The Secure Act 2.0 has been discussed here, but during the busy holiday period; so I'm placing this review.
In particular, for my emphasis, the immediate below for IRA RMD's. While you or yours may not turn 72 in 2023, you may know someone who is.....so, pass this along, as many are unlikely aware of the change for RMD's. The link below reviews Secure Act, 2.0.
*** The age at which owners of retirement accounts must start taking RMD's will increase to 73, starting January 1, 2023. The current age to begin taking RMDs is 72, so individuals will have an additional year to delay taking a mandatory withdrawal of deferred savings from their retirement accounts. Two important things to think about: If you turned 72 in 2022 or earlier, you will need to continue taking RMDs as scheduled. If you're turning 72 in 2023 and have already scheduled your withdrawal, you may want to consider updating your withdrawal plan.
Review of Secure Act 2.0 legislation passed in December, 2022. Note: One may reject 'all cookies' and still read the article.
Remain curious,
Catch

Thanks msf
Not a big hurtle to clear if you are really interested. Not that it will do much good.
Most people ignore the proxy voting they get from their stock companies anyway, bu tif you look there are always a few radical proposals
Vanguard Fidelity and State Street etc and other biggies have been criticized for automatically voting with management. Even if they set up a system to allow holders of their funds to vote proxies, most people will ignore them.
Engine No 1 got three board seats on Exxon's board with a smart dedicated activist campaign among large stockholders, (they only owned $12,500,000 in stock ).
https://time.com/collection/time100-companies-2022/6159495/engine-no-1/
I think this is a far better way to approach climate change than divestment.
Their new ETF VOTE proposes to use their ownership of SP500 companies to vote in similar changes focused on "the power to create good jobs, reverse climate change, fight
gender and racial injustice, and bring greater accountability to the
economy’s largest companies."
This will probably not address @BenWP original concern that ABBV was using legal loopholes to continue making billions .
Such strategies technically, (if not morally) are certainly in the best interest of ABBV shareholders, if not the patients or taxpayers. Engine No 1 made the argument that Exxon ignoring CO2 production was a bad business decision.

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/277751/000119312523019359/d114209d497.htm
497 1 d114209d497.htm 497
Janus Investment Fund
Janus Henderson International Opportunities Fund
(the “Fund”)
Supplement dated January 31, 2023
to Currently Effective Prospectuses
and Statement of Additional Information
On January 27, 2023, the Board of Trustees of the Fund approved an Agreement and Plan of Reorganization that provides for the merger of the Fund with and into Janus Henderson Overseas Fund (the “Acquiring Fund”) (the “Merger”).
The Merger is subject to certain conditions, including approval by shareholders of the Fund.
The Merger is expected to be tax-free for federal income tax purposes; therefore, Fund shareholders should not realize a tax gain or loss as a direct result of the Merger. The Merger, however, may accelerate distributions, which are taxable, as the tax year for the Fund will end on the date of the Merger. In connection with the Merger, shareholders of each class of shares of the Fund will receive shares of a corresponding class of the Acquiring Fund approximately equivalent in dollar value to the Fund shares owned immediately prior to the Merger. Investors who are Fund shareholders of record as of February 24, 2023, will receive a proxy statement/prospectus which includes important information regarding the Merger. Only Fund shareholders as of February 24, 2023, are eligible to vote on the Merger. Therefore, if you purchased shares of the Fund after February 24, 2023, and assuming shareholders of the Fund as of that date approve the Merger, any shares of the Fund you hold as of the Merger closing date will automatically be converted into shares of the Acquiring Fund.
Effective on or about February 13, 2023, the Funds will no longer accept investments by new shareholders. Until such time as the Merger is implemented, existing shareholders of the Fund may continue to purchase shares of the Fund, unless the Board of Trustees determines to limit future investments to ensure a smooth transition of shareholder accounts or for any other reason. Shareholders of the Fund may redeem their shares or exchange their shares for shares of another Janus Henderson fund for which they are eligible to purchase at any time prior to the Merger. Any applicable contingent deferred sales charges (“CDSC”) charged by the Fund will be waived for redemptions or exchanges through the date of the Merger. Exchanges by Class A shareholders into Class A Shares of another Janus Henderson fund are not subject to any applicable initial sales charge. Please check with your intermediary regarding other Janus Henderson funds and share classes offered through your intermediary.
A full description of the Acquiring Fund and the terms of the Merger will be contained in the proxy statement/prospectus that will be sent to shareholders of the Fund of record as of February 24, 2023. The Fund and the Acquiring Fund have similar investment objectives, principal investment strategies, and risks. The portfolio managers of the Acquiring Fund will continue to manage the Acquiring Fund if the Merger is approved, and the Acquiring Fund’s stated investment objective and policies will not change as a result of the Merger. Janus Henderson Investors US LLC encourages you to read the proxy statement/prospectus when it is available as it contains important information regarding the Merger.
This supplement is not an offer to sell or a solicitation of an offer to buy shares of the Acquiring Fund, nor is it a solicitation of any proxy. For important information about fees, expenses, and risk considerations regarding the Acquiring Fund, please refer to the Acquiring Fund’s prospectus and the proxy statement/prospectus relating to the Merger, when available, on file with the Securities and Exchange Commission.
* * *
Shareholders of record as of February 24, 2023, are expected to receive a proxy statement/prospectus, notice of special meeting of shareholders, and proxy card, containing detailed information regarding shareholder proposals with respect to these and certain other matters. The shareholder meeting is expected to be held on or about May 18, 2023. If approved, the Merger will be effective on or about June 2, 2023, or as soon as practicable thereafter.
Please retain this Supplement with your records.

CNN has some background & an update. Notable is that $2.5 billion local offering (record for India) went through as planned. Some thought that size and/or price would be reduced. Seems strange for an above-market (now) offering to be fully subscribed at the last minute. Seems both Hindenburg and Adani have rabbits in their hats.
https://www.cnn.com/2023/01/31/investing/india-adani-hindenburg-report-explainer-intl-hnk/index.html

Fidelity as a Mutual Fund Co has very good service online. Seems their local rep calls you only if invested thru them. Otherwise, they'll refer to their 800 Rep. Fidelity's main Incoming $ client base may be thru the company's 401K type employees /customers, with different 800 Phone numbers vs Retail brokers like Schwab.
How's Schwab's service?
TiA.
Majick

ISTM the Barron’s (Roundtable) gurus made some predictions on where the S&P would end this year. Ranged from a low at / below 4,000 to around 4300 (David Giroux on the high end). Sorry - have scanned the back issues and can’t locate those predictions. Thanks for sharing your update Yogi.
To be honest I pay little attention to the S&P. (Yes - I realize one should). The Dow ISTM is a good indicator of public sentiment (if nothing else) because so many Mom & Pop investors are attuned to it. Still tends to be the headline-grabber on big up / down days. Of course, both are largely U.S. focused. Certainly there are developed markets in Europe / Japan and elsewhere as well as a wide range of undeveloped markets to be possibly included in a long term portfolio.
Added: What is helpful to me to a degree is watching the % of change + / - in a particular asset or index. Last year was a “gift-horse” in the sense the indexes peaked early in 2022. So, simply pulling up the YTD return gave you a pretty good approximation of the amount of loss from peak. Not that easy now, though there are ways to compute peak to present as well as 1, 3, 5 year gains or losses. I think I’ve alluded in the past to being a bit of a bottom-feeder. Heights in general bother me.
Actually, simply ”Googling” a stock or fund’s ticker symbol now pulls up an incredible amount of current / backward-looking data. Use it almost daily.

These days threads and info get dated quickly.
SP500 faces a strong test at 4,100. But some sentiment indicators (Deemer-BAM, Whaley, etc) and a trifecta of seasonality indicators (with near certainty, today) have triggered that may carry SP500 over 4,100 (we will see in the next few days). This may happen regardless of the tough-love message by Powell tomorrow to "fix" the fed fund futures market expectations of 25-25-5Holds-1Cut.
During the selloff in 2022, I increased my equity exposure that is now beyond my 40-60% effective-equity range. My plan is to scale that back when we are in 4,300-4,600 range. But, if 4,100 fails, I will reassess.
https://stockcharts.com/h-sc/ui?s=$SPX&p=D&yr=1&mn=0&dy=0&id=p63951820077

You can always put forth a proposal for the annual meeting if you own shares directly.
While that's what many people think, that's not quite the way it works.
Companies don't want Johnny-come-latelies buying a share just before the record date just to introduce a proposal at an annual meeting. Rather, they want you to have some skin in the game before they accept your proposals for a vote. Not much skin, but skin nevertheless.
The law allows a company to require shareholders submitting proposals to have a small but substantial pecuniary interest in the company. In 2020, the SEC "adopted amendments to Exchange Act Rule 14a-8, the shareholder-proposal rule."

[It] amend[ed] Rule 14a-8(b) by:

• replacing the current ownership threshold, which requires holding at least $2,000 or 1% of a company’s securities for at least one year, with three alternative thresholds that will require a shareholder to demonstrate continuous ownership of at least:
  • $2,000 of the company’s securities for at least three years;
    
  • $15,000 of the company’s securities for at least two years; or
    
  • $25,000 of the company’s securities for at least one year.

https://www.sec.gov/news/press-release/2020-220
For completeness (and to split hairs even more finely), you don't necessarily have to own shares directly (i.e. be shareholder of record) in order to submit shareholder proposals.
What I think you're alluding to are the limited rights that mutual fund owners have with respect to the underlying companies in the portfolio. There, fund owners don't even hold company shares indirectly. Often indirect ownership is sufficient. The most common example likely being street name ownership.
Again looking at Rule 14a-8:

There are two types of security holders in the U.S.: registered owners and beneficial owners [footnote omitted]. Registered owners have a direct relationship with the issuer because their ownership of shares is listed on the records maintained by the issuer or its transfer agent. ...
The vast majority of investors in shares issued by U.S. companies, however, are beneficial owners, which means that they hold their securities in book-entry form through a securities intermediary, such as a broker or a bank. Beneficial owners are sometimes referred to as “street name” holders. Rule 14a-8(b)(2)(i) provides that a beneficial owner can provide proof of ownership to support his or her eligibility to submit a proposal...

https://www.sec.gov/corpfin/staff-legal-bulletin-14f-shareholder-proposals

+1.

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/923184/000119312523002397/0001193125-23-002397-index.htm
Matthews Asia Dividend Fund
Matthews China Dividend Fund

A few odd things really stand out about this announcement.
1. First, word on the street is that Yu Zhang left Matthews (probaby obvious, but some may think he is just coming off of managing his fund). If true, this is the most senior portfolio manager to leave. Not only is Asia Div one of the biggest funds at Matthews (nearly $2bn of assets), its also the 3rd biggest active managed Asia fund in the U.S. (only PRASX and MAPTX are bigger). I think Yu had been with Matthews since 2005?
2. Joyce Li, who was a co portfolio manager of Asia Dividend and China Dividend funds, also resigned on December 30, 2022. See her filing below and linkedin, confirming her departure. That's just 30 days before Yu Zhang resigned per the filing above.
Why would Matthews file these two departures as two separate filings when they happaned so close together? It's never good to file these forms when a PM departs, so it was in Matthews best interest to file them together, once.
This tells me that Matthews had NO IDEA that Yu Zhang was departing and it came as a total surprise.
Look at the filing for Joyce's departure on Dec 30, 2022. They make it VERY clear that "Yu Zhang, CFA, will continue to act as a Lead Manager of the Matthews Asia Dividend Fund". Yet he leaves less than 30 days later?
Something is up.
A shame what has happened to Matthews. They continue to bleed investment talent.
https://www.streetinsider.com/SEC+Filings/Form+497+MATTHEWS+INTERNATIONAL/21020185.html
https://www.linkedin.com/in/sjoyceli/

The further out on the duration curve you go the worse you will do if interest rates spike back up. Many people have alluded to the "Second spike" in the 60's and 70's, after the Fed had controlled inflation one time.
The "Market" seems to think interest rate hikes are over. Three year treasuries are paying less than 12 month bills ( 4.29 vs 4.73)
LT bonds will do well only if there is a "soft landing " or if there is a typical recession/depression without inflation, ie no stagflation.
I think the risk of stagflation is not nothing, as war and famine and extreme weather events will keep costs higher than they might have been.
I am hedging my bets and buying longer term bonds and funds and ETfs in small percentages ( 3-8%). As they pay less than short term bonds, you have to assume that either interest rates will be sig lower in a year, and you will get a nice increase in price of LT funds.

@BenWP
It is hard to avoid "participating" in the misfortune of others if you buy any stock or bond, the way the world is set up. Even Treasuries support the activities of our Government which are hardly 100% benign.
I try to avoid Companies where I think one individual ( usually the founder) is really doing evil things to society and is insanely rich because they own a large amount of that stock and retain control.
META is my personal example, after Zuck got involved in the election . Some people hate Peter Thiel's activities so much they refuse to use PayPal.
ESG investing is a big mess as there are so many different definitions.
A more effective way to impact companies is probably to buy some of the new funds that are purposely trying to elect new board members at a Company to change course.
Look at NETZ and VOTE .
You can always put forth a proposal for the annual meeting if you own shares directly. I have never done it but every meeting of XOM there was a lady who owned 300 shares proposing they stop producing fossil fuels. NETZ however was successful.

Fund Allocations (Cumulative), 12/31/22
There was notable decrease in the allocations to stock funds, & those for bond & m-mkt funds rose; hybrid allocations held. Y-o-Y, combined AUM fell -16.16%. The changes for OEFs + ETFs were based on a total AUM of about $29.58 trillion in the previous month, so +/- 1% change was about +/- $295.8 billion. Also note that these changes were from both fund inflows/outflows & price changes.
OEFs: Stocks 51.35%, Hybrids 6.73%, Bonds 20.32%, M-Mkt 21.61%
ETFs: Stocks 80.05%, Hybrids 0.47%, Bonds 19.48%, M-Mkt N/A
OEFs & ETFs: Stocks 57.85%, Hybrids 5.31%, Bonds 20.13%, M-Mkt 16.71%
https://ybbpersonalfinance.proboards.com/thread/245/fund-allocations-cumulative-monthly?page=2&scrollTo=915

+1

It looks like he will send anyone who asks his reports. I signed up just for kicks, not that I short stocks.
The date on this one on his web site is 1/24, although I don't know when the email went out. The stock didn't start down for a couple of days.
It will be interesting to see what happens to his next target.
His previous target, WELL, has gone up not down

Previously noted in December 2022 commentary...
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1141819/000089418923000662/riverparkstrategicincome48.htm

@LewisBraham
Thank you for your kind response and discussion.
America's tortured history of race indeed should be discussed in schools at all levels, including discussions about the motivations of slaveholders in the Revolution.
But I am trying to make the point that the approach to subjects like these needs to be done in a very careful, well researched manner that will encourage the people whose minds are perhaps still a little open to participate in the discussion.
By that I mean extreme care should be taken to avoid statements and opinions that either political extreme can pick up and run with, such as "one of the primary reasons ... was because they wanted to protect the institution of slavery".
But I don't think extreme care was taken in the lead 1619 essay. Professor Leslie Harris was asked to fact check the essay before they published it and warned Hannah-Jones and the NYT this statement was inaccurate
"On August 19 of last year I listened in stunned silence as Nikole Hannah-Jones, a reporter for the New York Times, repeated an idea that I had vigorously argued against with her fact-checker: that the patriots fought the American Revolution in large part to preserve slavery in North America."
(The quote comes from the article below which is also a good summary of the rapid increase in the last 30 years in American Historical scholarship on slavery, which Harris applauds and has been part of and claims that Gordon Wood has not)
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/03/06/1619-project-new-york-times-mistake-122248
The NYT eventually backed down, sorta, " We stand behind the basic point, which is that among the various motivations that drove the patriots toward independence was a concern that the British would seek or were already seeking to disrupt in various ways the entrenched system of American slavery". Not very convincing is it?
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/11/magazine/an-update-to-the-1619-project.html
I do not really know the NYT editors motivation in publishing the original statement, but ideology certainly seems to have payed a part, rather than a rigorous search for the truth.
The right wing has unfortunately used this to ban 1619 books, and now AP courses in African American history ( which does include sections that some parents would find inappropriate for high school), and now a few people and one right wing foundation are attempting to muzzle basic support for diverse viewpoints and LGBT people in any school n Michigan, because state law allows parents to opt their child out of "sex education".
https://popular.info/p/inside-the-audacious-new-scheme-to
You should look at it "Judd at popular information" on Substack, He does an immense amount of work tracking down dark money supporting these legislative movements, and tracks corporations spending on politics very carefully. Most corporations claim they support equal rights for women, LGBT, and election integrity but give lots of money to election deniers, and bigots. Their money has clearly been a major source of the divisive poisonous political atmosphere we find ourselves in.
It is unclear to me why US corporations believe that fostering these political confrontations will be positive in the long run or good for their business. I assume they are too scared not to cough up the cash, after seeing what happened to Disney in Florida.

Too hot, too cold; or ??? GDP relatively strong, employment numbers, inflation data at the input and consumer levels, and any other gauges watched by the FED and the 'pundits' bring different perspectives and suggestions of where to invest or what the near future will bring. As I/we don't know who is buying what or for which reason(s); I will have to remain with watching and discovering price actions with bond sectors. This doesn't really provide a proper reason to want to buy bonds now; BUT I remain inclined to have a favorable view for 2023 so far. Some folks are chasing yields wherever they find them; as the FED has continued rate increases. If the yields come from bond funds, vs MMKT; AND the FED does slow the rate increases for the next several months, then the bond fund investor should benefit from a bond price increase lending to a better return on the investment. I'm not able to have a 10 year projection, as is the case with some; so our portfolio is always subject to some changes. Our investment boat tends to be slow moving; without a lot of trading, as we no longer have the time or inclination for this activity. Dollar Cost Averaging and time (compounding) remains the best investing friend for most; including bond area participation.
Tuesday, mid-day. Equity down a bit, and IG bonds acted more traditional with yields down/prices up.
Bond yields looking forward relative to layoffs, too ??? Perhaps part of an answer.
Scroll down in linked pages below for affected companies.
2022, U.S. Corp. layoffs
2023 U.S. Corp. layoffs, near dated
$U.S. value inflection point relative to both equity and bond rallies near the October 25 time frame. One would think there are other forces in play; but this may be a piece of the pie.
Relative to the below performance info for this week: Most bond returns in the list were positive this week. Several bond sectors remain with YTD returns as good as, or better than some U.S. equity sectors.
*** I was away much of the week and weekend; so not very much input.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---Several selected bond funds returns since October 25, 2022. I'll retain this date, as it is a recent inflection point when bonds began to have positive price moves. We'll need to watch if this was just a 'blip'.
NOTE: I've kept the prior dated reports in the beginning of this thread; and have added YTD to this data.
For the WEEK/YTD, NAV price changes, January 23 - January 27, 2023
***** AGAIN, this week, FZDXX, MMKT yield has remained at 4.27/8% for one month. The core Fidelity MMKT's have continued a slow creep upward to about 3.95%. The holdings of these different funds account for the variances at this time.
--- AGG = -.01% / +3.2% (I-Shares Core bond etf) widely used bond benchmark, (AAA-BBB holdings)
--- MINT = +.11% / +.78% (PIMCO Enhanced short maturity, AAA-BBB rated)
--- SHY = -.06% / +.69% (UST 1-3 yr bills)
--- IEI = -.2% / +1.96% (UST 3-7 yr notes/bonds)
--- IEF = -.15% / +3.4% (UST 7-10 yr bonds)
--- TIP = +.45% / +2.54% (UST Tips, 3-10 yrs duration, some 20+ yr duration)
--- VTIP = +.15% / +.86% (Vanguard Short-Term Infl-Prot Secs ETF)
--- STPZ = +.14% / +.92% (UST, short duration TIPs bonds, PIMCO)
--- LTPZ = +.2% / +7.55% (UST, long duration TIPs bonds, PIMCO)
--- TLT = +.48% / +7.2% (I shares 20+ Yr UST Bond
--- EDV = +1.1% / +9.8% (UST Vanguard extended duration bonds)
--- ZROZ = +1.2 / +10.1% (UST., AAA, long duration zero coupon bonds, PIMCO
--- TBT = -.9% / -13.1% (ProShares UltraShort 20+ Year Treasury (about 23 holdings)
--- TMF = +1.2% / +21% (Direxion Daily 20+ Yr Trsy Bull 3X ETF (about a 3x version of EDV etf)
--- BAGIX = +.2% / +3.23% (active managed, plain vanilla, high quality bond fund)
*** Other, for reference:
--- HYG = -.01% / +3.44% (high yield bonds, proxy ETF)
--- LQD = -.05% / +4.81% (corp. bonds, various quality)
--- FZDXX = 4.28% yield (7 day), Fidelity Premium MMKT fund
*** FZDXX yield was .11%, April,2022. The rate of rise in the yield remained flat again this week, but not decreasing.

Comments and corrections, please.
Remain curious,
Catch

+1 This article describes Springfield, OH, I believe.

If I were still teaching high school, but now in magaland, this would be about the only kind of material examples possible, but then, it's still about all you need to know:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2021/12/06/black-couple-home-value-white-washing/
Possibly, if I was careful, I could add in material about the very neighborhood whither I moved at age 7 and grew up in thereafter, until heading East for college, the project of the father of redlining, whose work is here very gently described:
tinyurl.com/56bh3hfk