Stable-Value (SV) Rates, 6/1/25
TIAA Traditional Annuity (Accumulation) Rates
No changes
Restricted RC 5.50%, RA 5.25%
Flexible RCP 4.75%, SRA 4.50%, IRA-101110+ 4.75%
TSP G Fund 4.50% (previous 4.250%). (edited 6/4/25)
Options outside of workplace retirement plans include m-mkt funds, bank m-mkt accounts (FDIC insured), T-Bills, short-term brokered CDs.
#StableValue #401k #403b #TIAA #TSP
https://ybbpersonalfinance.proboards.com/post/2013/thread

@FD. Thanks. But my ”guessing” is about whether passive inflows related largely to retirement plans is keeping the major U.S. indexes / stock prices artificially elevated? More a question of “why” than “what.” If it is in fact the case it might also be affecting large cap stock prices globally as well.
Haven’t looked at Grantham lately and he’s been debunked by most here and likely you too. But I think his views closely represent those of the passive inflows skeptics I alluded to.

Is the S&P 500 possibly weighted more in the direction of growth (vs value)? I’m beginning to give some credence to those who argue U.S. large cap valuations are being artificially distorted (to the high side) / kept aloft by passive inflows - mainly thru retirement plans.
Dunno. Just wondering. I don’t think anyone really knows.
However, it was reported recently that very large inflows into VOO are continuing, FWIW

The following article provides several suggestions on how to secure your retirement portfolio
when market anxiety is high.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/top-stocks/market-anxiety-is-running-high-how-to-secure-your-retirement-portfolio/ar-AA1Fk9bO

Lord, talk about covering everything

The following article provides several suggestions on how to secure your retirement portfolio
when market anxiety is high.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/top-stocks/market-anxiety-is-running-high-how-to-secure-your-retirement-portfolio/ar-AA1Fk9bO

From the article
"The so-called 60/40 portfolio – long recommended for investors who want to balance exposure to risk with a cushion of safer, steady income – calls for allocating 60 per cent of holdings to stocks and 40 per cent to bonds. While a bedrock for retirement savers over decades, the approach lost some of its lustre in recent years as its underlying mechanism fell out of whack, with US stocks and bonds moving more in lockstep rather than offsetting each other."
VBIAX is your typical 60/40.
I would not call 2.2% a great income.
BND, the US Tot Index made 1.46% annually in the last 10 years, a pretty low performance. Even 15 years at 2.2% is pretty low. BND lost more than 13% in 2022, where was the cusion?
I never believed in B&H for decades, the markets keep changing, and sometimes it's for years. I preferred to hold funds like PRWCX.

Article - Originally from Bloomberg
The author’s premise seems to be that the strategy has worked this year using intermediate term bonds, but that abnormal behavior at the 30-year end clouds the strategy’s efficacy going forward.
“A SLUMP in US long-dated bonds is clouding the comeback of a classic investment strategy. The so-called 60/40 portfolio – long recommended for investors who want to balance exposure to risk with a cushion of safer, steady income – calls for allocating 60 per cent of holdings to stocks and 40 per cent to bonds. While a bedrock for retirement savers over decades, the approach lost some of its lustre in recent years as its underlying mechanism fell out of whack, with US stocks and bonds moving more in lockstep rather than offsetting each other.”

Vanguard has been careless in merging some of its OEFs. After ignoring related investor complaints, it had to settle with the SEC on this
What Vanguard was careless about was how it went about reducing the min of its institutional clones of TDFs. Not the merger per se.
Reducing the min triggered a mass migration of smaller sized employer-sponsored retirement plans from the retail funds to the institutional funds. The result was a huge sell-off (and recognized gains) in the retail funds. Individual investors with shares in taxable accounts were left holding the bag - a huge tax bill.
Shortly thereafter, Vanguard merged the institutional funds with the retail funds.
Had Vanguard not reduced the min for institutions, or had Vanguard reduced the min subsequent to merging the funds, no sales and no gains would have been triggered.
I haven't checked the prospectuses of these new ETFs, but Vanguard allows tax-free conversions of its mutual funds/OEFs to their ETF classes that may have lower ERs (typically similar as Admiral OEF ERs), but not the reverse.
See https://www.chapman.com/media/publication/15122_IL-0224-Coyle-Pershkow-Warren.pdf

This highlights another benefit to Mutual Fund Class shareholders of Perpetual’s proposed structure (also a featured part of the original Vanguard model, the DFA Application, and the First Trust Application, the Fidelity Application). The structure outlined in the Perpetual Application contains a conversion privilege that allows for a shareholder seamlessly convert from a Mutual Fund Class to the ETF Class.[fn 17]
17 Unlike the Perpetual Application, the DFA Application, the Fidelity Application, the First Trust Application, and the original Vanguard application, the F/m Application proposes a conversion privilege whereby an ETF shareholder could convert its ETF shares to mutual fund shares. The F/m Application, however, does not address whether this structure would function essentially as an open-ending mechanism. Any time shareholders are displeased with the spread or premium/discount of their ETF shares, they could move to the mutual fund and redeem at net asset value (NAV). This could have at least one major unintended consequence: market makers and liquidity providers who regularly purchase and sell creation units will be disincentivized to make markets or provide liquidity, thereby stressing the ETF’s arbitrage mechanism.

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/2042316/000168386325004827/f42160d1.htm
497 1 f42160d1.htm FUND LIQUIDATION SUPPLEMENTS
May 23, 2025
Victory Pioneer Global Value Fund
Supplement to the Summary Prospectus, Prospectus
and Statement of Additional Information
each dated March 31, 2025
The Trustees of the fund have authorized the liquidation of the fund. It is anticipated that the fund will be liquidated on or about July 25, 2025 (the “Liquidation Date”). The fund will discontinue accepting requests from new accounts to purchase shares or process exchanges into the fund effective at the close of business on May 23, 2025. The fund will discontinue accepting requests from existing accounts to purchase shares or process exchanges into the fund effective at the close of business on July 18, 2025. Shares purchased through any dividend reinvestment and certain automatic investments will continue to be processed up to the Liquidation Date. The fund also may accept additional investments from established employer-sponsored retirement plans up to the Liquidation Date.
Prior to the fund’s liquidation, all or a substantial portion of the fund’s assets may be invested in cash, cash equivalents and debt securities with remaining maturities of less than one year. When invested in such instruments in anticipation of the liquidation, the fund may not be able to achieve its investment objectives.
Shareholders can redeem their shares of the fund at any time prior to liquidation.
Shareholders may also exchange their fund shares for shares of the same class of any other Victory Pioneer fund that offers that class, subject to any restrictions set forth under “Buying, Exchanging, and Selling Shares” in the Prospectus. Any shares of the fund outstanding on the Liquidation Date will be redeemed automatically as of the close of business on the Liquidation Date. The proceeds of any such redemption will be equal to the net asset value of such shares after the fund has paid or provided for all of its charges, taxes, expenses and liabilities. Any liquidating distribution due to the fund’s shareholders will be distributed by the mailing of a check to each such person at such person’s address of record.
The liquidation of the fund may result in income tax liabilities for the fund’s shareholders. The automatic redemption of the fund’s shares on the Liquidation Date will generally be treated as any other redemption of shares, i.e., as a sale that may result in a gain or loss for federal income tax purposes.
If you hold fund shares through an individual retirement account, you can arrange to have such shares exchanged for shares of another Victory Pioneer fund prior to the Liquidation Date. Alternatively, if you receive a check representing your investment in the fund, it will be treated as a distribution from your individual retirement account. You may be eligible to roll over your distribution, within 60 days after you receive it, into another individual retirement account. However, rollovers are subject to certain limitations, including as to frequency. You should consult with your tax adviser concerning the tax implications of a distribution for you, your eligibility to roll over a distribution, and the procedures applicable to such rollovers.

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/831114/000139834425009997/fp0093676-1_497.htm
497 1 fp0093676-1_497.htm
THE RBB FUND, INC.
Oakhurst Short Duration Bond Fund
Oakhurst Short Duration High Yield Credit Fund
(each, a “Fund” and together, the “Funds”)
______________________________________________________________________________
Supplement dated May 21, 2025
to the Prospectus and Statement of Additional Information (“SAI”)
dated December 31, 2024, as supplemented
______________________________________________________________________________
At a meeting of the Board of Directors (the “Board”) of The RBB Fund, Inc. (the “Company”) held on May 13-14, 2025, based upon the recommendation of F/m Investments LLC (the “Adviser”), the investment adviser to the Funds, the Board approved a Plan of Liquidation and Termination for each Fund (collectively, the “Plan”). The Board determined that it is in the best interests of each Fund and its shareholders that each Fund be closed and liquidated as a series of the Company effective as of the close of business on or about July 30, 2025 (the “Liquidation Date”). The Liquidation Date may be changed without notice at the discretion of the Company’s officers.
Effective as of May 30, 2025, in anticipation of the liquidation, each Fund will no longer accept purchases into the Fund. In addition, the Adviser is in the process of transitioning each Fund’s portfolio securities to cash and/or cash equivalents and each Fund will no longer be pursuing its stated investment objective.
Shareholders of the Funds may redeem their investments as described in the Funds’ Prospectus. The redemption of shares will generally be considered a taxable event.
Pursuant to the Plan, if a Fund has not received your redemption request or other instruction prior to the Liquidation Date, your shares will be automatically redeemed on or about the Liquidation Date at the closing net asset value per share, and you will receive your proceeds (the “Proceeds”) from the Fund, subject to any required withholding. These Proceeds will generally be subject to federal and possibly state and local income taxes if the redeemed Fund shares are held in a taxable account, and the Proceeds exceed your adjusted basis in the Fund shares redeemed.
If you hold shares of a Fund in an IRA account, you have 60 days from the date you receive your Proceeds from the liquidation of the Fund to reinvest or “rollover” your Proceeds into another IRA and maintain their tax-deferred status. You must notify the Funds’ transfer agent by telephone at 1-800-292-6775 (toll free) prior to the Liquidation Date of your intent to rollover your IRA account to avoid withholding deductions from your Proceeds.
If the redeemed Fund shares are held in a qualified retirement account, such as an IRA, the redemption Proceeds may not be subject to current income taxation. You should consult with your tax advisor on the consequences of this redemption to you.
Shareholder inquiries should be directed to the Funds at 1-800-292-6775 (toll free).
Please retain this supplement for your reference.

Hi hank, I don't know how I could use the calculator to do the math on fluctuating annual investment returns, and that isn't the intention. It's CPI based data only.
This calculator is very good and simple. I posted this a few years ago. However, this is for forward assumptions and returns. It is set with default numbers that one can replace for their own numbers. It's fun to play with.
Side note: I traveled round trip from NYC to Luxembourg for $400 in 1973. I don't how that compares to prices today; but that was a hell of a lot of money at the time. And as you note, market places vary a lot depending on the product or service.

Bloomberg news ran an article yesterday ( which of course I can't find now) pointing out the fact that this push for PE in Retirement funds comes just as PE returns have crashed, it has become enormously "popular" with consequent lower returns as many PE funds don't know what they are doing, and many University endowments are selling PE because either they need liquidity or it has not preformed

Jason Zweig believes alternative assets do not belong in 401(k)s.
"Whether we’re talking about a smaller firm like Redwood or the giants of alternative investing,
the same rule applies: Assets that don’t trade every day aren’t low risk just because they don’t trade every day.
And, until costs come down and conflicts of interest are ironed out, stuffing private assets inside a fund
that does trade every day is a rotten idea for retirement savers."
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/savingandinvesting/this-new-investing-idea-isn-t-right-for-your-retirement-plan/ar-AA1EUSqV

Other than TIAA RE, which has proven itself over the years, I think Jason is spot-on correct, as I mentioned earlier. The average person is not in a position to research (or understand) the nuances and intracasies of illiquid investments ... heck, most people have no idea about things like 'fundamentals' or 'moats' or whatnot when it comes to just buying *stocks*.

Jason Zweig believes alternative assets do not belong in 401(k)s.
"Whether we’re talking about a smaller firm like Redwood or the giants of alternative investing,
the same rule applies: Assets that don’t trade every day aren’t low risk just because they don’t trade every day.
And, until costs come down and conflicts of interest are ironed out, stuffing private assets inside a fund
that does trade every day is a rotten idea for retirement savers."
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/savingandinvesting/this-new-investing-idea-isn-t-right-for-your-retirement-plan/ar-AA1EUSqV

This post belongs in Other Investing as much as some other posts I have followed in recent months. Politics and investing (at least short term trading) seem to be fairly highly intertwined these days. I suspect it will take at least a few more months to get a reasonable sense for the intermediate term extent and impact of Trump's evolving tariff policies. Federal budget parameters should also become clearer during that time period. I have not touched my portfolio since early January and am not inclined to change that approach based on what I have observed so far this year. (YTD my portfolio is up 0.9% with 72% invested in stocks (per Fido).)

Haven't touched the taxable account. It's doing pretty well since the largest positions are funds like DODGX, VWIGX, and DIVO. SEQUX has been the real star. Things should work out OK by the time all that is left to the kids. I'ld have to log in, and do some math to figure it all out since I'm at least 30% cash there, and I don't track that portion at M*. What I do track is up 2.84.
I can't be that sanguine with the retirement fund since it's purpose is to keep me from funding retirement from selling off the taxable. I wouldn't have been happy watching it lurch from pillar to post with all of the Tariff Theater churn coming out of DC.
The IRA is mostly in SPAXX now, so call it up 1.50 YTD, to save me from another login, and more math. M* tells me that SPY is up 1.69 YTD. Do I feel stupid missing out on that extra .0014? Oooh boy. I'll just have to grin and bear it. :)
I won't even try to predict when I might feel safe getting a little riskier with the IRA. I am eying some bond funds with standard deviations below 1. Can't say that I have been tempted to spend any of the dry powder in the taxable either. Like Chairman Powell, I feel reasonably well postioned to watch things develop.

Whether it's an asset allocation fund (TDF with glide path or traditional fixed target allocation fund), or a pure robo advisor, they seem to all pretty much build cookie cutter portfolios and rebalance. So I agree that:
Most buyers of robo-advisors may be fine with traditional allocation funds or TDFs (with glide-paths).
Some robo advisors can do tax loss harvesting, so that's an advantage they may provide over allocation funds.
I know someone using Vanguard's hybrid robo advisor. But with little interest in investing, they aren't asking for any tweaks. Rather, the robo advisor is essentially replicating VSMGX. For that, one doesn't need the human part of the hybrid; the pure robo advisor would do the same job for lower cost.
They could also replace the robo advisor with VSMGX and cut the cost even further. However, an advantage of mimicking the fund with multiple underlying funds is that one can have a more flexible drawdown strategy. If the stock market swoons, one can sell off bonds until the market recovers. You can't do that with an all-in-one allocation fund.
Morningstar's current piece on robo advisors gives these drawbacks:

Investors with larger, more complex portfolios could also benefit from the support of a traditional financial advisor. That’s especially true for complex matters like insurance and risk management, estate planning, and retirement drawdown strategies.

https://www.morningstar.com/personal-finance/are-robo-advisors-still-worth-it

Here comes Empower (a large 401k provider) with private-equity within its advisor-managed 401k - several private-equity/credit/real-estate CITs will offered through advisors.
https://www.empower.com/press-center/empower-offer-private-markets-investments-retirement-plans

I don't do podcasts, but the genera idea here deserves a bump.
They don't want my money because they are friendly stewards concerned for the security of my retirement, whatever Larry Fink says.

So, the question is, should the gates be removed or just lowered for retail investors?

I have no problem with lowering/removing the gates to retail investors* but DO have a concern with PE infecting pension/retirement accounts in ways that might not offer investors any recourse. My sense is that this is just the latest case of Wall Street whizkids salivating at the chance to get their claws on the trillions in assets locked up in retirement accounts.
* hell folks can buy crypto or 0DTE options to play with, so why not speculate in PE? Information is much more available now than in the 1960-2010s.

The year of 2022 was one the rare moment both stocks and bonds to fall due to rapid rise of interest rates. The asset correlation failed despite the broader diversification on stocks and bonds. The magnitude of loss was in double digits in the teens. For those who are approaching retirement, there may not be enough time to fully recover.
529 college saving plans use similar asset allocation funds that have their glide path. As parents it is crucial to keep track of the withdrawal time horizon and interest rates. Most if not all the funds should be in money market before the tuition bills showing up.