A Fido email came on trades when I didn't do any.
On a/c login, I found that Ultra-ST FCONX (formerly, Investor class) was auto-converted into FCNVX (formerly, Institutional class). Fido website doesn't even recognize FCONX ticker now, while other sites still do. Fido FCNVX info isn't updated either as it still shows $1M minimum - that of course isn't true anymore as my current balance is UNDER $100.00.
I was surprised by this sudden change for which there was no prior notification.
FCONX was among the rare Fido funds to which frequent-trading didn't apply. I checked that remains valid for FCNVX.
Another good change was that the new ER for FCNVX is just 25 bps.
https://fundresearch.fidelity.com/mutual-funds/summary/316146521

I thought I knew what stable value funds in a 401k were. I used them for years, but what you show looks to me more like an annuity.
Stable value fund is available in my 401(K) plan. It is an insurance product that invest in short term treasurys but has the liquidity like money market fund.
There's a lot of subtlety in attributes of these products that results in a fair amount of confusion. In a broad sense everything people have mentioned here is a stable value fund. In practical terms, the distinctions don't matter much.

stable value funds and their close cousins, guaranteed investment contracts, together accounted for 21.3 percent of the assets in such plans in September [2006]
...
The stable value funds in 401(k) plans are generally a pool of short-term bonds or other debt-market investments protected by an insurance contract known as a wrapper.... The underlying investments are generally corporate bonds, which yield more than government bonds but are also at a greater risk for loss of principal. He said Treasury bonds were a more secure long-term choice than stable value funds, which may be subject “to the law of unintended consequences."
...
Like other stable value funds in 401(k) plans, [the Trust Advisors Stable Value Plus fund] was not a mutual fund but a collective trust.

https://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/08/business/mutfund/08stable.html
"Stable value" can refer to even more varied investment structures. Historically, or "traditionally", these were insurance products - guaranteed insurance contracts like TIAA Traditional issued directly by an insurance company.

TIAA Traditional is a guaranteed insurance contract and not an investment for federal securities law purposes.

https://www.tiaa.org/public/learn/retirement-planning-and-beyond/how-do-traditional-annuities-work
"Stable value" evolved into a much broader range of investment structures. The common thread is the use of insurance to provide investment value stability.

Stable value investment options may be offered by investment managers, trust companies, or insurance companies in various structures, such as separately managed accounts, commingled funds or guaranteed insurance accounts. Sometimes a stable value investment option will be managed by a plan sponsor. While stable value investment options may be managed or structured in a variety of ways, the important similarity is the use of stable value investment contracts, issued by banks, insurance companies, and other financial institutions, which convey to the investment option the ability to carry certain assets at book value.

https://www.stablevalue.org/stable-value/ (Links in original)
For a brief shining(?) moment, stable value funds were offered in retail IRAs. But SEC concerns about pricing led to their demise:

[Stable value as an] investing option has disappeared for individuals [in 2005] because of questions raised by the Securities and Exchange Commission about how to value the funds, although no formal ruling against them has been made.
...
Stable value funds have been available for many years, and remain available today-although on a much more limited basis-in some 401(k) plans and defined benefit pension plans maintained by employers. These investments come under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Department of Labor, which has strict, but somewhat different regulations, from the SEC. The SEC's questions affect investments by individuals in IRAs ...
Scudder launched the first stable value IRA fund in 1997, offering the funds as Scudder Preservation Plus Income and Scudder Preservation Plus. Others were offered by PBGH, Gartmore Morley, Oppenheimer and other mutual fund managers.
But the SEC began raising questions about how to determine the daily valuation of funds with insurance wrappers, which managers had been pricing at book value. The wrapper agreement, which is what made the stable value fund what it was, was also the part that was raising questions at the SEC. The SEC, which initially approved the funds, will not comment on the situation other than to say that there are no stable value funds now registered with the SEC, although there are some nonregistered ones in existence, says John Nester, an SEC spokesman.

https://www.fa-mag.com/news/article-1120.html?issue=56

It appears that Bramshill is trying to attract more investors. In addition of the high ER, it is on transaction-fee platform, $49.95 to purchase at Fidelity. Here is the fund’s performance since inception.
https://fundresearch.fidelity.com/mutual-funds/performance-and-risk/89832P515?type=sq-NavBar

I might have pointed to Larry Summers as the Democratic poster boy for deregulation.

Between 1992 and 2001, Summers held various positions in the US Treasury Department, including that of Treasury Secretary from 1999 to 2001. Summers has described the 1990’s as a time when “important steps” were taken to achieve “deregulation in key sectors of the economy” such as financial services. He has also said that during this period government officials and private financial interests collaborated in a spirit of cooperation “to provide the right framework for our financial industry to thrive.” Summers recommended before he left the Treasury Department that removing policies that “artificially constrict the size of markets” should remain a priority for the US government.
Along with Robert Rubin and Alan Greenspan, Summers brought about elimination of key US financial regulations including the Glass-Steagall Act. He was particularly aggressive in his efforts to block regulations of derivatives, regulations that might have prevented the economic meltdown the US suffered in 2008. According to economist Dean Baker, "The policies he promoted as Treasury Secretary and in his subsequent writings led to the economic disaster that we now face."

https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Larry_Summers
That's some of what Summers did while he was working in the government. In contrast, Barney Frank had left Congress years before attempts were made to weaken Dodd-Frank. As a private citizen, and as the bill in question was reaching the House for a vote, he wrote an opinion piece titled: "Why I would vote 'no' on Senate bill to amend Dodd-Frank".
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/03/01/barney-frank-why-i-would-vote-no-on-senate-bill-to-amend-dodd-frank-commentary.html
Though while objecting to the bill, he did not excoriate it. One of his objections was that the threshold for subjecting "large" banks to the most stringent level of examination was set too high. He would have preferred $125B, as opposed to $250B.
Both Dems and Reps voted to loosen regulations. Bags of pus
The opposition to the legislation, though in the minority, was also bipartisan. One Republican voted no.
If calling that bipartisan sounds a bit weird, consider that 83% of the Democratic representatives voted against the legislation, while 99.6% of voting Republican representatives supported it.
https://clerk.house.gov/Votes/2018216

Thanks for your earlier tip @msf. I put in additional $ by year-end so to ensure the tax refund is over $5K. Just filed our return and will be getting two $2,500 I bonds for me and my wife.

You can also hold the paper bonds yourself, perhaps in a safe deposit box.
The mail in process isn't hard, though a tad more tedious than one would like. And you only have to create that second account once.
As I've posted before, the USPS lost one $50 refund savings bond of mine (out of a $5000 total). TD replaced it many months after I reported it as never having been received. Unfortunately the replacement was another paper bond.
So while you might have $1200 to send in, I'm stuck with a single $50 bond to have and to hold (or to mail in). I mailed in (converted) the other $4950 long ago.

TIAA Traditional (Accumulation) Rates
No changes.
Restricted RC 6.25%, RA 6.00%
Flexible RCP 5.50%, SRA 5.25%, Newer IRAs 3.45%
TSP G Fund hasn't updated yet (previous monthly rate was 4.125%).
Options outside of workplace retirement plans include m-mkt funds, bank m-mkt accounts (FDIC insured), T-Bills, short-term brokered CDs.
#401k #403b #StableValue #TIAA #TSP
https://ybbpersonalfinance.proboards.com/thread/142/stable-value-sv-rates-monthly?page=2&scrollTo=995

From Bloomberg
The FDIC told First Citizens on Tuesday it was claiming a $500 million profit linked to the increase in that company’s stock, which soared after the acquisition was sealed. The FDIC was entitled to the payment within five business days, the Raleigh, North Carolina-based bank said in a regulatory filing

thanks Seems like a lot of trouble for $1200 refund. I think I will just apply it to estimates.
Maybe if I overpaid by $5000 it would be more worthwhile!

Many writers often over-simply complex subject matter as black and white. Then the absolute terms can mislead their audience. I think the probability of further rate hike is declining since inflation appears to be slowing. This morning the Feb’s PCE increased by 0.5% y-o-y, lower than that of January 2023. The next FOMC meeting is in May. We will see what the Fed would do at that point. Powell has a way to become hawkish and reaffirm their fight against inflation while this inflation remains sticky due to many complex factors such as tight labor market.
As for investment, short- and intermediate-term bond funds/ETFs make perfect sense in this environment. When the Fed announces the end of rate hike, it would be compelling to move to long duration bond.

Lewis is right, I"ve done this. The conversion is easy but a nuisance.
The TreasuryDirect instructions are here:
https://treasurydirect.gov/savings-bonds/manage-bonds/convert-paper-to-electronic/#id-how-do-i-convert-my-ee-or-i-bonds--508815
Basically, you create a separate (linked) account for converted bonds. You create a manifest (list) of bonds to convert, including their serial numbers and other info. You mail the savings bonds along with that manifest (printed out), and (these days) a few months later they'll show up in your account.
There's no rush because you can't cash them out for at least a year. And should they get lost in the mail (either coming to you as part of your refund or going back to Treasury Direct), you can request replacements.
The awkwardness is in having to handle the paper bonds and in having a different account number for the bonds at TD. Still a single login, so it's not too bad. And how often do you need to log in to look at these set-and-forget savings bonds?

Seeking alpha had a decent comparison of the business models of SCHW vs IBKR
Former 50% of revenues are investing clients cash balances
Latter revenues comes from fees and managing bid ask spread for clients who want trading efficiency so are willing to pay for it
I am getting adds comparing IBKR rates on their balances (4.5%) to SCHW and FIDO

I think the proposal to increase the FDIC limit (to say $1,000,000) and prorate the expense to the size of insurance you want makes the most sense
The costs of the insurance should all be borne by the beneficiaries with a reasonable surplus every year to allow for future payouts. The program could run with a 3 to 5 year look back provision, so very large payouts occasionally could be replaced by future payments into the fund
Most people and small businesses would only need one bank account but banks like SVB could continue to force some customers to keep larger accounts with them but pay for insurance. If you don't want to buy insurance, you are on your own.

Well said @LB. As an individual investor, cost of asset ownership is something I have absolute control. Thus, index funds and ETFs are preferred. So are those OEFs with lower expense ratio.
With regard to TIPS, I would only consider the shortest duration individual TIPs of 5 year, and hold it till maturity. The only TIPS funds that I am interested are the new short duration TIPS fund from Vanguard, VTIP, and Blackrock’s STIP. I have no interest in longer duration TIPS such as 30 years, since many changes can take place. Same goes for TIPS funds and their year-to-year performance speaks for themselves

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1261788/000089418923002318/bramshilltapinvestminimums.htm
497 1 bramshilltapinvestminimums.htm 497E
Trust for Advised Portfolios
Supplement dated March 30, 2023
to the Prospectus dated July 31, 2022
for the Bramshill Income Performance Fund
We are pleased to inform you that effective April 29, 2023, the initial investment minimum for the Institutional Class of the Bramshill Income Performance Fund (the “Fund”) will decrease from $100,000 to $1,000 and the subsequent investment minimum will decrease from $5,000 to $100.
Also effective April 29, 2023, the initial investment minimum for the Investor Class of the Fund will decrease from $1,000 to $100 and the subsequent investment minimum will decrease from $100 to no minimum.
Effective April 29, 2023, the following changes are made to the Fund’s Prospectus:
The table under “Purchase and Sale of Fund Shares” on page 7 of the Prospectus is replaced with the table below to reflect the new investment minimums:
Institutional Class Investor Class
Minimum Initial Investment
$1,000 $100
Minimum Subsequent Investment
$100 No Minimum
The first paragraph under “How to Buy Shares” on page 18 of the Prospectus is replaced with the paragraph below to reflect the new investment minimums:
The minimum initial investment amount for the Institutional Class shares is $1,000 and the minimum subsequent investment amount is $100. The minimum initial investment amount for the Investor Class shares is $100 and there is no minimum subsequent investment amount.

There were minor decreases in stock allocations & increases in m-mkt allocations. The changes for OEFs + ETFs were based on a total AUM of about $30.07 trillion in the previous month, so +/- 1% change was about +/- $300.7 billion. Also note that these changes were from both fund inflows/outflows & price changes. #Funds #OEFs #ETFs #ICI
OEFs & ETFs: Stocks 58.38%, Hybrids 5.21%, Bonds 19.89%, M-Mkt 16.52%
https://ybbpersonalfinance.proboards.com/thread/245/fund-allocations-cumulative-monthly?page=2&scrollTo=994

Honestly, I don’t get the feeling that we’re in a nasty bear market or that things will worsen a lot. Of course there will be a recession at some point. But I don’t think we’ll re-test the lows of 2022 - unless the economy really falls off a cliff. I get a better sense from watching the Dow which topped out around 37,000 in late ‘21 / early ‘22 and then fell to around 29,500 mid-year ‘22 as best I can determine. I think success going forward depends a lot on countries / geographic regions chosen. Some may get a boost (from currency) if dollar continues down. And also individual companies may be better bets than the total market if one is willing to take the risk of investing in individual stocks. (But it’s not a small risk.)
As the above demonstrates: “Any idiot can voice an opinion”. I’m not qualified to make such calls. Just saying how I try to position my own stuff.

T Rowe Price Article on the Secure Act 2.0:
troweprice.com/what-investors-need-to-know-about-secure-20-provisions

If there is any place where the vulnerabilities of the system to runs and fire sales have been clear-cut, it is money market funds.
...
Even without a fixed NAV, liquidity mismatch in other kinds of funds can still make them vulnerable to runs and fire sales.

Falling between the cracks here are floating NAV money market funds - neither fixed NAV nor other (non-MM) kind of fund. I suspect this was an unintended omission.
The alternative would be that she considers floating NAV MMFs to be relatively immune to runs and fire sales. That's not beyond the realm of possibility. The MMF runs she describes are due to funds breaking a buck and investors rushing for the gates (a la SVB, Reserve Fund) - first mover advantage.
Floating NAV MMFs by definition can't break a buck - they aren't fixed to a $1 nominal NAV. Redemption values vary continuously (fractions of a percent) rather than discretely (1%, a penny at a time).
FWIW, one can invest in floating NAV MMFs via Merrill. That's one of the very few advantages I can see in that brokerage, though one of which I'm not partaking.
Footnote 13 (in the OP) is a cite to https://www.sec.gov/news/press-release/2021-258
The proposed MMF rules she refers to would have removed redemption fees/gating, and imposed swing pricing on institutional funds. This 2021 proposal is still being worked on and seems to still be accepting comments (last one was Feb 2023).
Proposal: https://www.sec.gov/rules/proposed/2021/34-93784.pdf
Fact sheet: https://www.sec.gov/rules/proposed/2021/ic-34441-fact-sheet.pdf
Comments: https://www.sec.gov/comments/s7-22-21/s72221.htm
Mutual fund managers responded to the redemption fee/gating rules by managing the funds more conservatively so that the rules would never be triggered. They were concerned that if a fund got close to that point, investors would stampede out - first mover advantage redux.
Or something else might spook investors. Say, a pandemic.

Evidence indicates that SEC's reforms did not prevent runs during the COVID-19 pandemic. For example, prime MMFs—which can invest in all types of short-term debt instruments—held by institutional investors experienced net redemptions of about 30 percent of their total assets in a 2-week period in March 2020 (see figure). Some evidence also indicates SEC's reforms may have contributed to the runs. Some investors may have preemptively redeemed MMF shares to avoid incurring a liquidity fee or losing access to their funds under a redemption gate.

https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-23-105535
Notable in that report and in the SEC's proposal is the focus on institutional investors. (Swing pricing for institutional investors, relaxed restrictions on retail investors.) As with SVB, institutional investors are apparently the elephants in the room stomping on everyone else.

I saw that on Twitter. But +20% from the recent lows applies only to Nasdaq 100 QQQ/$NDX from the late-December lows, and not to Nasdaq Comp ONEQ/$COMPQ. Other major indexes had their lows in October and are still struggling.
Ed Yardeni, neither a perma-bull nor a perma-bear, now has 4,600 for SP500. I am watching 4,300-4,600 range myself to do some asset reallocations. https://ca.finance.yahoo.com/news/us-stocks-could-end-14-110609639.html