Quite a few column inches devoted to one particular type of bank account, TD Bank's "Preferred Chequing". It talks about one customer who's had the account for 25 years.
What isn't mentioned is that the reason such a long time customer was used as an example is that all customers of this account have had it for at least two decades. Preferred Chequing was discontinued in 2001 except for grandfathered customers.
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/investing/personal-finance/household-finances/article-was-this-big-bank-too-nice-in-giving-some-clients-a-break-on-fees/
The disproportionate coverage of this one particular account type to the exclusion of all others suggests that this is a corner case and not necessarily representative.
The customer is quoted as asking: "In an environment where people have lost their jobs, they're on furlough, they're trying to get CERB payments, who's going to be able to keep $5,000 in their bank account to not get service fees?"
The article could have responded to this by noting that since 2003, low-cost accounts (with minimum requirements set by the government) have been available at many banks, including TD Bank.
https://www.canada.ca/en/financial-consumer-agency/services/banking/bank-accounts/low-cost-no-cost.html
Or that TD Bank is not raising monthly maintenance fees or min balance requirements on its current offerings, and is eliminating the paper statement fee on its Student Chequing Account. Though it is converting Youth Accounts to Student Chequing Accounts, resulting in a new cap of 25 transactions/mo w/o fees.
https://www.tdcanadatrust.com/document/PDF/accounts/513796.pdf
Or that CERB shut down before these fee hikes. If the point is that many people are dealing with reduced cash flows (notably, lower income), that's whom low cost accounts are designed for.
Certainly some Canadian bank fees are going up, and while the government is doing something to help, it could always do more. But this article does not present the typical account nor does it present a broad picture of banking fees in Canada.
It's a little dated (2014), but here's a Canadian government study of banking fees.
https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/canada/financial-consumer-agency/migration/eng/resources/researchsurveys/documents/bankingfees-fraisbancaires-eng.pdf

I'm a big fan. Or rather, I was. The profitability of those "Big 5" banks is the closest thing to a sure bet in investing I've ever seen.
CM
TD
RY
BMO
BNS
But I cannot any longer ignore the unethical way that these banks treat their customers. It's been going on for years. Tonight on CBC's The National, I saw a news story that "broke the camel's back." And their customers = 90% of all money on deposit in Canada. Now, despite MAKING A PROFIT during the Covid ordeal, they are raising minimums in order for customers to avoid paying fees, and raising the fees, as well. And add to this, the fact that in-person service has been cut back to a bare-bones level. On this basis, I will not be buying. Until there is a sea-change, somehow.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/bank-fee-increases-1.6032824

Hank, yes; I noted about mis-pricing during some time periods for muni bonds vs taxable bonds. I considered several years ago an investment in NHMRX, but other sector investments were performing nicely and the transaction didn't happen. All of my accounts are either T or Roth IRA's, and the online buy (muni fund) wouldn't have been processed.
Below, is the current message returned when attempting to buy a muni fund for a T or Roth IRA at Fidelity. All online buys require a "preview the trade" before being processed. As @msf noted, the message doesn't prevent the transaction in total, but not via electronic channels.
----- (010386) The security you are attempting to trade is a tax-free mutual fund. Retirement accounts are prevented from buying or exchanging into tax-free mutual funds through the electronic channels. For more information, contact a Fidelity representative at 800-544-6666. -----
@Crash. It is not stated in this thread that you can not have a muni investment in an IRA; but that you can not process the transaction electronically.

(From the Fidelity document @msf linked): “Trades for $1,000 or less (are exempt from the trading block). (Please note that if more than one buy order or sell order for a given fund is executed on the same day in the same account, the $1,000 threshold is based on the total dollar value of all orders for that fund.)”
- Gets confusing, but (regarding the above) I wonder if one could do several identical $1,000 transactions, one-day apart without running amuck of their rules? Maybe there’s a “gottcha” somewhere else in their rule book.
- Like most other fund providers, Fidelity exempts money market funds from the excessive trading restrictions.
- Thanks @msf for clarifying the TRP policy. I guess I was just trying to generalize whereas specificity is needed.
- Am old enough to remember when TRP had a 90-day “round trip” rule as well - though not sure how similar to Fido’s it was. Price quietly dropped that when they adapted the 30-day block msf referenced.
- Price also more recently dropped its early redemption fee on many of their funds. ISTM that 2% of the amount sold early was pretty typical. On a $2500 sale 2% = $50. So, it’s hard to characterize Fido’s $49.95 fee on NTF funds sold early as price gouging. If anything, it sounds more forgiving than the old Price policy was. (But with Fido, the NTF fund itself may have additional redemption fees.)
“Fidelity has ... an easy website … but the more they change it to look like their small screen ap, the worse it gets. Fidelity recently changed its bill payment interface so now I have to go through multiple screens to accomplish what used to be easier.”
- Re the above, I’m thinking Fidelity’s website / tech changes may eventually confuse its reps to the point they’re as “lost” in the process as TRP’s now appear. :)

Agreed. David Swenson's passing points to the initial success he had with Yale's endowment in Private Equity because he was the first one to the game and had good choices, and the where withal to evaluate them. Many endowments who jumped in latter have not done anywhere nearly as well
If folks with Billions can't get an advantage, how can we?

David Swenson invested in private equity, hedge funds, and timberland before many other investment professionals realized their potential. The Yale Endowment had excellent access to these alternative asset investments and its staff was proficient in evaluating management team skill. As you mentioned, many endowments who later imitated the "Yale Model" have not performed nearly as well.
There will be opportunities available in private equity. Many companies are choosing to remain private for longer time periods. Ordinary investors can invest in publicly listed private equity firms (Blackstone, The Carlyle Group, KKR, etc.). These investors can also seek out mutual funds with private equity allocations but this will not be a pure-play. SEC rules for illiquid assets (15% limit?) restrict mutual funds from owning too much private equity.

Lawyers making claims. Ya. And uncle Jeffrey never did anything with those underage girls, either.
...Gonna need you to send Lawyers, Guns and Money to get me outa this.

Lots of semi-random comments:
Hank's The [Fidelity] 30-day limitation for in-house funds is perfectly reasonable - roughly what TRP insists on.
This reflects each fund house's excessive trading policy - something similar to but different from short term redemption fees. A key difference is that redemption fees are "just" money. Excessive trading rules can lock you out of trading. No Fidelity fund has a short term fee, and I believe the same is true for TRP funds.
TRP's policy can be found in each fund's statutory prospectus. It bars you from buying shares in a fund account if you sold shares from that account within 30 days. Notice the time constraint is on sell followed by purchase. All you need are two transactions (sell followed by buy) to trigger a restriction. Vanguard has a similar policy.
Fidelity's policy is more complex. It defines a short term round trip as a buy followed by a sell within 30 days. The policy begins to take effect only if you execute two round trips within 90 days of each other.
This seems somewhat less restrictive: you're allowed to buy/sell/buy in any time frame with no consequences. It's only the second short term (30 day) sell that triggers a freeze. But if triggered, it lasts longer than at TRP; at Fidelity the bar against purchases lasts 85 days and you're placed on a watch list.
Fidelity's Excessive Trading Policy and 2020 Update
In Mona's boglehead's link, the OP writes: HSA w/ company which im maxing out and investing it in Vanguard Real Estate Fund.
There's no response to this part of the post, but Fidelity offers the cheapest, broadest HSA around (it's a regular brokerage account). Many employer HSAs have fees or restrictions attached. What one can do is contribute to the employer's HSA (to get added employee tax benefits and match) and then transfer the money to an external (Fidelity) HSA. One can even buy a share class of Vanguard Real Estate Fund VNQ with no commission in a Fidelity HSA.
I agree with much of what sma3 wrote (also having had accounts at Vanguard, Fidelity, and Schwab for years). Though here are some items that reasonable people can view differently:
Vanguard is clunky
Likely true for many operations; I find it easy to use for the only thing I care about there: buying and selling mutual funds
Fidelity has ... an easy website
Yes, but the more they change it to look like their small screen ap, the worse it gets. Fidelity recently changed its bill payment interface so now I have to go through multiple screens to accomplish what used to be easier. And I can no longer give it a list of payees to display by default; it always starts with every one I've left in the system.
Vanguard is ... putting up more and more restrictions on nonV funds
It doesn't let you buy or sell leveraged/inverse ETFs. OTOH, to buy aggressive funds like PQTAX, Fidelity requires you to sign an agreement and set your account investment objective to most aggressive, while Vanguard just puts up a dialog box informing you that you should be aware of the risks.
A few years ago, Schwab stopped selling load funds (unless they were sold load-waived). I believe Vanguard has a similar policy. Fidelity still sells funds with loads. The way this may play out is that, e.g. for NMFAX, Fidelity will sell the A shares with a load, Schwab will have arranged for them to be sold NTF, and Vanguard won't sell them.

Latest on Suez Canal . Who's to blame ?
https://news.yahoo.com/suez-canal-blame-grounding-massive-203420853.html

I am glad to hear of the TRP issues as I was thinking of moving some of their funds I own at Fidelity to TRP directly.
I have had accounts at Schwab, Fidelity and Vanguard for years and can offer the following
Vanguard is clunky, irritating and putting up more and more restrictions on nonV funds. Major advantage is only place I know of to get Admiral funds. Best used for only Vanguard funds. No dedicated personal rep, rather now a "team", unless you pay for advisor. Occasionally there are funds here I can't get anywhere else. Still have my wife's money in mutual fund account, rather than brokerage. Lot's of complaints in Vanguard Advisor news letter about back office service, mistakes in accounting etc.
Schwab has good list of most funds, lots of Load funds without load, but $25 more expensive as noted than Fido for fees. Good customer service, can get a single rep if you want who will call you occasionally to see if he/she "can help". Web site not as easy to navigate as FIDO
Fido has better graphs and data on positions and an easiest website. Very easy transfers from other brokerages, all done electronically. Have never used their personal reps, although they pester us all the time to "sign up".
I don't like to have all my assets in one basket, but if I had to pick one would go with Fido, with Schwab close second.
I was always a little leery about having to use a private firm ( Fidelity) that did not have to report their finances to the public. I am not sure if this is still a big issue, as Fido has massive amounts of retirement accounts and these folks probably watch things pretty carefully. However, you will not be told if there are problems, if you do not participate in a massive 401k ( My wife got stuck in a busted 401k years ago). Vanguard is just as opaque, as their mantra of " the fund investors own the firm" is window dressing only as fund investors do not get to elect the board or vote on salaries etc.

*** Glad folks have been able to expand the thread to address other needs or concerns.
Personally, TRP was always the “old reliable” safe haven I could move money to when somebody else failed to meet expectations. So, my initial question is one I never expected to even ask. Waiting with baited breath for TRP to resolve any remaining account problems before taking any drastic steps.
@MikeM - Wow. What a coherent well written testimony. to your faith in Schwab.
Some rambling thoughts …
- With advancing age comes a move more toward income funds and other less risky (less profitable) investments. Thus, ER becomes increasingly important. A 1-2% ER might not hurt you too much in an equity fund capable of posting double-digit years. But in a GNMA or short term bond fund anything north of 0.5% is a severe hit to your return. While TRP isn’t best in class, fees have been coming down. When you throw in their exemplary research capability you might even argue many of their fees are a bargain.
- I’ve never liked moving significant amounts of money between custodians. If it’s going from / to cash or moderate income funds … no foul. But moving money that’s committed to more volatile investments entails the risk of a drastic market move while the money is being transmitted. Envision being essentially in cash as your money makes its way from the old to the new custodian … and the asset class your moving jumps 5-10% over the few days it’s in transit. In that case you end up buying in at a premium and missing out on the gain. If you like roulette wheels, maybe it’s not bothersome to you because there’s a roughly “even” chance the market will drop during that time and you’ll come out a winner. (I don’t like roulette wheels.)
- Admittedly, you can try to pre-position assets so most of the transfers end up being in cash. But, it’s a hassle involving numerous transfers at both custodians if you’re moving a diversified portfolio of funds.
- The early redemption fees at Schwab and Fido bother me. I suppose folks might criticize me for sometimes buying and selling a fund within 60 days … but I’m not here to defend my approach or teach others how they should invest. Different strokes … The 30-day limitation for in-house funds is perfectly reasonable - roughly what TRP insists on. Picking up new investments (ie Fido funds) entails a learning curve, making some mistakes in the process. I think I can say with confidence that 3 of 4 current TRP funds did not exist when I signed on with them in 1995. So I’ve had a chance to become familiar with most of their offerings one or two at a time. Rather daunting is the thought of having to learn about an entirely new stable of funds (assuming one wants to avoid the early redemption issue involving NTF purchased funds).

The results depend on several assumptions you can't accurately predict and why my wife and I will start taking our SS at age 65. Why 65?
1) It's between 62 and 70.
2) It's convenient for paying Medicare + taxes.
3) If you are retired and needs to take ACA, you can get free or close to it in premiums by delaying SS and use subsidies by controlling your income. That can save you $700-900 per month premiums + very low deductible instead of a very high one. It doesn't matter if your savings are in the millions. It's all legal.
BTW, see this site(link) to help you when to start taking SS for you and your spouse.

With comparable returns (both funds returned the identical 43.21% over the past year ending 5/21/21, and were within 1 basis point annualized over the past three and five years), I'd prefer the one that didn't impose a tax drag on my returns.
Sure Schwab's TTM yield is higher. The fund recognizes and distributes capital gains. This is a good thing?
SWPPX has been continually distributing capital gains, sometimes even short term gains, year after year after year. Though it did manage to break its streak last year.
2015: 32.45¢ LTG
2016: 18.05¢ LTG + 1.13¢ STG
2017: 1.66¢ STG
2018: 6.97¢ LTG + 0.87¢ STG
2019, 8.91¢ LTG
VFIAX hasn't had a cap gains distribution this century. Admittedly it has an advantage because the fund has an ETF share class that enables the fund to spin off cap gains. But isn't that the point, that it has an advantage?
As article after article has stated, there's more to "best" or even "cheapest" than stated ER.
In terms of raw performance, there's a MUTUAL FUND that SWPPX has been unable to beat in even a single calendar year over the past decade. Even though that fund has "a cost factor DOUBLE schwab 0.04%". It's VINIX. A Vanguard fund.
M* ratings are a measure of risk adjusted performance within a category of funds. SWPPX gets four stars. Rarely do index funds get five stars, so that rating isn't surprising. But it does make one wonder about whether it really is "the best". Especially since there are other index funds in its category that have five star ratings, like VFIAX and VINIX.
Schwab is a boutique fund house. It's got a slew of target date funds and index funds, but sizeable holes elsewhere. No government bond funds, no mortgage funds, no core plus, no taxable high yield. On the equity side, no growth funds, foreign or domestic, aside from a pair of domestic large cap growth funds. This is just the basic stuff, the minimum one would expect to find at a one-stop shop.
Schwab is a great brokerage. And I'll continue to laud it. But as a fund house, it's far from top tier. Some of us still remember its Yield Plus fund. Maybe that's why it no longer offers an ultrashort term bond fund.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/lessons-from-schwabs-yieldplus-debacle/

schwab has the best MUTUAL FUND in america.
it is SWPPX ( S&P 500) and it has cost factor of 0.02%
vanguard, everyones favorite though not mine, offers Admiral shares VFIAX (S&P 500) at a cost factor DOUBLE schwab 0.04%. tell me now that schwab isn't better in brokerage or mutual funds.

SWPPX has a higher Tax Cost Ratio.

Wisdomtree has renamed the NTSX ETF, and also launched international and emerging market versions of the ETF.
The symbols for the new ETFs are NTSI and NTSE.

Upon launching the WisdomTree U.S. Efficient Core Fund (NTSX), previously referred to as the WisdomTree 90/60 U.S. Balanced Fund, we updated some of the seminal research from Cliff Asness on the diversification benefits that come from applying leverage to a traditional 60/40 portfolio approach.
Today, we are excited to launch international and emerging markets versions of these strategies with the WisdomTree International Efficient Core Fund (NTSI) and the WisdomTree Emerging Markets Efficient Core Fund (NTSE). While this piece focuses on U.S. markets, our research has shown similar results outside of the U.S.

https://www.wisdomtree.com/blog/2021-05-20/an-update-to-cliff-asness-s-study-on-the-benefits-of-a-levered-60-40

schwab has the best MUTUAL FUND in america.
it is SWPPX ( S&P 500) and it has cost factor of 0.02%
vanguard, everyones favorite though not mine, offers Admiral shares VFIAX (S&P 500) at a cost factor DOUBLE schwab 0.04%. tell me now that schwab isn't better in brokerage or mutual funds.

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1318342/000139834421011101/fp0065643_497.htm
497 1 fp0065643_497.htm
WCM International Small Cap Growth Fund
(Institutional Class Shares - Ticker Symbol: WCMSX)
A series of Investment Managers Series Trust
Supplement dated May 20, 2021 to the
Prospectus dated September 1, 2020,
Statement of Additional Information dated September 1, 2020,
as amended February 24, 2021, and Summary Prospectus,
dated September 1, 2020.
IMPORTANT NOTICE REGARDING PURCHASE OF FUND SHARES
Effective as of the close of business on June 18, 2021 (the “Closing Date”), the WCM International Small Cap Growth Fund (the “Fund”) will be publicly offered on a limited basis.
Effective as of the Closing Date, only certain investors will be eligible to purchase shares of the Fund, as described below (the “closure policy”). In addition, the Fund may from time to time, in its sole discretion based on the Fund’s net asset levels and other factors, limit the types of investors permitted to open new accounts, limit new purchases into the Fund or otherwise modify the closure policy on a case-by-case basis.
Effective as of the Closing Date, the following groups will be permitted to continue to purchase Fund shares:
1.Shareholders of record of the Fund as of the Closing Date may continue to purchase additional shares in their existing Fund accounts either directly from the Fund or through a financial intermediary, and they may continue to reinvest dividends or capital gains distributions from Fund shares.
2.Existing registered investment advisors, bank trust firms and broker dealers or other financial intermediaries that have an investment allocation to the Fund in a fee-based, wrap or advisory account may continue to add new clients and purchase shares.
3.New shareholders may open Fund accounts and purchase shares directly from the Fund (i.e., not through a financial intermediary).
4.Group employer benefit plans, including 401(k), 403(b), 457 plans, and health savings account programs (and their successor, related and affiliated plans) (collectively, “Employer Benefit Plans”), which made the Fund available to participants on or before the Closing Date, may continue to open accounts for new participants with the Fund and purchase additional shares in existing participant accounts. New Employer Benefit Plans may also establish new accounts with the Fund, provided the new Employer Benefit Plan approved and selected the Fund as an investment option by the Closing Date and the Employer Benefit Plan was accepted for investment by the Fund by the Closing Date.
5. Members of the Fund’s Board of Trustees, persons affiliated with WCM Investment Management, LLC, the Fund’s advisor, and their immediate families may continue to purchase shares of the Fund and establish new accounts.
In general, the Fund will rely on a financial intermediary to prevent a new account from being opened within an omnibus account established at that financial intermediary if the account would not otherwise satisfy the conditions outlined above. The Fund’s ability to monitor new accounts that are opened through omnibus accounts or other nominee accounts is limited, and the ability to limit a new account to those that meet the above criteria with respect to financial intermediaries may vary, depending upon the capabilities of those financial intermediaries. Investors may be asked to verify that they meet one of the exceptions above prior to opening a new account with the Fund. The Fund may permit you to open a new account if the Fund reasonably believes that you are eligible. The Fund also may decline to permit you to open a new account if the Fund believes that doing so would be in the best interests of the Fund and its shareholders, even if you would be eligible to open a new account under these exceptions. If all shares of the Fund in an existing account are redeemed, the shareholder’s account will be closed. Such former shareholders will not be able to buy additional shares of the Fund or reopen their account.
Please file this Supplement with your records.

MikeM - Thanks for weighing in.
The “disconnect” is in my brain. My question assumed there were still plenty of conventional and competitive fund houses similar to Price from which to choose. From the discussion it seems the whole universe is moving to brokerages..
Why? I suspect it’s more cost effective for a firm like Fidelity to staff just one support team geared to the brokerage type customer rather than two distinct teams. Might even be a reason TRP’s once stellar mutual fund support team has been allowed to slide. They too offer a brokerage feature. I suspect they’d not be unhappy if their mutual fund customers shifted to their brokerage.
This has been an education. As I think @MikeM correctly guessed, I’m more comfortable with traditional fund / fund houses based on 50+ years of doing it that way.
BTW- Anybody remember a time they phoned Price’s mutual fund support team and weren’t greeted with the following message: “We are experiencing higher than normal call volume. Your wait time may be longer …” (followed by some crappy music)? Logically and mathematically, it would seem impossible for something to remain “higher than normal” indefinitely.

Check out this open source SS strategy calculator that take all these various permutations into account: https://opensocialsecurity.com/

I was thinking 65 or 66....
------------
The strategy that maximizes the total dollars you can be expected to receive over your lifetime is as follows:
You file for your retirement benefit to begin 1/2029, at age 69 and 3 months.

baron list is bogus! out of fifty top brokerage houses, no listing at all for the very best: charles schwab!
do you know how you become best doc in NJ. you buy the plaque each year. failure to purchase and you are delisted next year.
us news and world reports lists the best colleges in america. one of the top five is REED in portland oregon. they are listed as 60th. why? simple, no payola. baron's list should not be considered for guidance.

There’s some confusion here: this is a list of the fifty top Mutual Fund Families, not top brokerage houses.
Barron’s has a separate list of the Best Online Brokers: Schwab got a 4/5 score and placed fifth.

This makes more sense than bitcoin....

...the moves of multiple countries, most prominently China, in the central bank digital currency (CBDC) space has intensified talk about how aggressively the Fed should move. China’s progress has stirred worries that it could undermine the dollar’s position as the global reserve currency.
Powell referenced the growing popularity of digital currencies like bitcoin, though he said they remain inefficient payment mechanisms. Stablecoins, which are tied to specific currencies, offer other advantages.
“Technological advances also offer new possibilities to central banks — including the Fed,” Powell said. “While various structures and technologies might be used, a CBDC could be designed for use by the general public.”

CBDC