping to drive inflation- huge increases in warehousing costs.
"In a matter of a year, warehousing rents in some markets have doubled. Brand-new buildings that would normally sit vacant for months are selling space before they're finished."

➤ Link to PBS article

+1 hank For me, it would be awesome to to earn 4% in my Fido MMA !

Gouging of customers by shippers maybe causing a bit of inflation ! If you didn't get a chance to watch 60 minutes last night, see if you can find it somewhere.
Have a sunny week, Derf
A link to 60 minute
https://armchairinvesting.freeforums.net/thread/900/inflation?page=19&scrollTo=22817

"In this game, I find I'm more on the side of the providers. Especially PCPs, where as @sma3 noted, margins are razor thin. Which is not to say that I haven't seen gross abuses of the system by providers. But I haven't seen nearly the level of nickel and diming that the insurers do that drives up administrative costs. Just MHO."
+1

@laurenduvall
I am glad you and others find it useful. I do this so there is one central location with the information is aggregated for investors and in order to prevent questions as to why did my fund decline 8% when the market was up 1% today. I have previously read some posters wish there was a central location as to where investors wish they could obtain this information and look at it collectively which is why I do this every year.
Some posters have linked this page to other board's web page to benefit its readers.
I am open to suggestions for ways to improve this annual post. All suggestions need to be run through the MFO management for their final approval.