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

baron list is bogus! out of fifty top brokerage houses, no listing at all for the very best: charles schwab!
[...] baron's list should not be considered for guidance.

>> Barrons List of 50 Best Mutual Fund Families in 2020 (From February, 2021)
As a mutual fund family, Schwab is no better than mediocre, with exactly half of its 60 funds rated 3 star, It's got just one five star fund along with 15 four star funds; at least that's slightly better than its dozen 2 star funds. (In case you're counting, two of its funds are too new to have star ratings.)
Though if you really want to know why Schwab wasn't even in the running, it's because it offers no actively managed taxable bond funds. Which means that it doesn't offer a full suite of funds. For similar reasons (e.g. no muni bond fund), D&C isn't on the list either.

Thanks @dsuttr -
I won’t doubt your word. I only said that I investigated the 50 fund houses. If you or anyone else wants to provide a list of 50 more mutual fund houses you think worth investigating, I’d be glad to look at them too. Logging into 50 different fund houses and reading their prospectuses in one evening is a great way to test the longevity of the battery on my ipad. :)
Regards

I don’t know how to thank everybody for the great response. Am humbled by how little i knew about Fidelity, Schwab & brokerages in general. This thread will be saved and referenced repeatedly. For now, I’m staying put with Price. Hopefully, the technical related issues will be resolved. Suspect I (and some of you) understand how to navigate and utilize their website better than many of the current phone reps - for reasons unclear to me.
FWIW - Later in the evening Tuesday after reading all the responses, I researched practically every fund house on the attached list. Went right to their website. Late into the night. The changes in the mutual fund business since I joined TRP around 1995 are unbelievable. Only the strong survive. Many merged out of existence. With possibly a dozen exceptions (counting the big brokerages), all the houses on the Barron’s list appear to be front loaded, And few offer a diversified stable of funds for individuals. Several cater to institutions or very large investors. And none can compete with the 4 or 5 giants on fees. Their top rated house, Manning & Nappier is interesting. Not front loaded, but their 12B-1 fee is considered a “level load.” I actually like some of their allocation funds - but the added fee reduces attractiveness compared to TRP.
Looks like increasingly the fund universe is dominated by a few mammoth houses. The big get bigger - which explains Fidelity’s current push to bring the “teeny-boppers” under its umbrella. I’ll pursue @msf’s use / suggestion of online banks which would negate the already limited need for checkwriting at a fund house. If the local bank on the corner you’ve been with for 15 years is unable to provide a medallion signature guarantee when you walk in the front door without your having to jump through hoops, what value is there to staying with them?
Barrons List of 50 Best Mutual Fund Families in 2020 (From February, 2021)
Manning & Napier Advisors $5,755 72.54 26 3 6 4 2
2 54 Guggenheim Investments 40,034 70.56 20 16 15 1 11
3 10 Vanguard Group 1,836,704 66.07 8 19 26 5 9
4 9 Fidelity Management & Research 1,779,875 64.79 16 24 8 8 35
5 47 Morgan Stanley Investment Management 77,902 62.95 1 10 18 51 52
6 35 Transamerica Asset Management 48,738 62.46 10 8 9 48 23
7 14 Lord Abbett 175,300 61.26 9 31 3 46 30
8 51 Brinker Capital 14,011 60.52 2 9 7 53 48
9 28 American Century Investment Mgmt 154,321 60.50 18 13 19 27 6
10 4 Columbia Threadneedle Investments 179,658 59.90 13 32 14 15 42
11 2 Virtus Investment Partners 48,912 59.41 28 36 1 39 4
12 20 T. Rowe Price 761,480 59.38 32 17 4 24 33
13 25 Saratoga Capital Management 1,251 59.23 50 4 24 2 53
14 53 American Funds 2,290,068 58.93 43 12 35 3 18
15 23 John Hancock 188,266 58.74 27 22 13 17 40
16 27 First Trust Advisors 33,377 58.07 4 43 12 40 39
17 45 Thrivent Mutual Funds 30,089 57.97 6 46 22 19 24
18 13 BlackRock 340,679 57.69 24 15 21 18 47
19 6 Nuveen 233,819 57.19 14 7 16 47 32
20 52 AssetMark 3,952 56.21 3 52 31 13 36
21 21 PGIM Investments 163,978 55.94 7 1 52 42 27
22 8 Putnam Investment Management 82,302 55.78 11 26 20 41 26
23 46 SIT Investment Associates 1,826 55.22 21 6 2 52 49
24 18 J.P. Morgan Asset Management 454,621 55.16 12 18 29 34 29
25 42 UBS Asset Management 12,563 55.00 23 37 10 43 10
26 29 BNY Mellon Investment Management 63,649 54.41 5 34 38 32 25
27 26 Amundi Pioneer Asset Management 46,209 53.07 34 2 36 38 28
28 15 Wells Fargo Funds 88,736 52.93 19 28 44 9 44
29 38 Pimco 415,290 51.95 17 51 25 29 5
30 32 Ivy Investment Management 60,875 51.78 38 20 17 35 34
31 31 Delaware Management 64,045 51.53 41 14 51 6 1
32 30 Federated Investors 84,141 51.41 47 11 33 7 45
33 3 DWS Group 30,427 50.36 42 21 23 23 37
34 1 MFS Investment Management 370531 49.79 36 39 27 12 38
35 11 Natixis Investment Managers 151,678 49.49 45 5 34 31 51
36 49 Affiliated Managers Group 88,905 49.38 30 40 11 49 7
37 12 Hartford Funds 114,072 48.78 25 27 46 25 12
38 36 Neuberger Berman 38,096 48.40 35 48 32 10 43
39 34 Goldman Sachs Asset Management 120,060 48.01 37 38 39 14 22
40 7 State Street Bank & Trust 22,867 47.96 49 47 5 30 31
41 22 Invesco 324,250 47.28 39 25 45 20 20
42 5 Principal Global Investors 183,536 47.16 46 30 28 28 21
43 39 MainStay Funds 66,624 46.44 29 44 37 37 3
44 43 USAA Investments** 60,434 45.25 22 45 48 21 14
45 48 Franklin Templeton Investments 472,488 44.74 33 35 49 26 17
46 24 Northern Trust Investments 28,110 43.75 53 23 40 16 16
47 37 SEI Group 97,141 42.75 48 50 42 11 13
48 33 Eaton Vance 106,755 42.36 52 29 30 33 19
49 17 Victory Capital Management** 36,030 42.32 44 33 50 22 8
50 50 Russell Investments
Barron’s February 19, 2021

@hank - the only Fidelity funds I own I own through my brokerage accounts, FSMEX in a taxable account and FTEC in my Roth account.
As far as i know any fund that Fidelity carries can be transferred in kind to a similar brokerage account. If you own a TRP fund in a traditional IRA and Fidelity carries that fund then you can transfer in your shares to a traditional IRA brokerage account. I'm not positive but I don't believe that Fidelity has access to all of the TRP funds. For example, I believe that you are a good sized holder in PRWCX so it pays to check before transferring. I've owned 4-5 different TRP funds which I had no trouble transferring merely for bookkeeping ease. If you do the transfer in cash then of course you can buy whatever you want at Fidelity.

That’s some qualification… “ 1 Qualified Purchaser: Includes, among others, natural persons owning not less than $5 million in investments; family offices owning not less than $5 million in investments; trusts not formed to acquire securities offered and each trustee and settlor is a qualified purchaser; and other entities not formed to acquire securities offered that own not less than $25 million in investments.

I’m not disagreeing with Lewis. I have no idea and my exposure is very limited… but here’s David Rubenstein with a counter argument: https://mobile.twitter.com/SquawkCNBC/status/1395354887966412801
Then there’s Jack Dorsey with the “Bitcoin can make the world greener post”: https://nymag.com/intelligencer/amp/2021/05/jack-dorsey-says-bitcoin-is-climate-friendly-is-he-right.html
A lot of smart people on both sides of this discussion.

Thanks for sharing.
I didn't realize that just 20 firms are responsible for 55% of the world's plastic waste.
Regarding ESG funds, there are different definitions of what constitutes ESG.
Some investment firms have implemented "greenwashing" in order to jump on the ESG bandwagon.
Caveat emptor!

Bitcoin bounces back after crash… https://www.wsj.com/articles/bitcoin-price-bounces-after-crypto-crash-shocks-market-11621508116
Use the volatility to your favor? Cathie Wood et al seem to think so… including forecasts of BTC at 100k and 500k in the future hmmm. There’s a lot of people vested in it- will they stand idly by and let it be regulated into nonexistence? Can it be?

Uh-oh. ... What could possibly go wrong, eh?
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/fed-will-launch-a-broad-discussion-of-a-digital-dollar-this-summer-powell-says-11621534045?mod=home-page

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1494928/000139834421011115/fp0065693_497.htm
RiverPark Funds Trust
RiverPark Short Term High Yield Fund
Institutional Class (RPHIX)
Retail Class (RPHYX)
Supplement dated May 20, 2021 to the Summary Prospectus, Prospectus and Statement of Additional Information (“SAI”) dated January 28, 2021.
This supplement provides new and additional information beyond that contained in the Summary Prospectus, Prospectus and SAI and should be read in conjunction with the Summary Prospectus, Prospectus and SAI.
IMPORTANT NOTICE ON PURCHASE OF FUND SHARES
Effective as of 4 p.m. on June 18, 2021 (the "Closing Date"), Retail and Institutional Class Shares of the RiverPark Short Term High Yield Fund (the "Fund") are closed to new investors.
After the Closing Date, existing shareholders of Retail and Institutional Class Shares of the Fund and certain eligible investors, as set forth below, may purchase additional Retail and Institutional Class Shares of the Fund through existing or new accounts and may reinvest dividends and capital gains distributions.
Existing shareholders include:
• Shareholders of record of the Fund as of the Closing Date (although if a shareholder closes all accounts in the Fund, additional investments into the Fund may not be accepted).
• Clients of a financial adviser or planner who had client assets invested in the Fund as of the Closing Date.
After the Closing Date, the following eligible investors may open new accounts:
• New shareholders may open Fund accounts and purchase shares directly from the Fund (i.e. not through a financial intermediary).
• Any trustee of RiverPark Funds Trust, or employee of RiverPark Advisors, LLC or Cohanzick Management, LLC, or an investor who is an immediate family member of any of these individuals.
The Fund reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to determine the criteria for qualification as an eligible investor and to reject any purchase order. Sales of Retail Class Shares and Institutional Class Shares of the Fund may be further restricted or reopened in the future.
PLEASE RETAIN THIS SUPPLEMENT FOR FUTURE REFERENCE.

And now another crash: https://cnn.com/2021/05/19/investing/bitcoin-price-drop-china-crypto-intl-hnk/index.html

Oy: https://cnn.com/2021/05/19/investing/bitcoin-price-drop-china-crypto-intl-hnk/index.html

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1081400/000108140021000358/divequitysupp.htm
Acquiring Fund: Wells Fargo Spectrum Aggressive Growth Fund

>> This idea that SS increases at 8% per year strikes me as fallacious. In "dollars," sure, but not in purchasing power ... the rate at which SS benefits are adjusted for inflation is only a fraction of the rate of inflation actually experienced by most people, especially seniors. Rerun those numbers with annual benefit increases that account for 4.0 to 4.5% inflation, a number more people are actually likely to face
Huh? The 8% figure is for delaying.
Not CoLA.

Absent COLA adjustments, the real value of waiting would be substantially less, and could even be negative. To take an extreme example, suppose prices doubled in a year. Then your 108% of benefits would be worth 54% of what your base benefit was worth a year before. That is, rather than getting an 8% return, one would suffer a 46% loss.
But because the payments would go up not 8% (nominal) but 8% in real terms, you really would get 8% more purchasing power by waiting a year.

CPI of course does not take into account (e.g.) property tax increases, or only very indirectly.

You might as well say that CPI of course does not take into account the cost of buying or financing a home. That's because homes are capital goods, and CPI measures consumables (services are considered consumables). So instead, CPI considers rent equivalent (what you'd have to pay in rent for the shelter you own).
The cost of rent incorporates all the landlord's costs that get past through, including property taxes. Just one step of indirection, not so tenuous.
https://www.bls.gov/cpi/factsheets/owners-equivalent-rent-and-rent.pdf

But on what bases do you state what you state?

That's the key question, because all we have here is a bald assertion about costs people are likely to face. Spot checking a few numbers ...
Not seasonally adjusted, April Y/Y inflation is 4.2%. Food is up 2.4%, energy is up 25% (with some components like gasoline up 50%). Used cars are up 21%. Car/truck rentals are up 82%.
Drug prices are down 1.5%. Medical care services are up 2.2%. Health insurance is down 3.0%. Shelter's up 2.1%.
While it may seem that inflation is outstripping COLA, it's worth taking a close look at everything, not just the high flying items that are catching your eye.
And the one figure that might matter most here: Financial service costs are down 0.2%.
All numbers above are from Table 2 in the latest BLS CPI news release.
https://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/cpi_05122021.htm#cpipress2

>> This idea that SS increases at 8% per year strikes me as fallacious. In "dollars," sure, but not in purchasing power ... the rate at which SS benefits are adjusted for inflation is only a fraction of the rate of inflation actually experienced by most people, especially seniors. Rerun those numbers with annual benefit increases that account for 4.0 to 4.5% inflation, a number more people are actually likely to face
Huh? The 8% figure is for delaying.
Not CoLA.
But you must know that.
As for the rest,
https://www.usinflationcalculator.com/inflation/consumer-price-index-and-annual-percent-changes-from-1913-to-2008/
CPI of course does not take into account (e.g.) property tax increases, or only very indirectly.
And there is core inflation, which does not take into account food and energy (a big 'not').
https://www.usinflationcalculator.com/inflation/united-states-core-inflation-rates/
But on what bases do you state what you state?

There was an interesting article in The Guardian (UK) today about the global plastics nightmare which is set to get even worse in the coming years. Among other apalling facts, the article details how some of the major world banks have invested tens of billions of dollars in single use plastics producers. Here's the link:
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/may/18/twenty-firms-produce-55-of-worlds-plastic-waste-report-reveals
This got me wondering how many ESG funds are actually invested in these banks. And if they are, then how can they claim to be ESG funds? I had time only to conduct a brief survey of six ESG mutual funds, but will continue my research. Five of the six funds held at least one of the offending banks in The Guardian article. Two funds held two or more of the banks, and one fund held the top four worst offenders. Only only fund, Brown Advisory Sustainable Growth, held none of the banks.
It pays to dig deeper. If you are sleeping soundly at night believing your ESG fund is doing the world a favor wake up and think again.