Like @MikeM, I have initiated a position with LCR a year ago, and slowly building the position. Interesting that the short position has decreased since Professor Snowball’s write up in 2023. Today, it holds 4.07% in Direxion Daily S&P 500 Bear 1x Shares per @JD_co reporting.
Through the ups and downs in last two year, LCR has performed very well, especially in drawdowns. This aspect is important to us as we approach retirement. We particularly like the ETFs so that it can be readily purchased in major brokerages.
@catch22, thank for the chart. I use StockCharts frequently too.

After re-reading some of @Lewis Abrahams other postings regarding interval funds, starting to re-think this idea. At the end of the day, these vehicles probably do not properly mark-to-market their investments, so it appears that valuations are smoother than reality would normally dictate.
And yes, PCRA is Schwab's "Personal Choice Retirement Account", which resides in an employer-sponsored plan.

Believe it means "Personal Choice Retirement Account". Schwab advertises it has a PCRA.

@larryB,
I consider multiple criteria when selecting funds.
These criteria include expense ratios, quality of management/analyst teams, investment firm behavior,
trailing returns, max. drawdown, and worst year.
As I approach retirement, there is increased emphasis on max. drawdown and worst year statistics.

May 5 & 11 Episodes:

Teresa Ghilarducci argues that working longer is not the solution to the retirement crisis. She explains why not and what is.

PIMCO’S Group Chief Investment Officer Dan Ivascyn also runs the world’s largest actively managed bond fund, PIMCO Income. He says bond returns are the most attractive they have been in years and even rival stocks.

I am looking at FMSDX and VWIAX, two Moderately Conservative Allocation funds according to M*, for inclusion in a conservative retirement portfolio.
While FMSDX has a much better 1, 3 and 5 year performance record, it is also somewhat more volatile than VWIAX. On the other hand, if interest rates have supposedly reached their peak, wouldn't VWIAX, with a usually constant duration of around 6.5 compared to FMSDX's duration of 3.0, benefit more when rates start to come down in the future?
In addition, VWIAX is managed by Wellington, a well established and highly regarded management company.
I have a hard time making a decision and would appreciate any comments or suggestions. Thanks.

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1414039/000158064224002661/millerconvert_497.htm
497 1 millerconvert_497.htm 497
Ticker Symbol By Class I
Miller Convertible Plus Fund MCPIX
Supplement dated May 10, 2024 to the Fund’s Prospectus, Summary Prospectus, and
Statement of Additional Information (“SAI”), each dated March 1, 2024
This Supplement provides new and additional information beyond that contained in the Prospectus, Summary Prospectus and SAI and should be read in conjunction with the Prospectus, Summary Prospectus and SAI. This Supplement supersedes any information to the contrary in the Prospectus, Summary Prospectus and SAI.
The Board of Trustees of Miller Investment Trust (the “Trust”) has concluded, based upon the recommendation of Wellesley Asset Management Inc., that it is in the best interests of the Miller Convertible Plus Fund (the “Fund”) and its shareholders that the Fund be liquidated. Pursuant to a Plan of Liquidation (the “Plan”) approved by the Board of Trustees, the Fund will be liquidated and dissolved on or about June 10, 2024.
The Fund is closed to all new investments as of May 10, 2024. The Plan provides that the Fund will begin liquidating its portfolio as soon as is reasonable and practicable. The Fund may pursue its stated investment objective until June 10, 2024, but may, at the discretion of the Adviser and in accordance with its Prospectus, liquidate its portfolio prior to June 10, 2024, and invest in cash equivalents such as money market funds until all shares have been redeemed. On or about the close of business on June 10, 2024, the Fund will distribute pro rata all its assets in cash to its shareholders and all outstanding shares will be redeemed and cancelled.
Prior to June 10, 2024, you may redeem your shares, including reinvested distributions, in accordance with the “How to Redeem Shares” section of the Fund’s Prospectus. Unless your investment in the Fund is through a tax-deferred retirement account, you will recognize gain or loss for federal income tax purposes (and for most state and local income tax purposes) on a redemption of your shares, whether as a result of a redemption that you initiate or upon the final liquidating distribution by the Fund, based on the difference between the amount you receive and your tax basis in your shares. The Fund may make one or more distributions of income and/or net capital gains on or prior to June 10, 2024, in order to eliminate Fund-level taxes. Please refer to the “Tax Status, Dividends and Distributions” section in the Prospectus for general information. You may wish to consult your tax advisor about your particular situation. Plan sponsors or plan administrative agents should notify participants that the Fund is liquidating and should provide information about alternative investment options.
You should read this Supplement in conjunction with the Fund’s Prospectus and Statement of Additional Information each dated March 1, 2024 which provide information that you should know about the Fund before investing. These documents are available upon request and without charge by calling the Fund toll-free at 1-877-441-4434. The Prospectus, Summary Prospectus and Statement of Additional Information may be obtained by visiting www.MillerFamilyOfFunds.com. You should retain this Supplement for future reference.

Perhaps that page was just changed, but it now reads $1K min. Worth pointing this out to Schwab if they still balk at opening the account for less than $100K.

I did and will do so again, but this time in an email to the rep that I work with.

However, as you stated, APDKX is also available (albeit with a transaction fee), so I'd be inclined to go in that direction. You've already got Schwab agreeing that you can open a new account in Artisan International Value, so at this point it's just a quibble over the share class.
You might also look into converting the Roth shares to APDKX. A straight conversion might even help avoid the transaction fee. I haven't done this at Schwab, but I've tried conversions at Fidelity with mixed results:

Agree.

Lesson learned: one may be right about the rules, but one still needs to get the fund company to cooperate. If you can't do a straight conversion in the Roth, you could look at buying $1K of APDKX (to establish the Roth account), then selling all ARTKX shares and buying more APDKX shares. You'll get charged a transaction fee but you'll have cheaper shares for the long run.

Agree.

Finally, if all else fails and Artisan won't let Schwab open APDKX accounts, you could try opening the accounts directly at Artisan and then transferring them in-kind to Schwab. However, at Artisan, APDKX has a $250K min (see prospectus), so you might have to do some maneuvering to temporarily boost your account (and then sell off some shares when the account is moved to Schwab).

Artisan will allow Schwab to open ARTKX or APDKX. Artisan told me that the minimum initial purchase is up to Schwab. We are back to Schwab's website which says 1,000 minimum for either share class for an IRA. Schwab's website also says $2,500 initial minimum for a "Basic" account. I take this as meaning a regular non-retirement account. While I do believe that the minimum initial for ARTKX has always been $1,000, I always thought that $250,000 was the minimum initial for APDKX.
Let's assume for the moment that $250,000 is the minimum initial for APDKX and Schwab is recalcitrant regarding $100,000 as the minimum initial for ARTKX. As a last resort, I can purchase $100,000 of ARTKX and the next day sell as much as I want and pay the Short-Term Redemption Fee.

The FDIC coverage is for all personal assets held at a bank with the new max $1.25 million considering various tricks.
That's the bank limit for all trusts only. Each ownership category still gets its own $250K per owner, except trust coverage is calculated per owner per beneficiary. (A trust with two owners and 5 beneficiaries gets coverage of $250K x $2 owners x 5 beneficiaries = $2.5M.)
A POD account is considered a trust account and an IRA is considered a "certain retirement account" - two different ownership categories. So the former is covered up to $250K/beneficiary and the latter gets its own $250K limit.
The rule change is that the coverage on trust accounts is limited to $250K/beneficiary per trust owner, but now only up to 5 beneficiaries, i.e. up to $1.25M if you name five or more beneficiaries. It used to be that if you named six beneficiaries, you'd get 6 x $250K = $1.5M coverage.
(There is a second rule change that combines revocable trusts and irrevocable trusts into a single ownership category.)
So if you have
- $1.8M in a POD with 6 beneficiaries and
- $300K in an IRA (retirement account) at the same bank
you used to get $1.5M coverage for the POD (6 x $250K) and $250K coverage for the IRA.
Now, you get $1.25M coverage for the POD and $250K coverage for the IRA. The remaining $550K in the POD and the remaining $50K in the IRA are uninsured.
You can check this with the FDIC calculator. https://edie.fdic.gov/calculator.html
For a complete description, see:
https://www.fdic.gov/resources/deposit-insurance/brochures/insured-deposits/index.html

Recently, AARP did a study of the largest fund families in 1989 and in March 2024.
Vanguard was at #5 with less than $50B in assets in 1989 and now is #1 with $8T in assets (grew 160 times).
Currently, in #2 position is ishares + BlackRock at $3T. BlackRock was also #2 in 1989 with $97B.
Both Fidelity and BlackRock grew from $97B in 1989 to $3T in 2024.
(Those with AARP membership probably can access that study if you are curious about it.)
When the #1 firm is 2.6 times the size of the #2 firm and it reached those heights by grossly undercutting competition on price, there is bound to be collateral effects. So, now Vanguard is looking to shed all the smaller clients. I do not know what their end goal is but the transition is bound to be bumpy.
As part of their transition, they are divesting their small business retirement accounts / plans.
https://www.ascensus.com/about-us/press-room/news/ascensus-to-acquire-vanguard-individual-401-k-multi-sep-and-simple-ira-plans/
So, that is a clue for those with small Vanguard fund investment, even if you have a large brokerage account with them. I have owned Vanguard ETFs outside Vanguard because of their service quality and a brokerage platform that is subpar. It will be interesting to see what the post-transition Vanguard will look like.

How far does $1M go in to NYC (Manhattan)? Not very. A $50K salary elsewhere would need to be $150K in NYC. Use this Calculator (linked below) to compare costs to where you live now.
cost-of-living/index

Doesn't that figure really depend on where "elsewhere" is? Even Boise, Idaho would cost over 25% more than your base $50K, using the CNN calculator.
And for that matter it also matters where "here" is - Manhattan's population is less than 20% of NYC's; Manhattan's land area is under 8% of NYC's.
According to the same calculator, one would need "only" $87K to live in Queens (another part of NYC) - where 40% more people live than in Manhattan. While that's far from inexpensive, it helps to look at where "real" people live. Queens has the reputation of being NYC's bedroom borough.

Also welcome to extremes..some have...many have not. 25% are millionaire and 20% are below the poverty line.
...
cost-of-living-calculator/city-life/new-york-manhattan-ny

This NerdWallet site is similarly confused about NYC. The URL and the drop down city selector say "Manhattan", and its top line figure, "median salary in New York (Manhattan), NY is:$51,270. Yet in the detail data, it gives the population as 8M (all of NYC) and the average salary per person as $31,417. Hard to tell what "average" means, though I'm guessing it is calculated across the whole city, not just the 1/5 of people living in Manhattan.
Here are some "alternative facts". Directly from the US Census Bureau, the per capita income in NYC (8M people) is $48,066. Since not everyone works, that makes the mean (not median) salary higher than $48K. Another page (SmartAsset) claims that "According to the U.S. Census Bureau’s 2020 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, the average individual income in New York City is $107,000."
The level of poverty in NYC is not good, though it is lower than cities such as Detroit, Laredo, Cincinnati, Memphis, Baton Rouge (all above 25%), Richmond, Miami, Tuscon, Atlanta, Dallas, Columbus (all above 20%). The whole country needs to do better.
100 largest US cities ranked by poverty level (sourced from US Census Bureau)
US metro areas w/highest and lowest poverty rates - Madison Trust Co. analysis of Census Bureau data - percentage of households w/income under $35K (noting that HHS defines poverty line as $30K income).
That last source gives Albany, GA as the 6th poorest metropolitan area. I mention this because that is the baseline area used by CNN/Money (see above) for how far $50K would go in other areas.

Well, NY has about 4% millionaires, but it is still behind Tel Aviv which has about 10%.
https://www.i24news.tv/en/news/israel/economy/1663172527-israel-nearly-1-in-10-tel-aviv-residents-is-a-millionaire-study

FD makes a different apples-to-oranges error. Consistent source (Henley and Partners) cited, but different years. The i24 News piece references the 2022 study which reported 42,400 millionaires in Tel Aviv (detailed data is in Middle East top 5), while the current study reports "only" 24,300. Over a 40% decline.
https://www.henleyglobal.com/publications/wealthiest-cities-2024

How far does $1M go in to NYC (Manhattan)? Not very. A $50K salary elsewhere would need to be $150K in NYC. Use this Calculator (linked below) to compare costs to where you live now.
A$50K retirement income would need a $1.2M portfolio (at a 4% SWR). One would need a $3.6M portfolio to fund the $150K (a 4% SWR) retirement income to pay your bills in NYC.
cost-of-living/index
Housing is a biggy.
Median 2-bedroom apartment rent = $5,743
Median home price (3BR, 2BA) = $2,743,333
Also welcome to extremes..some have...many have not. 25% are millionaire and 20% are below the poverty line.
Average salary per person
$31,417
Unemployment rate
9.00%
Percent below poverty
19.40%
Public schools get low grade so if you are considering private schools:
Estimated average private high school tuition
$34,987 / year
source:
cost-of-living-calculator/city-life/new-york-manhattan-ny
Green Acres is the place to be.
Farm livin' is the life for me.
Land spreadin' out so far and wide
Keep Manhattan, just give me that countryside.
New York is where I'd rather stay.
I get allergic smelling hay.
I just adore a penthouse view.
Dah-ling I love you but give me Park Avenue.
...The chores.
...The stores.
...Fresh air.
...Times Square
You are my wife.
Good bye, city life.
Green Acres we are there.
source: https://lyricsondemand.com/tvthemes/greenacreslyrics.html

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/880366/000119312524131550/d628327d497.htm
497 1 d628327d497.htm LEGG MASON PARTNERS INVESTMENT TRUST
VGOF-P26 05/24
LEGG MASON PARTNERS INVESTMENT TRUST
SUPPLEMENT DATED MAY 6, 2024
TO THE SUMMARY PROSPECTUS, PROSPECTUS AND
STATEMENT OF ADDITIONAL INFORMATION (“SAI”),
EACH DATED JANUARY 31, 2024 OF
CLEARBRIDGE ALL CAP VALUE FUND AND CLEARBRIDGE SMALL CAP VALUE FUND
At a meeting held on May 2-3, 2024, the Board of Trustees of each fund (the “Board”) approved the reorganization of ClearBridge All Cap Value Fund and ClearBridge Small Cap Value Fund (the “Target Funds”), each a series of Legg Mason Partners Investment Trust, with and into ClearBridge Value Fund and ClearBridge Small Cap Fund, respectively (the “Acquiring Funds”), each a series of Legg Mason Global Asset Management Trust (the “Reorganizations”). Each Fund is managed by Franklin Templeton Fund Adviser, LLC and is subadvised by ClearBridge Investments, LLC. The combined Fund resulting from a Reorganization also will be managed by Franklin Templeton Fund Adviser and subadvised by ClearBridge Investments.
The completion of each Reorganization is subject to a number of conditions, but the Reorganizations do not require the approval of shareholders. The Reorganization of ClearBridge All Cap Value Fund into ClearBridge Value Fund is expected to be completed on or about August 23, 2024, and the Reorganization of ClearBridge Small Cap Value Fund into ClearBridge Small Cap Fund is expected to be completed on or about September 6, 2024, but either Reorganization may occur on such later date as the parties may agree. Effective at the close of market on or about June 24, 2024, the Target Funds will be closed to all new investors except as noted below. Investors who have an open and funded account on June 24 will be able to continue to invest in the applicable Target Fund through exchanges and additional purchases after such date. The following categories of investors will continue to be able to open new accounts in the Target Funds after the
close of market on June 24: (1) clients of discretionary investment allocation programs where such programs had investments in the Target Fund prior to the close of market on June 24; and (2) Employer Sponsored Retirement Plans or benefit plans and their participants where the Target Fund was available to participants prior to the close of market on June 24. Effective after the close of market on or about August 21, 2024, ClearBridge All Cap Value Fund will not accept any additional purchases or exchanges. Effective after the close of market on or about September 4, 2024, ClearBridge Small Cap Value Fund will not accept any additional purchases or exchanges. Each Target Fund reserves the right to change this policy at any time.
Each Reorganization of a Target Fund will consist of (i) a transfer by the Target Fund of all of its assets to the Acquiring Fund in exchange for shares of the Acquiring Fund having an aggregate net asset value equal to the aggregate net asset value of the Target Fund, and (ii) the assumption by the Acquiring Fund of all of the Target Fund’s liabilities. The Target Fund will then distribute Acquiring Fund shares to its shareholders, so that immediately after the Reorganization each shareholder will receive, without paying any sales charges, a number of full and fractional shares in the Acquiring Fund having the same value as the shares such shareholder held in the Target Fund immediately before the Reorganization. Shareholders of each class of shares of the Target Fund will receive shares of the same class of the corresponding Acquiring Fund in the Reorganization.
Each Reorganization is expected to qualify as a “reorganization” for U.S. federal income tax purposes, and a Target Fund’s shareholders will not, and a Target Fund generally will not, recognize taxable gain or loss as a direct result of the Reorganization.
A combined Prospectus/Information Statement detailing the reasons for, and other matters relating to, each Reorganization will be provided to shareholders of record of each Target Fund as of the close of business on May 31, 2024, in advance of the closing of the Reorganizations. Please read the Prospectus/Information Statement carefully because it will contain important information about the Reorganizations, the Agreement and Plan of Reorganization, and the Acquiring Funds.
Please retain this supplement for future reference.
2

I hesitate to engage with this tread in light of the poster’s negative experience at Vanguard. Like all brokerages, their unique fee schedules continue to evolve. Apparently this change at Vanguard strikes a nerve with many investors.
With that said, we have invested with Vanguard for over 30 years for our retirement and college 529 plans. And now, we use Vanguard’s advisory service. For Flagship customers, there is a special phone number that speeds up the connection. At the same time, we have equally size of asset at Fidelity and the combination of the two provide the best of both world, at least for us.

Federal protection for rollover IRAs (i.e. where the source of money is identified as an employer-sponsored plan) only applies in bankruptcy cases.

Outside of bankruptcy, traditional contributory IRAs and Roth IRAs and inherited IRAs, have protection only under state law. As such, the possibility of asset seizure by creditors depends on the application of individual state law.

https://rosenblattlawfirm.com/blog/creditor-protection-of-retirement-plan-assets/

Hopefully, I can explain the situation and my objective.
I have retirement accounts and non-retirement accounts at two institutions. I set this up because I did not want to have all at one institution plus I was able to purchase funds at one that I could not at the other. These dual objectives remain, but as I will explain, two funds are in focus. The below four accounts are all retirement accounts and being that I no longer have earned income, I can no longer contribute to a retirement plan.
Institution A
I am not certain where the names of these accounts came from.
I have a “Rollover Brokerage Account”. I have no problem selling any fund that is currently in this account - $460k current value.
I have a “Roth IRA Brokerage Account” (converted to a Roth many years ago). In this account, I own Artisan International Value (ARTKX) and T. Rowe Price Capital Appreciation (PRWCX) - $501k current value.
Institution B
I am not certain where the names of these accounts came from.
I have a “Rollover IRA Account”. I have no problem selling any fund that is currently in this account - $535k current value.
I have a “Roth Conversion Account” (converted to a Roth many years ago). In this account, I own Artisan International Value (ARTKX) - $176k current value.
As I recall, I have kept some of these fund separate (pure) mainly for asset protection (right or wrong). I believe that the “Rollover IRA Account” in Institution A came from an IRA. I believe the “Rollover Brokerage Account” in Institution B also came from an IRA. I now have an umbrella policy for which the coverage exceeds the value of all my retirement accounts.
My objective is to buy more ARTKX and PRWCX and I can't do this in my “Roth IRA Brokerage Account” at institution A or in my “Roth Conversion Account” in institution B. I could purchase all equity TCAF (which would be fine) without any maneuvering, but that does not address the problem with ARTKX. Either ARTKX or PRWCX can be purchased at A or B and a purchase fee is a non-factor.
I do not see an obvious solution. Combining both Roth accounts does not do anything for me other than allow me to allocate between ARTKX and PRWCX. Combining Traditional IRA's does not do anything for me because I do not own ARTKX or PRWCX in either. I have to check if either of the “Rollover” accounts in A and B are Roth accounts. If so, that would be an answer, but I doubt either are as they do not contain the word “Roth”. That seems to leave a Roth conversion in A or B, which I do not want as I am in a 24% marginal and 18% effective tax bracket, and to purchase a good amount of ARTKX or PRWCX, I would have to Roth an amount that would even put me in a higher tax bracket.
Am I boxed out of purchasing more ARTKX and PRWCX?

I received the notice about new fees in the post today. The $100 fee for closing an account is particularly puzzling. If someone has a non-Roth IRA when they reach a certain age they are required by law to take annual distributions. That's the R in RMD. After a number of years the Vanguard investor (or heirs) will have received all the money in the IRA account. Presumably the account will then be closed. But Vanguard is going to keep $100 of the final distribution for themselves? Can that be legal?
What about a non-retirement account? In the past I have redeemed all my shares in certain mutual funds (both Vanguard and not) and the account has remained open with no money in it. That has been the actual case at Vanguard for years for me. I never requested that the account be closed and so it wasn't. If I redeem all shares of a Vanguard fund that does have money invested in it and don't request that the account be closed I wonder if they will steal, er, I mean keep, $100 of my money. Why would anyone insist that an account be closed anyway? AND, they don't say that the fee will be charged. They say that it "may" be charged.

@Mark,
Seems one could sleep well knowing that the income generated (in dollars) is what matters to a retiree who might be considering other income generating options (annuities for one).
Do you find that you are able to generate income equal to or greater than say a 4% safe withdrawal rate on divis only?
If so, I am intrigued to learn more for at least part of my retirement income sleeve. Please share.

A retirement article that doesn't mention Social Security seems odd, but it's common. SS and my Mom's RMDs cover her needs, for the most part. The RMDs force the Traditional IRA/401k holder to take out between about 3-5% annually, each year with a different factor to calculate the RMD; based on the Retirement Account Amount on Dec 31st. We both wish she had converted more to a ROTH during her working life but ....spilled milk.

Stable-Value (SV) Rates, 5/1/24
TIAA Traditional Annuity (Accumulation) Rates
All up +25 bps.
Restricted RC 5.75%, RA 5.50%
Flexible RCP 5.00%, SRA 4.75%, Newer IRAs 5.00%
(TIAA Declaration Year 3/1 - 2/28)
TSP G Fund hasn't updated yet (previous 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/1454/thread