Being able to do a partial transfer/rollover of an account with 72(t) distribtutions is nice, but it begs the question why would one want to do that? The usual advice, especially with respect to (employer-sponsored) retirement plans is to do full rollovers.
Jeffrey Levine (Kitches.com) has a nice discussion of many of the SECURE 2.0 Act provisions. He offers a good example of why one might want to do a partial transfer. In short, because there might be an investment opportunity that would lock up the money (e.g. CD). To take advantage of that opportunity while still being able to make the requisite distributions, one retains some of the money in the original account for withdrawals. See Example #5.
https://www.kitces.com/blog/secure-act-2-omnibus-2022-hr-2954-rmd-75-529-roth-rollover-increase-qcd-student-loan-match/
I am a bit confused by the recommendation on Yogi's page. "IRA owners and plan participants should keep 72(t) account balances segregated from other amounts."
ISTM 72(t) accounts must be segregated. 72(t) withdrawal amounts are based on the entire balance of the account being used. And you're not allowed to add money to the account once the withdrawals commence. That appears to originate with RR 2002-62 Section 2.02(e). So there's no commingling at the start of withdrawals, and no commingling after that.
Thus keeping 72(t) account balances segregated seems to be a requirement, not a recommendation. And this has little to do with SECURE 2.0. Prior to that Act, one could not do a full transfer into an existing IRA with a nonzero balance. 2.0 allows partial transfers, but the restriction appears to remain intact - one cannot do a transfer, partial or full, into an existing IRA.
The only effect that 2.0 seems to have on distributions is that while the total amount of the 72(t) distribution must be based on the combined balances of the split account, one is free to make the exact requisite withdrawal amount from any combination of the 72(t) accounts (that resulted from the split). In this respect, the 72(t) calculation and execution is like an RMD calculation and execution done across multiple accounts.

@bee, excellent points.
I have been tracking implications of the new Secure 2.0 for individuals and there are several. This about 72T came to my attention only recently.
The Rule of 55 is also good but, as you noted, it doesn't apply to old 401k/403b. So, one must leave work in the 55-59.5 time window. I have participated in discussions elsewhere about some people hanging on to their old 401k/403b for the benefit of Rule of 55, just in case, but it isn't applicable if one left work before 55.
The best thing to do is to avoid tapping IRAs as much as possible. But people should be familiar with these early withdrawal tricks without the 10% penalty.

I believe there are other IRA penalty free withdrawal provisions worth considering before considering a 72T withdrawal.

You can withdraw funds from your 457(b) plan penalty-free at any age once you leave your employer or retire. You won't owe an early withdrawal penalty even if you are not yet 59 ½, but you will pay federal and state income taxes on the withdrawal.

what-are-the-rules-for-withdrawing-from-a-457b
also,

What Is the Rule of 55?
Under the terms of this rule, you can withdraw funds from your current job’s 401(k) or 403(b) plan with no 10% tax penalty if you leave that job in or after the year you turn 55. (Qualified public safety workers can start even earlier, at 50.) It doesn’t matter whether you were laid off, fired, or just quit.
This rule applies to current – not former – 401(k) or 403(b) plans. The government does not permit penalty-free withdrawals before 59.5 from plans you had with a previous employer. If you want access to that money under the rule of 55, you would have to transfer those funds into your current 401(k) or 403(b) plan.
You won’t have to pay the penalty if you take distributions from a 401(k) early for these reasons:
- You become totally and permanently disabled.
-You pass away and your beneficiary or estate is withdrawing money from the plan.
-You’re taking distributions to pay deductible medical expenses that exceed 7.5% of your adjusted gross income.
-Distributions are the result of an IRS levy.
-You’re receiving qualified reservist distributions.

401k-403b-55-rule

72T uniform withdrawals allow PENALTY-FREE (but TAXABLE) withdrawals from retirement accounts (IRA, 401k, 403b) before the age of 59.5. However, the rules are COMPLEX to prevent excessive withdrawals & are very RIGID – once started, there couldn’t be any changes & the program must continue for 5 years or to age 59.5, whichever the later (even if there is risk of running out of money, triggering premature termination penalties). A less noted provision of the new SECURE 2.0 allows some flexibility for 72T in making partial transfers and rollovers after 12/31/23.
https://ybbpersonalfinance.proboards.com/thread/249/uniform-withdrawals-retirement-accounts-72t?page=1&scrollTo=964

It’s really hard to listen to these guys when they jump around like this. So we should jump into the SPY for a 2.5% rally?? It’s kind of a silly call.

We're down 1.6 on the SPX right now, so after this 'major crash' I'm sure the pundits are saying it's time to start buying, right? *growls*

There is always risk. The question is are you being rewarded enough for taking it? Unlike Russia, China's economy is so intertwined with ours, it is virtually impossible to avoid completely, even if you want to. Here's one example: https://investopedia.com/articles/investing/040115/reasons-why-china-buys-us-treasury-bonds.asp

China has steadily accumulated U.S. Treasury securities over the last few decades. In August 2022, the Asian nation owned $971.8 billion in Treasurys, roughly 13% of the U.S. national debt. U.S. debt to China comes mainly in the form of U.S. Treasury securities (bonds issued by the federal government).

To me, the idea, pushed by some politicians here, that we can just de-couple from China completely, without dire consequences, is absurd.

I think it is hard to believe that Xi will follow international banking and Finance standards and regulations after seeing what Putin has done to all of above and to accepted moral standards without much adverse consequences. The fact that Russia hasn't collapsed and Putin hasn't been assassinated must be encouraging to Xi. That may be why the new foreign minister ( previously China ambassador to US) came out with such a hard line speech yesterday.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/conflict-china-us-inevitable-new-foreign-minister-warns-rcna73705
They are clearly upping the anti. Some predict Xi will invade Taiwan next year while US is preoccupied by election. He must be very encouraged to hear the right wing of the GOP try to stiff Ukraine.
If this does happen, it will not just be Chinese funds that will crater; all risk assets will crash. TSM will be wiped out, as all of their factories will be rubble.
Somehow I doubt that would make INTC shoot upward. The implications for the world economy would be very very negative; far worse than Covid and far far worse than Ukaine. After an invasion, what other country, especially in Asia, would ever want to do business with China again?
These global implications are why I think it is unlikely China will invade, but they are likely to do almost everything else they think they can get away with. Canceling US ADRs and refusing to allow US funds to be re-patriated would be easy.

It’s really hard to listen to these guys when they jump around like this. So we should jump into the SPY for a 2.5% rally?? It’s kind of a silly call.

"Previous charge" makes it sound like Samra was a fund manager (even if not the lead) on OAKIX. No question about ARTKX doing better than OAKIX, just about what Samra was actually charged with at Harris.
It's true that he worked in Harris' international group, but that's as much responsibility as Sama was charged with. His name doesn't appear in any Oakmark prospectus (based on spot checking) in his Harris years of 1997-2002.
One does find statements that he worked as a portfolio manager at Harris, e.g.

Prior to joining Artisan Partners in May 2002, Mr. Samra was a portfolio manager and a senior analyst in international equities at Harris Associates LP, from August 1997 through May 2002.

https://www.artisancanvas.com/?filter=tag+eq+artisan-canvas:authors/david-samra
Though what Samra himself says is:

I worked in the international group there with a very famous value investor, David Herro, who still operates the Oakmark International, Oakmark International Small Cap Fund. And I worked there for five years and left there in 2002. By then I had had almost 10 years worth of experience as an analyst and decided that like to try employing my own philosophy, and I found a terrific home here at Artisan. We launched the International Value Fund in 2002.

https://mebfaber.com/2020/04/29/episode-216-david-samra-the-primary-driver-of-our-behavior-is-finding-a-company-that-trades-at-a-discount-to-intrinsic-value/
At least he was a whole lot closer to being responsible for a fund than Santos got to working at Goldman Sachs. For all we know, Santos was just a copyboy for a company (LinkBridge Investors) that in turn did business with GS.
https://people.com/politics/fact-checking-the-george-santos-claims-from-goldman-sachs-employee-to-college-volleyball-star/
Side note: curiously, there appears to be a Jorge Santos who is a VP at GS. Scroll down to #46 in this Yahoo piece.
https://www.yahoo.com/video/the-e-mpower-top-50-future-ethnic-minority-leaders-2019-230100555.html

Now you guys have me worried.
At the start of 2022, I started my position in EM fund RNWOX, the Rondure New World fund. This fund, I believe, has been neck and neck with SFGIX for risk adjusted returns. In fact, if you put their trends on top of each other, there is little difference in return and volatility. At the time I was looking for an EM fund, the manager, Laura Geritz, spoke more positively about increasing positions in India more than China. China was about 20% of the fund when I bought, lower than the avg EM fund. Now, China has increased to about 27% as @sma3 states. I assume the change is based on stock value given this fund has a value tilt.
I still think this is one of the better EM funds to own, low risk, above avg returns, a 5* fund. I don't plan any changes. I think if China starts to renege on financial obligations, they will destroy their own economy and disrupt all markets. So, I don't plan any changes... yet.

@catch22, 360 CD deal looks OK to me (5% for 11-mo CD) - as can you see from the rate schedule, it is a promotional offer as the rate for 11-mo sticks out. I also looked at "Read Disclosures" at the bottom, and didn't see any catch. It may be hoping that once people open an account, they will keep it open. BTW, 5% for 12-mo CD is common and for those, it has 4.15%.
I only have 360 Performance Savings that is offering 3.40% (low; the best national rate is much higher). This a/c is linked for some bank transfers I do, so I keep just enough for that purpose.
My irritation has been that its promos are geared towards new a/c.
https://www.capitalone.com/bank/cds/online-cds/

Hi @yogibearbull
You noted previous in this thread regarding Capital One CD offers. I was contacted by an in-law today about the Capital One, 5% APY, 11 month CD, "360 Performance Saving", on line offer. Is there anything, hidden in the fine print, for a new customer as to having to maintain an account, if they choose to take the monies from the CD after it matures? I ask, as I've seen offers requiring to maintain an account with bill pay and such.
You mentioned: FWIW, I have Capital One a/c. But what I don't like is that it keeps coming up with new a/c with higher yields ("360 Performance Saving" is the latest) and leaves legacy savings at low levels (they exist but not even shown on the website).
Thank you,
Catch

@msf: I continue to be befuddled by M*'s romance with Harris, Oakmark, Herro, and Nygren. Does M* have no way to send these underperforming hurlers to the showers?

Oakmark and Oakmark International have generated good long-term returns albeit with plenty of volatility.
OAKMX trailing 10 Yr. and 15 Yr. returns (through 02/28/23) beat 98% of funds in the Large Value category.
OAKIX trailing 10 Yr. returns and 15 Yr. returns beat 77% and 99% of Foreign Large Value funds respectively.
Since both funds are very volatile, investors may find them difficult to hold long-term.

Morningstar also named Bruce Berkowitz (Fairholme) fund manager of the decade in 2010. From Morningstar website today, FAIRX trailing returns: 10 year 5.83%, 15 year 5.25% (vs. SPY 10 year 12.34% and 15 year 9.8%). I can't remember when Morningstar started negative or neutral rating on FAIRX but it wasn't till 2013 maybe. Somehow, I didn't (and I still don't) get the memo that index funds are the way to go.

Credit Suisse has reached an agreement with the [current] owner of the First Boston brand to use the name for its new investment bank spinoff ...
Credit Suisse took over First Boston in 1998 after forming a joint venture with the bank in 1978.
Following the takeover, the Swiss bank continued to run its investment banking activities in New York under the brand name of Credit Suisse First Boston until 2005.
...Credit Suisse was considering an option to reintroduce the First Boston brand ...

https://www.privatebankerinternational.com/news/credit-suisse-first-boston-2/

"Shares of Credit Suisse have erased about 95% of their value since the summer of 2007 after years of scandals and losses."
You mean there was a towel left to throw in?
With the exception of Mass Mutual Overseas fund (rated 3* or 4* depending on share class), all of the nine funds co-managed by Herro are rated 2* or 1*. Those include his flagship OAKIX and its clone NOIAX, both rated 1*.
Still, M* analysts rate those two funds "gold". And "Morningstar named [Herro] International- Stock Fund Manager of the Year for 2006 and again for 2016, and also International- Stock Fund Manager of the Decade for 2000–09."
https://www.morningstar.com/articles/812708/10-questions-with-david-herro
Continuing from that 2017 M* page:

How do you handle the scrutiny that comes with being such a large shareholder in controversial names such as Credit Suisse CSGN: CH?
You stay focused on doing what is best for your clients, which means pushing managements to stay focused on long-term value creation.

Keeping your eye on the ball doesn't help when the ball keeps bouncing lower and lower.

Mark Mobius, in a Fox News interview discussing in Fortune, claims that China doesn't want to let him move his money out of the country.

Mobius, founder of Mobius Capital Partners, has been a longtime booster of Chinese equities, yet revealed why he’d changed his mind ...
The investor revealed that he had funds trapped in an account with HSBC in Shanghai. “I can’t get my money out. The government is restricting the flow of money out of the country,” he said.
Mobius continued that the Chinese government was “putting all kinds of barriers” in his way. “They don’t say, ‘No, you can’t get your money out,’ but they say, ‘Give us all the records from 20 years of how you’ve made this money,’ and so forth. It’s crazy.”

We've written about both successful EM funds with low China exposure (2021) and funds that, by prospectus, exclude China (2023).
By coincidence, China's premier stepped down yesterday after 10 years in office. His departure was described as "marking a shift away from the skilled technocrats who have helped steer the world’s second-biggest economy in favor of officials known mainly for their unquestioned loyalty" to Xi (AP, 3/5/23).
Both of the Seafarer funds are China-light, about 9% weight against a peer average of 28%. My other EM fund, Grandeur Peak, is about 11% China.
For what caution it suggests,
David

Wilson noted the gap between reported earnings and cash flow is the widest in 25 years, driven by excess inventory and capitalized costs that have yet to be reflected.

He sees next resistance at 4150, about 2.5% higher than Friday's close.
“We believe it does not refute the very poor risk reward currently offered by many stocks given valuations and earnings forecasts that remain way too high, in our view.”
.

Morgan Stanley's (MS) strategist Mike Wilson has been among the most bearish strategists. It is a tough life for bearish strategists on the Wall Street. Firms' sales teams can't make much money if their strategists are downright bearish. So, eventually, such analysts are either proven right, or are fired.
This is why MS Mike Wilson has been in the news so much.
But now he is flipping! He is still bearish but says that this rally has room to run, and then collapse.
Twitter LINK cites Bloomberg but that is behind paywall.