All ratings have been updated on MFO Premium site, including MultiSearch, Great Owls, Fund Alarm (Three Alarm and Honor Roll), Averages, Dashboard of Profiled Funds, Portfolios, Quick Search, and Fund Family Scorecard. The site now includes several analysis tools, including Correlation, Rolling Averages, Trend, Ferguson Metrics, Calendar Year and Period Performance.
You can read more about the latest features here.

@billr: I did just what you contemplate. When I turned 66 and first filed for SS, we had two kids at home, one 15, the other 7. The benefits for each continued until their graduation from HS. In the case of the younger one, contributions to the Michigan Education Savings Program (TIAA managed) and invested in Global Equities amounted to a nice pile of dough for tuition, etc. I did not explore taking SS earlier than 66, but as @msf points out, it might have worked for us. FWIIW, I continued to work until 70.

Barron’s has the cannabis growth story “covered“ in this week’s (May 3) edition.

“Happy birthday. Now pack up your stuff and go.
“That might constitute a harsh goodbye for most employees, but unless your name is Warren Buffett, it is a possible ending for corporate executives and directors … Mr. Buffett is 90 and has been running Berkshire for five decades. His business partner, Charlie Munger, is 97.
“(The) reality is that most CEOs will never be able to approach that tenure. Some 70% of S&P 500 companies had a mandatory retirement age in place for corporate directors as of December … Other research suggests such policies are in place for perhaps a third of S&P 500 chief executives. Not even Berkshire is immune to the pressure: The pension fund Calpers cited the board’s long tenure and the lack of board “refreshment” as one reason it plans to withhold its vote to re-elect some Berkshire directors this weekend.
“While many won’t last in a top job nearly long enough to see such a policy invoked—the average S&P 500 chief executive retires at 60.1 years old after a tenure of about 8.4 years—perhaps the practice needs a rethink in an era when once-unthinkably long lifespans are commonplace.”
From: The Wall Street Journal - May 1, 2021

An investment advisors dream proposal for a new client at this time. To the potential client, "if one had only purchased at or near the bottom of a particular sector last March or April."
Fun times with numbers right now, eh?
Check the 52 week return on this global etf list.

https://www.fedsmith.com/2021/05/01/best-12-month-tsp-return/
Best 12 Month TSP Return: 78%
One TSP Fund now has a 12-month rate of return of 78%. Here is an update on the performance of all of the TSP funds for April 2021.
C and S fund doing extremely well...
No changes in our distributions in tsp past 12 yrs
85s% stocks 15s% bond cash
Regards

“Professional money managers are turning up the heat on Warren Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway Inc. California Public Employees’ Retirement System and Neuberger Berman have demanded that the Omaha, Neb., conglomerate bring in new directors and provide more disclosures on climate risks and executive pay.
Leading up to Berkshire’s annual meeting on Saturday, proxy advisers Glass Lewis & Co. and Institutional Shareholder Services Inc. have recommended that investors withhold their votes for board members. While many of the complaints aren’t new and none of the shareholder proposals are likely to pass, Berkshire’s lackluster returns in recent years have made it more vulnerable to criticism amid a growing wave of investor interest in corporate sustainability issues …
Under Mr. Buffett’s leadership, the firm boasts 20% compounded annualized gains from 1965 to 2020, outperforming the S&P 500’s 10.2% gains including dividends during the period. Berkshire’s total returns over the past three- and five-year periods were 12% and 14%, respectively, compared with the index’s 19% and 18%.”
Link: The Wall Street Journal - May 1, 2021
Lengthy article. While I’ve excerpted portions relevant to Berkshire’s investment returns, other areas of contention are also addressed, including Berkshire’s commitment to fighting climate change,

@catch22 : Thanks for the "good" news.
From the link : One interesting quirk of this change is that it is impossible for anyone to have an RBD in 2021.
Hells Bells I already took mine !!
Took one early last year & it cost me about one grand ! Now I wish I had undone at least half of the RMD as I then would have avoided the doughnut hole . $75000- $80000 income & then stimulus check is prorated.
Let us hope all this (!X#&*0 gets sorted out !
Enjoy your weekend, Derf

The 10 year RMD rule for non-spousal inherited IRA's was part of the legislation in the Secure Act of early 2020. This rule is now subject to a language interpretation and also will have a new public comment period to formalize "the rule".
The below article provides some information; as well as a link to the current IRS Pub. 590-B.
I will attempt to keep track of this rule change going forward, but solicit others here to provide information as discovered.
Note example: For our house, part of a written plan instruction was that: One has 10 years to "take" all of the monies from a non-spousal inherited IRA; meaning that all of the money could taken in year 10, if desired. The "new" rule meaning would require RMD's for years 1-9, with the balance taken in year 10.

Secure Act, Ed Slott article
Regards,
Catch

May 1st Episode:
POLRX
Understanding Growth with a Value-centric characteristics.

Just glanced at your FSEAX. See the 10 and 15-year performance? No guarantees of course. But this fund has been a long-term winner. Maybe you got in at the wrong time. Well, the "wrong" time IF what you are is a TRADER, not an INVESTOR, and you were hoping for SHORT-TERM winnings. "Winnings" is a gambling term. ;)
***********************************
Do your homework.
Come up with a plan.
Pull the trigger and buy your selected funds.
Keep tabs, but don't obsess.
Watch it grow.
*********************
Markets riding high, like right now? Commit yourself to dollar-cost- averaging your way into a bigger sized pie.
Unless the bottom falls out, methinks you'll be pleased with where you're sitting at year's end. Remember '08-'09? My portfolio was down by about 40%. I kept buying.

I’ve been thoroughly impressed with my MS funds... especially MSSMX and MGGPX and I sort of chased past performance by adding two more MS funds...
YTD:
MSEGX up 5.51 but FDGRX is up 10.40
MACGX up 2.51 but I’m down 18% due to when I purchased this year!
ARTYX up 4.58 but I’m down 3.35% due to when I purchased
FSEAX up 4.17 but I’m down 7.50% due to when I purchased
I’m wondering if I should cut my losses with the 2 MS funds. None of the funds above are even beating the S&P 500. The two EM funds are ones that I’ve been least convicted about. I was convinced of the EM story of 2021 - which has not proved fruitful yet. Perhaps it won’t live up to the story that small caps have been thus far or maybe EM will rebound.

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1587982/000139834421009220/fp0065000_497.htm
497 1 fp0065000_497.htm
Cannabis Growth Fund
Investor Class Shares
(Ticker Symbol: CANNX)
Class I Shares
(Ticker Symbol: CANIX)
A series of Investment Managers Series Trust II (the “Trust”)
Supplement dated April 30, 2021, to the
Prospectus and Statement of Additional Information (“SAI”),
each dated June 1, 2020, as supplemented.
Important Notice Regarding Investor Class Shares
Upon the recommendation of the Cannabis Growth Fund’s (the “Fund”) advisor, Foothill Capital Management, LLC, the Board of Trustees of the Trust has approved the conversion of the Fund’s Investor Class Shares into Class I Shares and the subsequent termination of the Fund’s Investor Class Shares. Effective immediately, the Investor Class Shares are closed to all new investment. The Fund’s Investor Class Shares will be converted into Class I Shares and the Investor Class Shares will be terminated on or about May 14, 2021 (the “Effective Date”). Accordingly, as of the Effective Date, all references to the Fund’s Investor Class Shares in the Prospectus and SAI are deleted in their entirety. The Fund’s Investor Class Shares and Class I Shares have the same fee structure, except that Class I Shares are not subject to distribution and service fees pursuant to a Rule 12b-1 plan and the expense limitation cap for Class I Shares is lower. Shareholders of Investor Class Shares converted into Class I Shares will not be subject to a redemption fee.
Please file this Supplement with your records.

Finally traded FSPHX for FSMEX - long term conviction move. @TheShadow I checked back on PDFDX and sure enough it's up 22.81 for the year vs. FSMEX 12.25. It has performed very well since you mentioned it.

@BenWP @MikeW Ben - I'm hanging with ARTYX myself - currently down 1.71% since my ill timed purchase but I'm hoping it's just a patch as the fund is up 4.58 YTD. Of course, the S&P is up 11-12% so my move to EM after being in an EM Index fund for so long has not been the best of my 2021 buys.
Looking at AVUV ... wow +93% in the last 52 weeks with an ER of .25%

Ya, crazy. The guy seemed to have a decent reputation but also seemed very intense in every interview I ever saw him in.
Did like his philosophy...his fund was not meant to make you rich but to keep you rich, meaning focus on what can go wrong. I've stated it here before, NO ONE should be surprised when the market is down 40-50% from here...we all kind of know things are way out of kilter, way over valued, distorted, artificial...but yet...we post like we are experts and have a handle on what we are doing...we kinda know it's all a shit show and we can't seem to escape the pull of greed.
Dang shame, he felt the way he did, mental illness, despondency is a terrible thing. He obviously could not stand losing what he worked so hard to build.
Prayers out to him, his family and his friends.
Baseball Fan

Well stated, except for the assertion that "mutual funds with a load are ... not always going to show lower fee-adjusted long term performance than a comparable ETF or mutual fund without a load [and any load fund underperformance] can disappear the longer the mutual fund is held.
If one replaces "comparable" with "identical except for load", aka "all else being equal", then the long term performance (including effect of the load) must be lower for the load shares, and this difference does not disappear over time.
The first assertion, that loaded funds could perform better over the long term even accounting for load is just the usual handwaving that fund A might do better than fund B even though fund A costs more. Sure, but not likely, especially if one assume "all else is equal."
The second assertion that the underperformance of loaded funds gradually diminishes over time is a misrepresentation of arithmetic. If you buy a fund with a 5% load, then, all else being equal, it will underperform a comparable fund by 5% over the first year, but just 1%/year over five years. It's not that it is catching up, it's just that you're amortizing the underperformance over more years. After 5 years, you've still got 5% less money with the load fund; after 10 years you've still got 5% less, and so on.

The current "opinion" is that capital gains hikes, if passed, would be retroactive, would apply to people making $500,000 or more. Supposedly step up in basis will only apply to $1,000,000 transactions.
Doubt many folks here will be affected if that is true, although it may prompt some selling. But if it is retroactive, it is too late.
I think the step up in basis is far more likely to hit the middle class, as baby boomers inherit the greatest generation's equity accounts.