This ad-hoc feature returns after a while.
Link1 Link2
TRADER. Small-caps (SCs) have been strong since early-August. Lower rates and higher earnings may make this rally sustainable.
INTERNATIONAL TRADER. EM DEBT is attractive – EMB ($ denominated), LEMB (local currency), etc. US tariffs haven’t impacted the EM bonds much because (i) several countries with high US tariffs (China, Brazil, India, South Africa) export less than 3% of their GDP to US, (ii) countries with higher exports to US (Mexico, S Korea, Taiwan, Malaysia) may be able to lower their rates as the Fed lowers rates, (iii) uncertainties in the developed world have benefited the EMs. Tariffs would cause a global economic slowdown that would be bearish for stocks, but bullish for bonds. BB-rated EM sovereigns (Turkey, Guatemala, Paraguay, Serbia, Albania) are attractive. Risk is that credit spreads are also tight.
OPTIONS. If you want to chase a rallying stock that got away, use options – combine call-spreads with selling puts. WMT is used as an example, but it can be used for AI highflyers, GDX, etc.
There is more on GOLD in STREETWISE, Link1.
BEARISH. Small-caps (R2000 may finally make a new high since 11/2021; fwd P/E 16.1 (low), but 33 (high) if only profitable companies are considered; this may just be a short covering rally; notwithstanding positives stated elsewhere – lower rates, higher earnings, lower taxes; balances bullish SC stories elsewhere in this issue).
FUNDS. Brandon NELSON, manager of small-cap (SC) growth CTASX / CTSIX (ER 1.30% / 1.05%; no-load NTF at Fidelity and Schwab) says that SCs will benefit from lower rates and improving earnings. He keeps winners but prunes laggards quickly. He watches credit spreads for indications of slowing economy.
RETIREMENT & WELL BEING. Retirees can still find decent income from corporates (IGSB, VCIT), core-plus bond funds (OAKCX / OANCX) and foreign bond funds (GOBAX / GOBIX, IBND).

Great. Thanks. No employer match to 401K. It all goes into a cash account plan. Same effect though, I will not get the full years contribution from them. My main impetus for the Roth build/conversion is to reduce RMDs, as you mentioned. I may also start them before age 73, as they could get out of hand quickly, especially when one of us passes and we have to file as "single".
Related, my circumstances with retirement are very unique. I am the only SME left in my company for this product line, and a very large customer is involved. They have asked me to stay until the last piece of equipment is retired from the customer's network, and until we shut down our lab dedicated to this product. Essentially, they know that I have very little to do and do not care. We have a signed support contract worth millions.
How they handle my leaving will be interesting. If they were to send me packing once the equipment is all gone, they would be on the hook for severance, and I would be entitled to unemployment pay. My guess is that they offer me a position on an associated product line, which I have no interest in pursuing. Thus, causing me to voluntarily retire. Which is fine, this whole situation has been extremely lucrative for myself and my wife.

A lot would depend on your tax bracket, age & estimated income in retirement.
If you go for maxing regular 401k, you may gradually convert to Roth IRA in lower income years.
Mixing up may be a good compromise.
And why not start in 2025 - there are few months still to boost 401k contributions.

If Roth 401(k) is available in your company, it would be to your advantage to do so. Pay with after tax dollars now and future appreciation on the Roth account will be tax-free. The company matching $, however, still go your traditional 401(k). Maxing out would work before retirement.
You may also add to your personal Roth IRA if your income is not one that is above 36%+ bracket. 2025 limit is $7,000 plus $1,000 catch-up. You have until April 15th for 2025 contribution. You can do that again next year before retirement.

I own TRAIX in one of my retirement accounts along with APDKX. While I have not purchased additional shares since conversion (only dividend reinvestment), I just called Vanguard and they said that I could sell APDKX and purchase TRAIX if I wanted since I am an existing shareholder of TRAIX.

"retirement investing objectives is to achieve a total return of 4 to 6%, with the least amount of risk"
The higher end of that range will be difficult with a change of rates upcoming without taking on a bit of risk.
I look for the same distribution range, but also include some risk via well considered multi-strategy bond funds and international....most via ETFs.
Such as...JPST, JPIE, ICSH, NEAR, HFSI and JPIB. Also EADOX, AWF and JAAA if you're feeling frisky.

junkster: "Weren’t you a victim of the SEMMX scam that it was a cash substitute in 2020? I wouldn’t touch any fund associated with the fellow that has run LCTRX since 1997. Investigate its punk performance in 2015 and why. I would stick with the guy that runs HOSIX who at one time worked at Leader. He has done an admirable job at the helm of Holbrook."
No I was not a "victim" of the SEMMX scam. I did own SEMMX for several years, but fortunately I was successful of trading out of SEMMX at the very early stages of its decline in 2020, and did not experience any significant losses from SEMMX or any of the other bond oefs I owned at that period. I have not been back into bond oefs since that period. As I have stated several times over the years, retirement investing objectives is to achieve a total return of 4 to 6%, with the least amount of risk. Since I was able to do that with CDs and MMs for several years after 2020, I found no need to invest bond oefs. Now it is becoming very difficult to buy a CD that makes 4%, so I am looking at the least risky way of making at least 4%

@larryB Just curious,,, what is “ working class retirement income?”
That's a great question! Just reread comments & now more looking to do.
Thanks larryB, Derf

@msf. Just curious,,, what is “ working class retirement income?”

I have been using CDs and MMs for the past several years in my retirement IRA portfolio. As those CDs mature, I am now considering adding some very low risk bond oefs, which can produce at least 4% total return. I am interested in low volatility funds, which have done well in down markets, and would be interested if other investors have some favorites they would recommend. Thanks in advance for your bond oef ideas.

People with working class retirement income get the ability to deduct $1K worth of charitable deductions without itemizing (starting in 2026). Only matters if their income is greater than the standard deduction.
Since their tax brackets are lower than the those of the wealthy, this deduction is of less value to them than to high earners. IMHO a fairer break would have been to give a tax credit of, say, 50% of the amount contributed, up to a $500 credit (50% of $1K).
With an increased standard deduction and an extra $6K "senior deduction", people with working class retirement income get the ability to convert more of their IRA tax free. That is, they can generate more income from conversions while still staying under the (now increased) standard deduction amount. This in turn gives them more flexibility in future years as the amount they must take from their T-IRA (RMD) is reduced.
Their tax bracket (assuming they are subject to taxes) is locked in at 10% or 12%. Without this legislation, roughly speaking the 12% bracket would have reverted to 15%.
https://smartasset.com/taxes/trump-tax-brackets
Chickenfeed. But slightly above zero. Perhaps.

Is it just me or do all things working class have far lower cutoffs than all things investment class? People with working class retirement income and a little deferred savings in RMD get little from the BBB. I, for one, got nothing.

Per CNBC:
T. Rowe Price shares rallied Thursday after the asset manager struck a $1 billion deal with Goldman Sachs to sell private-market products to retail investors.
Goldman will buy up to $1 billion in T. Rowe Price common stock through open-market purchases with the intention to own up to 3.5%, according to the announcement. The two financial firms will team up to offer wealth and retirement funds that give access to private markets for individuals, financial advisors, plan sponsors and plan participants.
https://www.cnbc.com/2025/09/04/t-rowe-price-shares-rocket-higher-after-deal-where-goldman-will-invest-1-billion-in-asset-manager.html
... the speed that Wall Street is inserting private-market products into retail products is certainly worth watching. Frankly, it makes me uncomfortable since most retail investors have no idea how to do any DD into their funds and see what kind of stuff (er junk?) their portfolios are being stuffed with. IMO Wall Street is again trying to offload its riskier assets onto the rubes who will suffer WHEN (not 'if') things go south in this space.

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1545440/000158064225005663/kempner497.htm
97 1 kempner497.htm 497
September 2, 2025
ULTIMUS MANAGERS TRUST
Kempner Multi-Cap Deep Value Fund
Institutional Class (FIKDX)
Investor Class (FAKDX)
Supplement to the Prospectus and Statement of Additional Information (“SAI”),
each dated September 28, 2024
Assignment of Investment Advisory Agreement and Expense Limitation Agreement
Effective August 9, 2025, upon the passing of Harris L. (“Shrub”) Kempner, Jr., President and owner of Kempner Capital Management, Inc. (the “Adviser”), the investment adviser to the Kempner Multi-Cap Deep Value Fund (the “Fund”), an assignment of the Investment Advisory Agreement between Ultimus Managers Trust (the “Trust”), on behalf of the Fund, and the Adviser occurred, resulting in the automatic termination of both the Investment Advisory Agreement and the Expense Limitation Agreement between the Trust, on behalf of the Fund, and the Adviser.
All references to Mr. Kempner with respect to the Fund are hereby removed from the Fund’s Prospectus and SAI. M. Shawn Gault remains as portfolio manager of the Fund.
Interim Investment Advisory Agreement and Interim Expense Limitation Agreement
An interim investment advisory agreement between the Trust, on behalf of the Fund, and the Adviser (the “Interim Advisory Agreement”), with substantially the same terms as the existing investment advisory agreement with the Adviser (the “Prior Advisory Agreement”), except for the start and end date of the agreement as required under the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended (the “1940 Act”) and rules thereunder, has been approved by the Trust’s Board of Trustees (the “Board”) at a meeting held on August 21, 2025 (the “Meeting”) and became effective as of August 10, 2025.
Under the Interim Advisory Agreement, the Adviser provides the same advisory services to the Fund on the same terms provided under the Prior Advisory Agreement. There are no changes to the advisory fees payable by the Fund to the Adviser under the Interim Advisory Agreement.
In addition, at the Meeting, the Board approved an interim expense limitation agreement (the “Interim Expense Limitation Agreement”), between the Trust, on behalf of the Fund, and the Adviser because the prior expense limitation agreement for the Fund (the “Prior Expense Limitation Agreement”) terminated upon the termination of the Prior Advisory Agreement. The terms of the Interim Expense Limitation Agreement are substantially similar to those of the Prior Expense Limitation Agreement except for the start and end date of the agreement. The expense limitation for each share class of the Fund is identical to the respective expense limitation under the Prior Expense Limitation Agreement. The Interim Expense Limitation Agreement became effective as of August 10, 2025.
Liquidation of the Fund
Effective immediately, the Fund has terminated the public offering of its shares and will discontinue its operations effective October 15, 2025. Shares of the Fund are no longer available for purchase and, at the close of business on October 15, 2025, all outstanding shares of the Fund will be redeemed at net asset value (the “Liquidation”).
1
At the meeting, the Board, in consultation with the Adviser, approved the discontinuation of the Fund’s operations based on, among other factors, the Adviser’s belief that it would be in the best interests of the Fund and its shareholders to discontinue the Fund’s operations. Through the date of the Liquidation, the Adviser will continue to waive investment advisory fees and reimburse expenses of the Fund, if necessary, in order to maintain the Fund at its current expense limits, as specified in the Fund’s current Prospectus.
In connection with the Liquidation, the Board directed that: (i) all of the Fund’s portfolio securities be liquidated in an orderly manner not later than October 15, 2025; and (ii) all outstanding shareholder accounts on October 15, 2025 be closed and the proceeds of each account, less any required withholding, be sent to the shareholder’s address of record or to such other address as directed by the shareholder, including special instructions that may be needed for Individual Retirement Accounts (“IRAs”) and qualified pension and profit sharing accounts. As a result of the Liquidation, the Fund’s portfolio holdings will be reduced to cash or cash equivalents. Accordingly, going forward, shareholders should not expect the Fund to achieve its stated investment objective. The Adviser will bear all of the expenses of the liquidation with the exception of brokerage costs associated with the orderly transition of the Fund’s portfolio holdings to cash and cash equivalents.
Shareholders may redeem all or a portion of their shares of the Fund on any business day prior to the Liquidation as specified in the Fund’s Prospectus.
The Liquidation will be considered for tax purposes a sale of Fund shares by shareholders, and shareholders should consult with their own tax advisors to ensure its proper treatment on their income tax returns. In addition, shareholders invested through an IRA or other tax-deferred account should consult the rules regarding the reinvestment of these assets. In order to avoid a potential tax issue, shareholders generally have 60 days from the date that proceeds are received to re-invest or “rollover” the proceeds into another IRA or qualified retirement account; otherwise, the proceeds may be required to be included in the shareholder’s taxable income for the current tax year.
For more information, or to obtain a copy of the Fund’s Prospectus or SAI free of charge, please contact the Fund at 1-800-665-9778.
Investors should retain this supplement for future reference.

If you have the same after-tax starting value at $78K, then a percentage-based tax is a linear operator. It doesn't matter if you double the money first and then apply the tax, or apply the tax and then double the money.

Correct. This addresses the question: is one better off contributing now to a Roth or to a traditional IRA? In that situation what matters is whether the future tax rate will be higher, lower, or equal to the current tax rate.
I was addressing a slightly different question: does allocation between tax free and tax deferred accounts matter? For that question, it doesn't matter what tax rates you might have been subject to in contributing to the Roth. You've already made your bed. Now you have to lie in it and allocate investments across whatever dollars you've put into the different accounts, traditional and Roth.
You are suggesting that rapid growth of tax-deferred moneys will move some of those assets into a higher future tax bracket vs. the future tax bracket all of those dollars would have been with slower growth. Perhaps. Bear in mind that tax brackets are adjusted for inflation, so the growth rate of import is the excess growth over inflation, not total growth. Still, one hopes with more aggressive investments, that this will be significant.
When one speaks of being in a higher bracket at retirement, one is looking at the size of RMDs. The first dollar gets taxed at one rate determined by considering all other ordinary income and then looking at the marginal rate. Subsequent RMD dollars get taxed at that rate or a higher rate if the RMD extends through brackets. Hence my assumption that the total RMD is taxed at the same marginal rate in retirement.
That's not always true, as you say (below). Often it is. Consider an individual, age 73, in the 22% bracket excluding RMDs. If that individual falls at the top of the bracket, virtually all RMD dollars will be taxed at 24%, whether from fast or slow growing investments. If that individual falls at the bottom of the bracket, they'll have nearly $55K of "space" to fill. They'd need a T-IRA of almost $1.5M for the RMD to exceed that (age divisor is 26.5). Put them at the midway point and the T-IRA would need to be around $750K before the tax brackets mattered.
The 24% bracket is even wider. The bracket where RMD size is most likely to matter is the 12% bracket. That's only $36K wide. If one is at the midpoint in that bracket, then a $500K T-IRA will have an RMD touching the next bracket. And since that next bracket at 22% is a whopping 10% higher, it becomes more important here to try to keep every last RMD dollar out of that bracket.
So it really depends on the situation. Personally, the part of the RMD trap that I'm more concerned about is having RMDs greater than needed for expenses. This is where Roth conversions years before retirement help. And for this purpose, it is better to keep slower growing assets in T-IRAs.

This equivalence only holds true if you assume the tax rate at withdrawal remains constant. In the real world, if doubling your traditional account pushed you into a higher tax bracket in retirement, the "Traditional Doubles" scenario would result in a lower after-tax total.

A place where slower growing assets can be even more beneficial is in HSAs. Suppose someone has been healthy (so has had few medical expenses during accumulation phase) and has a sizeable HSA. Then it is possible even in retirement that total medical expenses will not exceed the HSA value. If that happens, the excess dollars rather than being tax-free can get taxed as ordinary income upon withdrawal.

Not sure why you picked a scenario with both traditional and Roth at same $78K, who actually has that ratio?

The ratios don't matter. I just wanted to provide a concrete example. 100/0 or 0/100 wouldn't work when the question was how to allocate between non-zero T-IRA and Roth accounts. 50/50 is a simple split and it facilitated assuming 50% of the money was invested one way and 50% another.
Had I used a 20/80 split between accounts with the same investment assumption (half fast growth, half no growth), then the 20% account would have been invested one way along with 3/8 of the 80% account. The remaining 5/8 of the 80% account (i.e. half the total assets) would have been invested the other way. Same result, but I'd lose people with all the fractions and percentage.

Answers from AI just depend on which websites they choose to scrape. Perhaps their mood has something to do with it. I got different answers than @equalizer did.
I asked Bing for "5 picks for Roth for next 20 years" and got SPTM, VPMCX, JEPI, RQI, and IBIT.
Google Gemini was coy until I asked for "5 fund picks for Roth for next 20 years." It came up with VTI, VXUS, VUG, FSELX, and SCHD.
Gemini won't tell you which web sites it scrapes for its wisdom. But if you ask the AI available at google search, it will. You can find them to the right. It also gave me a slightly different answer: VTI, VXUS, BND, VNQ, and any target date fund at 2045 or 2050.
I basically got the same sort of diversified lineup from Perplexity: FXAIX, VTIAX, VSMAX, VNQ, and VWELX. Perplexity will clearly tell you what it scraped.
But this doesn't get us to the point of the thread. So I asked a new question: "Name five fund options for a roth account if you could only pick one for the next twenty years."
Bing suggested: VWELX, SPTM, JEPI, VPMCX, or RQI. It suggested: "Each of these funds could be your 'forever' pick depending on your risk tolerance and retirement goals. Want help narrowing it down based on your age or investing style?" I think it's not scraping as hard as it could.
Gemini grokked the question a little better than Bing, and came back with: VT, Fidelity Freedom Index Fund 2045 (no ticker), VTI, FZROX, or SCHD.
Google search AI came back with VOO, VTI, VFORX, VBIAX, or VIG.
Perplexity came back with: VTSAX, FXAIX, Vanguard Target Retirement 2065, VT or VIG.
I decided to get pushier. So I asked: "If you could pick only one fund for a roth for the next twenty years what should it be?"
Bing chose VWELX, Gemini chose VT, Google search ducked with "a target-date fund or a low-cost, total-market index fund," and Perplexity came back with VOO or FXAIX before reminding me about the other usual suspects.
These are no where close to what @equalizer was getting; so I asked one more question: "Give me five non-index funds for a roth for the next twenty years."
Bing: VWELX, VPMCX, JEPI, RQI, and SVOL. Gemini: FCNTX, FBGRX, FSELX, TRBCX, and AGTHX. Googel search: FCNTX, PRDGX, VPMCX, JEPI, and AVGV. Perplexity: VWELX, VWINX, JEPI, USMC, and FCNTX.
Well. At least the conventional wisdom is available without spending money for advice or doing your own homework.

msf,
If you have the same after-tax starting value at $78K, then
a percentage-based tax is a linear operator. It doesn't matter if you double the money first and then apply the tax, or apply the tax and then double the money.
This equivalence only holds true if you assume the tax rate at withdrawal remains constant. In the real world, if doubling your traditional account pushed you into a higher tax bracket in retirement, the "Traditional Doubles" scenario would result in a lower after-tax total.
Not sure why you picked a scenario with both traditional and Roth at same $78K, who actually has that ratio?
Placing your highest-growth investments in a Roth account can yield a significantly higher after-tax return, as all of that growth is completely tax-free.

The time from retirement to ss should be the time to convert as much as possible staying in the desired tax bracket IMHO. I took my ss at 63 and it would have been nice not to take it until later because ss income limits your conversions. Looking back I don't regret taking it at 63 because I converted a LOT even taking ss at 63. I converted a lot from 53 (retirement) to 63 (ss) since I had no other income at that time.

I'm currently trying to help a friend plan investments and cash flows for the next decade, when they will go from retirement pre-SS, to retirement w/SS, to retirement w/SS and RMDs. They also have two inherited IRAs, one traditional, one Roth.
How much should they convert pre-SS to reduce future RMDs (keeping tax brackets in mind)? What about the phasing out of the $6K deduction? They don't even know how much cash they are currently spending, and it could be quite variable.
My head is spinning as well.