But it also used to be that a Private Client customer at Fidelity was assigned a specific rep. No more at either brokerage.

Fidelity still assigns you an individual Premier Services Advisor.
@msf did they also used to assign another kind of "specific rep" as well?

As a matter of fact, they've assigned a Private Access Account Executive, a Private Client Group Account Executive (same person, different title), a Senior Account Executive (same person), an Account Executive (same person), and a Financial Consultant (same person).
Then the musical chairs began. No title changes, but in the span of three years, three different "Financial Consultants". Then a year later, when the last one left Fidelity, I was not assigned any specific rep, whatever title you wish to give to them.

@msf I think you might want to consider calling Fido and just asking for one.
In my case, I was offered an individual PSA several times, but declined because I thought it might lead to more marketing, to which I am quite averse. Finally, something made me try, so I just let them know and was promptly assigned one.

Merrill? 4.71%, but that's non-sweep and requires a $100K min.

I think this is in reference to their Preferred Deposit account. If so, this is only an initial investment min, hence one would conceivably put in $100K then take them out leaving, say, $1 and then add/withdraw funds as needed - manually, as this is indeed a non-sweep account. I believe they also have several sweep accounts paying 5.17% atm, but these require a greater commitment shown here.
(To be clear, I've never had a Merrill account before but have recently decided to try them out and am in the process of transferring some funds over. The above information has been confirmed with a phone rep, but I have not had a chance to verify it myself.
Btw, so far I have found their customer service to be surprisingly helpful and competent, though I have only had minor issues to address until now. One odd thing I've encountered with Merrill is that they do not allow you to ACAT in-kind any money market funds - even those that Merrill itself offers - which is a bit of a nuisance, iyam.
Incidentally, I was also told that one can trade against their mm fund balance at Merrill - the same way one can do, say, at Schwab - can anyone confirm this?)

@hank, check out DYNF, an active multi factor (or factor rotation) 5 yr old ETF from Blackrock. The ETF could not pay to get AUM until this year. Then all of a sudden 95% of the inflows came in 2024, with $4.5B coming on 2 days. Now, it has more than $7.5B in AUM. Seems like a change in marketing strategy. The ETF performance pre 2023 was mediocre but it is doing well 2023 and YTD.

@Old_Joe. Thanks for the note. I got a little carried away responding to @Crash. You had it right all along. Also, I did correct an earlier reference to the Shuttle having 5 main engines. After checking, it had only 3.
@BaluBalu - I like your idea of placing a wager on Boeing. But appears you got tripped up by the 787 news. The FAA investigation is new I guess. But there’s been allegations on that matter swirling for weeks. So perhaps this won’t move the stock much.
However - think I’ll keep my small wagers confined to MLB games. :)

Until the FDIC stops protecting uninsured depositors, this change is largely form without substance.
A few sentences from a NYTimes subscriber-only opinion piece (May 1, 2024)
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/01/opinion/fdic-insurance-banks.html

When Banks Fail, Why Do We Keep Bailing Out Uninsured Depositors?
[Michael] Ohlrogge, an associate professor at New York University Law School, argues that when banks fail, the F.D.I.C. is not resolving them in the manner that is least costly to its Deposit Insurance Fund.
...
It stands to reason that the cheapest way to resolve a bank failure in many cases — maybe most cases — would be to tell those uninsured depositors that their money is gone: “Sorry. See ya, Wouldn’t wanna be ya.”
But in a vast majority of bank failures, the F.D.I.C. approves a resolution in which the uninsured depositors don’t lose a penny [at typically higher cost].
...
Ohlrogge speculates that the F.D.I.C. is experiencing “mission creep,” taking on a responsibility for uninsured depositors that it was never assigned.

This is a copywrited, paywalled piece. I'm not going to reproduce more here. Ohlrogge's paper, Why Have Uninsured Depositors Become De Facto Insured? (Nov 15, 2023) is freely available and covers the material in more detail.
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4624095

I like to think that people here understand fair-use the way we understand that we are not offering investment advice; but I always enjoy reading your stuff because you do it so well. Thank you.

Correct me if wrong. But unlike SpaceX which uses its own in-house rockets, Boeing will launch its Starliner on an Atlas 5 booster whose first stage is Russian made! The linked Wikipedia article pertains only to the Atlas 5 booster.
Wikipedia

But the Shuttles used multiple, smaller rockets, eh?
Umm … I wouldn’t put it that way. Very different vehicles. Probably the 5-engine first stage of the Saturn V had more thrust than the 3 onboard shuttle engines working alone. But the Saturn didn’t have the 2 solid rockets strapped to it. And the first stage of the Saturn dropped off into the ocean after only a couple minutes, while the shuttle’s engines propelled it all the way into earth orbit.
The Saturn’s first stage had 5 engines. And the complete Saturn “stack” was a 3-stage monster (3 rockets stacked on top of one another vertically). Much different from how the shuttle operated.
The space shuttle had awesome power. Leaped off the pad. The 2 strapped-on solid boosters really jacked it off the bad. Solid fueled. Not dissimilar to sitting on a keg of dynamite and lighting it. Problem is - you can’t throttle them back or shut them off once they are lit like you can a liquid fueled engine (like the shuttle’s main engines). That makes them inherently more dangerous for use on crewed flights.
The space shuttle had 3 gigantic liquid fueled engines. Those returned to earth with the shuttle at mission’s end (but were not used in the landing process) Not only could they be throttled up or down, but they could be gimbled for steering control. Something those solids weren’t capable of. Yes. So much power. The Saturn 5 was much slower getting off the pad. Felt like watching a slow motion movie. If anybody hasn’t watched Apollo 13 with Tom Hanks please do so immediately. You won’t regret it.
Oops. Sorry @Old_Joe. This rambling probably belongs in off-topic. Thanks for alerting us to the Starliner launch. Hope it works out well.

If I had Warren's expertise, portfolio and a position that was 50% of my portfolio I would do the same. I am so, so far away from that scenario I can only dream.

Warren Buffett started selling some of Berkshire's AAPL shares, and is putting the proceeds back into T-bills. Likes the >5% yield, and he can't find any good value in the current market.
He may be old and conservative, but he ain't dumb.

@msf, intrigued by the WayBack (Time) Machine, I explored it some today. It's a fantastic tool for researching the web history.
@hank noted in January that there weren’t many archives of MFO. But when one of the members visits the WayBack Machine, he/she can also archive with “Save Page Now” on that day.
https://www.mutualfundobserver.com/discuss/discussion/61882/way-back-machine-mfo-pages-from-11-22-2-23-6-23/p1
For example, I archived MFO TODAY, 5/6/24, at WayBack Machine,
https://web.archive.org/web/20240506205524/https://www.mutualfundobserver.com/discuss/

Until the FDIC stops protecting uninsured depositors, this change is largely form without substance.
A few sentences from a NYTimes subscriber-only opinion piece (May 1, 2024)
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/01/opinion/fdic-insurance-banks.html

When Banks Fail, Why Do We Keep Bailing Out Uninsured Depositors?
[Michael] Ohlrogge, an associate professor at New York University Law School, argues that when banks fail, the F.D.I.C. is not resolving them in the manner that is least costly to its Deposit Insurance Fund.
...
It stands to reason that the cheapest way to resolve a bank failure in many cases — maybe most cases — would be to tell those uninsured depositors that their money is gone: “Sorry. See ya, Wouldn’t wanna be ya.”
But in a vast majority of bank failures, the F.D.I.C. approves a resolution in which the uninsured depositors don’t lose a penny [at typically higher cost].
...
Ohlrogge speculates that the F.D.I.C. is experiencing “mission creep,” taking on a responsibility for uninsured depositors that it was never assigned.

This is a copywrited, paywalled piece. I'm not going to reproduce more here. Ohlrogge's paper, Why Have Uninsured Depositors Become De Facto Insured? (Nov 15, 2023) is freely available and covers the material in more detail.
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4624095

@sma3 - I do not use YOC. I believe it to be a false metric. It's not the yield on the current valuation. However if you'd like to know what it is, it's 9.6% to go along with 59% CG's.
Edit to add: I should probably mention that the stocks I mentioned earlier are not the only ones I use/own which makes 5.8% possibly suspect. Others in that bucket include BDC's, MReit's, and equity income CEF's. I tend to rotate those (in, out or swap) based upon market conditions.
@Old_Joe - thanks but it was a lot of luck mostly. The picks could have tanked and cut their dividends anywhere along the way and still could. A recent case in point is LEG, a dividend aristocrat of merit who just hit a 52-wk low and cut their dividend by 89%. I owned it at one time but I don't remember why I sold it or traded it for some other investment.
There was a guy at M*, Josh Peters, back around 2007-9 who had a monthly dividend investor column. I learned a lot from him. He left for some fund company to run a mutual fund based on his acumen and possibly his popularity. I've no idea how that turned out.

You can't buy life insurance for some random person off the street - that invites fraud and homicide. Rather, there must be some economic interest you are insuring. Studios may insure their actors because the studios have money on the line. The most obvious candidate for life insurance is a family wage earner. A family stands to suffer if a wage earner dies.
Similarly, insurance companies are not likely to sell you liability insurance for more than you have at risk. I have a vague recollection of asking an insurance company out of curiosity about umbrella policies over $5M, since that seems to be the limit for "no questions asked" policies.

@Mark
Is that 5.8% of your current account value, or your cost basis? Isn't it hard to generate a yield that high without a lot of MLPs and REITS and /or BDCs etc?

@bee - That's a fair question and one that I honestly can't answer with any degree of certainty. I can relate how it pertains to me but that's about it.
1) Most of my DG portfolio holdings were bought at depressed valuations (on sale if you wish). I probably wouldn't buy most of them today because of stretched valuations but I would, and do, pick at them when the opportunities present themselves. I think stock selection is as important as the dividend growth potential.
2) The current combined yield is 5.8% (at today's equity values) which easily funds my needs and then some without having to sell any shares.
3) Selling shares at some point in the future would of course decrease the income generated or would it? The income from this portfolio has doubled since I established it and that's without the benefit of dividend reinvestment.
4) Which leads me to this point * where would you be dummy (me) if you had reinvested those dividends!!!???* Ah, if only.
I'm going to try to set up the portfolio in PV (Portfolio Vision) and see what it says. To be honest I never gave it much thought (silly right?) because I was focused on income generation and hopeful CG's.

FDIC just closing some loopholes, https://www.mutualfundobserver.com/discuss/discussion/62155/fdic-limits-insurance-with-tricks/p1

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

From the comments, I think all you guys, just like me, are passive holders of PRWCX. I tried to make extra effort not to sound alarm about the fund or PM as I was afraid some posters might take it that way. I am not concerned about the fund but because I do not have a 100% passive portfolio, i have no excuse not to know my largest active fund, irrespective of whether it is underperforming or overperforming.
Referring to the comments, the underperformance likely is not from the bond sleeve. There are floating rate funds that made 4% YTD. Fund likely outperformed FBALX on the bond sleeve, which means it likely underperformed FBALX on the equity side. XLF and XLU have returned nearly 8% YTD. It is possible the overweight in HC is weighing the fund down. The only dedicated sector funds I own are HC. So, I am overweight HC all around massively. I sold some HC OEFs because PRWCX is overweight but not enough because I am underperforming YTD in the non-trading part of my portfolio. I already did not have high conviction in HC; so, it does not make sense to double up: once thru PRWCX and then on my own. I have limitations on completely exiting HC dedicated funds because they are in taxable accounts.
Knowing the fund has helped me in the past. E.g., When I figured he was reducing GE, I bought GE on my own because my conviction was high but I understood he does not have the luxury to wait out like I could. It is one of my better buys. For the same reason, I never owned APPL, not even when it got down to $125 in 2023, because BRK owns plenty of it and I own BRK. I check BRK’s 13F every quarter.
I guess I will have to wait for a poster who takes an active interest in this fund to reply to the OP. I will go to the fund page and try to learn about it.
@hank, all are welcome to participate as long as it helps in us understanding how the fund is positioned.

Just thought I'd mention.
Highlights: Lynn writes a solid piece on tax efficient investing in an uncertain environment. The Shadow catches up on bunches of reorganizations and launches.
I've been reading the research on "quality" investing, which functionally comes down to debt-free companies with strong, predictable cash flows. Every manager has their own take and take, but the academic research is bewilderingly consistent: for investors with a moderate time horizon, this offers something a lot like a free lunch: higher returns plus lower volatility than the market. In stocks and bonds. Across industries. In the US and beyond. That led to a long chat with Rajiv Jain, who is really good at it and whose "boutique" is now managing $150 billion. (That's essentially unheard of.) I also reached out to Morningstar for some analytics.
The result were a couple pretty decent articles. I hope you like them.
Buried in the publisher's letter were a couple interesting notes: Berwyn Income is flying under the radar as Penn Mutual AM 1847 Income, this month is MFO's 12th anniversary and Chip and I got married.
On whole, a good time. Hope you enjoy!

I do understand @BaluBalu’s point that the fund is lagging peers this year. And, like him, I try to stay broadly diversified across asset classes. Still, that +3.63% YTD would translate into something close to a 10-11% annual return if it continues. Not too shoddy - especially following last year’s +18.8%.
Looks like the fund has some high fliers in its equity portfolio, including Microsoft. So I’d look to the 32% in bonds for clues to any underperformance. Do its peers hold that high a percentage? Would depend on duration. But most bonds have been hammered this year - even at the relatively short end. There was some turn-around late last week, and bonds are looking good in the overnight trading with the 10-year currently near 4.5% after topping out around 4.7% before Powell’s press conference..
Folks know I’m agnostic on Mr. Giroux’s fund. But cannot dispute the performance and well deserved M* gold rating. I hope the fact I don’t own the fund doesn’t exclude my participation. I did own it for over 20 years,
Interesting thread.

After years of delay, Boeing to try again with Starliner space capsule
An excerpt from The Washington Post:

Before a door-size panel blew out of a Boeing 737 Max, leaving a gaping hole in the side of an Alaska Airlines aircraft shortly after takeoff; before whistleblowers came forward to say they were threatened for bringing up safety issues at the company; and before the Justice Department opened a criminal investigation into the blowout incident, Boeing was struggling with another set of issues, on another high-profile vehicle.
Its Starliner spacecraft, designed to fly astronauts to orbit under a $4.2 billion contract from NASA, had suffered a series of problems that put its launch with astronauts years behind schedule. Its onboard computer had failed during its first test flight. A second test flight was scrubbed after valves in the vehicle’s service module stuck and wouldn’t operate. Then, after the craft finally flew a test mission successfully without anyone on board, Boeing discovered that tape used as insulation on wiring inside the capsule was flammable and would need to be removed. The parachute system also had problems, which forced the company to redesign and strengthen a link between the parachutes and the spacecraft.
Now, a decade after NASA awarded Boeing a contract to fly astronauts to the International Space Station, Boeing will finally attempt to fly its Starliner spacecraft with people onboard. If all goes to plan, at 10:34 p.m. on Monday, the company is set to fly a pair of veteran astronauts, Sunita Williams and Barry “Butch” Wilmore, on a mission that will be one of the most significant tests for Boeing’s space division — and for NASA — in years.
The flight is intended to see how the spacecraft performs in space with a crew onboard. If all goes well, the spacecraft will catch up with the space station — which travels at 17,500 mph — about a day after lifting off. Along the way, the crew members will test manually flying the spacecraft before it docks autonomously with the station. NASA and Boeing will also be eager to see how the spacecraft’s heat shield and parachutes work as it brings Williams and Wilmore back to Earth after about eight days.
NASA officials express confidence in Boeing and say the company has gone to extraordinary lengths to ensure that the mission will be successful. They are eager to have another spacecraft, in addition to the one SpaceX flies, that can ferry astronauts to the station. “I can say with confidence that the teams have absolutely done their due diligence,” James Free, NASA’s associate administrator, said at a briefing last week.