@Sven
I would caution folks about paper filing, if you depend on the refund. We are still waiting for my mother's refund from 2020, which had to filed on paper because she passed in early 2021. I am certain they received it. Not only did we send it certified I recently got correspondence from IRS listing Mom as "dcd". But still no refund
While the IRS may process paper returns from living people more quickly, I have heard it still takes months and months

Columbia funds cap. gains at https://www.columbiathreadneedleus.com/binaries/content/assets/cti/public/2022_cap_gains_year_end.pdf but no word of income.

Three US Senators have urged Fidelity to stop its 401(k) sponsor partners from offering bitcoin exposure — likening crypto investing to “catching lightning in a bottle.”
In a Monday letter penned to Fidelity CEO Abigail Johnson, Democrat Senators Elizabeth Warren, Dick Durbin and Tina Smith argue that crypto markets have become riskier following FTX’s sudden collapse, making bitcoin unsuitable for retirement plans.
Boston-based Fidelity began allowing employees to put as much as 20% of their retirement savings into bitcoin exposure this fall.
The crypto industry considered the move a strong sign of shifting institutional sentiment toward the 12 year old asset class, although bitcoin has shed some 60% of its value since Fidelity flagged the 401(k) move in late April.
Fidelity, which overall boasts some $9.6 trillion in assets under administration, is the largest individual retirement plan (IRA) provider in the US — supporting more than 35 million IRA, 401(k) and 403(b) retirement accounts. As of 2020, FIdelity controlled more than a third of the retirement fund market in the US, maintaining $2.4 trillion in 401(k) assets.

https://blockworks.co/news/senators-fidelity-stop-offering-bitcoin-401ks
For full disclosure, Fidelity was my past 401(k) plan administrator. The choices were solid and their service, phone or online, were second to none. Outside of that, they also have been our main brokerage for many years.

@Ben,that what we have done for many years until 2020 pandemic. I understand that paper filing requires an IRS agent to enter your data manually and they are prone to human error. Also you get your refund longer to complete. Some takes over 6 months, presumably they have lengthy returns. We will go back to that route this year.

@Catch22

What sectors or specific companies are allowed to be a 'money making operation'; assuming the research capital is not government funded ???

It comes down to the difference between human wants and human needs. Nothing wrong with making a profit off a flat screen TV. Something very wrong with controlling and making a profit off the water supply when people are dying of thirst.
To elaborate, capitalism tends to work for humanity when both supply and demand are elastic, flexible, so that consumers can find a substitute if supply is low or prices are too high because of an attempt to gouge consumers. But when supply is inelastic, limited and demand is inelastic--big problem for consumers. Capitalist investors by the way love this quasi-monopolistic situation. Gouging consumers is hugely profitable.
Healthcare is a case where the supply of doctors and medicine is by design limited while the demand for these products is either inelastic or worse potentially unlimited. If you or a loved one are truly sick, what wouldn't you pay for the cure? Hospitals, medical device makers and drug makers know this. That leads to terrible inequalities in power. It's the reason why healthcare bills have long been the biggest cause of bankruptcy in the United States.
At the very least, if healthcare shouldn't be a right, it should be much more strictly regulated than it currently is. A person getting a medical test like an MRI should know exactly what it will cost them before getting the test and be able to comparison shop with different providers. A person getting a non-emergency but necessary procedure should know what the cost is too in advance and how much exactly their insurance will cover. That still isn't the case. So, you end up with these absurd sticker shock situations.
I can't think of another kind of consumer transaction in the U.S. where I both have to buy the product and have no idea what I'm going to pay for it until after I've already bought it. If we walked into a store and asked, "How much is this candy bar?" and the proprietor said, "Well, that depends. I have to check this obscure Candybar Chargemaster List, which you can't see, and I won't be able to tell you how much until after you've eaten the candybar," we'd walk right out.

@Crash
What sectors or specific companies are allowed to be a 'money making operation'; assuming the research capital is not government funded ???

You seem to enjoy baiting me, catch.
Healthcare as a human RIGHT militates against the profit motive. What's happened previously, before people RECOGNIZED it as a RIGHT, is no justification, going forward.
Want to talk about car tires? Plastimers? Cold fusion? Maritime shipping? Aluminum extrusion? Shoemaking? Ad infinitum? Make money with THOSE things, eh?

@Crash
What sectors or specific companies are allowed to be a 'money making operation'; assuming the research capital is not government funded ???

SWVXX has a cumulative (not annualized) return of 1.218% from March 16, 2020 through Nov 15, 2022. (Fund pays divs in mid-month.) Schwab data source.
RPHIX has provided a cumulative return of 7.20% over the same time span. M* data source.
Recent performance (1 month/3 month, through 10/31):
RPHIX 0.47% / 0.69% (from Morningstar performance page)
SWVXX 0.25% / 0.63% (from Schwab's page for this fund)
As I've explained, extrapolating from today's yields is always risky, but FWIW, here are some yields (7 day for the MMF and 30 day SEC for the Riverpark funds).
RPHIX 3.68% (as of 10/31)
SWVXX 2.97% (as of 10/31)
What is it about RPHIX's performance pattern that leads you to feel that you "can get better returns through Schwab Money Market accounts"? There are a lot of factors beyond the raw numbers above that one might look at. I've suggested option adjusted spreads as one factor to throw into the mix. Others?

Similar to previous comments, I own RPHIX, but have reduced it to a very small position since March of 2020. I can get better returns through Schwab Money Market accounts or short term CDs, but will reconsider RPHIX when I start to see a performance pattern that is more competitive.

From the horse's mouth:
https://investor.vanguard.com/accounts-plans/vanguard-cash-plus-account
And participating banks:
https://personal.vanguard.com/pdf/Bank_Sweep_Participating_Banks.pdf
For purposes other than same-day trades, I'll stick with VUSXX. Same pre-tax yield (within a basis point), better after-tax yield (100% state tax exempt), and VUSXX is arguably better insured (though I think this is splitting hairs).
Its underlying Treasury securities are backed directly by the Treasury in an unlimited amount. Protection against theft (embezzlement, robbery, etc.) is provided up to $500K by the SIPC. In comparison, the VG sweep program is covered "only" up to $250K by the FDIC, which in turn is backed by the Treasury.
Another petty difference between the VG sweep account (or the MMFs) and bank savings accounts is that the latter are subject to Regulation D. The banks may reserve the right to require seven days notice for withdrawals. And while the six withdrawal per month limit has been suspended, the banks may still impose a limit.
For example American Express Bank limits savers to nine withdrawals.
https://www.cnn.com/cnn-underscored/reviews/american-express-personal-savings-account
One way in which VUSXX and bank savings accounts are similar is that neither can be used as a settlement account at VBS. You have to move money from a bank or from VUSXX into a brokerage settlement account before you can trade with it. If that's an important feature, compare the Vanguard sweep account to VMFXX.

As 'Roseanne Roseannadanna' (portrayed by the late, great Gilda Radner) was known for saying in the 1970's SNL news: "...it just goes to show you, it's always something — if it ain't one thing, it's another."
Staying with thoughts and reactions of bond markets since the melt of 2008, and the continuing aspect of 'this time is different'; which I believe still applies, those with the big strings to pull, will continue to attempt to fix the problems. Not that this hasn't happened in past decades; but those decades are now for reference and study; and for me, are not so meaningful for trying to preserve and improve one's capital position, here and now.
Nov. 15 PPI down .2%, a baby trend. And missiles strike Poland
, killing 2. Not Russian missiles? Thursday...some folks talk about a peak/terminal rate of 7%??? Is the FED gonna break the back of the economy, with what ever it takes?
The FED board are a chatty bunch, eh? Although, I don't have a degree in psychology; one may observe over the years, that often when folks become excessively chatty about something they're connected to; in part, it may be from being nervous, twitchy. So do they have their fingers crossed behind their backs, that their plan will actually work and they won't look like fools at a future date? Some inflation is taken care of by the consumer not willing to pay a price. Other inflation sectors in the current environment, are not readily able to be controlled by the FED or the consumer. As there are no real rules to all phases of the game, perhaps I'll keep my fingers crossed, too; and hope to spot a trend here or there.
What is Terminal fund rate?
The terminal rate is the level at which the Fed is expected to stop raising interest rates.
I'm imaging the FED using CPI or an index gauge they choose and increasing interest rates until the two numbers are near the same value; and then take a look around at the results, to determine the next move. I.E. : CPI at 5.5%, stop the terminal rate at 5.5%.
Numerous recent posts have discussed the yield curve and other factors that may be affecting current and future yields. I can't improve on those commentary; and I've rambled enough.
NOTE: I've kept the prior dated reports in the beginning of this thread; and have added YTD to this data.
A few positives remain for this week.
For the WEEK/YTD, NAV price changes, November 14- November 18, 2022
--- AGG = +.51% / -13.4% (I-Shares Core bond etf) widely used bond benchmark, (AAA-BBB holdings)
--- MINT = +.12% / -1.7% (PIMCO Enhanced short maturity, AAA-BBB rated)
--- SHY = -.21% / -4.4% (UST 1-3 yr bills)
--- IEI = - .07% / -9.9% (UST 3-7 yr notes/bonds)
--- IEF = +.2% / -15.2% (UST 7-10 yr bonds)
--- TIP = -1.02% / -13% (UST Tips, 3-10 yrs duration, some 20+ yr duration)
--- STPZ = -.8% / -5.2% (UST, short duration TIPs bonds, PIMCO)
--- LTPZ = -1.2% / -32.8% (UST, long duration TIPs bonds, PIMCO)
--- TLT = +1.8% / -31.5% (I shares 20+ Yr UST Bond
--- EDV = +2.7% / -39.6% (UST Vanguard extended duration bonds)
--- ZROZ = +3.1% / -41.5% (UST., AAA, long duration zero coupon bonds, PIMCO
--- TBT = -3.5% / +96% (ProShares UltraShort 20+ Year Treasury (about 23 holdings)
--- TMF = +5.1% / -72% (Direxion Daily 20+ Yr Trsy Bull 3X ETF (about a 3x version of EDV etf)
--- BAGIX = +.63% / -14.3% (active managed, plain vanilla, high quality bond fund)
*** Other, for reference:
--- HYG = -.3% / -11.1% (high yield bonds, proxy ETF)
--- LQD = +1.2% / -18.2% (corp. bonds, various quality)
--- FZDXX = 3.79% yield (7 day), Fidelity Premium MMKT fund
*** FZDXX yield was .11%, April,2022 Yes, short term yields have changed rapidly.
BONUS MATERIAL. For many of the younger, well; you had to be there and then.
Remain curious,
Catch

2. My specific question is > some for the distributions show as at loss - others are at a gain . I can identify and cherry pick and sell off a few of the distributions that are currently at a loss . This would then raise the gain of the remaining position

When specific shares ("cherry pick") and average cost ("raise the gain ... of the remaining position") appear in the same sentence, it suggests that some clarification might be helpful.
It is true that if one sells the most expensive shares in a position, the average cost of the remaining shares is reduced, thus increasing the average gain of those remaining shares. But so what?
---
Consider a position with two shares, one purchased at $2/share, one purchased at $6/share (perhaps via div reinvestment). The average cost is $4/share. If the current price is $5, then what one has is:
- Share A, cost $2, worth $5, unrealized gain of $3.
- Share B, cost $6, worth $6, unrealized gain (loss) of -$1.
Total unrealized gain = $3 - $1 = $2.
Average unrealized gain = $2/2 = $1. As shown below, this average gain doesn't matter.
---
Suppose you sell one share now, and the other share later after the price rises from $5 to $8.
Sell Share B first, recognize a $1 loss.
Sell Share A @$8, recognize a gain of $8 - $2 = $6.
Total gain on portfolio = -$1 + $6 = $5.
Sell Share A first, recognize a $3 gain.
Sell Share B @$8, recognize a gain of $8 - $6= $2.
Total gain on portfolio = $3 + $2 = $5.
No difference in total gain. The difference is in the timing. Sell B first and you get to use a $1 loss now (offsetting other gains). You don't have to pay taxes now out of pocket. So you get the use of that tax money until you sell Share A.
Sell A first, and you have to pay taxes on $3 of gain now. You don't have the use of that tax money any more. This is why one generally sells more costly shares first.
---
Don't get confused by average cost. With mutual fund shares, one is permitted to use the average cost of shares when computing realized gains. But then there's no cherry picking, no selling of most expensive shares first. And total gain still comes out the same.
With average cost:
Average cost = ($2 + $6)/2 = $4.
Sell oldest share first (required) @$5: recognize gain of $5 - $4 (av cost) = $1.
Sell newest share @$8: recognize gain of $8 - $4 (av cost) = $4.
Total gain on portfolio = $1 + $4 = $5.
Notice that the average cost used doesn't change for the second share, even though there's only one share left in the portfolio after the first sale.
And the total portfolio gain of $5 is the same as before. The difference, once again, is in the timing. You pay taxes on $1 gain now. That's more than you'd have to pay up front if you used the shares' actual costs and sold the most expensive share (Share B) first.
---
Finally, to get back to the idea of using $3K in losses to offset ordinary income. This is the most valuable use of losses. It's more valuable than using a loss in one share to offset the gain of another share. So if there is a way to generate a cap loss one year, that's usually optimal. To do this, you usually sell your most expensive shares in one year and your shares with gain in other years.
Again, the total gain remains the same regardless of the order of selling. What differs is when you have to pay your taxes (generally the later the better) and whether you get to use some losses to offset ordinary income (better).

@ben - If I understand it - I can identify and choose to sell specific shares that are now showing a loss. Most of the dividends are showing as a a gain , but some are showing a loss . If I sell the dividends that are showing the loss the average total Capital gain in the fund will increase, when I go to sell the remaining share s.

@newgirl: If I understand your question correctly you are contemplating selling shares of *one* mutual fund. If you set up your cost basis method as average cost basis you will not be identifying specific shares to sell, but just the number of shares or the number of dollars. Everything is averaged-out so to speak. This is what I have done and it has worked well for me. When I eventually sell the entire lot of shares I have found that the capital gains do not come close to the amount of money I have actually made in the investment. But maybe I don't understand the question.
Part of what I don't understand is what you mean by a negative distribution. As far as I can tell, the NAV will drop whenever the mutual fund sells assets, no matter whether they sold the asset at a profit or loss.

Thanks y'all.
My understanding is > 1. Capital losses that exceed capital gains in a year may be used to offset ordinary taxable income up to $3,000 in any one tax year. Net capital losses in excess of $3,000 can be carried forward indefinitely until the amount is exhausted.
2. My specific question is > some for the distributions show as at loss - others are at a gain . I can identify and cherry pick and sell off a few of the distributions that are currently at a loss . This would then raise the gain of the remaining position . Is that still an advisable thing to do ?
The only way to avoid the cap gains on liquidation would be a gift or DAF - this fund throws off huge year end Cap gains distributions and as I have owned for about 25 years - it has huge embedded gains .

There are lots of numbers in the tax code that aren't indexed to inflation. ISTM that automatic (as opposed to manual) inflation adjustments are a fairly new concept, given that the modern tax era (16th Amendment, first 1040) started in 1913. Why, for example, is the IRA catch-up amount fixed at $1,000? The proposed SECURE 2.0 Act (H.R. 2954) would index this figure for inflation, as well as raise the RMD starting age above 72 and a slew of other changes.
Here are some other aspects of this $3000 tax benefit that one might question:
- Why allow a capital loss to offset ordinary income, as opposed to treating the loss as a negative cap gain (i.e. get back 15% in taxes on the $3K instead of, say, 22% in taxes)?
- Why allow individual taxpayers to carry over cap losses indefinitely? (Until 2011, mutual funds could only carry forward cap losses eight years.)
- Why did H.R. 1619, sponsored by Zoe Lofgren in 2001-2002 fail to reach a vote? It would have amended "the Internal Revenue Code to increase, from $3,000 to $8,250, the annual capital loss limit applicable to individuals [and provided] for an annual inflation adjustment."
https://www.congress.gov/bill/107th-congress/house-bill/1619
- Why should one have to hold a security for a full year before treating the gain or loss as long term? Through 1976, the holding period was 6 months, then 9 months in 1977. The Tax Reform Act of 1976 changed not only the holding periods, but the amount of loss carry forward permitted, from $1K in 1976 to $2K in 1977, to its present $3K in 1978.
https://www.everycrsreport.com/reports/98-473.html
These are not rhetorical questions. Virtually every piece of legislation involves horse trading and compromise. One needs to delve into the legislative process to find out what happened. Likely there will be another opportunity in the next couple of months to watch the process in real time, as SECURE Act 2.0 is raised in the lame duck session. Or not.
https://news.bloomberglaw.com/daily-labor-report/landmark-retirement-bills-see-opportunity-in-lame-duck-congress

I am very sure that only short term loss can offset short term gain. Same goes for long term gain and loss.
The long term capital gains tax rate is 0%, 15% or 20% on most assets held for longer than a year. Short term capital gains taxes on assets held for a year or less correspond to ordinary income tax brackets: 10%, 12%, 22%, 24%, 32%, 35% or 37%.

This is what other people tell me as well. Yet schedule D and its instructions seem to indicate otherwise and so do some fairly reliable websites. Here is one quote from kiplinger.com:
"Netting Rules. If you have a mix of short- and long-term capital gains and losses, you need to understand the order in which losses offset gains. First, short-term losses are used to offset short-term gains, and long-term losses are used to offset long-term gains. Then, if there are any losses remaining, they can be used to offset the opposite type of gain."
Elsewhere it is made clear that there is a $3000 yearly limit (married filing jointly) to what can be deducted per year from capital gains.

I am very sure that only short term loss can offset short term gain. Same goes for long term gain and loss.
The long term capital gains tax rate is 0%, 15% or 20% on most assets held for longer than a year. Short term capital gains taxes on assets held for a year or less correspond to ordinary income tax brackets: 10%, 12%, 22%, 24%, 32%, 35% or 37%.

Sven, why preferably long term? I know typical capital gains are long term but I think the IRS lets us use remaining short terms capital losses to offset long term capital gains on schedule D once the short term losses have offset short term capital gains. I am not certain about this and that is why I am hesitating to harvest a capital loss in a fund I have held for less than a year. There will not be much short term gain for me this year and I know I can use "left-over" losses in subsequent years to offset gains but I'd rather use them *this* year.

I am selling those with negative cost basis (preferably all long term cap gain) but we don’t have many despite a poor year. Quickly we buy the equivalent ETFs to avoid future headache.
Donation is always good at this time.

I used to be exclusively at M*, and for years, resisted posting elsewhere. But various M* platform changes, and loss of contents with each move, forced me to change my web/social-media approach.
Now, I am at several platforms. Each has its unique flavor and circle of people. Some stuff is duplicated but not much.
Covid downtime in 2020 also gave me time to reconstruct lot of my lost content at M* that I put on the YBB Site (a refence site, NOT a discussion site) and now just refer to it rather than posting same/similar stuff repeatedly in response to Qs.
BTW, some at Twitter are pointing out that Twitter may have saved us from WWIII, an overstatement that has some validity. Early mainstream media reports on the Russian missile strike in Poland and possible use of NATO Article 5 (when many world leaders were at G20 in Bali, Indonesia) were not based on facts. I saw at Twitter that several posters from Ukraine, Poland and elsewhere (including the US) posted conflicting info. My earliest posting on a related MFO thread was based on those reports (but there was no single link for them). Musk has tweeted (with obvious self interest) that the coverage of the recent missile event and FTX-Alameda collapse in the crypto universe have been more timely and better than in the mainstream media.