Parnassus Funds 2016 Annual Report (Feb 9, 2017):

I’d like to give you an update on Wells Fargo and its unauthorized opening of accounts. While some of our shareholders have urged us to sell our shares, we believe that Wells Fargo is a far better bank than what is portrayed in the media, and that this is the most important time for an ESG investor to be involved. We met with CEO Tim Sloan in December and had a productive conversation about the bank’s remedies for its customers and employees, discriminatory banking practices towards minority and low-income customers, as well as its financing of the Dakota Access Pipeline. We would not have been able to have this dialogue had we sold our position. While we don’t disclose the results of our engagements, rest assured, we continue to engage with the highest levels of management on these issues.

Parnassus Funds 2017 Annual Report (Feb 9, 2018)

Responsible Investing Notes
...
On a brighter note, I’m delighted to share with you a positive development with Wells Fargo, which has worked hard over the past year to repair its damaged reputation. From eliminating sales goals in its Community Banking division to replacing three board members, Wells Fargo has taken significant steps to improve its relationships with its customers, stakeholders and shareholders. ...
One issue we believed Wells Fargo needed to address was its involvement in the Dakota Access Pipeline (DAPL) project. This controversial pipeline project caused an uproar across the nation, leading to closely watched protests and negative sentiment towards companies involved in its construction. A consortium of seventeen banks, including Wells Fargo, lent money to finance the DAPL.
We concluded from our discussions with Wells Fargo that they could not have predicted the consequences of financing the DAPL. More importantly, we became convinced Wells Fargo would not have financed the project had it known how much it would upset its customers, shareholders and stakeholders. We understood that Wells Fargo was contractually obligated to finance the project, but we believed the bank could take action to repair its relationship with the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe. In February, as part of our engagement with Wells Fargo about the DAPL, we asked the bank to donate its profits from financing the DAPL to the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe. Wells Fargo indicated they would consider this donation.
Over the course of the year, we engaged in multiple calls and meetings with Wells Fargo, urging the bank to act. We had three calls with Wells Fargo’s Head of Corporate Responsibility and Community Relations, Jon Campbell. We met with Wells Fargo’s CEO Tim Sloan, and later in the year with incoming Board Chair Elizabeth Duke. During each conversation, we discussed our proposed DAPL donation. In October, Wells Fargo acknowledged to us that financing the DAPL had affected the bank’s relationship with the American Indian and Alaskan tribes that are customers of the bank. In December, Wells Fargo announced a five-year $50 million commitment to the American Indian and Alaskan tribes, which was significantly greater than our request. These monetary grants, to be issued starting in early 2018, will target environmental sustainability, economic empowerment, and diversity and social inclusion programs focusing on the impacted tribes.

Parnassus Investments statement, March 9, 2018

You may be aware that several Parnassus funds initiated positions in Wells Fargo stock well over a year ago. Initially, the firm had positive fundamental and ESG profiles. At the time, Wells Fargo was widely considered to be one of the top banks in America, with a strong focus on workplace, diversity and inclusion, and philanthropy.
As the bank’s community sales scandal and Dakota Access pipeline controversy became headline news, Parnassus immediately began using its substantial holding in the firm to engage top executives. We met with Wells Fargo management—including the CEO and key independent Directors—multiple times to share our perspective on events and suggest potential remedies. We also voted our proxy shares according to our responsible investment policies, including voting against the candidates for the Wells Board of Directors that had served on the Risk Committee for many years.
While our discussions led to positive changes within the company, troubling new issues continue to emerge. Significantly, the Federal Reserve has decided that the problems at the bank are serious enough to warrant their active involvement in Wells Fargo’s business decisions for an indefinite period of time.
As events continue to reveal further deterioration in both the fundamental and ESG profiles of the bank, we do not believe that further engagement from Parnassus will be effective. In short, Wells Fargo is not a suitable holding for our portfolios at this time.

This came in my email from "As you Sow" a climate advocacy group that
"Some view ESG as a framework for assessing risk - the key to achieving a sustainable and just future. Others see it as threat to capitalism and cover for a liberal elite political agenda.
Live debate – ESG Now and in the Future: Is There Common Ground? – Wed April 3 with Andrew Behar
At As You Sow, we believe it’s simply good business. Is there a successful investor who doesn’t assess portfolio risk? Can a business survive without assessing and addressing supply chain shortages and worker needs? In a recent survey of 5,000 C-suite executives in 22 countries, across 22 industries, 76% say that sustainability is central to their business and drives better business results.
Yet the well-funded and centrally orchestrated anti-ESG crusade currently has 145 bills in 27 states, using the heavy hand of big government to tell investors and businesses how to think and what information they can use for decision making!
On Wednesday, April 3, 2024, the University of Arizona presents a debate bringing these opposing viewpoints to a live stage. National experts from business, investment, regulatory, and government sectors will delve into the multifaceted nature of ESG, presenting arguments for and against – and maybe even finding common ground.
Join us in Phoenix or watch the livestream event at 5:30pm Pacific & Arizona time / 8:30pm Eastern with As You Sow CEO Andrew Behar front and center in support of ESG.
The debate moderators are former White House press secretaries Ari Fleischer (G.W. Bush) and Robert Gibbs (Obama). Panelists are:
Andrew Behar, CEO, As You Sow
Kevin Hassett, 29th Chairman of the President's Council of Economic Advisers (Trump)
Sandra Taylor, CEO, Sustainable Business International
Kimberly Yee, State Treasurer of Arizona
You can register here
https://www.asyousow.org/community-calendar/university-of-arizona-center-for-the-philosophy-of-freedom-debate-series-esg-now-and-in-the-future-is-there-common-ground

I posted months ago since 2023 and in the beginning of the 2024 about 3 bond funds that should have a good risk-adjusted performance for 2024.
RPHIX for "sub" MM and a possible 5-6% in 2024
CBLDX with higher volatility, but still low and higher performance and a possible 6-8% in 2024.
RSIIX/RSIVX with higher volatility, but still low and higher performance and a possible of 7-9% in 2024.
The chart below already proves my point. Why use
Multi=PIMIX or HY or high-rated bonds with a lot more volatility and be close or not at year end.
https://schrts.co/xiyUJkXx
Sometimes it is that easy. YTD RSIIX is already at 2.7% per M* and a good possibility to make over 10%.

The Week in Charts (03/15/24)
The most important charts and themes in markets, including...
00:00 Intro
00:16 Topics
01:24 Active Managers Go All-In
06:27 Pricing in a Perfect Future
13:34 Stubborn Inflation = No Fed Cut
27:20 The End of Negative Interest Rates
30:13 What is Debt and What is Growth?
33:55 Bitcoin ETF Boom
38:15 Why You Need to Invest
40:25 The Path to Prosperity
Video
Blog

Keep in mind I'm not a lawyer, so take this for what it is worth, i.e. you're on your own.
"Fidelity decided to pass them into B's estate".
That sounds like Fidelity followed the beneficiary designation of A's defined contribution plan. So long as B did not predecease A (but see below*) the transfer was likely automatic, regardless of the absence of paperwork. That is, the automatic nature of the transfer meant that the account formally (technically) became B's upon A's death even though it wasn't actually transferred at that time.
B's "virtual" account had no beneficiary designated since there was no paperwork done before B died. So B's "virtual" account became the account of B's estate. That brings us back to the situation where there's an estate defined contribution plan that must be distributed within five years.
Edit: The five years is assuming that the RMD period (for B) had not yet begun. Otherwise, it seems that the withdrawal schedule would be based on B's life expectancy. If inherited DC plans follow the same rule as inherited IRAs (haven't checked yet), each year's RMD would be calculated by subtracting one year from the previous year's life expectancy, not by referring to tables every year. That is, if B's life expectancy were 15 years now, then next year one would divide assets by 14, the next by 13, and so on. This could be another source of confusion and why you are seeing various rules.
Again, just speculating here.
* did B predecease A from a legal perspective?
If B's death is close enough after A's death, then state law may create a "legal fiction" that B died before A for purposes of inheritance. This situation is called "simultaneous death".

Many states have default laws ... including the Uniform Simultaneous Death Act ... Generally speaking, these laws establish a rule that when two individuals die within 120 hours of each other, each individual will be treated as having predeceased the other. Thus, if a husband and wife die at the same time or within 120 hours of each other, and the husband’s will distributes 100 percent of his property to his wife at his death, the wife is treated as having predeceased her husband,

https://wilsonlawgroup.com/simultaneous-deaths/
This varies from state to state, and the text above describes how it applies to wills. It seems logical that something similar would apply to beneficiary designations. But I haven't seen that in writing.
If a state simultaneous death law applies to beneficiaries, and if the two deaths were close enough together to trigger that law, then Fidelity could (should?) have treated the situation as if B died first. That is, it could (should?) have designated you as the beneficiary of A's account.
That Fidelity didn't do this suggests that either "simultaneous death" doesn't apply to beneficiary designations, or the two deaths weren't close enough in time to trigger that law.
Somewhat moot, though, since the fact of the matter is that the account currently belongs to B's estate.

Just started FALN a few weeks ago and intend to grow it in the taxable. Focused on WCPNX, but no money in there, yet.
Still like my current ones: TUHYX, PRCPX.
Cash 7
Stocks 53
Bonds 38
"Other" 3
The ENTIRE portfolio is yielding me 4.09%. And then, there's the GROWTH element, too. Good day, today. Transition to Schwab continues at a snail's pace. A couple of calls from the fellow at the downtown office. Hand-holding. But he did not have any real news. Got a couple of emails, telling me almost nothing.

Bonds: 80% PIMIX, 20% individual bonds (T-Bills). (35% of overall portfolio)

Could you clarify the situation? It sounds like the defined contribution plans did not indicate a beneficiary, so by default the estate inherited the assets. Further it sounds like the assets are still in the DC plans, just owned by the estate of the deceased.
If that's what has happened, you seem to be asking how long does the estate have to move the assets out of the DC plans?
For a regular inherited retirement account the answer is pretty straightforward,
Perhaps. Worth looking at, for background. If an IRA owner dies with no beneficiary named, the IRA is retitled as an estate IRA. One has 5 years, not 10, to move the money out of the IRA assuming that death occurred before RMDs were required to begin.
Here's a page from Fidelity that illustrates the complexity even with IRAs:
https://www.fidelity.com/building-savings/learn-about-iras/inherited-ira-rmd
Sections of interest:

>Estate beneficiary: If the original depositor of an IRA names their estate as the beneficiary of their account, or did not leave beneficiaries on their IRA, the IRA funds may go to their estate.

-and-

Death on or after 1/1/20, [and asset recipient is an] estate entity, non-see-through trust beneficiary of the original depositor's IRA. [elsewhere this is called a nonperson beneficiary]:
[Death before RMDs begin] Move inherited assets into an inherited IRA in the name of the estate or non-see through trust and withdraw the balance by December 31st of the year containing the 5th anniversary of the original depositor's death
[Death after RMDs begin] Move inherited assets into an Inherited IRA in the name of the estate or non-see through trust and begin taking RMDs the year following the year of the original depositor death using their age in the year they passed away.

Tax treatment of estate-owned DC plans should be no different.
Inheriting a 403(b) Plan: What to Do & How It Works
https://www.missionsq.org/products-and-services/403(b)-defined-contribution-plans/403(b)-inheritance-beneficiary.html

A “nonperson beneficiary” is an estate, trust or charitable organization. This type of beneficiary has the following options:

• Account owner dies before the required beginning date.... In that case, the account must be depleted by December 31 of the year that includes the 5th anniversary of the account owner’s death.
  
• Account owner dies on or after required beginning date then the entity may use a life expectancy calculation based on the remaining life expectancy of the decedent.

Ascensus concurs:

The SECURE Act identifies three groups of beneficiaries: eligible designated beneficiaries, noneligible designated beneficiaries, and nonperson beneficiaries.
...
The third group of beneficiaries consists of nonperson beneficiaries (i.e., entities, such as trusts, estates, or charities). Nonperson beneficiaries of account owners who died before their required beginning date (RBD), which is the deadline to begin RMDs, remain subject to the 5-year rule and—with the exception of certain see-through trusts—must distribute the inherited assets within five years.

https://thelink.ascensus.com/articles/2024/2/14/understanding-the-10-year-rule
That's all from the tax perspective. From the estate administration perspective (state law), I'm not convinced that even in the "simple" case of an estate IRA one is allowed to delay five years. My understanding is that the executor (or administrator) is allowed however much time is necessary to distribute estate assets, but not more. For example:

N.J.S.A. 3B:10-23 holds that an executor “is under a duty to settle and distribute the estate of the decedent in accordance with the terms of [the will] and applicable law, and as expeditiously and efficiently as is consistent with the best interests of the estate.…”

https://www.natlawreview.com/article/executor-won-t-distribute-estate-what-can-i-do
Usual disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, this is not legal advice. It is just general information that may not apply to your situation.

@David_Snowball
Thank you for the insights.
Any thoughts on PRCGX / PREOX ($215M / $100M mmc) vs PVFIX ($415M w.amc) / AVALX ($1,272M w.amc) / OBMCX (< $600M mc) / WAMVX ($1,170M amc)?
Perritt funds invest in the smallest of microcaps. They have not performed recently, but PRCGX has done well before during economic upturns after periods of uncertainty (as partially evidenced by the 15-y 11.65% AATR under the same manager per MStar).

@Devo thanks for the tip.
Just quickly checked out AVALX. I like that it is underweighted in technology and it looks to have had a pretty good run over the last 5 years. Definitely, on par with PKSFX.
But the -39%/-50% max drawdowns at AVALX vs -18%/-18% at PKSFX over 5/10 year windows under same managers - at least, if you believe Mstar - are worrisome.
Open to any other suggestions.

I will share my bond portion as of today. My target is 25% of portfolio. RPHYX (9%),Cash(6%),SNGVX (2%),STIP (2%),TPHAX(3%). I may add to exisiting funds or add Crash's favorite of old PTIAX.

Post Conference Notes by YBB
Rates were maintained - fed funds 5.25-5.50%, bank reserves rate 5.4%, discount rate 5.5%. Rates may be higher for longer; need more confidence in progress towards inflation goal. No specifics provided for June cut. Current policy is restrictive. Financial conditions are tight.
QT continues at -$60 billion/mo for Treasuries, -$35 billion/mo for MBS; total -$95 billion/mo. Cumulative balance sheet reduction -$1.5 trillion. There was some talk of slowing down QT & being monitored are money-markets, bank reserves and liquidity.
Inflation is still too high; there are some sticky areas. Target is +2% average "over time" (mentioned several times).
Labor market remains tight, wages are going up at a slower pace, unemployment rate is near target. Economy is in good shape also.
Housing contribution to CPI, PCE, etc is via OERs (owners' equivalent rent) & that should be lower in due course.
Fed is studying & keeping up with the developments on digital currencies, CBDC, fin tech, but isn't working on a launch of digital-dollar unless Congress approves first.
Fed transparency is good as-is.
There were new SEP data.
https://ybbpersonalfinance.proboards.com/post/1397/thread

My primary bond fund is DOXIX.
I also have some 5 Yr TIPS which will be held to maturity.

My experience is much like stillers. In fact we overbuilt our CPCD ladder. We sorta got addicted to a 5% return. In anticipation of declining rates and tempted by a much talked about share appreciation from intermediate bond funds we started building a position in Dodge and Cox Income. Perhaps we were early.

None.
All we ever reasonably expected as LT TRs from dedicated bond funds was 4%-5%. So when CP CD rates matched, then exceeded that threshold, all of our dedicated bonds funds were replaced with a 5-yr, CP CD ladder paying over 5% APY. The only bonds we currently own are via allocation funds FBALX and PRWCX, and their bonds account for less than 5% of our total portfolio value.

Reuters...
Environmental, social and governance (ESG) investing boomed in 2020 and 2021 during the COVID-19 pandemic as low oil prices spurred more investors to diversify beyond fossil fuels, and as fund managers sought to appear more climate-conscious. The category started to fall out of favor in 2022 as conventional energy prices soared.
Political backlash against ESG led by Republican politicians in the United States, as well as suspicions of greenwashing involving claims that are not substantiated, have also tarnished the luster of ESG funds. "Greenwashing" refers to companies making false or deceptive claims about the environmental benefits of their products, services or policies.
Globally, funds classified as "responsible investing" recorded $68 billion of net new deposits in 2023 through Nov. 30, LSEG Lipper data showed. That was down sharply from $158 billion for all of 2022 and from $558 billion for all of 2021.
My take...too arbitrary...show me an ESG fund that invests in the likes of Google etc...and I will laugh out loud, listening in on your conversations, selling your information, making you a product...no way many ESG companies are true to the term ESG....not for me, no thank you.

Texas has identified 10 firms with which it will not invest because their ESG screened funds "immeasurably damages our state’s oil and gas economy." The firms affected are, almost without exception, European firms (Schroders PLC) with some American operations. The list of 348 individually banned funds and ETFs includes the Brown Advisory Sustainable Growth Fund (BIAWX) which is in my portfolio and all versions of the ESG-screen S&P 500. The link downloads an Excel spreadsheet. Tab one are the forbidden companies and two tab are the forbidden funds.
The largest move pursuant to that policy is the newly announced decision by the Texas State Board of Education to pull $8.5 billion from BlackRock for suspicion that it's pursuing sustainable investments as a way of "privileging liberal goals." BlackRock argues that it factors in ESG metrics because they are financially significant data points. Illustrating what some might perceive as hypocrisy, BlackRock and others also highlight the fact that they continue to invest heavily in the fossil fuel industry. Fox News describes the withdrawals as "a stunning blow to the ESG movement."
In related news, as of 19 March 2024, the ESG-screened version of the S&P 500 has outperformed the full S&P 500 over the past year. And the past two years. Also the past three years, four years and five years (per Morningstar interactive chart of SNPE versus VOO.
Across multiple time periods, ESG screened funds with some US equity exposure (US centered, global, mixed asset) perform about as well as non-screened funds; that is, 51-55% have top half returns since inception, over three years, over five years ...

Good interview on where the US is -

Einstein (among others): Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler.
How about callable bonds or CDs? If interest rates stay higher, longer, then they won't get called and you may be able to eek out a slightly higher yield that way. The question is how much you are willing to risk.
Last Dec I bought a small 9 mo CD, callable in 6 mo, in my inherited Roth IRA. That was money dedicated to this year's RMD. Interest rates had been declining since Sept 2023 and this CD had the best return I could get. No big loss if rates continued declining and it got called in June. But it seemed that expectations for rates to continue falling decisively were overblown.
Right now, that CD is quoted at $100.02 - no increase in value. That's why one doesn't buy brokered CDs expecting liquidity. But they're fine for targeted purposes (like a Q4 RMD). Getting one that is callable can be a reasonable bet if one is expecting "higher for longer".

EM ex-China was in response to Fed TSP move to shift its I Fund from broad MSCI EAFE to something ex-China/HK, and that is now MSCI ACWI ex-China/HK.
So, a reality is that such ex-China/HK indexes have been developed after some huffing and puffing. Whether this commercially catches on, $78 billion TSP I Fund won't care.
A few years ago, Asia ex-Japan indexes were developed for commercial reasons when Japan just couldn't get up. Let us see how they will do in the current Japanese market run to new all-time highs (in yen; still ways to go in $s).
https://www.govexec.com/pay-benefits/2023/11/tsp-board-oks-new-international-fund-index-time-without-china/392049/
https://www.tsp.gov/plan-news/2024-02-05-I-Fund-benchmark-index-change-in-2024/