I just revisited Grantham's January 5 article. His best guess at that time:

My best guess as to the longest this bubble might survive is the late spring or early summer, coinciding with the broad rollout of the COVID vaccine. At that moment, the most pressing issue facing the world economy will have been solved. Market participants will breathe a sigh of relief, look around, and immediately realize that the economy is still in poor shape, stimulus will shortly be cut back with the end of the COVID crisis, and valuations are absurd. “Buy the rumor, sell the news.”

According to Grantham, it's time to look around (and bail).
So, I'm looking around. The economy is in much better shape than I expected it to be at mid-year and its potential appears brighter than I expected. The Fed and other central banks are continuing to be supportive. And, there is momentum behind an infrastructure bill that has the potential to provide substantial long needed investment in the backbone of the country. Are valuations really likely to collapse in the near future based on valuations being "high"?
One of today's headlines:
Haters everywhere in stock market after S&P 500's big first half
A few brief excerpts from that Bloomberg article:

...the S&P 500’s 14 per cent rally (is) putting it on course for its second-best January through June period since 1998.
In the 27 years when gains in equities were this strong through the first six months, three-quarters of the time stocks continued to march higher by December.
...pushing against the wall of worries are the growing numbers of retail traders who bought the dip during the pandemic bear market and have since become the staunchest allies of this bull market.
The trade-off households face between equities and other asset classes favors equities through year-end given anemic money market and credit yields

I plan to continue harvesting year-to-date gains to restrict my risk exposure.....if the market continues to offer them (that process has provided a substantial boost to my "rainy day" cash on hand so far this year). But no significant other trimming is in the offing....
Is anyone looking around and deciding to bail or to substantially reduce their risk exposure?

- To the OP, that sounds like a horror story.
- I am planning to in-kind transfer a TRP mutual fund (custodial IRA) to Fidelity. If I transfer all the assets in the account, will I be charged an account closing fee? TIA.

It feels like “to Hell and back”. :)
Re your question. It’s $20 at TRP for each closed out account. However, they only applied it to my 5 “liquidate all shares” orders ($100 total). The “transfer in kind” orders were not charged. I wish I’d had the foresight to combine the 3 shorter term bond funds (via exchange) before submitting the paperwork. Would have saved $40.
During my estimated 7-8 hours on the phone with TRP over a week (counting hold times) I tried to shame them into reversing the $60 in fees on the 3 transfers for which checks bounced. Said they’d “call back”. (But I’m not holding my breath.)

Schwab seems to have the clearest description of violations and how they can/must be treated by the broker ("creditor" in the regs). The rules come from Regulation T, and in particular §220.8 covering cash accounts.
https://www.schwab.com/resource-center/insights/content/stock-settlement-why-you-need-to-understand-t2-timeline
I found this part interesting:

Extensions
At Schwab, if you fail to make payment on a purchase of stock or deliver shares for a sale of stock within the designated time frame, you will receive a notification asking that you take action.
If you fail to act upon notification, industry regulations require that Schwab either request an extension, or buy back or sell out the position, as well as mark your account with a freeriding violation. Your account may also be placed on a 90-day settled-cash restriction, or incur more severe penalties, including account closure or removal of electronic access. Again, Schwab clients can request a one-time exception (i.e., once in the life of the account) to remove the restriction.
Schwab doesn't grant extensions for trades in retirement accounts (IRA's, SEP's Keogh's, etc.), or accounts with existing trading restrictions.

I suspect that Schwab doesn't grant extensions in IRAs because of the stringent law against borrowing in IRAs. But that wouldn't seem to preclude waiving the 90 day restriction imposed.
Reg T itself says:

(d)(1) Unless the creditor's examining authority believes that the creditor is not acting in good faith or that the creditor has not sufficiently determined that exceptional circumstances warrant such action, it may upon application by the creditor:
...
        (iii) Grant a waiver from the 90 day freeze.

Certainly there are exceptional circumstances here. If the freeze is important to you, it's worth poking Fidelity about their applying for a waiver.
All of this is bringing back memories of a vaguely similar experience I had with Fidelity. In an IRA I set up an auto purchase of a TF fund. I set the amount to be the available cash in the account. The system permitted this order to go through even though there was a $5 TF added. (Fidelity says that "If the cash needed to fund your automatic investment is not available in your core position, your scheduled transfer will be skipped", so this should have been caught.)
"Fortunately", the purchase was for one of the few OEFs with T+2 settlement. I worked with Fidelity and they agreed that if I were to sell $5 of another holding the next day, a fund with T+1 settlement, that would cover the shortfall. Both trades would settle on the same day.
According to Schwab, that still constituted a liquidation violation:

If an option or mutual fund is sold the day after a stock is purchased, a liquidation violation will be charged even if the proceeds settle on or before the purchase settlement date.

https://help.streetsmart.schwab.com/edge/1.22/Content/Unsettled Funds.htm
Fidelity never informed me that I had committed a liquidation violation.

This is an interesting development for ESG investors. The Engine No. 1 ETF will be seeded with $100 million, has a 0.05% expense ratio, invests like the S&P 500 and will finally vote the right way on ESG issues: https://etf.engine1.com/ That means if it gets a suitable amount of trading volume, it could easily compete with Vanguard's and BlackRock's S&P 500 ETFs, which generally vote against ESG shareholder activists.

...And another quick item: the one single stock I own (in a very small quantity) closed at a share price of $2.91 at the end of the day today. But TRP shows it at $2.95. There's only one word for that: WRONG. I bought those shares using my TRP brokerage account, for ZERO fees. Is the zero-fee aspect actually worth it, though? Ticker: ENIC.

hank I'm sorry to hear of your situation and appreciate all of your contributions to this board ! I've done enough of these ACAT transfers, so that I have to have procedures set in place.First, I verify that the in-kind funds are carried by the receiving brokerage. Then, I try to transfer as few in-kind assets as possible, usually reserving the in-kind procedure for closed funds or funds with a large minimum. I liquidate the mutual funds that I'm not transferring prior to starting the ACAT transfer. Ideally for a full account transfer, I'll be transferring 1 or two funds at most and transferring the rest in cash. I don't worry about having funds out of the market, since ACAT transfers take 4 to 5 business days at the most, and the most important thing for me it to grab the assets from the relinquishing brokerage as soon as possible. I will be unfortunately using this procedure in the next week, as my newest brokerage is causing me unnecessary headaches.

There are other actors in the water "space," including my favorite FIW. According to the index author, "FIW, is based on the ISE Clean Edge Water Index and is sponsored by First Trust Advisors." ISTM that companies that make money selling water are generally in the business of protecting what they sell, so they meet sustainability critetia ipso facto. In the event, a 5-year investment in FIW would have outperformed SPY and MOAT and would have left GLFOX grabbing air. All that glitters might be H2O.

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1089951/000119312521200586/d578063d497k.htm
(see link for table)
497K 1 d578063d497k.htm AMG FUNDS
Filed pursuant to 497(k)
File Nos. 333-84639 and 811-09521
AMG FUNDS
AMG Yacktman Focused Fund – Security Selection Only
Supplement dated June 25, 2021 to the Summary Prospectus, dated May 1, 2021
The following information supplements and supersedes any information to the contrary relating to AMG Yacktman Focused Fund – Security Selection Only (the “Fund”), a series of AMG Funds (the “Trust”), contained in the Fund’s Summary Prospectus (the “Summary Prospectus”), dated as noted above.
At a meeting held on June 23, 2021 (the “Meeting”), the Trust’s Board of Trustees (the “Board”) approved the following changes for the Fund, all of which will be implemented on July 1, 2021 (the “Implementation Date”): (i) the Fund will change its name from AMG Yacktman Focused Fund – Security Selection Only to AMG Yacktman Global Fund; (ii) the Fund will change its principal investment strategies; and (iii) the Fund will replace its primary benchmark index with the MSCI World Index and remove its secondary benchmark index.
The Board also approved the following fee changes for the Fund, all of which will be implemented on the Implementation Date and will result in the overall reduction of the Fund’s net expenses ratios as compared with the Fund’s current fee structure: (i) the management fee for the Fund will be reduced from 0.87% to 0.71%; and (ii) the Fund’s existing contractual expense limitation agreement with AMG Funds LLC (“AMGF”) will be replaced with a new contractual expense limitation agreement with AMGF pursuant to which AMGF will agree, through at least May 1, 2023, to limit total annual operating expenses (exclusive of taxes, interest (including interest incurred in connection with bank and custody overdrafts and in connection with securities sold short), shareholder servicing fees, distribution and service (12b-1) fees, brokerage commissions and other transaction costs, dividends payable with respect to securities sold short, acquired fund fees and expenses, and extraordinary expenses) of the Fund to the annual rate of 0.93% of the Fund’s average daily net assets, subject to later reimbursement by the Fund in certain circumstances. AMGF pays a portion of the management fee to the Fund’s subadviser for its services...

Hi Sir hank
Sorry for the loss and frustration
We moved everything from (bad trading acct) to Vanguard 3.5 yrs ago, funds over 500k. The process took sometimes over few wks/ repeated phone call, reprocessed loss paperwork, but overall process was painless but stressful.
Do you think you may consider writing to Tpr managers/ or ceo levels. Perhaps may consider retribution/partial paybacks for the loss. Tell them you mean business and give them bad ratings to your family members friends colleague/ investing forums/ business beaureau.
They may loose more business if they do not compromise /meet half ways with your situations
Good luck

In the U.S., the so-called Henry Hub futures prices have more than doubled over the past year to the highest seasonal level since 2014. Inventories are 5.8% below normal for the time of year, the widest deficit since 2019 on a seasonal basis, signaling tighter supplies for next winter.
Did Covid-19 have anything to do with tighter supplies ? If like other commodities, the answer is yes.
Stay Kool , Derf

@hank : thanks for telling your story. May it help others when making transfers.
I can't believe that Fido didn't warn you about the use of funds from your three (small) checks. Recently CD matured & was deposited into a different bank. At that time I was informed that funds from the check weren't available for 8 days. Any deposits from checks , with a limit of over $5400 (?) had that attachment placed on them.
Keep us informed, Derf

We’ve had our accounts with TRP for more than 25 years. We decided to move everything to Fidelity for simplicity and because their customer service is much better. Every time I call TRP I get put on lengthy holds. I like their funds but I can still own them through Fidelity with better service and options.

Same here. Somehow TRP customer support has falling behind other large brokerages and the pandemic does not help. They need to hire more people and upgrade their hardware and bandwidth in order to stay competitive in this business.
Fidelity provides the best balance of what we need online or speaking with a live agent. My asset transfer experience from TRP to Fidelity was done electronically and took 2 weeks for in-kinds transfer.

I must not have been paying attention. While Schroder has been submanaging several Hartford funds for some time, it looks like they have also been moving out of the retail business. They currently have just two US funds still marketed under their own name, and this will reduce that to one fund.
https://www.schroders.com/en/us/private-investor/mutual-funds/mutual-funds-range/
For example, a 2017 proxy includes the statement:

As part of [Schroder Investment Management North America Inc.'s] SIMNA’s overall strategic plan regarding US mutual funds, effective October 24, 2016, ten of the funds in the Schroder mutual fund complex were reorganized as series of The Hartford Mutual Funds II, Inc., and it was subsequently determined that another fund would be liquidated (collectively, the “Other Fund Restructurings”). In anticipation of the Other Fund Restructurings, SIMNA was concerned that, with only five remaining Funds, the Trusts would have a significantly smaller asset base and therefore would incur expenses at potentially significantly higher rates than they have historically.

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/908802/000110465916163079/a16-23354_1pre14a.htm

Wow! I just transferred in-kind our entire Roth IRAs for my wife and I. Hope we don’t encounter similar problems. So far it seems to be going smoothly but we didn’t buy or sell any funds. All were direct transfers in kind.
We’ve had our accounts with TRP for more than 25 years. We decided to move everything to Fidelity for simplicity and because their customer service is much better. Every time I call TRP I get put on lengthy holds. I like their funds but I can still own them through Fidelity with better service and options.

I’ve avoided sharing my frustrations over the past few weeks. But perhaps the experienced investors at mfo will indulge my venting or possibly offer some advice. In May I began the process of transferring all my accounts from TRP to Fidelity. This out of frustration with TRP’s front office / client relations. Held at TRP were Traditional and Roth IRAs, in roughly equal amounts, plus a non-retirement account. Completed the applications online, but needed to sign, date and mail some papers to Fido.
For the largest holdings I specified “transfer in-kind”. For 3 short-term bond funds having relatively low balances, I elected the “liquidation” option. The transfer-in-kind went through as intended and much faster than the cash transfers, Later, 3 separate checks from the liquidated accounts arrived at Fido, appearing there as “cash available to trade”. I invested the cash in 3 mutual funds, 1 ETF and 1 stock.
Three days later my account turned “delinquent”. Fido without consultation began force-selling those assets. After I called, Fido’s team informed me that all 3 checks from TRP has “bounced” - meaning they’d been returned to Fido unpaid by TRP’s bank. I and Fido’s reps nearly immediately contacted TRP. Their answer was that there’d been a “systems error” resulting in an unspecified number of similar cases and they were “investigating”. A week passed. Untold hours on the phone with both. At TRP the average wait is about 30 minutes (followed by additional delays while they “check”). Yesterday, TRP informed me the checks had been resent and should arrive at Fido next week.
At Fido things went from bad to worse. I suffered a modest market loss when the 4 investments were sold out under me after only a few days. Than, they hit me with 3 commissions or early redemption fees totaling $233 (later reversed). The real issue now is that all of my Fido accounts are saddled with a multitude of “restrictions”. The Roth, which hadn’t even been funded when the issue arose in the Traditional, is also restricted. And, so is my cash management account, though the impact would seem slight. Fido says I’ll still be allowed to trade, but only with “settled” cash - a minor nuisance.
Here’s the restrictions placed on all my accounts as I understand them. There may be more I’m not aware of.
- 3 separate “bounced check” violations which won’t clear for one year
- 1 “free ride” violation in effect for 90 days
- 1 “liquidity violation” in effect for 90 days
As I said, none should prevent me from trading with settled cash - but any additional could cause me to be banned from trading. Since I’m still waiting for 4 more checks to arrive (3 for the Traditional and 1 for the Roth), I’m on “pins and needles” here. Fido’s says their refusal to remove the restrictions is because they are from violations of SEC regulations. I’ve searched for similar reported problems online - but found only one (from a semi-literate poster) that went up last week. I’ll share FWIW.
https://www.reddit.com/user/DistrictFinal5222/

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/908802/000139834421013371/fp0066221_497.htm
497 1 fp0066221_497.htm
Filed pursuant to Rule 497(e) and Rule 497(k)
under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended
File Registration No.: 033-65632
SCHRODER SERIES TRUST
Schroder Core Bond Fund
(the “Schroder Fund”)
Supplement dated June 25, 2021 to
the Summary Prospectus and Prospectus,
each dated March 1, 2021 and as supplemented
This supplement provides new and additional information beyond that contained in the Summary Prospectus and Prospectus and should be read in conjunction with the Summary Prospectus and Prospectus.
At a meeting held on June 23-24, 2021, the Board of Trustees (the “Board”) of Schroder Series Trust (the “Trust”) approved the reorganization (“the Reorganization”) of the Schroder Fund into the Hartford Schroders Sustainable Core Bond Fund (the “New Hartford Fund”), a series of The Hartford Mutual Funds II, Inc.
The Reorganization is subject to a number of conditions, including approval of the Schroder Fund’s shareholders and approval of the terms of the agreement and plan of reorganization by the Board.
If the Reorganization is completed as proposed, each shareholder of the Schroder Fund would become a shareholder in the New Hartford Fund with a substantially similar investment objective and substantially similar principal investment strategies, except for the inclusion of additional sustainability criteria. Hartford Funds Management Company, LLC would serve as the investment adviser to the New Hartford Fund. Schroder Investment Management North America Inc. (“SIMNA”), the current investment adviser to the Schroder Fund, is proposed to serve as the sub-adviser to the New Hartford Fund, and the portfolio management team of the Schroder Fund is proposed to be unchanged in connection with the Reorganization.
The Reorganization is intended to be tax-free, meaning that the Schroder Fund’s shareholders would become shareholders of the New Hartford Fund without realizing any gain or loss for federal income tax purposes.
The Board’s decision to reorganize is subject to shareholder approval, though no shareholder action is necessary at this time. Shareholders of the Schroder Fund will receive a combined proxy statement/prospectus that contains important information about the Reorganization and the New Hartford Fund in which they would own shares upon closing of the Reorganization, including information about investment strategies and risks, fees and expenses. Prior to the Reorganization, Schroder Fund shareholders may continue to purchase, redeem and exchange their shares subject to the limitations described in the Schroder Fund’s Prospectus. If shareholders approve the Reorganization and other closing conditions are met, the Reorganization is anticipated to close in the fourth quarter of 2021.
The foregoing is not an offer to sell, nor a solicitation of an offer to buy, shares of the Schroder Fund or the New Hartford Fund, nor is it a solicitation of any proxy. When it is available, please read the combined proxy statement/prospectus carefully before making any decision to invest or when considering the Reorganization. It is currently expected that the combined proxy statement/prospectus will be sent in September or October 2021 to shareholders of record as of the record date applicable to the Reorganization. The combined prospectus/proxy statement also will be available for free on the SEC’s website (www.sec.gov).
Please retain this supplement for future reference.
SCH-SK-014-0100

Thank you, bee.
I'm waiting for the Replicator, a la Star Trek.

Or, we could just start breeding tribbles to eat. Oops, bad idea. ;)

I prefer pit-BBQ'd Ewoks myself....

Thank you, bee.
I'm waiting for the Replicator, a la Star Trek.

Or, we could just start breeding tribbles to eat. Oops, bad idea. ;)

Certainly RPEIX is not the primary driver, even if we take its 1/6 naively at face value. (I had considered posting a link to an explanation of notional value somewhere else in this thread.)
RPIEX (retail class of RPEIX) serves as starting point for constructing a portfolio that emulates that of TMSRX. Replacing the remaining 5/6 of TMSRX with 4/6 RPIEX and 1/6 VTSAX produces a portfolio that performs pretty similarly (albeit with better figures) to the original TMSRX. That is, the two-fund portfolio tracks the ups and downs of TMSRX fairly well.
So regardless of how important the individual drivers in that exceedingly complex 5/6 are, in concert they seem to behave little different from a 4:1 mix of RPIEX and VTSAX.
VaR is primarily a measure of, to state the obvious, value at risk. It is concerned with the probability distribution of potential losses (and gains) over a fixed period of time. It is less concerned with how a portfolio gets to those points. Though it is concerned, at least implicitly, with variances (thus "volatility"), as you explained. But it's also concerned with covariances.
If I construct a portfolio that is 1/3 long in bitcoin, 1/3 short in bitcoin, and 1/3 in a short term bond fund, it's the bond fund with its low volatility, that is the primary driver. The other two highly volatile components cancel themselves out. That's why covariances matter as much as variances.
RPEIX has a near zero correlation with VTSAX (-0.14) and with IEF (0.01), per Portfolio Visualizer. One may not call that magical, but it's awfully impressive given its 3% annualized return. (One can get zero correlation with money under a mattress.)
Given that a combination of RPEIX and VTSAX can substantially reproduce TSMRX (at least based on the fund's performance to date), and that VTSAX is anything but magical, it seems fair to say that the "magic" of TSMRX is at least reflected by if not embodied in RPEIX.