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!

This article was worth reading. His comments about interest rates and inflation made sense. But the comment that most impressed me was....

I love predicting 50%. You can't be wrong!

FYI: Bob spoke with Jeremy on Wednesday, November 20th.
In our interview last year on November 20, the S&P 500 was at 2,641. Yesterday it closed at 3,119. That's a gain of 18.1%. Last year you said the market was below fair market value based on current earnings. So your forecast was very good, given that the average annual return has been about 9.8%. What is the fair value of the S&P 500 now? And what's your outlook for the coming 12 months, including December of this year?
Regards,
Ted
https://www.advisorperspectives.com/articles/2019/11/25/jeremy-siegel-the-market-is-fairly-valued-but-there-are-two-big-risks

For new and seasoned investors, the rule of "do your homework" still applies, eh? Read as much as you need for your understanding comfort level, and ask questions about a particular investment to be comfortable with the fit in your perception of risk tolerance and how the investment fits into a portfolio for your age and other financial circumstance. In the below case I knew there must be a typo. FAGIX had a loss of -5.79% in 2018 and is YTD about +15.4%. A -5.79% loss for 2018 became a -58% (very close number types with throwing away a decimal and rounding). Yup, we all have brain farts from time to time.
So here's the deal. I read the linked article from the perspective of a seasoned individual investor/boomer familiar with FAGIX. I also thought about the article from the perspective of a relatively new investor attempting to understand investments. Mr. Kinnel starts the write directing the reader to only the years of 2019 and 2020 and possible investment scenarios for the funds mentioned. He writes in the EXAMPLE below of FAGIX rebounding from a 58% loss.
FROM Russel Kinnel: As investors review their results for the year and plot a course for the future, some will no doubt be tempted to dump the holding that did worst and reallocate that money to the managers who did best. Yet a review of the greatest turnarounds this year suggests that your biggest winner in 2020 might be one of your biggest disappointments from 2019. At a minimum, be sure you aren't selling simply because the fund's style is lagging.

EXAMPLE from the article:Fidelity Capital & Income (FAGIX) is yet another Notkin vehicle. In this case, it's a high-yield bond fund that rebounded from a 58% loss to a 15.2% gain. As I mentioned, the equity version has higher highs and lower lows, but the drivers are similar. Notkin has about 20% of the fund in many of those same stocks as Fidelity Leveraged Company Stock, and his aggressive style is on display with his bond selection, too.
Good evening,
Catch

FYI: As investors review their results for the year and plot a course for the future, some will no doubt be tempted to dump the holding that did worst and reallocate that money to the managers who did best. Yet a review of the greatest turnarounds this year suggests that your biggest winner in 2020 might be one of your biggest disappointments from 2019. At a minimum, be sure you aren't selling simply because the fund's style is lagging.
Here's a look at six prominent funds that have gone from worst to first. One thing that links all of them is that they persevered with their strategy rather than pivoting to something else. As Vanguard founder Jack Bogle liked to say in bear markets: Don't just do something, sit there!
Regards,
Ted
https://www.morningstar.com/articles/957544/funds-that-went-from-worst-to-first

FYI: I wouldn’t invest in a combined Charles Schwab-TD Ameritrade.
To be sure, it makes a certain amount of sense that Charles Schwab SCHW, +0.35%, the largest discount brokerage firm in the U.S., would be interested in acquiring TD Ameritrade AMTD, -0.52%, the second-largest firm. The discount brokerage industry has become a very-low-margin business dependent on as wide a customer base as possible.
Yet those margins have been declining before our very eyes. With brokerage commissions now zero, and Schwab charging no fee to access its basic Robo-Advisor platform (known as Schwab Intelligent Portfolios), the firm has become heavily dependent on upselling clients to the premium version of this platform that charges $30 a month and provides access to a human being. It will need a huge base of customers to upsell enough of them to turn a significant profit.
It’s not clear that a firm even as large as a combined Schwab-TD Ameritrade will be able to do so. It will have to jump over not just one, but two, very high hurdles.
Of course, Schwab has another major contributor to its bottom line besides charging for its advice: Net interest revenue, which is the difference between the interest it earns on customer cash balances and what it pays. But note carefully that this line item is dependent on attracting clients to its advisory platform and then keeping them.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/2-powerful-reasons-to-pass-on-investing-in-a-combined-charles-schwab-td-ameritrade-2019-11-21/print

Excellent article @Ted! Very substantive.
Here’s my tongue-in-cheek contribution: “5 successful investors predict when the stock market will crash” (I guess it depends on your definition of “successful” re the last one they cite.)
http://time.com/money/5235032/just-around-the-bend-this-is-when-the-stock-market-will-crash-according-to-5-famous-investors/

FYI: JP Morgan put out a research note last week that named names of people who have called for a crash scenario in the past decade:
Regards,
Ted
https://awealthofcommonsense.com/2019/11/the-5-types-of-market-crash-predictions/?utm_source=Daily+AR&utm_campaign=2461e44811-RSS_EMAIL_CAMPAIGN&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_c08a59015d-2461e44811-144127017

This is a fee charged by a fund "to respond to investor inquiries and provide investors with information about their investments." "FINRA imposes an annual .25% cap on shareholder service fees."
All quotes above and below are from
https://www.sec.gov/fast-answers/answersmffeeshtm.html
Often one sees this charge represented as a 0.25% 12b-1 fee. But it can just as easily be called out as a separate line item, or it can be "paid outside a 12b-1 plan [and simply buried] in the 'Other expenses' category." Thus there are three different ways that the service fee can show up. This facilitates a fair amount of deception:
1. Since a noload fund can hide the 0.25% service fee in the opaque Other Expenses category, such a fund looks more "honorable" than another fund showing a 0.25% 12b-1 fee.
2. A load fund can take a 1.00% 12b-1 fee and split it into two line items: a 12b-1 fee of 0.75% (the max allowed for distribution fees) and a separate 0.25% service fee line item. (See, e.g. JNBCX.) Such a fund looks better than another fund showing a simple 1.00% fee, even though they're both charging the same amount.
Because such legerdemain is legal, because one never knows what's being paid for out of "management fees" and "other expenses", IMHO the total ER is the principal number to focus on. A noload fund that documents a 0.25% 12b-1 fee for shareholder services is no better or worse in terms of what it charges than one that hides the fee elsewhere.

It's confusing, the distinction between accounts and positions.
On the Vanguard site, there's a drop down, My Accounts-> Account Overview.
When you go there, you see a list of accounts. Each of those accounts may have zero or more positions. If they're fund platform accounts, they can hold only Vanguard mutual funds. If they're brokerage platform accounts, they can hold anything.
What I think you did was execute an exchange within a mutual fund platform account. You sold some shares of one fund and opened a new position within an existing account. You did not open a new account. (I wrote: "at neither Vanguard nor Fidelity can one open a new account on the mutual fund platform.")
Most of the time this distinction doesn't matter, and you just work within one existing fund platform account. But the account you use can sometimes matter.
Someone may contribute money to an IRA and then want to undo that. It could be that a T-IRA contribution was made and then the taxpayer discovered that it wasn't deductible. Or until recently it could be a Roth conversion that the taxpayer wanted to reverse (recharacterize). Whatever.
The amount one must withdraw is the original amount plus earnings. The earnings are computed by looking at the percentage gain of the whole account from the time the contribution was made until it was withdrawn.
For example, say you had $7K in an IRA in a stock fund, and you contributed $7K to a new bond fund position inside the same IRA account. Suppose the stock fund went up 10% and the bond fund went nowhere. Now you want to undo that contribution. The account went up 5% on average. So you have to withdraw $7K +5% x $7K (earnings), even though the bond fund you put the money in earned nothing.
But if you'd opened another IRA, a distinct account for the contribution, things would be different. The account would start with $7K total value (your contribution). Then when you decided to undo that contribution, the total value of the account would still be $7k. You'd take out the $7K and close the account. Your original account, now with $7K + 10%, or $7,700 in the stock fund would remain untouched.
If you wanted to create a new account for an IRA contribution today, Vanguard would only let you open a brokerage account. Of course if you had an existing IRA on the old fund platform, you would have the option of adding to that existing account instead.

Strange day. My funds, and those I track, are all over the place. Conservative (40/60) TRRIX dropped .26%, while Index 500 VFINX lost only .15%. Obviously rates somewhere along the yield curve spiked. T Rowe’s tech-heavy blue chip fund TRBUX held up reasonably well with a modest .23% loss, while Hussman’s defense oriented HSGFX lost more than twice that much. The REIT fund I formerly owned (OREAX) got clocked pretty good, down more than 1.5%, consistent with an increase in rates. And my usually sedate alternative fund TMSRX experienced a .30% loss, signifying that even five separate teams of brains working together couldn’t figure out how to profit from today’s market gyrations. Just a few observations here .... None of this should supplant @Ted’s rigorously thorough market summary.
Edit: DODBX bucked the trend with a .30% gain. They’ve been overweight financial stocks that might benefit from higher rates. Generally, DODBX has been catching up with its peers after a slow start to the year. Overall, there seems to be much market fixation on where rates are headed. Federal Reserve is always front and center. Perhaps not unlike Alice in Wonderland - “Sentence first–verdict afterward."