Benz articles with a variety of dates. I've not tried these links, so I don't know what you may discover or be able to link for reading.

.......Which is why I'm 56% bonds, these days. And 7% in cash at the moment. A coming bloodbath will surely affect me. But I'm doing all I can do to be prudent, in these crazy, frothy times.

It is not the first to occur. Check out this SEC filing as of 3/22/21:
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/882443/000119312521087801/d111545d497k.htm
497K 1 d111545d497k.htm AMG FUNDS I
Filed pursuant to 497(k)
File Nos. 033-44909 and 811-06520
AMG FUNDS I
AMG Managers Emerging Opportunities Fund
Supplement dated March 19, 2021 to the Summary Prospectus, dated February 1, 2021
The following information supplements and supersedes any information to the contrary relating to AMG Managers Emerging Opportunities Fund (the “Fund”), a series of AMG Funds I (the “Trust”), contained in the Fund’s Summary Prospectus (the “Summary Prospectus”), dated as noted above.
At a meeting held on March 17-18, 2021 (the “Meeting”), the Trust’s Board of Trustees (the “Board”) approved the appointment of Veritas Asset Management LLP (“Veritas” or the “Subadviser”) as the subadviser to the Fund on an interim basis to replace Next Century Growth Investors LLC, WEDGE Capital Management L.L.P. and RBC Global Asset Management (U.S.) Inc. (each, an “Existing Subadviser” and together, the “Existing Subadvisers”), effective May 21, 2021 (the “Implementation Date”). The appointment of Veritas is pursuant to an interim subadvisory agreement between AMG Funds LLC (“AMGF”) and Veritas (the “Interim Subadvisory Agreement”), to be effective until the earlier of 150 days after the termination of the existing subadvisory agreement between AMGF and each Existing Subadviser with respect to the Fund (each, an “Existing Subadvisory Agreement” and together, the “Existing Subadvisory Agreements”), which will occur on May 21, 2021, or the approval of a new subadvisory agreement between AMGF and Veritas by the Board and Fund shareholders. At the Meeting, the Board also approved the longer-term appointment of Veritas as the subadviser to the Fund, a new subadvisory agreement between AMGF and Veritas (the “New Subadvisory Agreement”), and the submission of the New Subadvisory Agreement to Fund shareholders for approval. The rate of compensation to be received by Veritas under the Interim Subadvisory Agreement approved by the Board is lower than the rate of compensation that each Existing Subadviser receives under the applicable Existing Subadvisory Agreement.
In connection with the hiring of Veritas, effective as of the Implementation Date, the Fund will (i) change its name from AMG Managers Emerging Opportunities Fund to AMG Veritas China Fund, (ii) make changes to its principal investment strategies and principal risks, and (iii) replace its primary benchmark index with the MSCI China Index and remove its secondary benchmark index.
Also in connection with the hiring of Veritas, the Board approved the following fee changes for the Fund, all of which will be implemented upon the effectiveness of the New Subadvisory Agreement and will result in the overall reduction of the Fund’s net expense ratios: (i) the management fee for the Fund will be reduced from 0.74% to 0.71%; and (ii) the Fund’s existing contractual expense limitation agreement with AMGF will be replaced with a new contractual expense limitation agreement with AMGF pursuant to which AMGF will agree, through at least March 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.
The disposition of Fund securities in connection with the transition of the Fund’s investment objective and strategies is expected to cause the Fund to realize taxable income for U.S. federal income tax purposes. The Fund intends to make a special distribution to shareholders of all or a portion of such income and any other undistributed income for the current taxable year. This distribution will be taxable to shareholders who hold their shares in a taxable account. See “Certain Federal Income Tax Information” for further information.
In addition, effective as of the Implementation Date, the Summary Prospectus is amended as follows:
All references to the name of the Fund shall refer to AMG Veritas China Fund...
AMG Managers Special Equity (MGSEX) was also reorganized into another type of fund as of 3/22/21:
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/720309/000119312521087802/d127352d497k.htm
497K 1 d127352d497k.htm AMG FUNDS III
Filed pursuant to 497(k)
File Nos. 002-84012 and 811-03752
AMG FUNDS III
AMG Managers Special Equity Fund
Supplement dated March 19, 2021 to the Summary Prospectus, dated March 15, 2021
The following information supplements and supersedes any information to the contrary relating to AMG Managers Special Equity Fund (the “Fund”), a series of AMG Funds III (the “Trust”), contained in the Fund’s Summary Prospectus (the “Summary Prospectus”), dated as noted above.
At a meeting held on March 17-18, 2021 (the “Meeting”), the Trust’s Board of Trustees (the “Board”) approved the appointment of Veritas Asset Management LLP (“Veritas” or the “Subadviser”) as the subadviser to the Fund on an interim basis to replace Federated MDTA LLC, Lord, Abbett & Co. LLC, Ranger Investment Management L.P. and Smith Asset Management Group, L.P. (each, a “Former Subadviser” and together, the “Former Subadvisers”), effective March 19, 2021 (the “Implementation Date”). The appointment of Veritas was pursuant to an interim subadvisory agreement between AMG Funds LLC (“AMGF”) and Veritas (the “Interim Subadvisory Agreement”), to be effective until the earlier of 150 days after the termination of the former subadvisory agreement between AMGF and each Former Subadviser with respect to the Fund (each, a “Former Subadvisory Agreement” and together, the “Former Subadvisory Agreements”), which occurred on March 19, 2021, or the approval of a new subadvisory agreement between AMGF and Veritas by the Board and Fund shareholders. At the Meeting, the Board also approved the longer-term appointment of Veritas as the subadviser to the Fund, a new subadvisory agreement between AMGF and Veritas (the “New Subadvisory Agreement”), and the submission of the New Subadvisory Agreement to Fund shareholders for approval. The rate of compensation to be received by Veritas under the Interim Subadvisory Agreement approved by the Board is the same rate of compensation that each Former Subadviser would have received under the applicable Former Subadvisory Agreement.
In connection with the hiring of Veritas, effective as of the Implementation Date, the Fund (i) changed its name from AMG Managers Special Equity Fund to AMG Veritas Asia Pacific Fund, (ii) made changes to its investment objective, principal investment strategies and principal risks, and (iii) replaced its existing benchmark index with the MSCI AC Asia Pacific ex Japan Index.
Also in connection with the hiring of Veritas, the Board approved the following fee changes for the Fund, all of which will be implemented upon the effectiveness of the New Subadvisory Agreement and will result in the overall reduction of the Fund’s net expense ratios: (i) the management fee for the Fund will be reduced from 0.90% to 0.71%; and (ii) the Fund’s existing contractual expense limitation agreement with 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.
The disposition of Fund securities in connection with the transition of the Fund’s investment objective and strategies is expected to cause the Fund to realize taxable income for U.S. federal income tax purposes. The Fund intends to make a special distribution to shareholders of all or a portion of such income. This distribution will be taxable to shareholders who hold their shares in a taxable account. See “Certain Federal Income Tax Information” for further information.
In addition, effective as of the Implementation Date, the Summary Prospectus is amended as follows:
All references to the name of the Fund shall refer to AMG Veritas Asia Pacific Fund...
Until late last year, I owned MECAX, formerly AMG Managers Cadence Emerging Companies Fund, a micro cap fund, which was converted to an international small cap fund as of 10/9/2020:
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/720309/000119312520266471/d46556d497k.htm

Does anyone know what is happening with MMCFX, AMG Managers Emerging Opps? It is 95% invested in US companies, according to Morningstar, but is changing it's name to AMG Veritas China N, according to the amgfunds.com website. Seems like an extreme transition.

Many small investors are beating Wall Street pros at their own game.
“A basket of stocks favored by individuals has outperformed the broader market since March of last year, according to Vanda Research. This group, which includes behemoths like Apple Inc. and Tesla Inc. alongside electric-vehicle maker NIO Inc. and digital-payments company Square Inc., has gained 68% since the beginning of March 2020 through Monday, far outpacing the S&P 500’s roughly 36% climb.
“And meme stocks popular with individual investors have been on a tear again. Shares of movie-theater operator AMC Entertainment Holdings Inc. jumped 36% Thursday, continuing a string of double-digit gains that pushed them to $26.52, their highest close in four years. The recent rally in AMC shares has catapulted them above levels recorded during the initial retail-driven frenzy in GameStop Corp. and other stocks this January. On Thursday, AMC was the most actively-traded stock in the U.S. market, according to Dow Jones Market Data.
GameStop has advanced 46% this month, far outpacing the S&P 500’s gain of 0.5%. Shares of Hertz Global Holdings Inc. have nearly tripled in May. Short sellers who bet against GameStop, Hertz and AMC—a group targeted by many smaller investors who have favored these stocks—have lost almost $9 billion this year, according to data provider S3 Partners.”
The Wall Street Journal - May 28. 2021

”OMG, reading what you've just shared leaves me so very discouraged. Almost despairing. So THIS is the level of expectations. Jayzuz.” @msf

@Crash - That’s too long. “So THIS is the level”. (Period)
I’ve been wondering why the Fido phone reps I’ve spoken with over the past week all sounded like tape recorders, making it hard to ask questions. Thanks @msf for answering that one.
Speaking of service, I can remember when a uniformed attendant at filling stations came out and filled your tank, washed your windshield, checked the oil level and maybe the tire pressure if you asked. Suspect the ending of that era likely signaled the impending demise of any level of service or convenience.
Thanks @MrRuffles and everybody for this fascinating thread.

Over the years the responses of the "discount" brokers have gotten more and more generic. This is especially true at Vanguard where 15 years ago I had one specific person who I got to know well. However, Vanguard replaced him twice without notifying me, and now I just get a "team" that is faceless. Their website is more and more difficult to use for self directed investments. They clearly want everyone to use their funds in cookie cutter allocations. I do not know what you would get if you signed up for "management services" for a fee.
My advisor at Schwab is still there and a nice guy who helps with stuff, although I am not on a fee basis with him. Still even there I am usually shunted off to an unknown in Orlando
My parents used a full service broker at Morgan Stanley who I have gotten to know well. He will still sell you stocks on a large commission ( $150 to$200) but really would rather sign you up for their manged portfolios ( chosen by a committee) at 1% a year, and then review it with you a couple of times a year. I notice he is rarely in the office after 3 PM.
Even people at firms with minimum account requirements of $5,000,000, tell me they have had portfolios changed from individual stocks chosen by their manager, to cookie cutter allocations, chosen by a committee.
On the other hand my sister has had her new broker at Morgan Stanley walk though all of her accounts with her, help her combine them all into one with her new inheritance, and then will sit down with her to go over her options. I do not think this broker is a novice, and I assume she is running a fair amount of money overall, but the fact she will go to such lengths for a new client is impressive.
I guess like most professions, there are many people who try hard to do a good job, although the structure of the industry is working against them.

Another angle on how the tensions embedded in the climate change challenge are playing themselves out in 2021....
Biden’s Fossil Fuel Moves Clash With Pledges on Climate Change

Amazon is buying Bonds (James that is.) Story
I like some types of bond (funds) in this wild environment. Risk assets climbing to the sky. Bonds will hold some water for you should most everything else go to hell in a hand basket. Who knows? Depends on your age, risk tolerance and what else you happen to own. Be careful with the BBB and lower grade paper. OK to own some and to speculate in the shorter end (1-2 years) I think. Anything out 3+ years go with the highest quality you can get. Don’t plan on getting rich. You won’t with bonds today. But might make a nice life raft if waters turn violent..

Whatever else, must protect cash position from the 60-day STT fee. Maintaining the cash allocation in their cash management account would work, as they exempt money markets from that fee. BTW - Is there a ticker symbol for the cash fund at Fido (where my liquidated assets from TRP should land)?
The .44 YTD loss would be least of my worries. Essentially, it attempts to track an index. Might be that it’s avoiding the overvalued TIPS market.

If your concern is to be able to withdraw cash quickly, be aware that ETFs have two-day settlement periods, during which time the cash value must stay in the account. (A margin account could float the money for a day if that's really critical.)
Cash in your core account or in another Fidelity MMF is available for withdrawal "immediately" (don't recall whether that's literal or end of day since even MMF shares must be sold). Cash pulled from an internet bank is usually available within a day, though you're advised it could take longer.
I mention internet banks again because the shorter the trigger, the more important low volatility/preservation of capital becomes.
"Track an index" IMHO doesn't say much without examining the index. This index is untested, dynamic, and proprietary. Its objective is to improve "both returns and risk ... relative to traditional U.S. IG floating rate note indices." It invests in a mix of "U.S. corporate floating rate notes with less than 5 years maturity and U.S. Treasury Notes with 7 to 10 years maturity." From its statutory prospectus. It's not avoiding TIPS because they're overvalued but because it can't invest in them.
It's hard to find a reason to prefer FLDR to JPST. The latter has lower volatility (std dev 0.80 vs. 1.13 over the past year) resulting in better Sharpe ratio (2.54 vs. 1.61 over past year), smaller bid/ask spread (0.02% vs 0.06% median over past 30 days), longer history, similar ER (0.18% vs 0.15%). The smoother curve in the graph below is JPST.

You can invest in MMFs in any Fidelity brokerage account, it doesn't have to be the CMA account. The only advantage I can find to the CMA account is that it provides unlimited US ATM rebates on its debit card. AFAIK, all its other features are available in any brokerage account.
EDIT:CMA accounts use a bank sweep as their core account. This is not available in other some other brokerage accounts.
https://www.fidelity.com/bin-public/060_www_fidelity_com/documents/fdic.pdf
The "ticker" for Fidelity Cash is FCASH. It is kept as a general obligation of Fidelity; in essence you are lending the cash to Fidelity, which can use it for general business purposes. It is one of three choices you have for your "core" (transaction/checking) account inside a taxable brokerage account. Catch gave the tickers for the other options.
https://www.fidelity.com/mutual-funds/fidelity-funds/money-market-funds-fcash

On another note, I hadn’t realized that a TIK “insulates” your fund’s value during the process so that the holding neither gains nor looses value. Dug that up this morning. Casts a different light on everything.

You can think of "transfer in kind" as picking up the fund shares (electronically) at one institution and transporting them to the other. So you can gain or lose value in transit, since you always retain "real" ownership of your shares.

Worth reading: https://cnbc.com/2021/05/27/big-oil-defeats-represent-a-watershed-moment-in-the-climate-battle.html

EDIT: Called Fido with questions this morning.
*** It seems I’ve been incorrect about the $49.95 “short term trading fee”. From a rep - Anything purchased NTF is not subject to a short term trading fee. Only those funds bought from outside fidelity that were not NTF would incur the fee. Huh?. That doesn’t seem to comply with what I’ve read.
Anybody know for sure? / experience?
- The rep emphasized their excessive trading policy. As I understand it they’re mainly concerned with trades over $10,000. If I understand correctly, selling a fund inside of 30 days triggers their “excessive” policy. (But it doesn’t sound like they block the transaction). Warnings / suspensions of trading / etc.)
- As to an earlier question I had, when assessing short term trading fees they use “first in / first out” which means you can sell older shares you may have held longer without penalty.
- As to a question I posed in the above response to msf, I was told no penalty would be assessed for selling a fund that came in “Transfer in kind”. One exception: If they knew from the outgoing custodian that the fund had been purchased within 30 days, than there would be an issue.

You can easily skip using the cash management account as an intermediary as follows
1. Create a sell order for (fund A).
2. Under Action select "Sell and use proceeds to buy another (Dollars)"
3. Enter the dollar amount of (fund B) you want to buy along with its symbol.
4. Preview and submit your order.

I’m wondering if the above approach would work in going between a mutual fund and an ETF? Reason for asking is they have a very short duration ETF (FLDR) with a low .15 ER that would work as “enhanced” cash within my portfolio. To be effective it would need to be able to interact with riskier funds - either accepting proceeded from sales or funding purchases. (Fido’s quite limited in its income based mutual fund offerings.)
-
Also dug this up on Fido’s site …
“ETFs and stocks do not carry sales charges, but you will be charged a commission each time you execute a trade online (unless the ETF is part of a commission-free online trading program).”
Not sure what to make of those “commissions” and how much the cost might be on a given dollar denominated buy or sell.

I considered PIMIX a few years ago but didn't invest in the fund.
For many years, Pimco Income Fund delivered excellent returns with muted volatility.
The fund's managers made shrewd investments in legacy, non-agency residential mortgage-backed securities (RMBS) after the Global Financial Crisis.
Trailing 5 Yr. and 10 Yr. returns for PIMIX were in the top 1% of the Multisector Bond category as of 10/31/17.
The total AUM dedicated to vehicles using the same strategy, $124 B as of March 2017, gave me pause.
It would be difficult for Pimco Income Fund to maintain meaningful exposure to legacy, non-agency RMBS while the supply of these securities was decreasing in the future.
I also did not appreciate that Pimco has never closed a fund (to my knowledge) due to excessive AUM.
This is not a very shareholder-friendly stance in my opinion.
Having said that, Dan Ivascyn and Alfred Murata are renowned and talented managers.
Pimco is widely respected and it is a very well-resourced firm.
I still believe PIMIX is a decent fund but doubt the stellar performance of the past will be replicated.

This is such a tough question to answer given the gracious but limited info provided. There are so many variables to consider. It's interesting that Mrs. acquired a significant amount recently but is afraid to "risk" this even though a more significant amount is already invested in retirement accounts. One would think that if it was a large amount but an amount much less than already invested - one would be less fearful on the risk part. The bigger question IMHO is what is happening in the next 5-10 years. Is there an expectation to draw from the retirement accounts? When you say "parked" - do you mean in a money market or an S&P 500 Index account? If you explained that tax minimization and downside protection was most important to you (curious) - then it makes sense that tax loss harvesting and dca would be entertained.
All that said, your advisor should consider your entire portfolio and make recommendations on this new $ given the whole strategy/plan. They should provide you with an in depth "education" of WHY... so that you may make an informed decision. They should educate you so that you are well informed to decide. They should not tell you what you should do. I have had very positive experiences with Fid advisors over the years. But, like Dentists and Doctors, all have a different manner... you just have to find the right one that is a partner and explains and is patient. If someone sends you web links without a thoughtful conversation/explanation etc. - then you must move on to another advisor. IMHO. Hope this is helpful.

Revisiting 1 of 2 bond funds I own PONAX. It's up 1.19% with an 1.49% ER! vs. JMUTX +2.19% / .86 ER, FADMX +1.50%/ .67% ER, BMSAX +1.48% / .9% ER. On the bright side, PONAX is performing better than my FXNAX Index (apples/oranges - I know) which is -2.35 but I'm still skeptical of PONAX - especially with such a high ER. Am I missing something? I know a few of you have PONAX but I've been a bit sour on the fund for almost 6 months. Those of you still in PONAX - any thoughts? I realize bond funds are like kryptonite these days but I'm thinking you may have more well reasoned thoughts on why to still be in this fund.

You said the magic word: rebalance.
Assuming for simplicity that rebalancing is done at the same frequency as selling shares, it makes absolutely no difference what one sells. That's because you're adjusting the portfolio to target weightings regardless of what was sold.
Simplified example: Two funds, $150K in A, $150K in B. Target allocation 50/50. Need$1K/month in cash.
Say A goes up $2K in a month, and B goes down $1K. If you sell off the winner, you've got $151K in A and $149K in B. Rebalance and you've got $150K in each. If you sell off the loser, you've got $152K in A and $148K in B. Rebalance and you've got $150K in each.
It has to work out that way, because you've got a fixed number of dollars at the end of each month. You take out a fixed number from whereever, and rebalance the rest.
If you rebalance less frequently than you cash out, it can make a difference which fund you sell (you want to sell the fund that is going to go up less the next month), but the effect is minor.
So the real question is not which fund(s) you want to sell for cash, but what your target allocation is. The simplest thing to do is to put everything into a target date fund whose glide path you like (or a fixed allocation fund if you don't want allocations to change over time) and let everything work automatically. Using a robo advisor, as MikeM is suggesting, is similar to using a target date fund.

I set up a separate account (tax deferred) for withdrawals. It has 3-4 years needed income. It contains low risk mutual funds and ETFs including 1 year of income in the Schwab MM. My plan is to keep replenishing it with my main IRA account in good times and waiting up to 3-4 years if the markets go south. I haven't had to use it yet because I still work part time. Just getting prepared. But I haven't given enough thought to your question.
Your question is a good one since I will run into the same dilemma when replenishing the withdrawal bucket. I guess that makes it all the more imperative to keep the number of investments in the main IRA account, funds or ETFs, at minimum. That certainly would help in re-balancing. Looks like you have 10 funds to keep balanced which is a reasonable portfolio #.
One consideration for me, my IRA money is split 50/50 between the Schwab Intelligent Portfolio and what I call my self-managed account. Withdrawals from the IP get re-balanced automatically. That would be the easy option for me.
Hope more people respond with what they do so I can learn along with you.

Agree with @msf. One needs to verify any form of pension related taxation codes for your filing state. I also agree with verifying RMD calculations.
--- Michigan pension taxation recent background:
In 2011, MI Gov. Snyder (R) and company had a grand plan of removing a portion of the MI single business tax; with the theory of more business growth. However, this lost tax revenue had to be recovered from somewhere. A perverted pension taxation plan was hatched for a change of the rules for a segregated portion of the population. So, they went after the "gravy train" of taxable monies; being those born between 1946 and 1952, and their pension monies. Tis indeed, a mathematically precise target and makes absolute sense in terms of tax revenue generation. The full MI legislative vote had to be settled by a tie breaking vote. The legality of this targeted group taxation was challenged and "voted" as legal by the MI Supreme Court, (R) controlled at the time. The original tax policy is being revisited at this time, for possible revisions.
--- Note: Keep in mind, that among all states; the folks born between 1946 and 1952 comprised a very large portion of those who have company pensions in Michigan, as a result of the formation of unions related to the large auto industry presence in Michigan. Pension plans moved to many other sectors in Michigan, in order for companies to compete for employees.
--- Relative to the original questions/statements for MI pension taxation is that there is a formula (MI schedule 1) to establish the amount of pension(s), single or joint filing that is/are exempt from MI taxation.
2019 Michigan Pension taxation