The graphic is set for the 5 days ending March 22, Friday; for the best to worst % returns in select etf categories. One may then also select the one month column to align the one month return best to worst; or for the other listed time frame columns.
ADD an etf performance of your choosing, if you desire.
*** Requested ADD: For the week and YTD
--- EWW = +.79% / -.54% (I Shares, Mexico)
MMKT note: Fidelity mmkt's yields moved upward a few hundreds % this week, with core acct's yields at 4.97% (SPAXX) and 5.02% (FDRXX).
NOTE: The majority of all equity and bond sectors finished the week with positive returns, with bond funds having decent gains.
NEW: 1 week 'heat map' by sectors. This is an interactive graphic. You may hover the computer pointer over the various blocks to view portions of sectors and/or stocks within those sectors. NOTE: to the left of the graphic, one may change the 1 week performance drop down menu to another time frame. Another example: at the left edge of the graphic, select exchange traded funds and then 1 week.
Remain curious,
Catch

I asked my advisor at Fidelity whether it is possible to make MRFOX available at Fidelity. After consulting with others she answered that it is possible, but only if many investors want it: Fidelity requires $25MM in demand in order to ask for a net new relationship with the fund. She suggested that if many people express their interest, perhaps something could be done. This does not look encouraging at all, but I wanted to share it here anyway.

@a2z. @David_Snowball. Thank you.
There are several parameters on MFOP that can be searched independently of other selection criteria: Symbols, Fund Names, Socially Conscious?, Adviser Names, Manager Names, and all the Holdings metrics (Names, Ticker, Sector, Security Type, Country, Currency, Debt).
They are denoted with a Plus? label. So, in this case, one can get funds advised and subadvised by Wellington by selecting Plus? Yes for the Adviser and then selecting Wellington for the SubAdviser.
I just ran MFOP and found 161 funds (oldest share class only) either Advised or SubAdvised by Wellington. Here's link to pdf.
c

You are very welcome ybb, especially for enlightening me (and the folks on the board) about VAs. Lipper fussed, however, extending the update to include the TIAA listed tickers, apparently because they are 6-character tickers ... at least for now. In any case, MFOP maintains its own fund name file. And, we will start maintaining our own ticker substitution file shortly, so in future you will be able to pull-up the TIAA funds by listed ticker (for current portfolios, searches, and watchlists, the substitutions will be done automatically, and if you like, you can then export/save the updated tickers to your profile). Thank you again, c
TIAA (Lipper/MFOP)
QCBMRX (IF-CMR2)
QCBMP (IF-CMQ9)
QCBMIX (IF-MTJQ)
QCBMFX (IF-F89J)
QCEQRX (IF-CMQ8)
QCEQPX (IF-CMQ7)
QCEQIX (IF-MDMF)
QCEQFX (IF-F896)
QCGLRX (IF-CMQ6)
QCGLPX (IF-CMQ5)
QCGLIX (IF-SKRL)
QCGLFX (IF-F7Z9)
QCGRRX (IF-CMQ4)
QCGRPX (IF-CMQ3)
QCGRIX (IF-FDWD)
QCGRFX (IF-F895)
QCILRX (IF-CMQ2)
QCILPX (IF-CMP9)
QCILIX (IF-WPZK)
QCILFX (IF-F82K)
QCMMRX (IF-CMP8)
QCMMPX (IF-CMP7)
QCMMIX (IF-RWDV)
QCMMFX (IF-F82J)
QCSCRX (IF-CMP4)
QCSCPX (IF-CMP3)
QCSCIX (IF-THMV)
QSCCFX (IF-F7Z8)
QCSTRX (IF-CMP6)
QCSTPX (IF-CMP5)
QCSTIX (IF-CBMF)
QCSTFX (IF-F7Z3)

@Charles, thanks for your response. Monthly enforcement of allocation is what it looked like from comparison with PV monthly rebalancing. But your official confirmation is important. Here is some data for standard deviation (SD). LINK
                                       MFO    Wtd-Avg   PV w/o rebal   PV w/qtr rebal   PV w/mo rebal
03/2023-02/2024 (1 Yr)    15.3    16.15       15.11             15.33               15.37
03/2021-02/2024 (3 Yr)    15.4    17.15       15.38             15.38               15.38
03/2019-02/2024 (5 Yr)    13.4    17.30       13.27             13.40               13.45
03/2014-02/2024 (10 Yr)  10.6    14.35       10.80             10.62               10.66
03/2009-02/2014 (15 Yr)   9.4     14.30       10.47             9.43                 9.44

Two days ago - to my sadness and delight - I had learned via MFO that Eric Cinnamond, one of my all-time favorite managers with ARIVX/ICMAX was back in the mutual funds world with Palm Valley Capital Fund (PVCMX). ('Sadness' because I have missed almost 5 years of exploiting his financial acumen for a modest management fee and 'delight' because I have now been able to put a sizable investment into his new vehicle.)
This got me thinking, are there any other great/good managers who came back to manage a mutual fund or an ETF after being away for some time in the last, say, 20 years that I might be missing on?
(No knock on Bill Nygren, who's done an admirable job at the Oakmark Fund (OAKMX), but I am still hoping for the day that Robert Sanborn comes back with a publicly available investment offering.)

please share if you know a fund (incl ETF) that targets companies that grew divi every year for at least 5 but not for more than 10 yrs and are not bottom or top quintile dividend payers. Call them Junior Div Aristocrats.
P.S.: my quick search did not result in any ETFs meeting the above criteria, I found DGRW (Quality Div Growth) an interesting Div ETF. I own the div ETF CGDV (an active fund) but I might go with DGRW for any new $$$ Div strategy - for its lower potential for cap gain distribution and better suited for taxable accounts. Two year old CGDV already has $7B AUM and with its American funds reputation, it might just become too big for its own good.

The notion that because you or I invest in a Blackrock ETF, we give our proxy to Larry Fink is absurd. And its anti-democratic.
The notion that because you or I invest in virtually any mutual fund, we give our proxy to ISS or Glass-Lewis is absurd. That's the elephant in the room, more so because this duopoly advises nearly all (90%) fund sponsors on how they should vote their proxies.
https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2023/01/30/the-controversy-over-proxy-voting-the-role-of-asset-managers-and-proxy-advisors/
Anti-democratic? The corporate world was never democratic. Dollars, not people (dēmos - "common people") hold the power. If you don't like the way Blackrock funds are being run, vote your fund's of directors out of office. See how much sway your paltry dollars have. Or mine.

ESG means different things to different people, in no small part due to the marketing efforts of financial management companies to muddy the waters. On one end of the spectrum is impact investing, where one invests in companies and technologies specifically to improve the state of the environment. On the other end of the spectrum is what Blackrock and others call ESG integration - considering risk factors like increased exposure to flooding due to a changing environment - among all the risk factors considered when deciding whether to invest in a company.
https://www.blackrock.com/lu/intermediaries/themes/sustainable-investing/esg-integration
That's just prudent investing. And good marketing - slapping a label like ESG (popular until recently) onto something that is standard operating procedure. Failure to consider all significant risk factors could be considered investment malpractice.
For example, last year Texas proposed SB 1446 that would have prohibited state pensions from investing with any management company that considered ESG factors.

Despite declaring that [Texas County & District Retirement System] TCDRS “has never had an ESG policy,” and does not intend to have one, [Executive Director] Bishop said that the bill “would keep us from partnering with some of the best investment managers in the world.” Bishop added:
“If we had to adjust our asset allocation, we estimated it could cost us over $6 billion over the next 10 years. And this would cause our employers cost to more than double.”

https://www.esgtoday.com/texas-anti-esg-investing-bill-faces-pushback-over-6-billion-cost-to-pensions/

I'm unclear how MDD management would increase outsourcing of Boeing? The MDD acquisition occured in 1997. That's 25 years ago. Strange it would take so long for these changes to manifest defects/problems.
As the acquirer, presumably, legacy Boeing management dictated what decisions were made as regards outsourcing. The acquired management team is usually not in a position to dictate how a business is run. If they were unhappy with any pre-merger MDD outsourcing, it would have been in their purview to bring outsourced functions back 'in house', no?
Anytime a process gets outsourced, its still encumbent on current management to ensure they have sufficient QC controls over the outsourced process. -- You can outsource a function, but you cannot outsource responsiblity!
Is the current BA CEO an engineer or a finance dude? I believe the latter. Perhaps too much current management emphasis on stroking Wall Street, not enough on getting the engineering right?
Every hour spent on DEI training is thousands of man-hours which could have been devoted to something else. Like QC.

The last thing Boeing needs is financial restructuring. They need to reinstitute the pre-McDonnell Douglas merger ethos where engineering trumps cost cutting.

+1

The McDonnell Douglas merger precipitated Boeing's descent.
McDonnell Douglas management increased outsourcing which led to declines
in both aircraft quality and employee morale. Various "accidents" (some preventable)
involving Boeing aircraft in recent years have tarnished this once fine company's reputation.

As someone who's seen BA in the intergenerational portfolio for many many decades, agree completely!
(I only hold a toehold for sentimental reasons nowdays - I sold 95% of the position just as the 737 MAX fiasco started to tank the stock, so I thankfully got out quite nicely near the high)

Just posted all ratings to MFO Premium site through February using Refinitiv's data drop today ... reflecting MTD performance through 15 March.

This thing needs to be apprehended and arrested for lack of proofreading, but the legal action is long overdue, anyhow.
https://thehill.com/newsletters/technology/4548396-apple-faces-landmark-antitrust-suit/

@Mark, $1 in 1924 in MITTX is now $7,067!
https://twitter.com/DividendGrowth/status/1752526427042238817

From a WSJ email today (3/21/2024) - "On this day in 1924, the Massachusetts Investors Trust, the first open-end mutual fund, was founded in Boston by a former cookware salesman and two investment bankers. The minimum initial purchase of five shares cost $262.50, or $2.50 less than a new Ford Model T runabout."
Makes me wonder what that Model T runabout in mint condition might be worth today and also the value of that initial investment left untouched to do it's thing.

Parnassus Funds 2016 Annual Report (Feb 9, 2017):

I’d like to give you an update on Wells Fargo and its unauthorized opening of accounts. While some of our shareholders have urged us to sell our shares, we believe that Wells Fargo is a far better bank than what is portrayed in the media, and that this is the most important time for an ESG investor to be involved. We met with CEO Tim Sloan in December and had a productive conversation about the bank’s remedies for its customers and employees, discriminatory banking practices towards minority and low-income customers, as well as its financing of the Dakota Access Pipeline. We would not have been able to have this dialogue had we sold our position. While we don’t disclose the results of our engagements, rest assured, we continue to engage with the highest levels of management on these issues.

Parnassus Funds 2017 Annual Report (Feb 9, 2018)

Responsible Investing Notes
...
On a brighter note, I’m delighted to share with you a positive development with Wells Fargo, which has worked hard over the past year to repair its damaged reputation. From eliminating sales goals in its Community Banking division to replacing three board members, Wells Fargo has taken significant steps to improve its relationships with its customers, stakeholders and shareholders. ...
One issue we believed Wells Fargo needed to address was its involvement in the Dakota Access Pipeline (DAPL) project. This controversial pipeline project caused an uproar across the nation, leading to closely watched protests and negative sentiment towards companies involved in its construction. A consortium of seventeen banks, including Wells Fargo, lent money to finance the DAPL.
We concluded from our discussions with Wells Fargo that they could not have predicted the consequences of financing the DAPL. More importantly, we became convinced Wells Fargo would not have financed the project had it known how much it would upset its customers, shareholders and stakeholders. We understood that Wells Fargo was contractually obligated to finance the project, but we believed the bank could take action to repair its relationship with the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe. In February, as part of our engagement with Wells Fargo about the DAPL, we asked the bank to donate its profits from financing the DAPL to the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe. Wells Fargo indicated they would consider this donation.
Over the course of the year, we engaged in multiple calls and meetings with Wells Fargo, urging the bank to act. We had three calls with Wells Fargo’s Head of Corporate Responsibility and Community Relations, Jon Campbell. We met with Wells Fargo’s CEO Tim Sloan, and later in the year with incoming Board Chair Elizabeth Duke. During each conversation, we discussed our proposed DAPL donation. In October, Wells Fargo acknowledged to us that financing the DAPL had affected the bank’s relationship with the American Indian and Alaskan tribes that are customers of the bank. In December, Wells Fargo announced a five-year $50 million commitment to the American Indian and Alaskan tribes, which was significantly greater than our request. These monetary grants, to be issued starting in early 2018, will target environmental sustainability, economic empowerment, and diversity and social inclusion programs focusing on the impacted tribes.

Parnassus Investments statement, March 9, 2018

You may be aware that several Parnassus funds initiated positions in Wells Fargo stock well over a year ago. Initially, the firm had positive fundamental and ESG profiles. At the time, Wells Fargo was widely considered to be one of the top banks in America, with a strong focus on workplace, diversity and inclusion, and philanthropy.
As the bank’s community sales scandal and Dakota Access pipeline controversy became headline news, Parnassus immediately began using its substantial holding in the firm to engage top executives. We met with Wells Fargo management—including the CEO and key independent Directors—multiple times to share our perspective on events and suggest potential remedies. We also voted our proxy shares according to our responsible investment policies, including voting against the candidates for the Wells Board of Directors that had served on the Risk Committee for many years.
While our discussions led to positive changes within the company, troubling new issues continue to emerge. Significantly, the Federal Reserve has decided that the problems at the bank are serious enough to warrant their active involvement in Wells Fargo’s business decisions for an indefinite period of time.
As events continue to reveal further deterioration in both the fundamental and ESG profiles of the bank, we do not believe that further engagement from Parnassus will be effective. In short, Wells Fargo is not a suitable holding for our portfolios at this time.

This came in my email from "As you Sow" a climate advocacy group that
"Some view ESG as a framework for assessing risk - the key to achieving a sustainable and just future. Others see it as threat to capitalism and cover for a liberal elite political agenda.
Live debate – ESG Now and in the Future: Is There Common Ground? – Wed April 3 with Andrew Behar
At As You Sow, we believe it’s simply good business. Is there a successful investor who doesn’t assess portfolio risk? Can a business survive without assessing and addressing supply chain shortages and worker needs? In a recent survey of 5,000 C-suite executives in 22 countries, across 22 industries, 76% say that sustainability is central to their business and drives better business results.
Yet the well-funded and centrally orchestrated anti-ESG crusade currently has 145 bills in 27 states, using the heavy hand of big government to tell investors and businesses how to think and what information they can use for decision making!
On Wednesday, April 3, 2024, the University of Arizona presents a debate bringing these opposing viewpoints to a live stage. National experts from business, investment, regulatory, and government sectors will delve into the multifaceted nature of ESG, presenting arguments for and against – and maybe even finding common ground.
Join us in Phoenix or watch the livestream event at 5:30pm Pacific & Arizona time / 8:30pm Eastern with As You Sow CEO Andrew Behar front and center in support of ESG.
The debate moderators are former White House press secretaries Ari Fleischer (G.W. Bush) and Robert Gibbs (Obama). Panelists are:
Andrew Behar, CEO, As You Sow
Kevin Hassett, 29th Chairman of the President's Council of Economic Advisers (Trump)
Sandra Taylor, CEO, Sustainable Business International
Kimberly Yee, State Treasurer of Arizona
You can register here
https://www.asyousow.org/community-calendar/university-of-arizona-center-for-the-philosophy-of-freedom-debate-series-esg-now-and-in-the-future-is-there-common-ground

I posted months ago since 2023 and in the beginning of the 2024 about 3 bond funds that should have a good risk-adjusted performance for 2024.
RPHIX for "sub" MM and a possible 5-6% in 2024
CBLDX with higher volatility, but still low and higher performance and a possible 6-8% in 2024.
RSIIX/RSIVX with higher volatility, but still low and higher performance and a possible of 7-9% in 2024.
The chart below already proves my point. Why use
Multi=PIMIX or HY or high-rated bonds with a lot more volatility and be close or not at year end.
https://schrts.co/xiyUJkXx
Sometimes it is that easy. YTD RSIIX is already at 2.7% per M* and a good possibility to make over 10%.

The Week in Charts (03/15/24)
The most important charts and themes in markets, including...
00:00 Intro
00:16 Topics
01:24 Active Managers Go All-In
06:27 Pricing in a Perfect Future
13:34 Stubborn Inflation = No Fed Cut
27:20 The End of Negative Interest Rates
30:13 What is Debt and What is Growth?
33:55 Bitcoin ETF Boom
38:15 Why You Need to Invest
40:25 The Path to Prosperity
Video
Blog

Keep in mind I'm not a lawyer, so take this for what it is worth, i.e. you're on your own.
"Fidelity decided to pass them into B's estate".
That sounds like Fidelity followed the beneficiary designation of A's defined contribution plan. So long as B did not predecease A (but see below*) the transfer was likely automatic, regardless of the absence of paperwork. That is, the automatic nature of the transfer meant that the account formally (technically) became B's upon A's death even though it wasn't actually transferred at that time.
B's "virtual" account had no beneficiary designated since there was no paperwork done before B died. So B's "virtual" account became the account of B's estate. That brings us back to the situation where there's an estate defined contribution plan that must be distributed within five years.
Edit: The five years is assuming that the RMD period (for B) had not yet begun. Otherwise, it seems that the withdrawal schedule would be based on B's life expectancy. If inherited DC plans follow the same rule as inherited IRAs (haven't checked yet), each year's RMD would be calculated by subtracting one year from the previous year's life expectancy, not by referring to tables every year. That is, if B's life expectancy were 15 years now, then next year one would divide assets by 14, the next by 13, and so on. This could be another source of confusion and why you are seeing various rules.
Again, just speculating here.
* did B predecease A from a legal perspective?
If B's death is close enough after A's death, then state law may create a "legal fiction" that B died before A for purposes of inheritance. This situation is called "simultaneous death".

Many states have default laws ... including the Uniform Simultaneous Death Act ... Generally speaking, these laws establish a rule that when two individuals die within 120 hours of each other, each individual will be treated as having predeceased the other. Thus, if a husband and wife die at the same time or within 120 hours of each other, and the husband’s will distributes 100 percent of his property to his wife at his death, the wife is treated as having predeceased her husband,

https://wilsonlawgroup.com/simultaneous-deaths/
This varies from state to state, and the text above describes how it applies to wills. It seems logical that something similar would apply to beneficiary designations. But I haven't seen that in writing.
If a state simultaneous death law applies to beneficiaries, and if the two deaths were close enough together to trigger that law, then Fidelity could (should?) have treated the situation as if B died first. That is, it could (should?) have designated you as the beneficiary of A's account.
That Fidelity didn't do this suggests that either "simultaneous death" doesn't apply to beneficiary designations, or the two deaths weren't close enough in time to trigger that law.
Somewhat moot, though, since the fact of the matter is that the account currently belongs to B's estate.

Just started FALN a few weeks ago and intend to grow it in the taxable. Focused on WCPNX, but no money in there, yet.
Still like my current ones: TUHYX, PRCPX.
Cash 7
Stocks 53
Bonds 38
"Other" 3
The ENTIRE portfolio is yielding me 4.09%. And then, there's the GROWTH element, too. Good day, today. Transition to Schwab continues at a snail's pace. A couple of calls from the fellow at the downtown office. Hand-holding. But he did not have any real news. Got a couple of emails, telling me almost nothing.