As one digs a little, it just keeps getting better.
It seems that the 10% performance fee used to be 11%:
https://prdistribution.com/news/tbo-capital-announces-reduction-of-performance-fees-for-all-balances-2.html
The application form lets you send in money and lets you make daily withdrawals. That's an open end fund. But the Terms and Conditions page says that this is a "closed ended [sic] mutual fund".
How many decades of industry experience does it take to differentiate between an open end fund and a closed "ended" fund?
The page goes on to say that "It offers monthly dividends to investors instead of growth option i.e. increase in NAV (share) price."
This begs the question: is it selling shares of its underlying holdings every month and distributing proceeds to keep its NAV from growing?
I think I'll stop now. This is like shooting fish in a barrel. I'll leave with a couple of questions based on this excerpt:

Outperformed 95% of peers over the last six years with less risk.
...
Long-tenured advisors of three PhDs and one MD in internal medicine

What are the 5% of health care fund peers who have made more than 50% annualized over the last six years? Or is this "outperforming 95% of peers" just a made up figure to make it seems that the 50% returns reported are not equally fictitious?
M* premium screener returns no funds of any type with 50% returns over the past five years.
Stringing together the best performing health care fund in each of the last six calendar years, e.g. FSMEX (8.68% in 2016), ETIHX (45.83% in 2017) and so on, one achieves only a 36% annualized return. All actual health care funds returned less than my cherry-picked combo.
Who are the PhDs and MD? TBO Capital names only four principals, and none of them hold any sort of doctorate degree according to their Linked In profiles.

Bengen has been in the press quite a bit lately, with still other values for the "safe" rate: https://www.marketwatch.com/story/why-retiring-this-year-could-be-a-worst-case-scenario-11655488295?mod=brett-arends.
If of interest, the Trinity study is another in this vein (they used a broader mix of asset classes, but also found the 1960s to be the most perilous point). The wikipedia article links to some follow on research: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinity_study

"His original paper was based on just two asset classes, intermediate-term Treasury bonds and large-cap stocks. He has since concluded that by adding a third asset class, small-cap stocks, investors could safely withdraw as much as 4.5% annually."
(Jan of last year.)
from
https://www.barrons.com/articles/the-originator-of-the-4-retirement-rule-thinks-its-off-the-mark-he-says-it-now-could-be-up-to-4-5-51611410402

"His original paper was based on just two asset classes, intermediate-term Treasury bonds and large-cap stocks. He has since concluded that by adding a third asset class, small-cap stocks, investors could safely withdraw as much as 4.5% annually."
(Jan of last year.)
from
https://www.barrons.com/articles/the-originator-of-the-4-retirement-rule-thinks-its-off-the-mark-he-says-it-now-could-be-up-to-4-5-51611410402

Here's a link to the original Bengen paper from 1994 (he of the 4% rule): https://retailinvestor.org/pdf/Bengen1.pdf
Kitces or Bengen, what I like about the research is the reminder that 1929 was not the worst case--the mid-1960s were the worst case. That's because the test portfolio is a balanced mix of stocks and bonds, and withdrawal dollars are adjusted for inflation each year.
After 1929, the bonds in the mix cushioned the decline, and the 25% deflation in the early 1930s allowed dollar withdrawals to be reduced, easing the burden on the shrunken portfolio.
But in the 1960s, bonds went down with stocks, and inflation roared, causing dollar withdrawals to increase dramatically against the jointly declining portfolio.
First six months of 2022 anyone?

Unexpected large mutual fund year end distribution is where it get sticky.
True enough. Though Uncle Sam doesn't require you to pay taxes on money earned faster than you make it. If you have large YE distributions, Uncle Sam is fine with your paying more in the fourth quarter. You "just" have to document your uneven income in Schedule AI of Form 2210.
Over the past several years with cash paying nothing it hasn't been worth it to hold onto that extra money for a quarter or two, and sending it in with the fourth quarter estimate. But now with MMFs paying real interest, it may be worth a second look at paying in estimates as necessary rather than evenly.

I fully agree. That's why I posed the question. I know I checked FINRA and found nothing. All the officers do have bios on LinkedIn with pretty extensive experiences shown. Who knows. The other thing is that on their website they show the top ten stocks invested in. Of those 10 only Eli Lilly has profited YTD. All others are down double digits YTD. Yes agree, red flags all over the place but what stands out is I can't find anything or anyone speaking of them other then them. With those returns I'd be gushing....

FWIW, my wife and I both receive pensions and withhold more than enough to cover our taxes from those payments.
That's all you need. If withholdings cover taxes, you do not have to make any estimated payments.

Generally, most taxpayers will avoid this penalty if they either owe less than $1,000 in tax after subtracting their withholding and refundable credits, or if they paid withholding and estimated tax of at least 90% of the tax for the current year or 100% of the tax shown on the return for the prior year, whichever is smaller.

https://www.irs.gov/taxtopics/tc306

I’m planning to pay the estimated tax by September 15, but I’m still confused about the requirements for Roth conversions. I usually do my conversions in October, so I pay the estimated taxes in January of the following year. However, I’ve done two of them this year — one in May and the other in July — to take advantage of the bear market. FWIW, my wife and I both receive pensions and withhold more than enough to cover our taxes from those payments. Last year, my federal tax refund was about the same amount I paid in estimated taxes, so I don’t understand the point of them.

Still think you are okay to pay in the 3rd quarterly estimate.

When to and how to change your withholding or pay estimated taxes
Check your withholding often and adjust it when your situation changes. To do this fill out a new Form W-4 and give it to your employer. The Tax Withholding Estimator is a helpful tool.
Estimated tax payments are due as follows:
January 1 to March 31 – April 15
April 1 to May 31 – June 15
June 1 to August 31 - September 15
September 1 to December 31 – January 15 of the following year

https://irs.gov/payments/pay-as-you-go-so-you-wont-owe-a-guide-to-withholding-estimated-taxes-and-ways-to-avoid-the-estimated-tax-penalty

Historically, MMFs paid higher rates than bank/CU MMAs. They have to. Why would anyone use a lower yielding, uninsured product that can, and thanks to the Reserve Fund has, lose money?
The GFC and ZIRP turned things upside down. MMF yields would have been negative except that their sponsors subsidized them to keep them afloat. For fund families, that was an acceptable business expense - a loss leader if you wish. But 0.01%, while positive, was not competitive with banks.

If that late spring conversion was in June (summer began June 21st this year), then the taxes would come under the third quarter (Sept) estimate not the second quarter (June) estimate.
If without the estimated payment you'll still have paid in enough to cover taxes for the year, then you should be fine. There's no requirement to overpay taxes, just to pay them in a timely manner. That usually means making equal payments regardless of when you generated income. As Yogi noted, taxes that are withheld are generally assumed to apply evenly over the entire year.
For peace of mind you can make an estimated payment now. Worst case, if that payment was necessary to cover your taxes, then you'll owe interest on the time between when the estimate was due (June 15th) and the time you made the payment. So the sooner you cover the shortfall, the better. (The actual amount of the penalty may be petty; I've never looked at the dollar or percentage figures.)
See Worksheet for Form 2210 that shows penalty calculation is based on number of days between time underpayment occurred (i.e. when estimate was due) and time payment was made.
https://www.irs.gov/instructions/i2210#f63610i01

Oodles of red flags. Starting with performance that would make Bernie Madoff blush. Not a single losing month from January 2016 through June 2022. (I can hardly wait to see it post July results.) Smooth as silk. Just look at the graph.
https://tbocapital.com/performance
No wonder the "prospectus" doesn't say anything about how the fee is handled in a down month (do they multiply their percentage by a negative return?)
That "prospectus" is missing a lot of information aside from how fees are handled (and what the fee is if you invest more than $1.5M). No bios on the fund managers (they claim experience but w/o history), no SAI or other doc with information about how the fund is structured, no tax information, etc.
Did I mention that the numbers are inconsistent? For example, Jan-June 2021 monthly returns given on the performance page total to a cumulative return of 33.27%. But the prospectus gives the 2021 YTD performance as of June 2021 as 29.48%. And the three year return isn't annualized.
There's no 2021 annual report, only one for 2020, and none earlier.
But all this is minor stuff. The kind of information one would look at if a fund were real. It's the more blatant stuff where the fun is.
The domain name/website used to be operated by completely different people selling land development services.
https://web.archive.org/web/20121030031036/http://tbocapital.com:80/services.html
https://web.archive.org/web/20121028192927/http://tbocapital.com:80/about.html
The site went black in 2015 (when the "new" TBO Capital says it started), and the WayBack Machine Archive doesn't show any real text pages until May of this year, e.g.
https://web.archive.org/web/20220518131741/https://tbocapital.com/performance
(The complete list of pages crawled, real or not is:
https://web.archive.org/web/*/http://tbocapital.com/*)
ICANN reports that the website registration is private (no surprise there). Though it gives a mailing address in Iceland.
Kalkofnsvegur 2, Reykjavik, Capital Region, 101, IS
Neither the "managers" of the fund nor TBO Capital show up on either the SEC's or FINRA's site for brokers, firms, etc.
https://adviserinfo.sec.gov/
https://brokercheck.finra.org/
"The SEC typically regulates investment advisers that have assets under management in excess of $100,000,000." The prospectus states the fund has $164M AUM.
And for the regulation wonks: Performance fees are generally prohibited. They are allowed if an offering is restricted to accredited investors (but this fund is open to anyone), or if the performance fee operates on a fulcrum (this doesn't).
With a fulcrum, performance adjustments are symmetric; fees go down if the fund underperforms just as they go up with outperformance.
https://etfdb.com/etf-education/learn-about-fulcrum-fees/ (See Regulatory Considerations)

Estimated taxes are for those situations when the annual tax withholdings may be much lower than taxes due.
Taxes withheld, from pay/pension checks or Roth IRA conversions, count as being spread over the entire year. So, if one does some Roth Conversions late in the year, one can withhold a lot (even 100%). One can also do this by adjusting tax withholding on 401k/403b contributions by calling HR.
Double-check this info as I am not a tax professional, nor pretend to be one on the Internet (-:).

a take on growth, of a sort
https://theovershoot.co/p/is-the-2022h1-gdp-declinefake

Bought a 1-year Wells Fargo Bank CD yesterday from Fidelity at 3.05%. Today, no longer available. Only remaining 1-year CD is from another bank at 2.90%.
Looks like they are selling like hot cakes.
Good luck,
Fred

@Old_Joe : From prior trial, it appears that rates shown @ Schwab aren't available at the bank issuing the rates. I don't know if this statement is 100 % true, but the one bank I looked into in my area showed no cd rate as what Schwab showed. Thus only available thru Schwab.
Have a good day, Derf

Thanks @yogibb. You can drag your finger or mouse pointer from one location to another, and the rates pop right up.
The site also indicated that CD rates are much competitive in larger cities than those of smaller ones. The top 1 year CD rate is about 2.0% (assuming that is real time). Still that is over 1% behind those CDs found in major brokerages.

Our local banks and credit unions does not offer rates competitive to those found in brokerages.
Fidelity and Vanguard offer the same 1 year CDs that yield 3.05%.

Why is this so? In years past my CU's CD rates equaled or exceeded those of major firms.
Now they are far behind.

Sold all TCHP. Up 14+% since buying it about 4 weeks ago. Spread the proceeds around in cash & some more conservative holdings. (Suppose folks will start piling in now.)

way to go, @hank.