HSAFX is available with a transaction fee at Schwab and Vanguard-not available at E-Trade.

Unavailable also at Merrill Edge. But it is available at Firstrade (all funds NTF). At least it shows up at Firstrade if one logs into an account ($500 min); it isn't on Firstrade's public list of funds.

Abby Joseph Cohen * is a panelist in “Round II” of Barron’s Annual Roundtable (current Barron’s print edition). Her five recommendations for investment in 2023 include TROW. Some interesting thoughts about the firm as well about active management.
(Cohen): “My last pick is T. Rowe Price [TROW] … We are entering a period when good active management of portfolios is going to make a difference, after an extended time in which the market was largely momentum-driven. People invested in market-capitalization-weighted index-oriented strategies, such as exchange-traded funds, which became self-fulfilling ‘prophesies’, until they didn't. This approach led to a high concentration in the indexes of a small number of stocks which grew overvalued. A handful of good active managers were left by the wayside …..
“The company's mutual funds outperformed their benchmarks 76% of the time in the past 10 years. T. Rowe … pioneered no-load mutual funds. The idea was to provide a high-quality product with low fees. The company's funds still tend to have fees at the lower end of the spectrum. The stock hasn't performed well in the past year, and it has an attractive valuation. It is trading for 13 times trailing 12-month earnings, with a dividend yield of 4.3%. The consensus earnings estimate for next year is $7.74 a share …..
”If you believe that the U.S. economy will expand, T. Rowe will grow with it. The P/E ratio and dividend yield offer a layer of protection. The 52-week range on the stock is $93 to $194. The stock was trading on Jan. 6 at around $112. The concerns are priced in. What isn't priced in is greater interest in active investment.”
(Excerpted from Barron’s - January 23, 2023 / edited for brevity)
* Cohen once worked at T. Rowe Price as an analyst and had a long distinguished career at Goldman Sachs. She currently teaches business at Columbia University, NYC.

Thanks for your reply @sma3 .. Things are better now. You're right about the movement south. When the snow birds return it's a longer wait for an appointment.
SP/5 Derf

The Time Zones don't compute for me: I'm 2 hours behind L.A. and 3 hours, in summer. I would bet that Vonnie Quinn's brogue has held her back. Speaking as an Irishman, here. Seems to me she's done some work, rounding-out her words. She appears resistant to reciting that stupid spiel whenever any of them finishes their reports: "...128 countries on 14 continents, ... yada yada... THIS is Bloomberg." Wifey is Filipina, so I notice Lizzy Burden. Another is Kailey Leinz. Univ. of Virginia product. I want to have her children.
https://www.lizzyburden.com/
Burden is a fashion model, too.
https://www.bso.org/profiles/kailey-leinz
Emily Chang is from Kailua, and went to school just up the block from where I live.

Another of them is named Yu. A real looker.

Here's that Pimco Jan. 11 outlook piece Clarida referred to (very detailed): Cyclical Outlook: Strained Markets, Strong Bonds.
Didn't realize he's a Pimco guy.
The missing piece in all the Fed discussions is this: what measurement are they talking about when they refer to the 2% inflation target? Clarida's statement that inflation now is running "about 5%" means he's looking at year-over-year change -- which, if that's also the Fed's take, at least in part contradicts his point that the Fed is "forward looking."
Nothing says backward looking like a year-over-year measure, but what that choice would mean for the economy and investing is that they're going to stick with tightening for a good while beyond what more current measures of inflation would indicate is the best course of action, and so yes, the risk of overtightening is very real. I hope they're going to be willing to change course when needed. (They're not idiots; just very careful with communication, and in some ways not all that transparent.)
P.S. Thanks @Bee; I'd forgotten to look for WealthTrack episodes lately, and this one was for sure worth a listen.

“I have nothing against Jonathan Ferro but Katy Greifeld is very easy on the eyes.”
That appears to be a requisite for women working at the network. Have always wondered if Mike does the screening himself … ?
Vonnie Quinn is one of my favorites for all around personality and talent. For whatever reason she no longer appears daytimes, but occasionally surfaces from NY on their late night lineup.
Dani Burger seemed to drop into their post-midnight broadcasts a few months back from out of nowhere. Extremely attractive, knowledgeable and gifted overall - but young and rough around the edges as a broadcaster. Been fun watching her grow professionally.
Photo Album

Jan 20, 2023 Episode

As we move into 2023, the best advice for investors remains the same – “Don’t fight the Fed.” The Federal Reserve is being clear about its intentions to continue raising short-term interest rates and tapering its bond purchases until it reaches its target of bringing inflation down to 2%.
Richard Clarida, a highly respected expert in Fed policy and Vice Chairman of the Federal Reserve under Chairman Jerome Powell, will be discussing these topics and more in this episode.

Excellent, @Crash. Came here for the link and you already had it posted.
They even touched on EM debt ... which is already running hot. But how long will it last?
Good bit of talk about the risk of Fed overtightening. Two of them seemed to think if the Fed does what they've put out there -- 5%+ terminal, no cuts in 2023 -- that will be overtightening.
Nothing ever about munis, but then it's a fairly small slice of the whole market, so the big houses don't much care about them, I guess. But they're pretty important for individual investors.
Issuance overall is really ramping up.

Check the volume of its trades. Zero shares most days; others a couple of hundred; occasionally a couple thousand. Out of 5.42M shares; 5.21M public float. No wonder some trades greatly affect the price.

Important to remember the intent of why legislation forcing debt limits was created in the first place.
The intent was to give the Treasury more flexibility, not to constrain the Treasury or Congress.
As noted in the first line of Congressional Research Service's report The Debt Limit: History and Recent Increases, "Congress has always restricted federal debt."
https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/RL/RL31967
For more than half of the United States' existence, Congress restricted the federal debt by allowing no borrowing except as explicitly authorized. For example, Congress authorized the issuing of three series of 50 year bonds (2% 1906, 2% 1908, 3% 1911) for the specific purpose of building the Panama Canal.
https://www.theherbstmancollection.com/panama-canal-loan
Not only was borrowing restricted to explicitly authorized debt instruments, but usually the debt could not be rolled over. When Congress authorized the issuance of a bond, it did not authorize issuing a subsequent bond to pay for the first when it matured.
Over time, Congress gradually changed how the federal government borrowed money. It delegated micromanging of the debt to the Treasury. Instead of Congress deciding how many bonds would be issued at what rates and at what maturities, this task was handed over to the Treasury. Congress also transitioned from borrowing individual amounts for specific purposes to setting a single aggregate borrowing limit that among other things enabled the rolling over of debt.
In 1917, attached to the Second Liberty Bond Act, was a statement that read in part:

It is obvious that the orderly and economic management of the public debt requires that the Treasury should have complete freedom in determining the character of securities to be issued and should not be confronted with any arbitrary limitation.

https://www.finance.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/SRpt71-1836.pdf
Congress still set a limit on the amount that the Treasury could borrow, but gave the Treasury free rein on the terms of the debt instruments. At the time, Congress set separate limits on different types of securities. Finally, in 1939 Congress created a single debt ceiling, giving Treasury even greater flexibility in determining the form as well as the terms of debt instruments.
On debt before 1939, see:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5866584/ (easier, shorter)
https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w21799/w21799.pdf
https://www.imf.org/external/np/seminars/eng/2015/goode/pdf/sargentpaper.pdf
(by same authors, slightly different material)

update:
Share class conversion:
https://www.sec.gov/ix?doc=/Archives/edgar/data/1587982/000139834422018766/fp0079713_497-ixbrl.htm

I don't understand why the Democrats didn't lift the debt ceiling last month when they still controlled all three branches of government? It takes a simple majority in both House and Senate and the signature of the President to do so.
They could have easily done it before December 31, 2022.
Not trying to be partisan, but were they playing politics and not thinking of what's good for the country? What am I missing?
Fred

Keystone Cops, eh?

@davidrmoran I don't quite get the debt-to-GDP fixation. To me, as a country matures as first a developing, then a developed nation, it makes sense that GDP slows and more of its citizens financial wherewithal is in assets like stocks, bonds and real estate as opposed to income from GDP production. Developed nations are starting from a high GDP production base--the law of large numbers applies to their growth--and they generally have older populations who are less productive as they retire. The older populations stem from better healthcare as well as the fact that education comes with development and women have less children as a result. Thus, the workforce ages and GDP growth slows. So, I don't understand why the debt-to-GDP ratio is so significant when the wealthiest Americans have so much accumulated non-GDP producing wealth that is largely untaxed or taxed at a much lower rate than income. In short, America needs a real wealth tax to pay down its debt. Yet there are obvious political problems with getting such a tax passed: https://npr.org/2021/11/13/1054711913/progressives-wealth-tax-super-rich-elon-musk-jeff-bezos What could work is some sort of tax treaty that bars any sort of tax shelters between trading partners globally so there can be no skipping town once a wealth tax is imposed.

yes, I won't touch China with my money until there is a sea change.

What I have in mind is civil rights, human rights. Free speech without Thought Police. Freedom of movement. (Occupied Palestine is also a place without Freedom of movement.) Freedom to assemble. Voting without pre-cooked elections. (But, as Churchill said: "the best argument against democracy is a 5-minute conversation with the average voter." My experience bears that out. But at least the system cannot be blamed for lazy, uninformed minds, here in the West.)

mmm...I started a thread https://big-bang-investors.proboards.com/thread/1959/bond-future-musings
Keep reading until you get to a post saying "As promised, my posts about what I do would be late by weeks instead of days (you know why). Let's start from the end. My first "nibble" wasn't 1-2-5%, it was 20+% and within days I was in at 99+% first time after I sold early in 2022."
There are no longer posts within days of what I do, as I have done before. See this example
https://www.mutualfundobserver.com/discuss/discussion/55299/bond-mutual-funds-analysis-act-2/p2

@LewisBraham: true about risk of clash between India and Pakistan. Comparing what I’ve read about the shenanigans that go on daily on the Kashmir border, these guys outdo what the two Koreas have done at their border since 1953. I have visited the DMZ in Korea, a truly bizarre and frightening place for a peace lover. How they have avoided another outright war is a puzzle.

Gates/restricted-redemptions are spreading. After Blackstone BREIT, Starwood SREIT, now is KKR KREST.
@hank, recent posts on this thread have been on gates for nontraded-REITs that started a few months ago. Media posts have been alarmist on this, but these gates are allowed if requests exceed periodic & optional offers.
​https://ca.finance.yahoo.com/news/kkr-caps-withdrawals-real-estate-165237465.html

Thanks for your thoughts Lewis.
Each of those concepts you mentioned were new discoveries (not inventions). IOW's new to man but not new to Earth's physics and capabilities under our sun since day one. But 'nothing new under the sun' refers to human nature (fear and greed and selfishness) which will never change and has us in the boat we are in today. $245,000 in debt per remaining US taxpayer. The last inflationary cycle in the 70's had Federal debt at <$1B and today's possible higher interest rate cycle (and along with it the upcoming problem of interest expense) with today's debt of $31T. I hope we emerge.... but the math is not encouraging. Dalio's work focused on 500 years of the history of capitalism and how debt always is the culprit in falling empires. Thus, history repeats itself. Reserve currency has enormous power.

@shipwreckedandalone I wonder if the T-Rexes and other dinosaurs, when they spied the Chicxulub asteroid descending towards them during the Cretaceous period, thought, "There is nothing new under the sun." Or if the Neandertals thought that when they saw the homo sapien tribes approaching? Or when a Sumerian King first saw a wheel rolling towards him in Mesopotamia? Or what the royals in Europe thought of American and French democracy? Or what the Newtonian physicists thought when they first heard of Einstein's quantum mechanics? Or what the editors of NewsWeek were thinking in 1995 when they published an article titled "The Internet? Bah!", which reacted against the idea that this silly digital blip was going to infiltrate and replace elements of our everyday lives? This screen we're all staring at right now is something very new under the sun historically speaking and it has radically altered life as we know it. Why is it guys like Dalio think only entrepreneurs can be innovative and change history--hint, too much Ayn Rand--but governments or ordinary humans can't? Yes, history is cyclical, but it also progresses, for better and for worse. Today, for instance, individual rights are better worldwide than they were 1,000 years ago, but our environment is so much worse. Both of those facts require new ways of thinking, about government and commerce especially.

@FD1000 - Here’s what I wrote in this same thread on 1/1/23 …
”The talking heads and market gurus I monitor mostly speak optimistically of a splendid 2023 for longer dated bonds. In particular, Rick Rieder of Blackrock appears to have trouble ‘containing’ himself during interviews on this point.”
So I and Rieder might have gotten out in front of your freaking genius prediction. Can’t tell here what date you made your call. Your reference to date currently reads: “I posted in early 11/2022”. The number “11” would indicate late in 2022 (not early). No longer share my own market views, so can’t give my take on the present investment environment. But Rick Rieder, referenced above, is a pretty sharp bond dude.
Should add:
- The issue of whether someone investing for retirement wants to allocate 100% of their long-term money into government bonds (or any other type of bond) remains an open question - and something I’m not going to comment on.
- A mere mere 2.5 weeks into a new year is a very short time to assess that year’s total performance of any asset class.