I have used QUSIX and QUSOX since David wrote a nice article about it in 2015. It has beaten the index overall, although it is more volatile and is in about the top 1/3 of int small cap value funds per M*
MFO classifies it as "Int Small cap core" so it doesn't show up on a "int small/mid cap value screen"
It has been lagging a bit recently. I have not dug into the reasons why

I agree there are serious issues with many emerging market countries. A lot of them are stuck with authoritarian corruption that does not improve the investment climate.
China, given it's size and recent aggressiveness will probably have a greater impact on investment outcomes than South Africa for example.

@sma3 I agree. Not sure, however, that the “aggressiveness” has been only recent. Been apparent for a while. Here’s a 2 year old State Department Bulletin titled CHINA'S MILITARY AGGRESSION IN THE INDO-PACIFIC REGION. (Caps taken from document)

Whether it is your statement or hers, it still leaves me confused. When segregating 72(t) balances from other balances is offered as a merely a recommendation, the inference is that with care one could combine balances without seeing retroactive 10% taxes. It speaks of "help" in preserving the plan and "risk" of breaking rules, not of certainty.
My understanding is that any altering of balances (which would appear to include commingling) automatically breaks the rules. That goes beyond "risk" all the way to certainty. What am I missing? How could one not segregate balances without breaking the rules?
Again, none of this seems specific to SECURE 2.0. Once you're allowed to transfer 72(t) account assets, even if restricted to full transfers, the issue of transferring assets to an existing IRA (commingling assets) arises. And if you've got two accounts taking series of SEPPs, the question of commingling balances in either of them is the same regardless of how those SEPPs were set up. You could have set up a different series of SEPPs on each account independently (even before 2.0), or as a single series of SEPPs on one account that was then split (post-2.0)).
The ability to split accounts doesn't seem to create any new commingling issues.

The arguments we discussed in the two essays I linked to allow that "less intertwined with China" might not be the managers' goal. In at least some cases, it's simply a desire to avoid the level of uncertainty - hence unpredictable risk - involved in investing in a country where party politics trump corporate managers' decision-making. (Not looking at DeSantis as I write that.)
To Lewis's point that "free countries" aren't necessarily free countries, yep. The world is complex and confounding. The Freedom 100 ETF relies on a third party who created an algorithm that incorporates 80 quantifiable metrics related to personal and economic freedom. I haven't examined the system (yet, might if we profile the fund but I'm still trying to figure out whether the manager is crazy or sane), but I could easily imagine that factors which aren't consistently quantifiable (Putin, e.g.) aren't accounted for. The questions might be (1) is the direction right - is freer, better? and (2) is the central tendency of the list right - are these countries, on whole and on average, meaningfully freer than most of their peers?
Back to grading.

If you are a baseball fan you know the term small ball. If not, it means trying to score runs without hitting a home run. I have been tracking money market and brokered CD’s at Schwab. In the last month the steady rise of MM fund rates has ground to a halt while brokered CD rates have moved up,,,even moving out from the shortest terms.
MM SWVXX. FEB 8. 4.41%. Today 4.48%
12 month CD. 4.75%. 5.25%
24 month CD. 4.55%. 5.25%
36 month CD. 4.25%. 5.00%
My question for those with greater insights than I. Does this relative increase in intermediate term and a flattening of the shortest term(Money Market) rates have any meaning going forward?

With possibly one exception, we're in vehement agreement.
I don't see this as a Santos level of deception
What Artisan wrote is obviously not at that level. I thought I made that clear in writing:"Artisan is embellishing; Santos was (and is) lying." Even if Artisan is lying, it's minor.
Therein lies the one possible difference in how we view this. You have carefully used the word "deception". I'm willing to opine that Artisan saying that Samra was an Oakmark manager is a lie.
As evidence of knowing falsehood I point to the Artisan legal filings where Artisan takes care to describe Samra as a former analyst for Oakmark. When someone says one thing to the public and another in legal documents (SEC filings, depositions, etc.), it's likely they know what is true and what is puffing.
Not a grand deception, but a deception nonetheless. What's the benefit? Which sounds more impressive to retail investors - that your manager came over to Artisan with previous management experience, or that he just has prior investment experience? I can turn your question around. If there's no benefit to this deception, if in fact it is nothing but a purely innocent mistake, then why hasn't Artisan corrected it?
It's not worth my time to check whether this, um, misstatement goes all the way back to 2002 when Samra jointed Artisan and it might have been more helpful to Artisan. However, supporting my speculation that mentioning Samra's history at Harris Associates (accurate or not) had more value before Samra developed a long track record with Artisan is the fact that his Harris history is included in earlier Artisan prospectuses (e.g. this 2006 prospectus), but not in the more recent ones (post 2011).

”Aside from ‘practical’ considerations, ie how much of a hit would I really take, there are the moral ones. While many people eschew using ‘moral values’ in investments, as everyone has different ethical values, there is a case to make that many moral issues have legitimate and well founded investment implications.”

Morally speaking, South Africa is a curious choice. Human rights concerns might also deter investments in mining funds, many with holdings there.
”South Africa failed to take meaningful measures to improve protection of social and economic rights, which has been undermined by widespread unemployment, inequality, poverty, the government’s response to the Covid-19 pandemic, and corruption. The authorities struggled to ensure law enforcement responded effectively to some of the worst riots and looting in the country since the end of apartheid. The violent riots triggered by the imprisonment of former President Jacob Zuma for contempt of court claimed more than 330 lives … Other human rights concerns include violence against women, failure to ensure justice and accountability for past xenophobic violence, and violence against environmental activists.
The government’s Covid-19 aid programs, including food parcels during national lockdown, overlooked people with disabilities, refugees and asylum seekers, and many lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) people. Among countries that collect gender-based violence (GBV) statistics, South Africa has one of the highest rates of GBV in the world.
The killing of environmental rights activist, Mama Fikile Ntshangase, in her house in KwaZulu-Natal province, on October 22, 2020, highlighted the plight of rights defenders in mining-affected communities across the country. Activists have experienced threats, physical attacks, and damage to their property because of their activism—which police failed to investigate”
Source

Agreed, but I don't see how Kaczyński and Poland being Holocaust deniers can be good for ethical principles either: https://washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2018/02/01/polands-senate-passes-holocaust-complicity-bill-despite-concerns-from-u-s-israel/ Nor did I care for Duterte's violent homophobic sexist antics or Marcos Jr.'s being born into and benefitting from being a member of one of the most corrupt families on earth. But there are degrees of authoritarianism here.

Thanks @rsorden
Here’s what I came up with for FRDM (top 10 countries by investment)
Taiwan 22.14%
Chile 18.87%
South Korea 18.12%
Poland 13.40%
South Africa 5.89%
Brazil 5.54%
Malaysia 4.92%
Indonesia 4.88%
Mexico 3.46%
Philippines 2.31%
Source
For comparison, the same source lists 27% of DODEX invested in China - which I understand is a source of consternation for many. I’d say it depends on the size and role of an EM fund in your portfolio. My EM exposure is very small - a “long-shot” consisting of 1-2% of total holdings. So if my EM fund held 27% China, it wouldn’t constitute a very large commitment.
Great topic. Thanks for all the insights.

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/799295/000172967823000013/prosai-stkr6919_0323.htm
497 1 prosai-stkr6919_0323.htm SUPPLEMENT TO PROSPECTUS AND SAI
March 8, 2023
BNY Mellon Investment Funds I
-BNY Mellon Diversified Emerging Markets Fund
Supplement to Summary Prospectus, Prospectus and Statement of Additional Information
The Board of Trustees of BNY Mellon Investment Funds I (the "Trust") has approved the liquidation of BNY Mellon Diversified Emerging Markets Fund (the "Fund"), a series of the Trust, effective on or about May 12, 2023 (the "Liquidation Date"). Before the Liquidation Date, and at the discretion of Fund management, the Fund's portfolio securities will be sold and shares held of underlying funds will be redeemed, and the Fund may cease to pursue its investment objective and policies. The liquidation of the Fund may result in one or more taxable events for shareholders subject to federal income tax.
Accordingly, effective on or about April 11, 2023 (the "Closing Date"), the Fund will be closed to any investments for new accounts, except that new accounts may be established by participants in group retirement plans if the Fund is established as an investment option under the plans before the Closing Date. The Fund will continue to accept subsequent investments until the Liquidation Date, except that subsequent investments made by check or pursuant to TeleTransfer or Automatic Asset Builder no longer will be accepted after May 2, 2023. However, subsequent investments by Individual Retirement Accounts and retirement plans sponsored by BNY Mellon Investment Adviser, Inc. or its affiliates (together, "BNYM Adviser Retirement Plans") pursuant to TeleTransfer or Automatic Asset Builder (but not by check) will be accepted after May 2, 2023.
Effective on the Closing Date, the front-end sales load applicable to purchases of the Fund's Class A shares will be waived on investments made in the Fund's Class A shares. In addition, as of that date, the contingent deferred sales charge ("CDSC") applicable to redemptions of Class C shares and Class A shares of the Fund will be waived on any redemption of such Fund shares.
To the extent subsequent investments are made in the Fund on or after the Closing Date, the Fund's distributor will not compensate financial institutions (which may include banks, securities dealers and other industry professionals) for selling Class C shares or Class A shares subject to a CDSC at the time of purchase.
Fund shares held on the Liquidation Date in BNYM Adviser Retirement Plans will be exchanged for Wealth shares of Dreyfus Government Cash Management ("DGCM"). Investors may obtain a copy of the Prospectus of DGCM by calling 1-800-373-9387.
6919STK0323

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1591556/000159155623000015/stk62530323.htm
497 1 stk62530323.htm SUPPLEMENT TO PROSPECTUS AND SAI
March 8, 2023
BNY Mellon Investment Funds II, Inc.
- BNY Mellon Alternative Diversifier Strategies Fund
Supplement to Summary Prospectus, Prospectus and Statement of Additional Information
The Board of Directors of BNY Mellon Investment Funds II, Inc. (the "Company") has approved the liquidation of BNY Mellon Alternative Diversifier Strategies Fund (the "Fund"), a series of the Company, effective on or about May 12, 2023 (the "Liquidation Date"). Before the Liquidation Date, and at the discretion of Fund management, the Fund's portfolio securities will be sold and shares held of underlying funds will be redeemed, and the Fund may cease to pursue its investment objective and policies. The liquidation of the Fund may result in one or more taxable events for shareholders subject to federal income tax.
Accordingly, effective on or about April 11, 2023 (the "Closing Date"), the Fund will be closed to any investments for new accounts, except that new accounts may be established by participants in group retirement plans if the Fund is established as an investment option under the plans before the Closing Date. The Fund will continue to accept subsequent investments until the Liquidation Date, except that subsequent investments made by check or pursuant to TeleTransfer or Automatic Asset Builder no longer will be accepted after May 2, 2023. However, subsequent investments by Individual Retirement Accounts and retirement plans sponsored by BNY Mellon Investment Adviser, Inc. or its affiliates (together, "BNYM Adviser Retirement Plans") pursuant to TeleTransfer or Automatic Asset Builder (but not by check) will be accepted after May 2, 2023.
Effective on the Closing Date, the front-end sales load applicable to purchases of the Fund's Class A shares will be waived on investments made in the Fund's Class A shares. In addition, as of that date, the contingent deferred sales charge ("CDSC") applicable to redemptions of Class C shares and Class A shares of the Fund will be waived on any redemption of such Fund shares.
To the extent subsequent investments are made in the Fund on or after the Closing Date, the Fund's distributor will not compensate financial institutions (which may include banks, securities dealers and other industry professionals) for selling Class C shares or Class A shares subject to a CDSC at the time of purchase.
Fund shares held on the Liquidation Date in BNYM Adviser Retirement Plans will be exchanged for Wealth shares of Dreyfus Government Cash Management ("DGCM"). Investors may obtain a copy of the Prospectus of DGCM by calling 1-800-373-9387.
6253STK0323

@hank Check out FRDM Freedom 100 Emerging Markets ETF
https://freedometfs.com/frdm/

@msf, I have put that text under quotes now (it was implied before). It is from the M* article by Denise Appleby (@ApplebyIRA at Twitter, LINK). I acknowledged on Twitter that her's was the first time that I saw this about 72T. It wasn't in any of the links from Kitces or the good links that you had provided on MFO.

Analysts matter greatly, and I wish fund sponsors would provide information about them as well as their management teams. My comment was intended to be narrowly focused on exactly what Samra did at Oakmark. Had he been a portfolio manager there, then Oakmark would have provided information about him.
I remain troubled by the fact that Artisan presents Samra as a former portfolio manager at Oakmark. Here's another page from Artisan, this one about their International Value Team. Here too Artisan says that Samra was a portfolio manager at Harris Associates (Oakmark).
https://www.artisanpartners.com/individual-investors/investments/international-value-team.html
Artisan is a little more careful elsewhere on the page, though. It writes: "Portfolio management averages more than 21 years of investment experience." While that may lead the reader to infer that the team averages 21+ years of portfolio management experience, all that it is claiming is that the team on average has been involved in professional investing for 21+ years.
Such "embellishment" is what Santos said he was doing with his CV. Artisan is embellishing; Santos was (and is) lying.

@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.

Interestingly, the Cares Act and the Secure Act 2.0 have withdrawal provisions that were and are worth keeping in mind. With the Cares Act we borrowed and returned retirement money over the three year reporting window.
I believe with the Secure Act 2.0 anyone can (withdraw and return) $1K (over a 3 year reporting period) from your qualified accounts penalty free for a "self certified emergency", $22K if one experiences a federal emergency, and unlimited penalty free withdrawals for a terminally illness (wow).
first-look-at-the-secure-2-0-act

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

In that otherwise very good article - I got confused by the data in several charts. For instance - what is the beginning date for Chart #2? I just can't get my head around VFINX only declining 8.3%.
Charles - when did that 1 year begin?
Thanks
Dan

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

@Crash - just stumbled across one today that might be right up your alley NYCB.

Thanks, Mark. I will go and look. :)
....Looks marginally good. I'll keep an eye on it. My trusted website calls it a "HOLD" right now--- on the edge of "overweight." Down 3% today. My BHB has not been making me jump up and down with joy lately. To be expected, I suppose. 14% from target price after today.