It appears that Bramshill is trying to attract more investors. In addition of the high ER, it is on transaction-fee platform, $49.95 to purchase at Fidelity. Here is the fund’s performance since inception.
https://fundresearch.fidelity.com/mutual-funds/performance-and-risk/89832P515?type=sq-NavBar

Stable value fund is available in my 401(K) plan. It is an insurance product that invest in short term treasurys but has the liquidity like money market fund. I found stable value fund to be quite useful especially in stress time.
I seldom use it until late 2021 when I swapped the entire bond index fund and most of stock index fund to it as signs of inflation was increasing. The move worked it okay (small gain) by year end in 2022 and that is good enough for us. Who would thought both stocks and bonds went down simultaneously in 2022.

I might have pointed to Larry Summers as the Democratic poster boy for deregulation.

Between 1992 and 2001, Summers held various positions in the US Treasury Department, including that of Treasury Secretary from 1999 to 2001. Summers has described the 1990’s as a time when “important steps” were taken to achieve “deregulation in key sectors of the economy” such as financial services. He has also said that during this period government officials and private financial interests collaborated in a spirit of cooperation “to provide the right framework for our financial industry to thrive.” Summers recommended before he left the Treasury Department that removing policies that “artificially constrict the size of markets” should remain a priority for the US government.
Along with Robert Rubin and Alan Greenspan, Summers brought about elimination of key US financial regulations including the Glass-Steagall Act. He was particularly aggressive in his efforts to block regulations of derivatives, regulations that might have prevented the economic meltdown the US suffered in 2008. According to economist Dean Baker, "The policies he promoted as Treasury Secretary and in his subsequent writings led to the economic disaster that we now face."

https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Larry_Summers
That's some of what Summers did while he was working in the government. In contrast, Barney Frank had left Congress years before attempts were made to weaken Dodd-Frank. As a private citizen, and as the bill in question was reaching the House for a vote, he wrote an opinion piece titled: "Why I would vote 'no' on Senate bill to amend Dodd-Frank".
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/03/01/barney-frank-why-i-would-vote-no-on-senate-bill-to-amend-dodd-frank-commentary.html
Though while objecting to the bill, he did not excoriate it. One of his objections was that the threshold for subjecting "large" banks to the most stringent level of examination was set too high. He would have preferred $125B, as opposed to $250B.
Both Dems and Reps voted to loosen regulations. Bags of pus
The opposition to the legislation, though in the minority, was also bipartisan. One Republican voted no.
If calling that bipartisan sounds a bit weird, consider that 83% of the Democratic representatives voted against the legislation, while 99.6% of voting Republican representatives supported it.
https://clerk.house.gov/Votes/2018216

You can also hold the paper bonds yourself, perhaps in a safe deposit box.
The mail in process isn't hard, though a tad more tedious than one would like. And you only have to create that second account once.
As I've posted before, the USPS lost one $50 refund savings bond of mine (out of a $5000 total). TD replaced it many months after I reported it as never having been received. Unfortunately the replacement was another paper bond.
So while you might have $1200 to send in, I'm stuck with a single $50 bond to have and to hold (or to mail in). I mailed in (converted) the other $4950 long ago.

I thought I knew what stable value funds in a 401k were. I used them for years, but what you show looks to me more like an annuity. See below statement. It's confusing to me that you can buy these TIAA products at these types of rates as a savings vehicle. Rates are better than treasury rates and CDs. I'm sure I'm missing something.

Rates shown above are based on a 67-year old choosing a single life annuity with a 10-year guarantee period or a joint life annuity with a 20 year guarantee period.

Stable-value (SV) funds are available in several workplace 401k/403b plans. Among the 2 largest are TIAA Traditional and Federal TSP G Fund. There are also various flavors of TIAA Traditional. These rates are revised monthly and I have been tracking them at MFO since mid-2022. There was a minor format change last month from a long-running continuous thread to separate monthly threads.

+1.

TIAA Traditional (Accumulation) Rates
No changes.
Restricted RC 6.25%, RA 6.00%
Flexible RCP 5.50%, SRA 5.25%, Newer IRAs 3.45%
TSP G Fund hasn't updated yet (previous monthly rate was 4.125%).
Options outside of workplace retirement plans include m-mkt funds, bank m-mkt accounts (FDIC insured), T-Bills, short-term brokered CDs.
#401k #403b #StableValue #TIAA #TSP
https://ybbpersonalfinance.proboards.com/thread/142/stable-value-sv-rates-monthly?page=2&scrollTo=995

thanks Seems like a lot of trouble for $1200 refund. I think I will just apply it to estimates.
Maybe if I overpaid by $5000 it would be more worthwhile!

Lewis is right, I"ve done this. The conversion is easy but a nuisance.
The TreasuryDirect instructions are here:
https://treasurydirect.gov/savings-bonds/manage-bonds/convert-paper-to-electronic/#id-how-do-i-convert-my-ee-or-i-bonds--508815
Basically, you create a separate (linked) account for converted bonds. You create a manifest (list) of bonds to convert, including their serial numbers and other info. You mail the savings bonds along with that manifest (printed out), and (these days) a few months later they'll show up in your account.
There's no rush because you can't cash them out for at least a year. And should they get lost in the mail (either coming to you as part of your refund or going back to Treasury Direct), you can request replacements.
The awkwardness is in having to handle the paper bonds and in having a different account number for the bonds at TD. Still a single login, so it's not too bad. And how often do you need to log in to look at these set-and-forget savings bonds?

I think the proposal to increase the FDIC limit (to say $1,000,000) and prorate the expense to the size of insurance you want makes the most sense
The costs of the insurance should all be borne by the beneficiaries with a reasonable surplus every year to allow for future payouts. The program could run with a 3 to 5 year look back provision, so very large payouts occasionally could be replaced by future payments into the fund
Most people and small businesses would only need one bank account but banks like SVB could continue to force some customers to keep larger accounts with them but pay for insurance. If you don't want to buy insurance, you are on your own.

BRMSX (Institutional class) New minimum $1,000 / ER 1.3% Thanks @TheShadow. But “No Thanks” to the fund.

Although I agree with some of what Bernstein says here, I find it amusing for him to use the term "rational investor" in the same article he uses the term "riskless." Nothing in life is riskless. Investors call T-bill interest the "risk-free rate" because it is backed by the "full faith and credit" of the U.S. government. In the short-time frame that T-bills have to mature, that is a fairly safe bet, although the debt ceiling debate shenanigans currently reveal how even a T-bill is not truly riskless. But 30 years? 30 YEARS. I can barely predict what is going to happen tomorrow in the U.S. or in my own life let alone 30 years from now. To assume that a 30-year TIPS is riskless if you hold it to maturity is a mistake.
Securities markets are not rational. People are not rational. Spock, or our inner Spock as Bernstein describes it, is a fictional television character I think certain men with a scientific bent aspire to as a role model. Yet the show was interesting enough to expose the flaws in Spock's beliefs--yes, belief, not absolute fact--in reason. And Spock, and the investment models and algorithms "rational" investors use are also designed by flawed humans to measure other flawed humans financial behavior.
There's a reason physics, chemistry and biology are called the "hard sciences" while economics and psychology are called soft sciences, and even the former despite the scientists in those fields attempts at objective measurability are subject to human biases. I'm not sure finance even qualifies as a soft science as a subset of economics. It's very difficult to determine what is luck and what is skill in this field.
Yet it is very important from a marketing perspective to present certain professional investors as rational. That is the emotional subtext behind this veneer of rationality in the investment management business--greed for investor assets. The usual line of advertising goes: These extremely educated investors approach finance as a science and have developed a never-fail rational and repeatable scientific system for beating the market. See how well that worked with the Long-Term Capital hedge fund.
Alternatively, the line of advertising logic goes for indexing "scientists": Our data of the last 100 years indicates in the long-term the market rises. In every ten year period if you just bought and held, you would have had strong positive performance, and beaten the active managers. And because this was true in the last 100 years we are now going to extrapolate into eternity that owning an index of U.S. stocks is a good idea because human history and global history always repeat themselves.
The irony to me is the most predictable thing in finance may be the fees professional investors charge for us to believe in them. I would add this is where Bernstein, Bogle, and indexers are, for the most part, rationally right. Bogle aways said it wasn't the efficient market hypothesis he subscribed to. It was the costs matter hypothesis.

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/44402/000089843223000188/form497.htm
Neuberger Berman Equity Funds® (“Equity Funds”)
Neuberger Berman Greater China Equity Fund
Neuberger Berman Global Real Estate Fund
Supplement to the Summary Prospectuses and Prospectuses, each dated December 19, 2022, and the Statement of Additional Information, dated December 19, 2022, as amended and restated March 3, 2023, as may be further amended and supplemented
On March 30, 2023, the Board of Trustees of the Equity Funds approved:
● the conversion of Neuberger Berman Greater China Equity Fund (the “Greater China Equity Fund” or “Mutual Fund”) to a newly organized series of Neuberger Berman ETF Trust (the “China Equity ETF” or “ETF”); and
●the conversion of Neuberger Berman Global Real Estate Fund (the “Global Real Estate Fund” or “Mutual Fund”) to a newly organized series of Neuberger Berman ETF Trust (the “Global Real Estate ETF” or “ETF”) (collectively, the “Conversions”).
Each Conversion will be effected through the reorganization of the Mutual Fund into the ETF.
After the Conversion, it is anticipated that the China Equity ETF will have a different principal investment strategy, will not be sub-advised by Green Court Management Limited and will have different portfolio managers than Greater China Equity Fund. It is anticipated that shortly before the Conversion, investment professionals of Neuberger Berman will assume day-to-day portfolio management responsibilities for the Greater China Equity Fund. More information regarding these changes will be provided to shareholders of the Greater China Equity Fund in a combined information statement/prospectus.
After the Conversion, it is anticipated that the Global Real Estate ETF will continue to have the same portfolio managers and will be managed in a substantially similar manner as the Global Real Estate Fund.
It is anticipated that prior to the Conversion Class A and Class C shares of each of Global Real Estate Fund and Greater China Equity Fund will be converted into Institutional Class. It is expected that Institutional Class of Neuberger Berman Global Real Estate Fund will remain open to new purchases until shortly before its Conversion. Institutional Class of Neuberger Berman Greater China Equity Fund will continue to remain closed to new purchases until its Conversion.
Each ETF will not commence investment operations prior to its Conversion and each ETF’s shares are not currently being offered to the public, nor have they been approved for listing on any exchange. It is anticipated that each Conversion will occur during the third quarter of 2023.
Prior to the Conversion, existing shareholders of each of Greater China Equity Fund and Global Real Estate Fund will receive a combined information statement/prospectus describing in detail both the Conversion and the respective ETF involved in the Conversion. It is anticipated that neither Conversion will require shareholder approval. After the Conversion, it is anticipated that each ETF’s shares will be offered to the public and traded on an exchange.
It is anticipated that each Conversion will qualify as a tax-free reorganization for federal income tax purposes and that shareholders will not recognize any gain or loss in connection with each
Conversion, except to the extent that they receive cash in connection with the liquidation of any fractional shares received in a Conversion.
Effective March 31, 2023, Rule 12b-1 fees on all applicable share classes for Greater China Equity Fund and Global Real Estate Fund will be waived.
The date of this supplement is March 31, 2023.
Please retain this supplement for future reference.
Neuberger Berman Investment Advisers LLC
1290 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10104
Shareholder Services
800.877.9700
Institutional Services
800.366.6264
www.nb.com

FRED already has the BTFP data. $64.4 billion loaned so far. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=120SB

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1261788/000089418923002318/bramshilltapinvestminimums.htm
497 1 bramshilltapinvestminimums.htm 497E
Trust for Advised Portfolios
Supplement dated March 30, 2023
to the Prospectus dated July 31, 2022
for the Bramshill Income Performance Fund
We are pleased to inform you that effective April 29, 2023, the initial investment minimum for the Institutional Class of the Bramshill Income Performance Fund (the “Fund”) will decrease from $100,000 to $1,000 and the subsequent investment minimum will decrease from $5,000 to $100.
Also effective April 29, 2023, the initial investment minimum for the Investor Class of the Fund will decrease from $1,000 to $100 and the subsequent investment minimum will decrease from $100 to no minimum.
Effective April 29, 2023, the following changes are made to the Fund’s Prospectus:
The table under “Purchase and Sale of Fund Shares” on page 7 of the Prospectus is replaced with the table below to reflect the new investment minimums:
Institutional Class Investor Class
Minimum Initial Investment
$1,000 $100
Minimum Subsequent Investment
$100 No Minimum
The first paragraph under “How to Buy Shares” on page 18 of the Prospectus is replaced with the paragraph below to reflect the new investment minimums:
The minimum initial investment amount for the Institutional Class shares is $1,000 and the minimum subsequent investment amount is $100. The minimum initial investment amount for the Investor Class shares is $100 and there is no minimum subsequent investment amount.

There were minor decreases in stock allocations & increases in m-mkt allocations. The changes for OEFs + ETFs were based on a total AUM of about $30.07 trillion in the previous month, so +/- 1% change was about +/- $300.7 billion. Also note that these changes were from both fund inflows/outflows & price changes. #Funds #OEFs #ETFs #ICI
OEFs & ETFs: Stocks 58.38%, Hybrids 5.21%, Bonds 19.89%, M-Mkt 16.52%
https://ybbpersonalfinance.proboards.com/thread/245/fund-allocations-cumulative-monthly?page=2&scrollTo=994

I know many folks cannot afford a subscription to Bloomberg News ( ? $300 a year) but I have found many of the columnists at least as useful as those in Barron's
Money Stuff by Matt Levine is extremely good at explaining very complicate financial and legal nuances, plus he pokes fun at himself!
Programming note: Money Stuff will be off tomorrow and next week, back on April 10. Empirically this is expected to dampen market volatility, though this is not investing advice and past results may not be representative of future performance. But enjoy a nice quiet week in financial markets without me, have fun, try not to break anything.