@bee - we've had exchanges on these things before. If these particular strategies work for you, more power to you. They do seem to carry some assumptions that may not apply to some other people, so they're worth pointing out.

I have a few personal strategy for dealing with RMDs. Consider strategically spending down these taxable IRA dollars first rather than raiding taxable accounts, Roth accounts or Health Savings Accounts, especially between the years of 59.5 and 70.5.

I'm guessing you're doing this to keep RMDs manageable, i.e. not growing so large that they kick you into a higher tax bracket.
Say you need $20k/year. You seem to be suggesting that you withdraw approx $23.5K (so that after paying 15% tax, you've got your $20K for expenses). If your taxable account is generating no income (just cap gains when you sell), that works fine for you, since you'd be paying no cap gains tax in that tax bracket.
An alternative for some would be to tap the taxable account for the $20K in expenses, withdraw the same $23.5K from the IRA (pay the same $3.5K taxes on that), and put the rest ($20K) into a Roth as a conversion.
Comparing the two strategies - either way, you get $20K to spend, and you've reduced your traditional IRA by $23.5. The difference is that the first way left you with $20K in the taxable account (you spent the IRA distribution), the second way let you move $20K into a Roth (you spent money from a taxable account).

Fund an H.S.A:
-Between the age of 59.5 and 65 (when you become medicare eligible) distribute a portion of your tax deferred IRA yearly equal to your maximum H.S.A contribution. This will provide a funding source for my H.S.A as well as make these IRA distributions tax free since there tax liability will be offset by the H.S.A contribution (income tax credit) for that same year.

You're get an income reduction for the HSA contribution regardless of what's generating the income. That taxable income could be coming from taxable investments or from IRA distributions, or even from a Roth conversion. What matters is that you've got a fixed size "deduction" (the HSA contribution). So the IRA distribution is tax-free (due to the HSA) only to the extent that you have no other ordinary (taxable) income.
For example, if you contribute $4K to your HSA, and have $1K in taxable income, then only the first $3K of IRA distributions will be tax-free. If you withdraw $4K, then your total taxable income is $5k, and $1k of that is taxable after subtracting off the $4K HSA contribution.

Fund Itemize Medical Expenses:
- Between ages (65 -70.5) track medical expenses that are eligible as an itemized tax deduction. Do not use your H.S.A dollars during this time frame to pay for these medical costs. Instead, pay all of these medical expenses with yearly IRA distributions. Using IRA distributions as the funding source for medical related expenses may potentially lowering your taxes on these taxable distributions.

You can use medical expenses as itemized deductions (subject to a floor of 7.5% or 10% of AGI). To do that, you're right, you can't pay them out of an HSA. This works for some people, but only if they've got really high expenses (relative to their AGI), and if they've got enough other itemized deductions to get them above the standardized deduction. At least I think that's what you're writing about here.
Each person's situation is different. This strategy seems to work fine for yours.

From a recent read:
Roth IRAs (as well as H.S.A.) aren’t subject to the required minimum distributions (RMDs) that apply to most retirement accounts starting at age 70½, so you can let any Roth (and H.S.A) assets continue to benefit from potential tax-free growth for the rest of your life. (T Rowe Price quote).
FYI:
-Roth IRAs are inherited tax free.
-H.S.A are taxable when received as a non-spousal inheritance.
-Interestingly, Roth 401K account do have RMDs.
I have a few personal strategy for dealing with RMDs. Consider strategically spending down these taxable IRA dollars first rather than raiding taxable accounts, Roth accounts or Health Savings Accounts, especially between the years of 59.5 and 70.5.
Fund an H.S.A:
-Between the age of 59.5 and 65 (when you become medicare eligible) distribute a portion of your tax deferred IRA yearly equal to your maximum H.S.A contribution. This will provide a funding source for my H.S.A as well as make these IRA distributions tax free since there tax liability will be offset by the H.S.A contribution (income tax credit) for that same year.
Fund Itemize Medical Expenses:
- Between ages (65 -70.5) track medical expenses that are eligible as an itemized tax deduction. Do not use your H.S.A dollars during this time frame to pay for these medical costs. Instead, pay all of these medical expenses with yearly IRA distributions. Using IRA distributions as the funding source for medical related expenses may potentially lowering your taxes on these taxable distributions.
Here's a debatable strategy:
Defer 25% of your IRA well beyond 70.5 by purchasing a QLAC:
why-a-qlac-in-an-ira-is-a-terrible-way-to-defer-the-required-minimum-distribution-rmd-obligation/

Hi Guys,
"The future is uncertain, so investors should always think in terms of probabilities, never guarantees. What this data tells me is that the longer your time horizon, the higher your probability of seeing a gain in the stock market."
That's not me writing. It's a quote from an article by Ben Carlson. Here is the Link to that article that summarizes market returns winning statistics:
http://awealthofcommonsense.com/2015/11/playing-the-probabilities/
Not much has changed statistically since this article was published. It's a simple matter of just playing the odds. That's always a good strategy.
The equity marketplace is up 54% of the time on a daily basis. It is up 74% of the time annually. As the investment timeframe expands, the winning statistics keep increasing. In the investment world, time is your ally. Once again simplicity trumps complexity.
Best Wishes

VintageFreak
You mention the possibility of the fund liquidating, however the fund webpage is indicating about $1.5 billion in assets, do you see any indication that liquidation is being considered.
Thanks

FYI: Any additional comment here might be superfluous because the stories I’m about to share speak for themselves.
Convincing yourself that you need a perfect answer for market outcomes with a probability of under 5% of occurring is a recipe for sloppy portfolios and big losses. Take a look for yourself…
Regards,
Ted
http://thereformedbroker.com/2017/09/05/when-the-hedge-is-worse-than-the-thing-being-hedged/
Black Swan Article For Free:
https://www.morningstar.com/news/dow-jones/TDJNDN_201709051978/a-decade-after-crisis-investors-have-stopped-hunting-for-black-swans.html

FYI: EVERY YEAR, MANY SENIORS needlessly incur hefty penalties or overpay their taxes. The reason: They don’t understand the strict rules that govern removing money from their tax-deferred retirement accounts.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.humbledollar.com/2017/09/late-thatll-cost-50/

Re "Wonder where the new technology came from so quickly? "
I was tempted to remark cynically: "They looked it up on the internet." But really haven't a clue.
More likely @Maurice has it right when he says: "When you don't feed your people, there is more money for developing weapons of mass destruction."
I say that because I recall how impoverished the Russian people were back in the 50s and 60s while their government was developing the heavy-lift rockets that eventually gave them an early lead in the space race. The huge rockets were initially developed for lifting their (overly heavy) nukes - designed to annihilate us. The use of these rockets to launch space missions (essentially part of their propaganda front) was secondary and grew out of their inordinate spending on weapons.

FYI:
Regards,
Ted
Bloomberg:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-09-04/safe-havens-maintain-gains-as-korea-threats-linger-markets-wrap
Reuters:
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-stocks/wall-street-falls-more-than-1-percent-on-rising-north-korea-worries-idUSKCN1BG1LB
MarketWatch:
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/wall-street-stocks-set-for-downbeat-open-as-north-korea-standoff-intensifies-2017-09-05/print
IBD:
http://www.investors.com/market-trend/stock-market-today/stocks-down-but-nasdaq-shows-a-bullish-trait-3-reasons-why-apple-is-fine/
CNBC:
https://www.cnbc.com/2017/09/05/us-stocks-north-korea-economy.html
AP:
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/F/FINANCIAL_MARKETS_ASOL-?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
Bloomberg Evening Briefing:
https://www.bloomberg.com//news/articles/2017-09-05/your-evening-briefing-pay-gaps-daca-and-irma
WSJ: Markets At A Glance:
http://markets.wsj.com/us
SPDR's Sector Tracker:
http://www.sectorspdr.com/sectorspdr/tools/sector-tracker
SPDR's Bloomberg Sector Performance Pie Chart:
https://www.bloomberg.com/markets/sectors
Current Futures: Negative
https://finviz.com/futures.ashx

Hi Guys,
KISS (keep it simple, stupid) wins again! Simplicity has many advantages over complexity, especially in the investment world. Many of the 36 investment golden rules summarized in Ted's recent reference to a Ben Carlson article hint that simple wins over complex without explicitly saying so. For your convenience, here is the Link to the article that Ted posted:
http://awealthofcommonsense.com/2017/09/36-obvious-investment-truths/
Once again Ted, thank you for this useful reminder. I try, sometimes with success, but not always, to apply these terrific guidelines. Great stuff!
There are scores of articles and papers that advocate the KISS approach. Here is a Link to just one from many dozen choices:
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/when-it-comes-to-investing-it-pays-to-keep-it-simple-2015-11-11
Enjoy and prosper by limiting your effort. That's typically not a winning strategy in many other business adventures.
Best Wishes

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/890540/000113542817000918/champlainmc-497.txt
DOCUMENT>
497
1
champlainmc-497.txt
THE ADVISORS' INNER CIRCLE FUND II
CHAMPLAIN MID CAP FUND (THE "FUND")
ADVISOR SHARES (CIPMX)
INSTITUTIONAL SHARES (CIPIX)
SUPPLEMENT DATED SEPTEMBER 5, 2017
TO THE SUMMARY PROSPECTUS, PROSPECTUS AND
STATEMENT OF ADDITIONAL INFORMATION (THE "SAI") DATED NOVEMBER 28, 2016
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 PROPSECTUS, PROSPECTUS AND SAI.
Effective October 1, 2017, the Fund will be closed to new investors. As of
October 1, 2017, shares of the Fund may be purchased only by existing fund
shareholders, qualified retirement plans and fee-based advisory programs with
centralized investment discretion that have selected the Fund as an investment
option prior to October 1, 2017. The Fund reserves the right to permit
additional investments on a case-by-case basis as deemed appropriate by and in
the sole discretion of Champlain Investment Partners, LLC, the Fund's adviser
(the "Adviser").
PLEASE RETAIN THIS SUPPLEMENT FOR FUTURE REFERENCE.
CSC-SK-013-0100

@Maurice That's nice. The problem is Clinton wasn't even a candidate in 2014, so why are you posting that data? And why do you carefully ignore the simple fact that in the 2016 election cycle $605.8 million was spent by conservative Super Pacs and $444 million spent by liberal ones, which is also on the same 2016 Open Secrets page? You said: "You know that the Democrats have taken more advantage of PAC money than Republicans." It's not true.
And by the way Super Pacs don't even include "dark money" political spending from 501c non-profit groups where the donors' names aren't disclosed. That money is overwhelmingly conservative Republican: https://opensecrets.org/outsidespending/summ.php?cycle=2016&chrt=V&disp=O&type=U
In 2016 $140.5 million came from conservative 501c's versus 41.3 million from liberal ones. Oh and in 2014, that number was $126.4 million conservative versus $37.8million liberal.
https://opensecrets.org/outsidespending/summ.php?cycle=2014&chrt=V&disp=O&type=U

FYI: U.S. stocks were poised to open lower on Tuesday, as investors returned from a long weekend and got their first chance to respond to the heightened tensions between the West and North Korea.
Regards,
Ted
U.S.: (MarketWatch)
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/wall-street-stocks-set-for-downbeat-open-as-north-korea-standoff-intensifies-2017-09-05/print
U.S.: (IBD)
http://www.investors.com/market-trend/stock-market-today/these-2-top-rated-techs-put-w-in-winning-bases-sp-500-futures/
Europe: (MarketWatch)
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/european-stocks-push-higher-as-deal-news-eclipses-north-korea-worries-2017-09-05/print
Europe: (Reuters)
http://www.reuters.com/article/europe-stocks/european-shares-up-led-by-financials-health-stocks-aveva-gains-on-schneider-deal-idUSL8N1LM10O
Europe: (CNBC)
https://www.cnbc.com/2017/09/05/europe-markets-ftse-cac-dax-north-korea-tensions-nafta.html
Europe-Asia: (Bloomberg)
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-09-04/safe-havens-maintain-gains-as-korea-threats-linger-markets-wrap
Asia: (MarketWtch)
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/wary-investors-weigh-on-asian-markets-after-north-korean-nuclear-test-2017-09-03/print
Asia: (Reuters)
http://www.reuters.com/article/japan-stocks-close/nikkei-falls-to-1-week-lows-as-north-korea-tensions-persist-idUSL4N1LM2FQ
Asia: (CNBC)
https://www.cnbc.com/2017/09/04/asia-markets-focus-on-north-korea-gold-yen-china-caixin-services-pmi.html
Current Futures: (Negative)
https://finviz.com/futures.ashx

Thanks OJ. Had a feeling I was overlooking something. It's becoming clearer. Somehow had the impression that fund trades executed through a third party (i.e. broker) took an extra day to go through. And that the next day's price applies. However, the article I linked below clears that up. I was mostly wrong - though some brokerages have a 2 PM cutoff.
Found your link highly interesting. Not sure why it takes 2-3 days for some trades to settle. It's a world I'm not acquainted with. Never desired to own individual stocks. Perhaps a fear that I might become "consumed" by the process and trade frequently to my detriment. I'll stick with what I know (a recurrent theme in another thread tonight).
From Investopedia: Mutual fund shares are highly liquid. They can be bought or sold (redeemed) on any day that the markets are open. Whether working through a representative (such as an advisor) or directly through the fund company, an order can be placed to buy or redeem shares and it will be executed at the next available net asset value (NAV), which is calculated after the market close each trading day. Some brokerages and fund companies require orders be placed earlier than the market close (2 p.m. Eastern Time), while others allow same day execution right up to the market close.
Settlement for mutual fund transactions varies from one to three days, depending upon the type of fund.
http://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/110615/when-are-mutual-fund-orders-executed.asp

Any mutual fund company I've dealt with allows trades to be placed among their in-house funds up until 4:00 PM (ET) and executes the trade at that day's closing price. I have, on occasion, seen with certain companies (like AC) a 3:00 PM deadline for certain bond funds if the market for that type of security closes at 3:00 PM. Not a trader either, but in very volatile markets it's nice to wait until the last hour before committing. I have successfully put through trades as late as 3:59 PM. Obviously better to do it on their website at that time of day than through an agent.
I realize dealing with a third party like Schwab has always been different. Same day execution is one of the perks, I guess, of dealing directly with a fund family. Not aware of any changes coming to these policies. Another perk is that there are no fees for trading (unless you violate the minimum holding period for the fund you are selling).

This is regulatory and "should" apply to everyone at every broker. I thought mutual funds already settled faster so this wouldn't affect them, but the email I received mentions them so maybe something is changing. I don't buy without cash on hand so I don't think it matters for me but could for some people. The email I received from E*TRADE said basically the same thing as the one we both received from Fidelity:
We're writing to make sure you know about an important upcoming change in U.S. securities markets.
What’s changing
The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), in cooperation with the financial services industry, is shortening the trade settlement period for many types of securities from three business days to two. This new rule is designed to increase efficiency and reduce risk. Products affected by the change include stocks, corporate bonds, municipal bonds, ETFs, and mutual funds, among others.
NO ACTION IS REQUIRED FROM YOU. The shortened settlement period will take effect automatically on Tuesday, September 5, 2017.
What this means to you
If you sell a security, you’ll receive cash one day sooner
If you buy a security, it will be delivered one day sooner
If you are using margin, purchases will create a settled debit balance one day sooner and selling will decrease your settled debit balance one day sooner
You will have one less day to execute a tax-lot swap

Interesting thought. The fund screens out those who don't pay to play, then takes the top 150. That's based on total dollar amount and percentage that goes to GOP candidates. So big companies can win even if they're just hedging their bets.
Even going by the pay to play philosophy, wouldn't it still make more sense to focus on specific policies?
If, say Pfizer bought its way into affecting regulations (e.g. maintaining the ban against drug importation despite campaign promises seemingly to the contrary), wouldn't one expect the whole brand name pharmaceutical sector to benefit? Even if, say, Merck had supported Democrats.
That's not to say that an individual company couldn't wrangle sweetheart government deals. Just wondering whether such company specific (as opposed to industry-specific) "help" would be the exception or the rule.

Yeah - Barron's really "got it right" in October 1998. With gold at $303, their "Wrong About Gold" article scorned investors who were (correctly) becoming bullish on the metal. So I won't put much faith in their analysis today.
Excerpt: Wrong About Gold
Oct. 5, 1998 - Key Commodity Indexes
"The world's gold bugs seem to be exulting at news of the global financial crisis. And it's easy to see why. With stocks falling sharply in value, investors have started to show renewed interest in gold, that ageold hedge against hard times. But their knee-jerk reaction ignores the fact that we seem to be looking at an outbreak of deflation, not inflation. That's not to say that gold prices couldn't rise further over the next few months. Uncertainty always seems to stoke enthusiasm for the yellow metal. But the fact is that fundamental demand for gold is not increasing significantly and supplies remain plentiful." http://www.barrons.com/articles/SB907371410794467500
-
Just my personal perspective ... buying gold, or the miners, is about the closest you can come to gambling within the confines of your IRA. (Only @rono knows where it's going.) I have a meager 1-2% hold in OPGSX which has done well since buying in May. Some of my diversified funds, notably PRPFX and PRAFX, have decent exposure. At some point I'll sell the p/m fund, take the money and run. Not yet --- too much uncertainty out there in the geopolitical. Last week gold was hot, picking up $30-$40 and rising to over $1320. With the turmoil in Asia, it gained another 10 bucks Monday to around $1330.
---
If trouble with above link, try this Google search. Select top story "Wrong About Gold" https://www.google.com/search?ei=UK-sWevdLOSXjwSH0pawAg&q=cheryl+strauss+einhorn+commosities+corner+1998+article+on+gold+price+in+Barrons+Oftober+5+1998&oq=cheryl+strauss+einhorn+commosities+corner+1998+article+on+gold+price+in+Barrons+Oftober+5+1998&gs_l=mobile-gws-serp.12..30i10k1.30394.37695.0.38648.15.15.0.0.0.0.387.4260.0j1j7j7.15.0....0...1.1.64.mobile-gws-serp..0.15.4258.Uq4g1FlZnVE

FYI: (Click On Article Title At Top Of Google Search)
Despite today’s news cycle, gold prices have been bouncing up and falling back. This could make gold-mining-stock ETFs problematic.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.google.com/search?source=hp&q=Don't+Be+Dazzled+By+Gold+Barron's&oq=Don't+Be+Dazzled+By+Gold+Barron's&gs_l=psy-ab.3..35i39k1.1916.16724.0.18843.34.33.0.0.0.0.441.2668.31j1j4-1.33.0....0...1.1.64.psy-ab..1.33.2659.0..0j46j0i67k1j0i20k1j0i131k1j0i46k1j0i22i10i30k1j0i22i30k1j33i22i29i30k1.qRMve1peRPQ

Or a negative sign - that WF was so bad that not even Vanguard could stomach all of it.
"Vanguard funds supported 12 of 15 Wells Fargo directors on the ballot, and backed the company’s management on all nine shareholder proposals up for a vote at the April meeting. "
Is the glass 80% (12/15) empty or 20% (3/15) full? Compare Vanguard with American Fund's "Income Fund of America, which did not support nine of 15 directors."
I suppose that's still better than 100% empty.

PCI is still retains a discount although. Narrower than in the past.
Separate question: Do folks regard PONDX/PIMX/PONAX as a core holding or a high yieldly satellite? Just curious what folks like @junkster, @davidsnowball, @mikem, @oldskeet think?
Regards,Mike

Mike I can't help you because of the short term nature of my methodology. I was in PONDX in 2012 and a few months in early 2013 but not again until this year. Its returns from 2013 through 2016 were not inspiring. Much of this year's returns are from its exposure to rmbs primarily non agency. I read somewhere PIMCO and Ivascyn are buying all the legacy non agency rmbs from before the crash they can get their hands on. I am 55% IOFIX and 45% DPFNX now which is primarily all non agency but with a heck of a lot less AUM. How long this ultra steady rise in that market can continue there I have not a clue. But the strong housing market has helped immensely.

It was a huge month for non agency RMBS bonds. But have been paring back IOFIX because of its exposure to Houston. If last month's high is taken out (adjusting for the ex div date) will ramp back up.