It's checkenshit. Corps need to pay a FAIR share. 15% is a sell-out. Ireland continues to undercut the rest of the world at 12.5%. THIS Irishman thinks that's totally unethical. Sweetheart deals. Bad. Corps ought to be paying a high-end middle-class rate, AT LEAST. ....Oh, wait! Yes, that's where the rate was before--- at 38%. Jayzuz H. Christ. ....The claim will always be made that "corporations don't pay taxes; they just pass along the tax in the cost of their goods and services." Ah, but that is a specific business decision. It's not inevitable. Just because something CAN be done doesn't mean it SHOULD be done.

Could some Fido fan tell me why Fido has 2005 &2010 retirement funds ? I would have thought the glide -path for these two would have them rolled, glided, into Retirement income by this time.

From Fidelity: Allocating assets among underlying Fidelity funds according to a "neutral" asset allocation strategy that adjusts over time until it reaches an allocation similar to that of the Freedom Income Fund approximately 10 to 19 years after the target year. Ultimately, the fund will merge with the Freedom Income Fund."
https://fundresearch.fidelity.com/mutual-funds/summary/315792689
If you're asking why the runway is that long, that may be answered in this T. Rowe Price presentation of "to" vs. "through" glidepaths.
Slide 16 presents longevity risk - the odds of at least one member of a 65 year old couple living thirty more years or longer ranges from 1/4 to 1/3. A 20/80 portfolio in a period of 2% bond yields isn't going to cut it for 30 years.
Fidelity's glide path settles into this mix around age 85. See graph here:
https://www.fidelity.com/bin-public/060_www_fidelity_com/documents/mutual-funds/how-fidelity-freedom-funds-work.pdf

These new laws would benefit the "under saved" more than the "over saved".
The "under saved" essentially by definition aren't maxing out contributions. So they're not the ones who would benefit from increased catch up limits. It's the "over saved" who would "over save" even more. To avoid tax traps, they'll put those extra dollars into Roths. There that extra money will grow tax free for decades until their estate passes to their heirs, who will then have another ten years of tax-free growth.
The "under saved" won't benefit from being able to delay RMDs because they're "under saved" - they already need to draw from their IRAs for economic rather than legal reasons. Without benefiting at all, it's hard to see how the "under saved" will benefit more than the "over saved".
I consider this to be a bit of a tax trap.
The "over saved" could between age 72 and 75 take the same withdrawals as they now take under the current RMD regimen. Thus they can easily avoid aggravating the tax trap for heirs. But rather than being forced to keep that money in a taxable account as they are now, the "over saved" would be allowed to redeposit that money into a Roth. (RMDs cannot be converted into Roth dollars.)
But wait, it gets better (for the "over saved") ...
legislation that would shut down the step up in basis
With this new ability between ages of 72 and 75 to move those (formerly RMD) dollars out of taxable accounts and into Roths, the "over saved" can now permanently shield appreciation of those dollars from taxation. No more would they have to worry about potential legislation that would do away with a step up. With the dollars in a Roth, who cares?
And better still, by paying taxes on the newly allowed conversions from a taxable account, one would effectively shelter more money and simultaneously reduce one's taxable estate.
Since 2010 when income limits were removed, Roth conversions have been suggested to avoid a tax trap. Advancing the RMD start age to 75 turbocharges this strategy.

@JD_co : Thanks for the link. Could some Fido fan tell me why Fido has 2005 &2010 retirement funds ? I would have thought the glide -path for these two would have them rolled, glided, into Retirement income by this time.
Stay Kool, Derf

The Comment section is worthwhile to see the new proposal in different situations. For example,

professor Kelly, "But Munnell objects to increasing the age for RMDs to 75. Employees are permitted to save pretax dollars so they can have a decent retirement, she says. Postponing RMDs to 75 would permit wealthy people to build up
big cash piles that they don’t need to touch, she says."
I consider this to be a bit of a tax trap. With the new rules for heir requiring a 10-year withdrawal window, it's quite possible that heirs will be forced to withdraw a lifetime's accumulated savings in just a few years, throwing them into punitive tax brackets, depending upon the number of children heirs involved. For the non-super-rich, Roth conversions in retirement are becoming more and more important.
Reply
20
KENNETH MORALES
Professor Kelly
15 minutes ago
You hit on the rational objectively. These new laws would benefit the "under saved" more than the "over saved". The over saved crowd can't take it with them and the Secure Act, "secured" taxes will be paid by their heirs. If Biden gets his way, he would sign legislation that would shut down the step up in basis on those inherited assets, there by increasing thd tax load.

The increase in starting RMD age would apply to all tax-sheltered plans, including 457 plans and regular IRAs (as contrasted with individual retirement annuities). The article lists only 401(k)s, 403(b)s and individual retirement annuities, leaving one to wonder about the rest.
Many (not all) people working more years already have a mechanism to defer RMDs until they retire.
As for everyone else, the ability to put off RMD for more years would benefit primarily those better off, those who don't need the additional tax break.

[T]his is only an issue for about 20% of people because most people already take out the required minimum amount or more annually... That’s “because they need the money to live on” — or they don’t even have a retirement account to begin with.

Here's What's Wrong With Raising RMD Age to 75, According to Retirement Experts
https://www.thinkadvisor.com/2021/04/16/heres-whats-wrong-with-raising-rmd-age-to-75-according-to-retirement-experts/

Hey catch, thanks for your suggestions.
Yes, in the past I paired up some equity funds with bond funds for a desired allocation mix. Beginning in 2006 mainly switched to moderate allocation funds, primarily PRWCX, but also a few others. One reason then as now and going into the future was for simplification. My wife is not interested in investing, so I needed a plan that could largely run itself if something happened to me. We are 57 & 54 and have largely saved what we will probably need for retirement and are pretty much just looking for moderate growth for the next 5-7 years.
I'm guessing Giroux is around 10 years younger than I which may mean another 13-18 years at PRWCX before his retirement, fingers crossed. After which I would still be looking for a one stop fund of some sort. From my minimal research, current allocation ETFs (AOR for example) are pretty lousy compared to PRWCX.

hank. This T-note etf may be a bit past what you're looking for......I've tracked this for a number of years. This Pimco TIPS etf is listed as 1-5 years, but generally only holds 2-5 year maturity. E.R. is .20%, so; doesn't cost much to buy.
This is the etf.com link below; and you can discover more when logged-in at Fido. Tis available at Fido.
STPZ

“I believe you could have sold 99% of your shares. Though as you said, you couldn't ask TRP to raise cash equal to 99% of yesterday's close, because there was no assurance you had enough shares for that.”
I didn’t try very hard. Perhaps. It was part of a distribution (RMD+). I like to deal in round numbers. Plan was to draw the amount needed for the distribution and than exchange the small remaining balance into something else next day. A message popped up telling me I could only exchange X dollars out. When I ran the math, I believe it was around 3% they wanted to retain. To keep it simple, I pulled a (lesser) round number from that fund and the rest from another.
@msf - thanks for clarifying the other issue for me. I have a lot to learn about brokerage trading vs direct at a single fund house. But the wider selection is kinda nice. :)
On another point … A Fido phone rep referenced a “good faith cash advance up to $25,000” available for certain situations. Sounds like you ran into something similar elsewhere. At Fido you do need to phone that one in.

Fido added a "Historically Stable Performers" category to its Mutual Fund Research search. You have to click "Fund Strategies".
121 funds show up. I think this must be pretty new.
https://fundresearch.fidelity.com/fund-screener/results/table/overview/averageAnnualReturnsYear3/desc/1?beta=LS,0.75&order=standardDeviation,sharpRatio3Year,beta&sharpRatio3Year=1,GT&standardDeviation=0,10&strategy=historicallyStablePerformers

SFHYX seems to be available for purchase ($49.95 TF) over at FIDO with $5,000 min. At least, my BUY order is sitting out there for now .
Spectrum Finl manages this fund along with SVARX.

A global minimum corporate tax rate of 15% was agreed to at the G7 finance ministers' meeting this weekend.
Proponents of the deal hope to build unstoppable momentum going into the G20 meeting next month.
Many details still need to be resolved.
It will likely take several years before a deal is implemented if it is ratified.
Link

This year my value funds, large and small, are out-perform their larger siblings by large margin. Often in excess of 5-10%. I like the mid-cap value stocks where they tend to lead to in early phase of recovery while they have real earning. Labor and raw material shortages are the hurdles right now.
Stocks are at all time high, i.e. Expensive. Being patient is important to add slowly as pullback occurs.

https://www.barrons.com/articles/higher-rmd-age-higher-catch-up-limits-highlight-lawmakers-retirement-proposals-51622831293?siteid=yhoof2&yptr=yahoo
Remember to read the comments.
Stay Kool, Derf

”You can use an ETF as a savings account. But you're going to have to manually move money into the "checking" account (core fund) if you want to use it.”
*** Have to? Are we simply talking sound financial practice here? Or, does Fido prevent you from using the more direct route between ETF and another purchase or sale?
What I kind of surmise is that buying directly out of an ETF would take at least 1 extra day to settle, making the intended purchase more susceptible to price fluctuation. If true, that would be enough to convince me to use a money market fund for transactions.
And at TRP they won’t allow you to sell 99% of a non-money market fund because the system is set up to retain a certain % in case of daily price fluctuation. Found that out the hard way recently when I tried to sell / exchange most, but not all, of TRBUX from IRA to my TOD account. (However, you can do so by selling all and closing the account.)
Re cap gains. This is a tax deferred account. But the headache caused by using TRBUX as a checking account is the reason I began using Price’s short term and money market muni funds. And did see @Investor’s comment on the matter.
I’m one not to worry about putting cash at an elevated level of risk. I know others don’t feel the same. Even 0.5% earned on an ultra short bond fund looks better than 0.0%. :)
Thanks for all the thoughts.

Though JPST and ICSH have their places in a portfolio (I own both) I have been using the SFGI Direct online bank account( Summit Bank) the past year with great success. With these ETF's paying about .30% (30 day SEC yield) I almost double this with .56% APY at SFGI. ACH transfers in and out (no restrictions on amount) has never taken more than 1 business day. And no losses in spread and no extra book keeping. Limit to 6 withdrawals/ mo to prevent penalties as in any other savings account. I try to maximize my income on cash holdings as much as possible during this low yield period.

Hi @hank
Taxable or sheltered account?
I ask, as the paperwork for a taxable account isn't worth my time; for the small amount of interest earned for a tax year via an investment as FLDR. Note: I recall that one doesn't have to report an interest earned amount if less than $15. So, perhaps not a problem; depending on the amount of money invested. If we have money parked in the core cash account, it is likely from the sale of an investment. Generally, we will leave the money in place, versus a purchase of an issue, such as FLDR; awaiting a better investment opportunity.
Hi @davfor
Your graph is correct, but this reflects a one-time event (hopefully).
So, yes; FLDR was volatile during a time period; as well as other debt investments within mutual funds or etf's holding this type of debt. I suspect that most folks who don't watch often, we not aware of anything happening with these holdings; and that all looked well when viewing 6 months later.
The credit markets lockup was discussed here beginning in late February, 2020.
Spring 2020 credit related liquidity lockup
Regards to both of you,
Catch

Thanks...this is great!

I'll stick with my chosen funds. Finally, circumstances are presenting me with the chance to dabble a bit. ENIC, a Chilean electricity provider is at 52-week low, after the election. 7% div.
Bombardier BDRBF.
You bought WOOD. Watch WFG. West Fraser Timber.

I've had a similar experience with MIEIX.
On 09/30/20, MIEIX was classified as a Foreign Large Growth fund with a 3 star rating.
The corresponding category rank was: 5 Yr - 66; 10 Yr - 49; 15 Yr - 24.
On 12/31/20, MIEIX was classified as a Foreign Large Blend fund with a 5 star rating.
The corresponding category rank was: 5 Yr - 6; 10 Yr - 5; 15 Yr - 3.
Although no material changes were made to the fund, it "improved" considerably!

M* still posts the annual performance rankings of the fund based on the category it was in that year. I verified this by comparing the MIEIX rankings for 2018 and 2019 (when it was still classified as foreign large cap growth) with other foreign LCG funds that had nearly identical performances with MIEIX in those years.
In 2018, MIEIX returned -10.66%. M* says that placed the fund at the 19th percentile. That's the same percentile as ARTIX was ranked, with its -10.86% return.
In 2019, MIEIX returned 28.40%, only good enough for a 46th percentile ranking. That's the same percentile as TWEIX got with its 28.37% return.
http://performance.morningstar.com/fund/performance-return.action?t=MIEIX
http://performance.morningstar.com/fund/performance-return.action?t=ARTIX
http://performance.morningstar.com/fund/performance-return.action?t=TWIEX
However, on those same pages, annual performances are compared with the fund's current category, not the category the fund was in for each past year.

Think of traditional bank accounts. There's a checking account where you can write checks, pay bills, buy things. And there are savings accounts that pay higher interest.
You can keep all your cash in a savings account, but when you need to buy something, you transfer the cash to your checking account. (Technically some transfers from savings accounts are limited, but we'll ignore that detail.) The point is that there's a difference; you can't use a savings account in exactly the same way as a checking account.
Same thing here. You can use an ETF as a savings account. But you're going to have to manually move money into the "checking" account (core fund) if you want to use it. And with an ETF, it's going to take two days before you can take the money out of Fidelity. (You can use the ETF proceeds for trading almost immediately - different brokerages handle this slightly differently and I'm not positive about Fidelity's rule here.)
There's also the matter of tracking cap gains. @Investor had a subthread (under RPHYX) that covered this a few days ago. But you already know this, as you've been using a TRP short term fund this way. Likewise you also know that these funds fluctuate in value.
ETFs, especially when used for cash and traded short term have additional costs. Notably spread. The spread on FLDR is sizeable: 0.06% (on average). If you were to buy $100 and immediately turn around and sell it, you'd lose around 6¢. You might pay $100.03 to buy the fund and receive $99.97 when you sold it. You could try to mitigate that by placing limit orders, but then you run the risk of seeing some of your orders go unfilled.
6¢ might not sound like much, if you're doing this even once a month, that's nearly 3/4% eaten up in transaction costs.
If on the other hand you're letting most of the cash sit (so you're only losing 3/4% on a small part of the cash), then you don't need usually need instantaneous access for much of the cash. In that case, you could still use a short term bond fund for your cash reserve.