The 10 year RMD rule for non-spousal inherited IRA's was part of the legislation in the Secure Act of early 2020. This rule is now subject to a language interpretation and also will have a new public comment period to formalize "the rule".
The below article provides some information; as well as a link to the current IRS Pub. 590-B.
I will attempt to keep track of this rule change going forward, but solicit others here to provide information as discovered.
Note example: For our house, part of a written plan instruction was that: One has 10 years to "take" all of the monies from a non-spousal inherited IRA; meaning that all of the money could taken in year 10, if desired. The "new" rule meaning would require RMD's for years 1-9, with the balance taken in year 10.

Secure Act, Ed Slott article
Regards,
Catch

May 1st Episode:
POLRX
Understanding Growth with a Value-centric characteristics.

Just glanced at your FSEAX. See the 10 and 15-year performance? No guarantees of course. But this fund has been a long-term winner. Maybe you got in at the wrong time. Well, the "wrong" time IF what you are is a TRADER, not an INVESTOR, and you were hoping for SHORT-TERM winnings. "Winnings" is a gambling term. ;)
***********************************
Do your homework.
Come up with a plan.
Pull the trigger and buy your selected funds.
Keep tabs, but don't obsess.
Watch it grow.
*********************
Markets riding high, like right now? Commit yourself to dollar-cost- averaging your way into a bigger sized pie.
Unless the bottom falls out, methinks you'll be pleased with where you're sitting at year's end. Remember '08-'09? My portfolio was down by about 40%. I kept buying.

I’ve been thoroughly impressed with my MS funds... especially MSSMX and MGGPX and I sort of chased past performance by adding two more MS funds...
YTD:
MSEGX up 5.51 but FDGRX is up 10.40
MACGX up 2.51 but I’m down 18% due to when I purchased this year!
ARTYX up 4.58 but I’m down 3.35% due to when I purchased
FSEAX up 4.17 but I’m down 7.50% due to when I purchased
I’m wondering if I should cut my losses with the 2 MS funds. None of the funds above are even beating the S&P 500. The two EM funds are ones that I’ve been least convicted about. I was convinced of the EM story of 2021 - which has not proved fruitful yet. Perhaps it won’t live up to the story that small caps have been thus far or maybe EM will rebound.

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1587982/000139834421009220/fp0065000_497.htm
497 1 fp0065000_497.htm
Cannabis Growth Fund
Investor Class Shares
(Ticker Symbol: CANNX)
Class I Shares
(Ticker Symbol: CANIX)
A series of Investment Managers Series Trust II (the “Trust”)
Supplement dated April 30, 2021, to the
Prospectus and Statement of Additional Information (“SAI”),
each dated June 1, 2020, as supplemented.
Important Notice Regarding Investor Class Shares
Upon the recommendation of the Cannabis Growth Fund’s (the “Fund”) advisor, Foothill Capital Management, LLC, the Board of Trustees of the Trust has approved the conversion of the Fund’s Investor Class Shares into Class I Shares and the subsequent termination of the Fund’s Investor Class Shares. Effective immediately, the Investor Class Shares are closed to all new investment. The Fund’s Investor Class Shares will be converted into Class I Shares and the Investor Class Shares will be terminated on or about May 14, 2021 (the “Effective Date”). Accordingly, as of the Effective Date, all references to the Fund’s Investor Class Shares in the Prospectus and SAI are deleted in their entirety. The Fund’s Investor Class Shares and Class I Shares have the same fee structure, except that Class I Shares are not subject to distribution and service fees pursuant to a Rule 12b-1 plan and the expense limitation cap for Class I Shares is lower. Shareholders of Investor Class Shares converted into Class I Shares will not be subject to a redemption fee.
Please file this Supplement with your records.

Finally traded FSPHX for FSMEX - long term conviction move. @TheShadow I checked back on PDFDX and sure enough it's up 22.81 for the year vs. FSMEX 12.25. It has performed very well since you mentioned it.

@BenWP @MikeW Ben - I'm hanging with ARTYX myself - currently down 1.71% since my ill timed purchase but I'm hoping it's just a patch as the fund is up 4.58 YTD. Of course, the S&P is up 11-12% so my move to EM after being in an EM Index fund for so long has not been the best of my 2021 buys.
Looking at AVUV ... wow +93% in the last 52 weeks with an ER of .25%

Ya, crazy. The guy seemed to have a decent reputation but also seemed very intense in every interview I ever saw him in.
Did like his philosophy...his fund was not meant to make you rich but to keep you rich, meaning focus on what can go wrong. I've stated it here before, NO ONE should be surprised when the market is down 40-50% from here...we all kind of know things are way out of kilter, way over valued, distorted, artificial...but yet...we post like we are experts and have a handle on what we are doing...we kinda know it's all a shit show and we can't seem to escape the pull of greed.
Dang shame, he felt the way he did, mental illness, despondency is a terrible thing. He obviously could not stand losing what he worked so hard to build.
Prayers out to him, his family and his friends.
Baseball Fan

Well stated, except for the assertion that "mutual funds with a load are ... not always going to show lower fee-adjusted long term performance than a comparable ETF or mutual fund without a load [and any load fund underperformance] can disappear the longer the mutual fund is held.
If one replaces "comparable" with "identical except for load", aka "all else being equal", then the long term performance (including effect of the load) must be lower for the load shares, and this difference does not disappear over time.
The first assertion, that loaded funds could perform better over the long term even accounting for load is just the usual handwaving that fund A might do better than fund B even though fund A costs more. Sure, but not likely, especially if one assume "all else is equal."
The second assertion that the underperformance of loaded funds gradually diminishes over time is a misrepresentation of arithmetic. If you buy a fund with a 5% load, then, all else being equal, it will underperform a comparable fund by 5% over the first year, but just 1%/year over five years. It's not that it is catching up, it's just that you're amortizing the underperformance over more years. After 5 years, you've still got 5% less money with the load fund; after 10 years you've still got 5% less, and so on.

The current "opinion" is that capital gains hikes, if passed, would be retroactive, would apply to people making $500,000 or more. Supposedly step up in basis will only apply to $1,000,000 transactions.
Doubt many folks here will be affected if that is true, although it may prompt some selling. But if it is retroactive, it is too late.
I think the step up in basis is far more likely to hit the middle class, as baby boomers inherit the greatest generation's equity accounts.

This could be another case where an inflection point has been reached and the ocean liner is ready to change course. It feels to me like the odds of this happening are higher now than they have been in several decades.....

Governments worldwide are desperate to raise extra revenue to rebuild their pandemic-ravaged economies and corporate taxation is becoming an obvious target after decades of decline.

A somewhat longer view......United States Federal Corporate Tax Rate1909-2021:

Link: The four-decade decline in global corporate tax rates

A couple more regional differences. In some parts of the US, attorneys are typically used to review the paperwork. In other parts of the country, real estate agents handle this. In my limited experience, the quality of service is poor either way.
My last purchase was handled by a RE legal firm. Some matter concerning dollars (taxes, perhaps?) was not computed correctly. I told my lawyers that the figures were wrong and the response was: don't worry, we'll fix that up at the closing. At the closing, they attempted to proceed as if everything were fine until I interrupted. In real time, lawyers from both sides huddled in private for the better part of an hour before coming back with adjusted figures. Still wrong, but closer and not worth my effort to deconstruct further.
A different property sale in another part of the country had real estate agents handling the paperwork. Because of circumstances suggesting I might have had an ownership interest in the property being sold (I didn't), they insisted that I co-sign the grant ("normal") deed that the seller was signing. That was problematic because the deed required me to attest that I had an interest in the property, which wasn't true.
I offered to sign a quitclaim deed (relinquishing any rights I might have had), something designed for this very situation. But the agents deemed this unacceptable. They were wrong, but as in the first situation, it wasn't worth pressing further.
The other regional difference that came to mind is whether purchases are paid for via mortgages or promissory notes coupled with deeds of trust.

Some states are "mortgage states" that do not use deeds of trust. In other states, state law requires the use of a deed of trust whenever the buyer is borrowing some or all of the money needed to finance their purchase of real estate. In approximately 15 states, either a mortgage or a deed of trust may be used to secure the lender's interest in a real property transaction.

https://www.legalnature.com/guides/understanding-when-and-how-to-use-a-deed-of-trust

Thank you all for the replies!
We're going to go with a $500 fixed fee, MLS listing and forego the selling agent. I believe this allows us more control over the potential sale. I'm also concerned that even if I receive an offer I will not emotionally be able to go thru with it..and then would have to compensate a selling agent for doing next to nothing. I'm also not sure that is a bad thing because I anticipate tremendous inflation coming soon that is NOT transitionary and the house could continue to inflate price wise...but of course I could be way wrong?
No hurry to sell the home, will use our RE attorney regardless to review contracts, etc.
Baseball Fan

And then there's this: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9519477/Manhattan-financer-59-jumps-death-skyscraper-weeks-firm-liquidated.html
I think we in the US have a hard time defining success in a meaningful way; and we have issues with success-over-identification.
This is tragic.

Robotic assisted farming from picking weeds to picking Strawberries:
seattle-startup-sends-laser-equipped-robots-to-zap-weeds-on-farmland
Strawberrinator:
strawberry-picker-farmworker-automation-termination/

Apple Pickerobo:
wsu-engineers-scientists-prepare-to-test-apple-picking-robot

“Top shareholders said they would vote against re-electing key Credit Suisse Group AG board members, a broadside against the bank’s leadership following a $5.5 billion loss from hedge fund Archegos Capital Management.
“At the bank’s annual meeting this Friday, Harris Associates* and Norges Bank Investment Management said they would vote against the reappointment of Andreas Gottschling, chairman of the bank’s risk committee. Mr. Gottschling joined the board in 2017 from the top risk job at Austria’s Erste Group Bank AG.
“David Herro, a partner at Harris Associates with a roughly 8% stake in Credit Suisse, said he would vote against Mr. Gottschling because he was the director in charge of risk.
“Norges, an arm of Norway’s central bank that runs its sovereign oil fund, owns around 3% of Credit Suisse. It said it would also oppose re-electing the lead independent director Severin Schwan, who is chief executive at Roche Holding AG , and Richard Meddings, a veteran British banker who joined the board last year ... Under Swiss rules, more than half of voting shares must go against a Director to block re-election.”
From: The Wall Street Journal - April 27, 2021 - Reported by Margot Patrick
* Since Harris Associates operates the Oakmark Funds, I’ve elected to include this under fund discussions.

My current thinking is to wait until age 70. That gives me 5 years (age 65 to age 70) to convert tIRA money to a Roth without having SS push me into a higher tax bracket. (Before age 65, my conversions are limited because I am on ACA).
As Kings53 said - 15% of your SS will be tax free, so it pays to make that as big as possible. For some, that tax free portion will be higher.
As one data point, my FIL waited until 70 to collect - he’s 97 now. His checks haven’t kept up with his personal inflation but we are certainly glad they are not 30% less.

Ya @carew38. I remember the late 70s, early 80s...punks worked at grocery stores bagging and in union making $12+ gazebos an hour, then load trucks for UPS part time making $15 + an hour...do the math, you could do real well with no college back then... now, hmm.
Best
Baseball Fan

1979 was also the peak year for manufacturing employment . Anecdote from 1979: a classmate from high school was working as a Pepsi teamster driving trucks that summer. His pay was $9 per hour, when the minimum wage was $3.35 hourly. $9 is still higher than our Federal Minimum Wage. Of course, it helped that his father worked for Pepsi as well !