https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/825063/000082506319000015/msp30719.htm
MS P3 07/19
SUPPLEMENT DATED JULY 18, 2019
TO THE PROSPECTUS DATED MAY 1, 2019
OF
FRANKLIN MUTUAL INTERNATIONAL FUND
(a series of Franklin Mutual Series Funds)
The Board of Trustees of Franklin Mutual Series Funds recently approved a proposal to reorganize the Franklin Mutual International Fund (the “Fund”) with and into the Franklin Mutual Global Discovery Fund, each a series of Franklin Mutual Series Funds.
It is anticipated that in the third quarter of 2019, shareholders of the Fund will receive a proxy card and a Prospectus/Proxy Statement requesting their votes on the reorganization. If approved by the Fund’s shareholders, the transaction is currently expected to be completed on or about February 21, 2020, but may be delayed if unforeseen circumstances arise.
Effective at the close of market (1:00 p.m. Pacific time or close of the New York Stock Exchange, whichever is earlier) on August 27, 2019, the Fund will be closed to all new investors except as noted below. Existing investors who had an open and funded account on August 27, 2019 can continue to invest in the Fund through exchanges and additional purchases after such date. The following categories of investors may continue to open new accounts in the Fund after the close of market on August 27, 2019: (1) clients of discretionary investment allocation programs where such programs had investments in the Fund prior to the close of market on August 27, 2019; and (2) Employer Sponsored Retirement Plans or benefit plans and their participants where the Fund was available to participants prior to the close of market on August 27, 2019. The Fund will not accept any additional purchases or exchanges after the close of market on or about February 19, 2020. The Fund reserves the right to change this policy at any time.
Please keep this supplement with your prospectus for future reference.

I'm mostly in bonds now, in retirement, but with a 32% exposure, still, to equities. Almost all of that is in PRWCX. Best move I ever made. (Of course, I'm watchful. Nothing lasts forever.) I want the income, though I've not tapped into any of it, yet. PRSNX is solid. Almost half of my total. My other bond fund is PTIAX. Great ratings, and higher income per share than PRSNX.

I'm about 10 years away from retirement so am 70% equities and about 30% in money markets.

@MIkeW, you may want to consider a multi-sector bond fund such as PIMIX to start. In my humble opinion money market funds pay very little and it should be used to meet short term goals. For longer term diversification from equity, bonds are logical choice.
I started with Vanguard Total Bond index years ago in my 401(K). Over time I learned to use actively managed bonds. Bill Gross was very good but that was awhile back and there are more choices today.

FYI: I know this is a bold, and possibly controversial title, but retirement planning is broken and leaving people broke.
The destructive narrative is, “work hard, save money in a retirement plan, wait and it will all work out in the long run.”
The reality is, without the ingredients of responsibility and accountability, there is no easy solution for retirement. Meaning, if we just work hard and set money aside, we are putting money into a market we have no control over.
The institutions are winning though. Taking fees along the way. Convincing us to separate ourselves from our hard earned money, encouraging us to take it out of the business we know and put it into investments we don’t.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.forbes.com/sites/garrettgunderson/2019/07/16/youd-be-better-off-just-blowing-your-money-why-retirement-planning-is-doomed/#31d23618302d

Thanks @Crash and @Junkster for sharing your current holdings. Junkster it sounds like IOFIX is a long term holding for you and not one that you trade in and out of. I'm about 10 years away from retirement so am 70% equities and about 30% in money markets. I've been looking for an entry point into bonds all year but have shied away because I keep expecting rates to rise... have been wrong to date. Certainly hard to establish a position now with the big run up in bonds.

From a slightly different perspective: You can’t determine how much to set aside until you figure out where you’re heading after retiring. I agree in playing with different simulators as an educational experience. I sure did in the last 2 or 3 years before jumping ship and retiring, and also for 2 or 3 years after retiring as things were still falling into place. I did a lot of experiments with compound interest calculators and with the numerous suggested allocation models that existed online back than. Most fund companies had one of their own or had access to one. American Century’s proved especially helpful to me. Surprisingly, back than suggested allocations for those in or near retirement differed quite markedly from model to model. So in the end, a lot was left to the individual to work out. One suggestion for those facing retirement in the near future is to “look under the hood” at some of the “funds of funds” (like at T. Rowe) and observe how their managers allocate various assets for different life scenarios (generally expressed in a range of options from conservative investor to aggressive investor).
The simulators mentioned by both the article and @MJG and others all sound very useful in this regard. After you’ve been retired for several years you should have a good handle on how you’re faring, so I think simulators become somewhat unimportant. Rule #1 - Don’t quit a good paying and relatively secure job to transition into retirement unless you’ve run some simulations and are confident you have “all your ducks lined up”. Generally it’s better to err on the side of working longer and spending less in retirement than the other way around.
There’s much you cannot simulate ahead of time: Will you still be healthily enough or feel like working part time during retirement? What will taxes be? Will you or your spouse encounter unexpected health expenses? What will the inflation rate be? What type of returns will bonds and equities be yielding during retirement? What will your equity stake in your home be worth? How high will interest rates be if planning to use some of your home equity? What standard of living will you be comfortable with? And the “granddaddy” of all - How long will you live? Still, the unknowns persist. Few could have foreseen the financial collapse of ‘07-‘09 and the long term consequences for financial markets and investors. And how many models work with both the Traditional IRA and the Roth IRA (as well as a combination of both) during retirement to anticipate your outcomes? There’s a big difference between the two in how your standard of living eventually evolves.
I think a lot of simulators are “bottom up” in approach. They look at what your needs will be and than attempt to arrive at an investment strategy during retirement. I tend to focus more on a “top down” approach. With that approach one pays close attention to shaping an all-weather portfolio and financial plan that has a good chance of keeping pace with or outrunning inflation. That means that if inflation is running at only 1-2% during certain retirement years, you’ll be earning less on your investments. However, should it run at 7, 8 or even 10% your investments will by and large keep pace and protect you as much as possible. Caveat: Don’t trust the greatly understated government inflation numbers. It’s your inflation (as actually experienced) that counts. Not theirs.
@MJG - you were once known for rather verbose submissions. I assure you I’ve greatly outdistanced anything you ever achieved in that regard with this rambling (possibly nonsensical) one. :)

I wish something like a “10% Rule” was common knowledge when I started working in the 1970s. Nobody talked about saving for retirement then, and the stock market was considered a risky gamble. You could earn 12% interest from a money market account and my friends were more concerned about buying a car or house before prices went up again.
I didn’t start saving for retirement until my mid-30s when my employer started a 401k Plan. I contributed the amount that my employer would match, probably about 3% of my salary. I invested it all in cash and bonds because— again— stocks seemed like gambling. My employer provided no guidance or education about investment options, diversification, etc. Fortunately bonds did well during that period and even money markets paid 5-6%.
I finally got educated about investing when I left that job and rolled over my 401k and pension to an IRA. I was about 40 by then and immersed myself in financial literature. I invested the bulk of my savings in a diversified collection of stock funds, with a few bonds for safety, and never looked back. I increased my savings to about 10% of my salary including the employer match, and it all turned out OK in the end. For the last 20 years of my career, my employer had a pension but I kept contributing to a 401k, so my savings were closer to 15-20% of my salary— through my own ignorance because I didn’t realize that the pension was equivalent to saving about 10%.
Bottom line, for young workers or older ones who aren’t saving yet for retirement, the 10% Rule is a pretty good guideline for getting someone started in investing.

The rule given, to save 10% (including employer contributions) for retirement, is a bit simplistic, as even the writer acknowledges:

Of course, there will be times when you’re between jobs or you need your money for a pre-retirement-age emergency. In those cases, ...
Of course, everyone’s situation is and will be different, so 10% is a guideline, not a guarantee. (Furthermore, if you start later in life, 10% won’t be nearly enough.)

Still, one had better have a single number in mind. Otherwise, your employer is going to pick one for you when it automatically enrolls you in its 401(k). How do the tools you suggested help a 25 year old determine how much to set aside for retirement?
The column references an EBRI model that "estimates the risk of running out of money after retirement by taking into account many more factors than the usual online calculator: contributions, market changes, Social Security benefits and salary growth, as well as a range of health outcomes and longevity prospects."
It's a little ironic, criticizing the idea of identifying a target savings rate number as too simplistic, while praising a tool for its simplicity that essentially says: for this asset allocation and retirement spending rate, here's the magic dollar number you need to survive.
As I've said before, simulation tools (regardless of the underlying technology or simplicity) are better than a stick in the eye. By the same token, so is the suggested 10% savings rate guideline.

Hi Guys,
Retirement planning is a challenge because it is complex with many uncertainties. One absurdly simple rule is a dream; it just isn't so.
Given the complexity and uncertainties is a situation that almost demands a Monte Carlo simulation approach to provide some outcome ranges and probabilities. The industry has recognized this and has responded with many such codes that do the job. The best of these codes are easy to use and yield quick and informative predictions.
One such code is provided by Vanguard. Here is the Link:
https://retirementplans.vanguard.com/VGApp/pe/pubeducation/calculators/RetirementNestEggCalc.jsf
Please give it a try. Other codes can be located by simply searching for retirement Monte Carlo simulators. Answers will vary. That is the nature of projecting future outcomes. Portfolio survival is always the target goal. Vary parameters to explore their impact on portfolio survival odds. You can improve those odds and these codes give you a rough roadmap. Good luck to everyone.
Best Regards
I provided the Vanguard reference because of its simple input requirements. Here is yet another Link to a Monte Carlo code provided by Portfolio Visualizer that has a more complete set of input demands:
https://www.portfoliovisualizer.com/monte-carlo-simulation#analysisResults
You might give this tool a few tests. Yes results vary, but the trends are your friends when exploring possible outcomes. Indeed, good luck is a major part of the equation.

FYI: Make sure you understand leverage, each fund a lot)
What’s better than a portfolio that will pay you a $117,000 salary every year in retirement?
How about one that delivers a consistent paycheck each and every month that you can plan all of your regular expenses around?
I’ll show you how, via with three already-diversified high-yield monthly dividend stocks. But first, let me show you how most income investors get it wrong.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.forbes.com/sites/brettowens/2019/07/13/this-diversified-3-click-portfolio-yields-11-7-pays-monthly/?ss=etfs-mutualfunds#303cd9e81ad2
M* Snapshot THW:
https://www.morningstar.com/cefs/xnys/thw/quote.html
M* snapshot PDI:
https://www.morningstar.com/cefs/xnys/pdi/quote.html
M* Snapshot OXLC:
https://www.morningstar.com/cefs/XNAS/OXLC/quote.html

FYI: “Eventually, I’ll stop working.” Most of us think that and know it will happen, but millions of us worry whether we’re saving enough to live on once we do. We want to know: How much of my earnings should I set aside? What’s the magic number? 3%? 5%? 10%? More?
What your financial adviser won’t tell you:
Regards,
Ted
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-new-math-of-saving-for-retirement-2019-05-22/print

I don't keep up with the various offerings from all of the fund families (especially funds like these, being more of a DIY person myself), so I hadn't looked into TRLAX.
Apparently T. Rowe Price rebooted the fund two years ago, changing it from a target date fund into a managed payout fund. So the short answer is that this fund isn't much different from other managed payout funds now, but it used to be.
https://retirementincomejournal.com/article/t-rowe-price-reopens-the-market-for-payout-funds/
Viewing 4% as a "safe" withdrawal rate, that's what Vanguard targets. It adjusts the amounts periodically based on performance (as do virtually all managed payout funds). As @hank noted, T. Rowe Price fund targets 5%, while pointing out that it is designed to pay out more early in retirement and less later on (possibly not keeping up with inflation). That's not necessarily a bad idea; generally retirees are expected to spend more in early retirement while they are still more active.
You're not giving up flexibility with managed payout funds. As T. Rowe Price notes on the overview page, you have the "Freedom to withdraw additional funds", and to "Increase (or reduce) your monthly payouts ... by adding or removing investment assets."
The expense ratio does seem high, and is due to "other expenses", not management fees. I don't know why Price isn't operating more efficiently. In theory, you could mimic the fund yourself (it's a fund of funds), except that (a) you'd pay more than the 0.47% it pays for the aqcuired funds because you can't buy institutional class shares, and (b) some of the funds it uses are closed. Using retail class shares (if you could) would bring your expenses up to around 0.60%. (That's about the same as Fidelity charges for its 2020 RMD fund.)
Can one do better on one's own? Maybe. ISTM this question is not much different from asking: why invest in any allocation fund; can't one do better by investing one one's own in separate large cap, small cap, investment grade, junk bonds, international? Or would one do better by paying that same 0.71% and just buying PRWCX?

"So what's needed instead? ... Well, it's something called target-income funds or TIFs. Those are funds that would provide investors with a specified level of income in retirement -- much like a defined benefit plan or an annuity."
There's already a product that provides investors a specified level of income much like an annuity. It's called an annuity. If this is what one really wants - a fixed, specified level of income that lasts a lifetime, no more, no less - one can already convert part of one's retirement savings into an immediate fixed annuity.
However, that might not be what one desires. If one wants an income stream that might grow with inflation and might leave something for heirs, and one is willing to take some risk with the variability of those payments and whether they will last a lifetime, there are managed payout funds, from providers like Vanguard, Fidelity, and Schwab.
https://www.myretirementpaycheck.org/How-My-Paycheck-Works/Savings-and-Investments/Managed-Payout-Funds
https://humbledollar.com/money-guide/managed-payout-funds/
"Savers know how much income they can expect to receive from Social Security and, if they have one, their defined-benefit plan. But that's not the case with a 401(k) plan which only tells the investor much money they've accumulated, and not how much income those assets will produce."
That's a matter of disclosure, not product design. If you like this idea, take a look at HR 2367, the Lifetime Disclosure Act.
https://govtrackinsider.com/lifetime-income-disclosure-act-would-project-your-monthly-retirement-paycheck-based-on-your-4b976ee2e8db
https://www.actuary.org/sites/default/files/files/publications/Academy_Comments_LIDA_07062018.pdf

https://www.thestreet.com/retirement/target-date-funds-may-fall-short-for-retirement-savers-15016076
Target-date funds, or what some call TDFs, have become the investment of choice for many folks saving for retirement. You buy one fund that is aligned with your anticipated year of retirement and you don't have to do much else.

FYI: Given the thin margins in the retirement business, firm says it was justified in cutting deals with money managers to boost profits
Regards,
Ted
https://www.google.com/search?source=hp&ei=X6IlXfPLMsu4tQbGr5XADw&q=Fidelity+says+it's+entitled+to+alleged+'secret+payments'+in+401(k)+plans&oq=Fidelity+says+it's+entitled+to+alleged+'secret+payments'+in+401(k)+plans&gs_l=psy-ab.3...3664.3664..5791...0.0..0.274.340.1j0j1......0....2j1..gws-wiz.....0.VxBR-Lln1ck

FYI: To still believe in active management is quite something, especially when you work at BlackRock (ticker: BLK), the world’s largest asset manager and a giant in the world of index investing. Yet Mark Wiseman, 49, believes it’s a critical component in long-term investing that will provide the returns that people need for retirement.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.barrons.com/articles/blackrock-talks-solutions-to-short-termism-and-the-retirement-crisis-51562370565?mod=past_editions

@Old_Skeet - Thanks for commenting. One of the main problems with bonds is that virtually all of us own them either directly or indirectly. I know I do. Bonds are everywhere. If you own a balanced or asset allocation fund you likely own a great many. There’s a reason why the balanced fund came into existence. It relates to the conventional wisdom which says that when equities decline in value bonds appreciate in value, helping to compensate for the equity losses. However, with rates now so low, bonds wouldn’t seem to have the degree of offsetting value (vs stocks) they would have had 10 or 20 years ago.
If you are investing in bonds for “income” than you (or your fund managers) are probably not holding a lot of U.S. government paper. My initial comment pertained to the U.S. 10 year, which if held 10 years to maturity should generate about 2% per year. I suspect you’re banking on a much healthier income stream than that 2%. There are bonds that produce much more than 2% of course. However, the lower you go on the credit scale the more closely linked to the fortunes of equities those bonds become. And the less immune to carnage during a steep stock market slide they become.
No other single investment class that I can think of so permeates the financial markets as do bonds. They affect mortgage rates and thus the affordability of housing. They affect auto loans and thus the automotive industry. They’re intrinsically linked to the dollar’s value in the foreign exchange markets which affects the prices we pay for everything from clothing and smart phones to gas and oil. And, for older investors, bond rates affect the ability to grow their assets and maintain a decent standard of living during the retirement years.

I have no familiarity with Fidelity or Vanguard other than they have some pretty good fund and ETF options. But for the most part you can get any of those options through Schwab if you wanted. Same for TRP funds. But, that probably doesn't stand out as unique to other big brokerages, like Fidelity, Vanguard and TRP.
All my experience is with Charles Schwab where I rolled most of my 401k and pension-lump to an IRA when I left my long time employer. That was about 5 years ago. At the time I wavered keeping everything in my employer's 401k at TRP or transferring everything to an IRA at TRP or transferring to CS. I chose CS for a few reasons:
1- maybe the biggest reason was they had a local office. I much prefer a human, 1 on 1 sit down than phone or computer contact. I ended up being linked to a very nice guy who has gained my trust. He is often just my sounding board for ideas I have. He calls or emails about every 6 months or so to check in and see how things are going. And best of all, I don't pay a dime for the advice, feedback and help! Schwab does offer many different options for paid advisory including a very low cost advisory service linked to their robo portfolio. I do have money in the robo, but at this time I haven't gone the advisor route. They also offer the standard 1% fee where they manage everything in your financial life. Not for me but maybe for some.
2- the product selection, everything from 1000's of funds, ETFs, banking products like MMs, CDs, credit cards, checking and savings accounts, numerous managed portfolio options.
3- the option to have multiple accounts at one place. My mind tends to like "buckets" or separating money for different purposes. A separate 3 year retirement withdrawal account with MM, CDs, treasuries that is linked to my credit union checking account is an example.
4- the online and local learning seminars to just hear new ideas or learn different skills and options (I'm not great at it, but I like to dabble or "play" in stocks and there was plenty of info on that along with a trading platform to manage buys and sells).
Just some personal reasons for where I ended up. At 65 I'm still working full time but will probably go part time or quit altogether soon. Good luck Art.

I think that David was comparing the fund houses, not the brokerages. Fidelity has done a good job at improving its bond funds, and it has the occasional fine equity fund. But overall, and especially for equity/hybrid funds, I would go with T. Rowe Price over Fidelity.
Here's M*'s latest set of reports on target date fund series by some of the largest families. (Premium membership required).
https://www-prd.morningstar.com/articles/847110/morningstar-targetdate-fund-series-reports.html
I think anyone can access the reports it links to; here are the links for reports on three different series of target date funds:
Vanguard: https://news.morningstar.com/pdfs/STUSA04OVV.pdf
Fidelity: https://news.morningstar.com/pdfs/STUSA04OLH.pdf
T. Rowe Price: https://news.morningstar.com/pdfs/STUSA04OMN.pdf
And a more detailed report on the T. Rowe Price Retirement Target Date Funds; however this report is three years old.
https://mpera.mt.gov/Portals/175/documents/EIACPacket/20170126/V.d.Morningstar_Addendum.pdf
Note that T. Rowe Price has two different series of target date funds, which it calls Retirement Funds and Target Date Funds. The former are more aggressive.
https://www.troweprice.com/content/dam/fai/Collections/DC Resources/Target Date Solutions/GlidePathComparison.pdf
You're asking about brokerages though, and that's a different question. A nice thing about Fidelity's brokerage is that you can now get both Fidelity funds and T. Rowe Price funds NTF.
As far as brokerage services are concerned, Fidelity is way ahead of the others. Vanguard's comes in for its share of criticisms, but they've improved over time. It seems reasonably competent though not first tier in variety of services or quality or even hours of operation. I haven't used T. Rowe Price's brokerage, and I dare say few have unless they're primarily Price fund investors. It's more of a convenience offering by Price for its fund investors than it is a full fledged brokerage.
Fidelity is especially suited for decumulation, because you can pay a one time transaction fee to set up your position in a cheaper institutional share class of a fund, and you pay nothing to sell shares periodically. (Schwab has a similar pricing structure).
Vanguard is of course better if you want Vanguard open end funds. Many Vanguard funds are not available through Fidelity, and those that are cost $75 to buy (as opposed to Fidelity's customary $49.95 charge for most transaction fee funds). Also, Vanguard provides access to some institutional class shares with lower minimums than at Fidelity. Finally, if you have over $1M in Vanguard funds, you get 25 free transactions per year, which you can use to buy and sell transaction fee funds of other families through their brokerage.

In the July commentary David S. says ...I far prefer T. Rowe. Fidelity forever seems to be scrambling to expand The Fidelity Empire, T. Rowe seems to be focused on managing my portfolio. So I moved money from Fidelity to T. Rowe....
I was wanting to ask what MFO contributors use for a brokerage house and why. Especially those in or nearing retirement.
Personally I have experience with Fidelity and Vanguard but only in the accumulation phase. As retirement nears I will have 401's to rollover and would like to consolidate both mine and my wife's portfolios. Due to work retirement plans we now have monies in 4 different investment companies. Once retired the 2 main 401's will need to be rolled over.
Vanguard, Fidelity or T. Rowe Price? What are your thoughts.
Art