This name change would concern me if I held the fund (JNSTX).
The SEC says: "The Division takes the position that a 'short-term' ... bond fund should have a dollar-weighted average maturity of ... no more than 3 years."
https://www.sec.gov/divisions/investment/guidance/rule35d-1faq.htm
That doesn't apply to short duration funds. Floating rate securities are considered to have virtually zero duration, since their interest rate is generally set to match the market rate. That is, no interest rate sensitivity. But the securities themselves can have long maturities and may be illiquid.
If they have embedded options, like mortgages, they may have extension risk. To the extent that their rates don't adjust quickly or completely to market changes, they may have negative convexity - as rates go up (and bond prices fall), their prices may fall much faster than vanilla bonds with positive convexity.
What the prospectus says is that

The Fund expects to maintain an average-weighted effective maturity of three years or less under normal circumstances. ... "Effective" maturity differs from actual maturity, which may be longer. In calculating the “effective” maturity the portfolio managers will estimate the effect of expected principal payments and call provisions on securities held in the portfolio. ...[A]ll else being equal, [this] could result in more volatility than if the Fund calculated an actual maturity target.
...
Extension risk is the risk that borrowers may pay off their debt obligations more slowly in times of rising interest rates, which will lengthen the duration of the portfolio. Liquidity risk is the risk that fixed-income securities may be difficult or impossible to sell at the time that the portfolio managers would like or at the price the portfolio managers believe the security is currently worth.

https://connect.rightprospectus.com/janushenderson/TADF/47103E742/P?site=janushenderson

I'm not sure about 1968 - 1981, but between 1973 and 1980, while the stock market roughly doubled utilities, well, roughly doubled.
Over the indicated periods, $100 grew to:
Utilities: 1973-1989 $711 (7x), 1981-1990 $352 (3.5x) => 1973-1980 2x
Stocks: 1973-1989 $613 (6x), 1981-1990 $303 (3x) => 1973-1980 2x
https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1991-05-20-fi-1567-story.html
Okay, the calculation isn't perfect. I'm using the time frame from 1973-1989 and factoring out data from 1981-1990, while what should be factored out is 1981-1989.
(Utilities did a tad better than the S&P500 in 1990, losing only 0.63% to the 500's 3.18% loss.)
https://www.bespokepremium.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/totalreturns.png
Despite rising interest rates, despite inflation (which hit the energy sector - the raw material for utilities - harder than the economy as a whole), utilities didn't come off too badly.
(3 mo T-bill returns jumped from 4.07% in 1972 to 7.03% in 1973, generally remaining above 5% and moving into double digits at the end of the 70s. Inflation first broke 6% in 1973, roughly doubling the 1972 figure, roughly doubling again in 1974 to 11%, generally remaining about 6%, returning to double digits at the end of the 70s.)
https://pages.stern.nyu.edu/~adamodar/New_Home_Page/datafile/histretSP.html
A broader point is that aside from an expectation of rising inflation and interest rates, the utilities sector is substantially different from it was in the 70s. Then it was heavily regulated. Because of that regulation, investors expected a nearly guaranteed rate of return and little appreciation. Though because of rapidly rising costs (energy prices), the industry often failed to achieve those "guaranteed" returns in the 70s.
Still, I'm not expecting another reduction in oil production (with commensurate price hikes) due to an Arab oil embargo after a war with Israel (1973) or due to a revolution in Iran (1979).
Since deregulation took off in the 80s, since power generation was separated from transmission, it's a completely different business environment. In the 70s, nuclear power was all the rage, and the industry benefited from the government covering plants in case of, um, mishaps.
Today, nuclear is declining, and other utilities have to bear the cost of their negligence. Such as PG&E:

In a news conference, Shasta County District Attorney Stephanie Bridgett announced the 31 charges, including 11 felonies, against the company. She said in July that her office had determined that PG&E was “criminally liable” for last year’s Zogg Fire, which burned near Redding.
...
The filing also includes felony arson charges against PG&E for "recklessly igniting" three other fires, all occurring in Shasta County in the last year and a half before and after the Zogg Fire.
PG&E equipment has been found responsible for some of the most destructive wildfires in California history, including the 2018 Camp Fire in Butte County that left more than 80 people dead. More recently, PG&E reported to California utility regulators that its equipment may have been involved in the start of the Dixie Fire burning in Northern California.

https://www.kcra.com/article/criminal-charges-pgande-zogg-fire/37724695
Such as the electric utility companies operating in Texas:
https://abc13.com/texas-griddy-electric-company-lawsuit/10987967/

Part of the responsibility for the near-collapse of the state’s electrical grid can be traced to the decision in 1999 to embark on the nation’s most extensive experiment in electrical deregulation, handing control of the state’s entire electricity delivery system to a market-based patchwork of private generators, transmission companies and energy retailers.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/21/us/texas-electricity-ercot-blackouts.html
The utility industry over the past third of a century or so is simply not the same as the regulated, widows and orphans industry it was prior to the 80s.

The ETF launched on Tuesday under SOC.
"SPC is a renter, not an owner," said CrossingBridge's Founder and Portfolio Manager, David Sherman. "In other words, we aim to capture the fixed income nature of pre-merger SPACs purchased at a discount-to-collateral value with a potential equity pop from shareholders reacting favorably to an announced deal. But we are not interested in being an equity investor post-business combination – that is a whole different ballgame."
According to CrossingBridge, SPACs offer very similar characteristics to fixed income securities, which include:
· SPACs have a liquidation date which is equivalent to a bond's maturity date.
· SPAC common stock shareholders have a full-redemption right upon a business combination, similar to a change-of-control put provision found in corporate debt indentures.
· SPACs are fully collateralized by U.S. government securities for the benefit of SPAC common stock shareholders to be released upon a redemption or liquidation. Hence, when an investor purchases SPAC common stock below its pro rata trust account value and holds the security to redemption or liquidation date, the investor will receive a positive yield, similar to a fixed income security's yield to maturity.
· SPACs may have equity upside by participating in an attractive business combination. This upside is similar to a convertible bond with the added feature that SPAC investors may redeem their common shares for their collateral value rather than continue ownership post-transaction.
SPACs are not a new asset class for Sherman; he made his first SPAC investment over 15 years ago. Given the increased popularity and capital flowing into SPACs, Sherman has significantly increased the firm's exposure to SPACs during the past few years. CrossingBridge believes the market is now large and liquid enough to effectively manage SPAC-dedicated strategies.
"Our guiding principle has been, and will continue to be, that return of capital is more important than return on capital," emphasized Sherman

Another high yield ETF I reviewed was VPC, a newer private credit fund with good performance but an expense ratio of 5.53%! The base direct ER is 0.75%, while the remainder is attributed to AFFE (Acquired Fund Fees and Expenses). Granted it is a fund of funds with components layering on additional expense, but still seems extreme to me. Perhaps readers with more background in this investment class can provide further embellishment and evaluation. Thank you.

Leveraged loans and BDC's, stay far, far away IMHO. If you want to play around in a similar space MPV is a relative bargain these days.

Another high yield ETF I reviewed was VPC, a newer private credit fund with good performance but an expense ratio of 5.53%! The base direct ER is 0.75%, while the remainder is attributed to AFFE (Acquired Fund Fees and Expenses). Granted it is a fund of funds with components layering on additional expense, but still seems extreme to me. Perhaps readers with more background in this investment class can provide further embellishment and evaluation. Thank you.

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/277751/000119312521282089/d237098d497.htm
497 1 d237098d497.htm JANUS INVESTMENT FUND
Janus Investment Fund
Janus Henderson Short-Term Bond Fund
Supplement dated September 24, 2021
to Currently Effective Prospectuses
and Statement of Additional Information
Effective on or about October 28, 2021, Janus Henderson Short-Term Bond Fund will change its name to Janus Henderson Short Duration Flexible Bond Fund.
Please retain this Supplement with your records

Yes, @Derf - I see that. Here’s one discussion I removed from another board that tries to shed light on the two different symbols.
“EGRNF looks to be a foreign ordinary. It doesn't appear to be an ADR - these are known as F shares that trade OTC.” LINK
Well … The F shares seem appropriately named.

Just an example of how the Chinese giants are bending to the will of the CCP (perhaps part of the problem for BABA is that Jack Ma let himself become too much of an international public figure?)...

Alibaba Seeks to Exit Media Firm After Beijing’s Scrutiny

It's looking like the oil and gas industry may soon be faced with significant additional expenses but that agriculture may continue to get a pass for now....

Crackdown

Any investors buying this troubled China stock ? 13% one day drop, what's to worry about !?
As the saying goes , "buy low - sell high ! (52 Week Range $7.25 - $67.99 )
Enjoy the Dip , Derf

MCSMX Purchasing a toe hold as fund is down a couple of bucks from 52 week high.
I'll keep an eye on as two fairly new managers since 2020.
Derf

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1843841/000158064221004583/dgi497.htm
(DGIBX , DGITX)
497 1 dgi497.htm 497
SUPPLEMENT DATED SEPTEMBER 23, 2021
TO THE PROSPECTUS
AND STATEMENT OF ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
DATED MAY 21, 2021
OF DGI BALANCED FUND (the “Fund”)
(a series of the DGI Investment Trust)
On May 24, 2021, the Trust filed a supplement to the Fund’s Prospectus and Statement of Additional Information dated May 21, 2021 (the “May 24 Supplement”) announcing that the Fund would be closed to new investors and, except as discussed in the May 24 Supplement, would also be closed to new sales until further notice. Effective immediately, the May 24 Supplement is rescinded and removed, and the Fund is available for new investment and new sales.
Please Retain This Supplement for Future Reference.

RMDs are merely tax events - moving assets from one pocket (an IRA) to another. They don't require you to sell anything.
If you're relying on IRA distributions to meet cash needs, then your concern is not so much that you have RMDs, but rather that you have to sell assets. The question is thus: which assets do you sell.
You can "replace" the assets distributed and sold from your DW's IRA by repurchasing them in your own IRA. So there's no risk of selling low that's created by distributing one set of assets (i.e. DW's assets) vs. another (i.e. your IRA).
OTOH, if your question is how to maximize sheltered assets, then I suggest looking at post-tax values. Assuming you don't expect your tax rates to change much, there's a simple calculation you can make.
Assume that your tax rate is, and will be, 25%. Then every $100 in a taxable IRA is "worth" $75. If that $100 investment doubles to $200, then it will be "worth" $150. Very straightforward. From your perspective, the government is not sharing risk here. This is the same as if you had $75 in a Roth and it might double to $150. Your risk and your potential reward is the same either way, so long as you think in terms of post-tax dollars.
So, if the objective is to maximize sheltered assets, maximize the post-tax dollars in your IRAs. As hank mentioned, you can do gradual Roth conversions. Then, that $75 (post tax) in your traditional IRA becomes $100 (post tax) in your Roth.
You can also put the dollars with the highest expected growth rates into (a) a Roth, and (b) the younger spouse's T-IRA since those dollars will be allowed to remain there longer. The latter assumes that you don't need to draw dollars out of IRAs for spending cash.
Circling back to the beginning, if the concern is not so much maximizing sheltered dollars as it is controlling which assets to sell, remember that you always have the option of replacing something you sell in one IRA by purchasing it in the other IRA. In this way, you're not at risk of selling low - you have control over which assets, at the end of the day, you sell.

From Reuters - “BlackRock added 31.3 million notes of Evergrande's debt between January and August 2021, pushing its stake in the company to 1% of the assets in its $1.7 billion Asian High Yield Bond Fund, according to Morningstar. HSBC increased its positions in the company by 40% through July, according to Morningstar. UBS increased its position by 25% through May, the latest date available in the fund tracker's database. None of the companies responded to requests to comment for this story. At the same time, other large fund firms such as Fidelity, Pimco, and Allianz cut their positions in the company by up to 47% between January and July, Morningstar said.”
Reuters Link
There is a more comprehensive / incisive story on same topic in the September 22 Financial Times, but more difficult to access due to paywall.
Possible FT Links:
From the Financial Times - “BlackRock in August bought up five different Evergrande dollar bonds through one of its high-yield funds, which had holdings in the developer then worth $18m, Morningstar data show. The size of the holding had already expanded sharply this year as the fund’s assets under management rose. The biggest asset manager had exposure of close to $400m across its funds, according to data compiled by Bloomberg based on June, July and September filing dates. An HSBC-run high-yield fund in July was also a net buyer of Evergrande’s debt and has increased bond holdings 38 per cent since February as the fund expanded in size, the Morningstar data showed, though the value of its exposure at $31m declined over that period due to falling prices. The data highlight a willingness on the part of some of the biggest investors in Evergrande’s offshore bonds to continue to add to their holdings even after prices had started falling in the earlier stages of a liquidity crisis that is rippling across markets.”

Click on this link:
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1141819/000089418921006795/0000894189-21-006795-index.htm
Never seen it state something was "inactive"

I'm hoping 2 to 2.5 % after 3 years. For me 2% is better than 1 basis point for my idle cash !

"The Federal Reserve on Wednesday telegraphed it could hike rates six to seven times by the end of 2024, illustrating the central bank’s optimism that the COVID-19 recovery will progress well enough for the Fed to tighten its easy money policies in a few years.
The policy-setting Federal Open Market Committee still held interest rates at near-zero in its updated statement, but said it had advanced talks on paring back its asset purchase program.
Since the depths of the pandemic, the Fed has been absorbing about $120 billion a month in U.S. Treasuries and agency mortgage-backed securities. But Fed officials have said in recent weeks that by the end of the year, the economy will likely make the “substantial further progress” needed for the central bank to begin slowing the pace of those purchases."
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/fed-fomc-monetary-policy-decision-september-2021-141145429.html
Can't wait earn a nifty 1.5% on my savings after another 3 years, while inflation eats my breakfast, lunch and dinner for me.

This filing indicates that the SPAC is inactive:
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1141819/000089418921006795/0000894189-21-006795-index.htm
or
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1141819/000089418921006795/crossingbridgespacetf497k.htm

The venerable Art Cashin introduced me years ago to the concept of "an orderly sell-off."
That's what Monday's action looked like to me so I added to AAPL, AMZN and MSFT just prior to the close.
Ah, at least one other person saw it the same way and offered an interesting metric...
https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/stocks-fall-options-traders-show-185553962.html
And OBTW, Monday's drop was not a stand alone event. It came on the heels of a coupla DOWN weeks and was highlighted by the S&P blowing through its 50-day MA. So yeah, of course as a LT investor I added on Monday.

A lengthy but fascinating article in the Wall Street Journal analyzes what may really be going on in China, and looks at possible financial ramifications for the West. This article is free with the link below:
➤ Xi Jinping Aims to Rein In Chinese Capitalism
Here's another free article from the WSJ on this topic:

China’s Regulatory Storm Risks Triggering Wider Economic Damage
As Beijing tightens rules on real estate, technology and other sectors, worries grow that it could trip up growth
➤ Link to WSJ Article