@Derf,
The data Charles posted is only 6 months long from 2021, Jan to 2021, June. MFO risk ranking reflected the fund has not done well in 2021 as the rotation of growth stocks to the value funds (large and small stock funds) started in late 2020. A small pullback in May 2021 is reflected in the -6.2% MAXDD. Many small cap growth funds are volatile. You can review the longer track record of OSTGX in MFO Premium.
OSTGX has been profiled by David Snowball on September 2020 in the link below.
https://mutualfundobserver.com/2020/09/osterweis-emerging-opportunity-ostgx/#more-14549
Jim Callinan the fund manager has an excellent and long track record in small cap growth stocks. When the environment favors this asset class, the fund excels comparing to his peers.
OSTIX was a recommended bond fund for his clients by BobC who retired from his advisory business. I invested with this fund as well for the same reason as @fred495 stated - consistency for year-to-year.

What's shocking about the table is that they would not only cherry pick data, but double and triple count it. And not even label entries the same as in the study. And did you notice that this list of top ten costs has eleven items (see #8)? Makes one wonder about the basic arithmetic in the study.
#6, "Total medical out-of-pocket costs". In the study, that's called "Total medical expenses, not including premiums." Either way, one would naturally expect that to represent, well, everything that a "typical" senior paid for health care (doctors, hospitals, pharmaceuticals, durable (and not so durable) medical equipment, etc.). Everything outside of insurance premiums; at least that's what "out-of-pocket" usually means.
So many things are wrong with this line:

• If this counts all medical expenses other than premiums, then including line 1, "prescription drug ... out-of-pocket" is a double count.
  
• In reality, this line supposedly represents how much the government pays for Medicare expenses. So it's what seniors don't pay. According to the study, these figures come from the 2020 Medicare Trustee report, Table V.D1, p. 118 (pdf p.124). Further, while the 2020 figure matches the Trustee report, the 2000 figure doesn't quite.
  
• If one really compares Medicare out-of-pocket costs with Medicare premiums, they're much closer to 1-to-1 (2-1 if one excludes Medigap) than the 10-to-1 suggested by lines 2 and 6 in the top ten table). Here's a KFF graph from 2016 with a pie chart comparing the two. I doubt the ratios have shifted radically since then, especially given the way premiums are set.
  
  https://www.kff.org/medicare/issue-brief/how-much-do-medicare-beneficiaries-spend-out-of-pocket-on-health-care/

I'll take KFF any day over an advocacy group that doesn't explain how it comes up with its numbers and misrepresents what they mean.
In their supposed methodology document, the Senior Citizens League does not provide the criteria for selecting the 39 "typical" categories.
In saying that it "uses somewhat similar weightings" to CPI-E, it fails to explain why it deviates from the CPI-E weightings, let alone how it calculates the deviations. While it gives you broad categories weightings (e.g. it weights medical 14.1% vs. CPI-E's 12.2%), it doesn't give you a breakdown of weights for the various medical components like the aforementioned lines #2 (Part B premiums) and #1 (prescription drugs), or its several other "typical" medical categories.
But the worst part, the very worst, is that it prices 10 pound of potatoes (line item #7) at Sam's Club in Charlottesville Virginia. Now I ask you, how many seniors belong to Sam's Club and buy 10 pound sacks of potatoes at at time? :-)

One thought on @bee 's comment. I finally realized I will not live forever as I looked at turning 70. After considering reasonable life cycle needs and set-aside goals for relatives and non-profits, I decided it was time to loosen up a bit on my equity side limit (mostly through more dividend producing equity investments) and to also loosen up a little bit on my withdrawal rate. Will digest changes made for a while. Don't know if I will increase equity percent further later but am comfortable with the increase implemented in 2019-2020. (I have enough flexibility to substantially decrease withdrawal rate if market conditions dictate this is advisable.)

I've had limited vicarious experience (POA, executor) with investment real estate property including depreciating and inheriting it, and with using a margin account to borrow against securities (drawing out cash). So I've gone through the processes, but that's about all.
The buy/borrow/die strategy seems to be to tap (borrow) money gradually as needed (without incurring taxes). Not so much to leverage for more investing whether in stocks or real estate. When the strategy is followed in moderation over time margin calls should not be a concern. That's because as the assets appreciate, the loan to value ratio drops, enabling one to safely borrow more.
The Navy Fed conventional mortgage rate you mentioned is almost surely for an owner-occupied home. That's different from investment property. You can't depreciate your home and you can't take a loss on it if you sell it for less than cost.
But what one can do with owner occupied property and not with investment property is flip it to avoid cap gains taxes. One does not need to buy/borrow/die. One can exclude up to $250K (individual)/$500K (joint) of gain from income. Rinse and repeat. This is not a cash flow strategy. However the point of the buy/borrow/die strategy is not so much to generate cash flow as it is to avoid taxes on the needed cash.
I've rarely looked at IB, because it is targeted at active traders, and because historically it was not hospitable to mutual fund investors. From what I see now, some of that has changed. In general I'm not a good source of info on IB. Perhaps the more active traders here can provide better insight.
One thing I did find is that IB just (July 1) dropped its inactivity fees on IB Pro.
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/interactive-brokers-makes-waves-inactivity-132135973.html
My limited experience with borrowing cash on margin was suggesting this to a friend to use as a bridge loan between closing on the purchase of one property and on the sale of another. The payments made on the loan were pure interest. Since the entire amount was repaid once the sale closed, I can't say for certain that a partial repayment would have been okay, though I don't see why not.

From the first piece:

You’ll want to put this money into the stock market, real estate, or another asset class that appreciates. ...
Real estate is almost perfect for this because:

• its value tends to go up,
  
• it is not volatile
  
• you can depreciate it, which reduces your income tax
  
• it’s easily accepted as collateral.

Given that the idea is for you to never sell and that it would be extremely painful for you to sell (with cap gains and net investment income taxes due on both the appreciation and the depreciation), volatility of a buy/hold/die asset seems irrelevant.
Depreciation is permitted only for income producing property, so you couldn't just buy land and depreciate it. You'd have to either manage rental property yourself or pay someone else to do this. Either way, another added cost.
IRS Pub 522, Chapter 2, Depreciation of Rental Property
https://www.irs.gov/publications/p527#en_US_2020_publink1000219022
Collateral? It's at least as easy to to get a margin loan on securities as a real estate loan. Liar loans are still available for investment properties so I guess you could cash out that way. But it would probably cost you more than a margin loan. IB offers rates of 2.6% variable or lower depending on your type of account.
What about property taxes? If this added cost was mentioned in either piece, I missed it. (There was note in the comment section on Calif. property taxes in the first piece, but not in the context of a current cost.)
Though the resemblance is largely superficial, the cited pieces call to mind pitches for whole (or universal) life insurance - you can borrow against the investment tax free and its value passes tax free (aside from estate taxes) to heirs. From the closing paragraph of the second piece:

The result, therefore, is a life without taxes. The principal investment provides, through appreciation, additional wealth, which the Patriotic American Citizen then matches in debt.

@Tarwheel,
I used to own it the Global Small Cap Fund also. It was opened in mid-2013 when GP was gathering assets for their Intl Oppt, and Global Oppt. funds (both started in late 2011). Tough to compete with those funds when they were started.
I used to own the Artisan International Small Cap Fund when it was run by Yockey and held it for many years. When Yockey ceased managing the fund, I sold out before it paid out the $7 plus in capital gains distribution a couple of years ago.

Seemed Worth Sharing...From T Rowe Price:

Key Insights
Global growth accelerated in early 2021, led by China and the U.S. The economic recovery from the pandemic appears set to broaden in the second half.
Despite strong growth, earnings expectations could be difficult to meet. But there may be potential for earnings outperformance in some non-U.S. markets.
Strong institutional demand for U.S. Treasuries is holding yields down. Fixed income investors may want to consider credit sectors for opportunities.
China’s tighter corporate governance standards, better capital allocation, and technical innovation are expanding the opportunity set for investors.

positioning-for-new-economic-landscape.pdf

Another Tool that looks useful slanted towards rich looks good for all.
I would rather use this than borrowing against a house !!
https://www.wsj.com/articles/buy-borrow-die-how-rich-americans-live-off-their-paper-wealth-11625909583
— 5:30 AM ET 07/10/2021
By Rachel Louise Ensign and Richard Rubin
Rising stocks and rock-bottom interest rates have delivered a big perk to rich
Americans: cheap loans that they can use to fund their lifestyles while minimizing their tax bills.
Banks say their wealthy clients are borrowing more than ever before, often using loans backed by their portfolios of stocks and bonds. Morgan Stanley (MS) wealth-management clients have $68.1 billion worth of securities-based and other nonmortgage loans outstanding, more than double five years earlier. Bank of America Corp. (BAC) said it has $62.4 billion in securities-based loans, dwarfing its book of home-equity lines of credit.
The loans have special benefits beyond the flexible repayment terms and low interest rates on offer. They allow borrowers who need cash to avoid selling in a hot market. Startup founders can monetize their stakes without losing control of their companies. The super rich often use these loans as part of a "buy, borrow, die" strategy to avoid capital-gains taxes.
The merely rich are also borrowing against their portfolios. When Tom Anderson started at Merrill Lynch & Co. in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, in 2002, many of his fellow advisers had just one or two securities-based loans in their book of business. Over the years, he encouraged more clients to borrow and noticed peers doing the same. Now it is common for advisers at big firms to have dozens of these loans outstanding, he said. Merrill Lynch is now a part of Bank of America (BAC).
"You could buy a boat, you could go to Disney World, you could buy a company," said Mr. Anderson, who now consults with banks on how to manage the risks associated with these loans. "The tax benefits are stunning."
For borrowers, the calculation is clear: If an asset appreciates faster than the interest rate on the loan, they come out ahead. And under current law, investors and their heirs don't pay income taxes unless their shares are sold. The assets may be subject to estate taxes, but heirs pay capital-gains taxes only when they sell and only on gains since the prior owner's death. The more they can borrow, the longer they can hold appreciating assets. And the longer they hold, the bigger the tax savings.
"Ordinary people don't think about debt the way billionaires think about debt," said Edward McCaffery, a University of Southern California law professor who says he coined the buy-borrow-die phrase. "Once you're already rich, it's simple, it's easy. It's just buy, borrow, die. These are planks of the law that have been in place for 100 years."

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/935015/000119312521215975/d150082d497.htm
Filed pursuant to Rule 497(e)
File Nos. 033-88316 and 811-08932
ARTISAN PARTNERS FUNDS, INC.
Artisan International Small-Mid Fund (the “Fund”)
SUPPLEMENT DATED 15 JULY 2021 TO THE
FUND’S PROSPECTUS
CURRENT AS OF THE DATE HEREOF
Effective after the close of business on 30 July 2021, the Fund is closed to most new investors. The Fund will accept new accounts from certain investors who satisfy new account eligibility requirements. Eligibility requirements are described in Artisan Partners Funds’ prospectus under the heading “Investing with Artisan Partners Funds – Who is Eligible to Invest in a Closed Fund?”
Accordingly, effective 30 July 2021, the following changes will take effect:
1.The following paragraph is added under the heading “Purchase and Sale of Fund Shares” on page 42 of Artisan Partners Funds’ prospectus:
The Fund is closed to most new investors. See “Investing with Artisan Partners Funds — Who is Eligible to Invest in a Closed Fund?” in the Fund’s statutory prospectus for new account eligibility criteria.
2.The following replaces the text under the heading “Who is Eligible to Invest in a Closed Fund?” on pages 101-102 of Artisan Partners Funds’ prospectus in its entirety:
Artisan High Income Fund, Artisan International Small-Mid Fund and Artisan International Value Fund are each closed to most new investors. From time to time, other Funds may also be closed to most new investors. The Funds do not permit investors to pool their investments in order to meet the eligibility requirements, except as otherwise noted below.
If you have been a shareholder in a Fund continuously since it closed, you may make additional investments in that Fund and reinvest your dividends and capital gain distributions in that Fund, even though the Fund has closed, unless Artisan Partners considers such additional purchases to not be in the best interests of the Fund and its other shareholders. An employee benefit plan that is a Fund shareholder may continue to buy shares in the ordinary course of the plan’s operations, even for new plan participants.
You may open a new account in a closed Fund only if that account meets the Fund’s other criteria (for example, minimum initial investment) and:
∎ you beneficially own shares of the closed Fund at the time of your application;
∎ you beneficially own shares in the Funds with combined balances of $250,000;
∎ you receive shares of the closed Fund as a gift from an existing shareholder of the Fund (additional investments generally are not permitted unless you are otherwise eligible to open an account under one of the other criteria listed);
∎ you are transferring or “rolling over” into a Fund IRA account from an employee benefit plan through which you held shares of the Fund (if your plan doesn’t qualify for rollovers you may still open a new account with all or part of the proceeds of a distribution from the plan);
∎ you are purchasing Fund shares through a sponsored fee-based program and shares of the Fund are made available to that program pursuant to an agreement with the Funds or Artisan Partners Distributors LLC and the Funds or Artisan Partners Distributors LLC has notified the sponsor of that program in writing that shares may be offered through such program and has not withdrawn that notification;
∎ you are an employee benefit plan and the Funds or Artisan Partners Distributors LLC has notified the plan in writing that the plan may invest in the Fund and has not withdrawn that notification;
∎ you are an employee benefit plan or other type of corporate, charitable or governmental account sponsored by or affiliated with an organization that also sponsors or is affiliated with (or is related to an organization that sponsors or is affiliated with) another employee benefit plan or corporate, charitable or governmental account that is a shareholder of the Fund at the time of application;
∎ you are a client, employee or associate of an institutional consultant or financial intermediary and the Funds or Artisan Partners Distributors LLC has notified that consultant or financial intermediary in writing that you may invest in the Fund and has not withdrawn that notification;
∎ you are a client of a financial advisor or a financial planner, or an affiliate of a financial advisor or financial planner, who has at least:
○ $2,500,000 of client assets invested with the closed Fund at the time of your application; or
○ $5,000,000 of client assets invested with the Funds or under Artisan Partners’ management at the time of your application and, with respect to Artisan International Value Fund only, the Funds or Artisan Partners Distributors LLC has notified such financial advisor or financial planner, or affiliate of such financial advisor or financial planner, in writing, that you may invest in the Fund and has not withdrawn that notification;
∎ you are an institutional investor that is investing at least $5,000,000 in the Fund and the Fund or Artisan Partners Distributors LLC has notified you in writing that you may invest in the Fund and has not withdrawn that notification (available for investments in Artisan International Small-Mid Fund and Artisan International Value Fund only);
∎ you are a client of Artisan Partners or are an investor in a product managed by Artisan Partners, or you have an existing business relationship with Artisan Partners, and in the judgment of Artisan Partners, your investment in a closed Fund would not adversely affect Artisan Partners’ ability to manage the Fund effectively; or
∎ you are a director or officer of the Funds, or a partner or employee of Artisan Partners or its affiliates, or a member of the immediate family of any of those persons.
A Fund may ask you to verify that you meet one of the guidelines above prior to permitting you to open a new account in a closed Fund. A Fund may permit you to open a new account if the Fund reasonably believes that you are eligible. A Fund also may decline to permit you to open a new account if the Fund believes that doing so would be in the best interests of the Fund and its shareholders, even if you would be eligible to open a new account under these guidelines.
The Funds’ ability to impose the guidelines above with respect to accounts held by financial intermediaries may vary depending on the systems capabilities of those intermediaries, applicable contractual and legal restrictions and cooperation of those intermediaries.
Call us at 800.344.1770 if you have questions about your ability to invest in a closed Fund.

It's often argued that SS COLA should be based on CPI-E rather than CPI-W. That's an argument that cuts both ways.
The latest (Dec 2020) relative weightings of the different basket components of CPI-E and CPI-W can be found here: https://www.bls.gov/cpi/tables/relative-importance/home.htm
Specifically: CPI-W (HTML) and CPI-E (XML)
The linked piece projecting a 6.1% increase specifically highlights gasoline and groceries as basket categories with rapidly increasing prices. These are two categories that are weighted less heavily in CPI-E than CPI-W. Gasoline comprises only 2.142% of the CPI-E basket vs. 3.613% of the CPI-W basket; groceries (food at home) comprise 7.402% of CPI-E vs. 8.962% of CPI-W.
More broadly, the encompassing categories with rapidly rising prices are weighted less heavily in CPI-E than in CPI-W:
Transportation, 12.967% vs 16.853%, and
Food & Beverages, 13.522% vs. 16.650%.
This underweighting in CPI-E of rapidly rising basket categories means that the rise in CPI-E will likely turn out to be significantly less than CPI-W.
What gets weighted more heavily in CPI-E are the broad areas of Medical Care (12.202% vs. 7.594%) and Housing (46.572% vs. 40.874%). These are basket components that have recently experienced much lower inflation.

This overweighting in CPI-E of slower rising basket categories again means that CPI-E will likely be found to have risen significantly less than CPI-W.
The Fed graph below shows Y/Y percentage increases by month for medical (blue) and owner equivalent rent (brown), which is the majority component of housing. The last points on the graph represent Y/Y for June 2021/June 2020. They are 0.433% and 2.343%. Nowhere near 6%.

(You can reconstruct this graph by starting here and editing, changing time periods and adding lines.)
Note that increase in housing expenses is not the same as increase in the price of homes, which is a capital expense. "For the typical homeowner, their housing costs likely haven’t changed too much over the past year."
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/an-inflation-storm-is-coming-for-the-u-s-housing-market-11623419869

A bit more about how AMG handled the Brandywine funds (Friess Associates):

In 2001, Friess Associates facilitated succession from its founder by partnering with Affiliated Managers Group (AMG), making Friess Associates a majority-owned subsidiary of a public company. In the years following the 2008 financial crisis, senior management determined that Friess Associates needed to restructure to better position the firm to meet the long-term needs of clients and employees. Friess Associates and AMG agreed to terms that returned Friess Associates to private ownership in 2013.

https://friess.com/about/
The management company regained its independence. But the funds were reorganized into AMG owned funds, technically series of Managers Funds (later AMG Managers funds). Friess Associates continued managing them, becoming the subadvisor.
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/780253/000089853113000434/fa_497e.htm
AMG shut down AMG Managers Brandywine Advisors Mid Cap Growth Fund (BWAFX) a year ago.
https://www.mutualfundobserver.com/2020/05/briefly-noted-45/
As I noted above, AMG recently fired Friess Associates as the manager of the remaining funds (Brandywine and Brandywine Blue), hired AMG-affiliated managers, renaming and rebranding the funds. Friess Associates did not go quietly.

Friess Associates, which managed Brandywine Funds on Affiliated Managers Group's (AMG) platform since 2013, [in April] filed preliminary proxy materials with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Reuters reported the firm's plans before the filing, which protests the firm's firing and points out that investors had no say in the termination.
Friess Associates said that investors are being harmed because their money is no longer being managed the way it was when they first invested.
The Global Impact Fund [formerly Brandywine Fund] follows an ESG mandate and the Global Real Return Fund [formerly Brandywine Blue] follows a real return strategy including short positions in global index futures.

https://www.reuters.com/business/finance/fired-fund-manager-friess-battle-amg-over-brandywine-portfolios-2021-04-22/
The denouement of this tale is that Friess Brandywine Funds FBRWX and FBLUX) just launched a week ago. (This is not a recommendation.)
https://friess.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/BrandywineFunds.pdf
And the coda is that the founder, Foster Friess, just died last May.
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/28/us/politics/foster-friess-dead.html

I still own some DHHIX but have not added to it since late 2020.......

Junk bonds have seen a record low in yields as strong balance sheets and a changing economy have boosted the market.
Fixed income traders see the move in the market backed by strong fundamentals and a quest for yield of any type.
Issuance in the low-grade category is on pace to smash previous records.

Junk Bond Market Is On Fire

From MFO premium site: The Fund seeks long-term capital appreciation. It constructs a diversified portfolio of securities that offer exposure to developing world economies. In pursuit of this goal it generally invests substantially in companies domiciled in or economically tied to countries that have characteristics of the developing world.
31.8% likely companies domiciled here in the US but sell their products in EM. NEWFX can buy EM companies or Developed companies that do most of their business in EM countries.

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/889284/000139834421014273/fp0067111_497.htm
497 1 fp0067111_497.htm
Filed pursuant to 497(e)
File Nos. 033-49098 and 811-06719
STERLING CAPITAL FUNDS
SUPPLEMENT DATED JULY 12, 2021
TO THE
CLASS A AND CLASS C SHARES PROSPECTUS AND THE
INSTITUTIONAL, CLASS R AND CLASS R6 SHARES PROSPECTUS,
EACH DATED FEBRUARY 1, 2021, AS SUPPLEMENTED
This Supplement provides the following amended and supplemental information and supersedes any information to the contrary in the Class A and Class C Shares Prospectus and the Institutional, Class R and Class R6 Shares Prospectus, each dated February 1, 2021 (collectively, the “Prospectuses”), with respect to Sterling Capital Special Opportunities Fund and Sterling Capital Equity Income Fund:
Sterling Capital Special Opportunities Fund
Effective immediately, Joshua L. Haggerty is appointed as a co-portfolio manager of Sterling Capital Special Opportunities Fund, and Daniel A. Morrall is appointed as an associate portfolio manager of the Sterling Capital Special Opportunities Fund. In addition, it is anticipated that George F. Shipp will retire from Sterling Capital Management LLC on or about January 7, 2022 and will cease to serve as a co-portfolio manager on or about December 24, 2021 .
Accordingly, the “Management—Portfolio Managers” section in the Prospectuses with respect to Sterling Capital Special Opportunities Fund is hereby deleted and replaced with the following:
Portfolio Managers
George F. Shipp, CFA
Senior Managing Director of Sterling Capital and Co-Portfolio Manager
Since inception
Joshua L. Haggerty, CFA
Executive Director of Sterling Capital and Co-Portfolio Manager
Since July 2021
(formerly, Associate Portfolio Manager from February 2016 - July 2021)
Daniel A. Morrall
Executive Director of Sterling Capital and Associate Portfolio Manager
Since July 2021
Sterling Capital Equity Income Fund
Effective immediately, Adam B. Bergman is appointed as a co-portfolio manager of Sterling Capital Equity Income Fund, and Charles J. Wittmann is appointed as an associate portfolio manager of Sterling Capital Equity Income Fund. In addition, it is anticipated that George F. Shipp will retire from Sterling Capital Management LLC on or about January 7, 2022 and will cease to serve as a co-portfolio manager on or about December 24, 2021.
Accordingly, the “Management—Portfolio Managers” section in the Prospectuses with respect to Sterling Capital Equity Income Fund is hereby deleted and replaced with the following:
Portfolio Managers
George F. Shipp, CFA
Senior Managing Director of Sterling Capital and Co-Portfolio Manager
Since inception
Adam B. Bergman, CFA
Executive Director of Sterling Capital and Co-Portfolio Manager
Since July 2021
(formerly, Associate Portfolio Manager from February 2016 - July 2021)
Charles J. Wittmann
Executive Director of Sterling Capital and Associate Portfolio Manager
Since July 2021
The following replaces the description of the Portfolio Managers set forth under “Fund Management—Portfolio Managers” in the Prospectuses with respect to the Sterling Capital Special Opportunities Fund and Sterling Capital Equity Income Fund:
Special Opportunities Fund and Equity Income Fund. George F. Shipp, CFA, Managing Director, founded what is now the Sterling Capital Equity Opportunities group in December 2000, after serving for 18 years as a sell-side equity analyst with the broker-dealer BB&T Scott & Stringfellow. He is Co-Portfolio Manager of the Special Opportunities Fund and Equity Income Fund and has been a portfolio manager of those funds since their inception. George is a graduate of the University of Virginia where he received a BA in Biology, and an MBA from its Darden Graduate School of Business in 1982. He holds the Chartered Financial Analyst® designation.
Joshua L. Haggerty, CFA, Executive Director, joined the CHOICE Asset Management team of BB&T Scott & Stringfellow in 2005, which integrated with Sterling Capital in January 2013. He has investment experience since 1998. He has been Co-Portfolio Manager of the Special Opportunities Fund since July 2021 and was Associate Portfolio Manager of the Special Opportunities Fund from February 2016 to July 2021. Josh is a graduate of James Madison University where he received his BBA in Finance. He holds the Chartered Financial Analyst® designation.
Adam B. Bergman, CFA, Executive Director, joined the CHOICE Asset Management team of Scott & Stringfellow in 2007, which integrated with Sterling Capital Management in January 2013. He has investment experience since 1996. He has been Co-Portfolio Manager of the Equity Income Fund since July 2021 and was Associate Portfolio Manager of the Equity Income Fund from February 2016 to July 2021. Adam is a graduate of the University of Virginia’s McIntire School of Commerce where he received his BS in Commerce. He holds the Chartered Financial Analyst® designation.
Charles J. Wittmann, CFA, Executive Director, joined Sterling Capital Management in 2014 and has investment experience since 1995. He is an equity portfolio manager and has been Associate Portfolio Manager of the Equity Income Fund since July 2021. Prior to joining Sterling Capital, he worked for Thompson Siegel & Walmsley as a portfolio manager and (generalist) analyst. Prior to TS&W, he was a founding portfolio manager and analyst with Shockoe Capital, an equity long/short hedge fund. Charles received his B.A. in Economics from Davidson College and his M.B.A. from Duke University's Fuqua School of Business. He holds the Chartered Financial Analyst® designation.
Daniel A. Morrall, Executive Director, joined Sterling Capital Management in 2014 and has investment experience since 2001. Dan is a portfolio manager and has been Associate Portfolio Manager of the Special Opportunities Fund since July 2021. Prior to joining Sterling Capital, he worked as an equity analyst for Harber Asset Management and S Squared Technology LLC, technology-biased long/short funds. Dan received his B.S. in Business and Economics from Washington and Lee University, his M.B.A. from Columbia Business School, and his M.S.I.T. from Capella University.
SHAREHOLDERS SHOULD RETAIN THIS SUPPLEMENT
WITH THE PROSPECTUSES FOR FUTURE REFERENCE.
STAT-SUP-0721

From cited paper:

One of the primary questions clients want answered is: What is the safe maximum withdrawal rate? Once again, Bengen has done some of the seminal work on this topic and has currently settled on a withdrawal figure of 4.15 percent for a portfolio with 63 percent in stocks.

This was outdated in 2008, let alone today. Bengen had raised the figure to 4.5% in 2005 by incorporating small cap stocks, and today his figure is even higher:

Bill [Bengen]: [I]n 2005, while I was working on my book, I introduced small cap stocks, U.S. small cap stocks, which really juiced everything. The return – they didn't have a perfect correlation with large cap, so that juiced it from 4.15% to almost 4.5%. ... And that's when I came up with that number.
...
Michael [Kitces]: And so, what do you think about as the number in the environment today?
Bill: I think somewhere in 4.75%, 5% is probably going to be okay. We won't know for 30 years, so I can safely say that in an interview.

Kitces, Financial Advisor Success Podcast!, Oct 13, 2020
https://www.kitces.com/blog/bill-bengen-4-percent-rule-safe-withdrawal-rates-historical-returns-research-book/

Nice piece. Evensky is a common sense kind of guy. I'm not sure where that excerpt came from, because it looks somewhat like a mashup of three consecutive paragraphs on p. 71 (pdf p. 9) of the cited paper. It's worth reading what's in the paper for emphasis. I've highlighted some additonal text:

Clients think that because they are retired, the way to get income is through dividends and interest. Such thinking arises from what my partner Deena calls the “paycheck syndrome,” and it is nonsense. ...
... if clients depend on income largely from their bond portfolios, then when interest rates go up, they feel rich. But what is actually happening to the value of their portfolio? It is going down. When interest rates go down, they feel poor, but the portfolio value is going up. The strategy runs counter to financial reality. ...
People need real income. They need real cash flow, not nominal cash flow, and they do not get that real cash flow from an income portfolio.

In a nutshell, this is why I (and some other posters here) focus on total return, not yield.
See also M*, Income vs. Total Return: Who Says You Need to Take Sides?
Needless to say, I also like what he has to say about Monte Carlo analysis:

[T]here is nothing new about it. ... I think it has been misused and overused. ...
I see several problems ... First, the increased number of guesses that Monte Carlo allows does not mean more accuracy. Second, Monte Carlo devalues the goal-setting process. Third, Monte Carlo probabilities are all or nothing. If Monte Carlo says I have a 70 percent chance of success, what does the remaining 30 percent mean? Starvation? Finally, Monte Carlo offers no insight into the unexpected, such as a Katrina event or the subprime crisis.

He goes on for several paragraphs with examples and ways to address his concerns.
The cash flow strategy described may be better known as the two bucket strategy:

The first bucket strategy was developed by financial planning pioneer Harold Evensky in 1985. This was a two-bucket approach with a cash bucket holding five years of retirement spending, and a longer-term investment bucket consisting mostly of stocks. When the stock market performed poorly, withdrawals were taken from the cash account to avoid selling stocks in a down market, and when the stock market did well withdrawals were taken from the investment bucket, and investments from this bucket were also sold to replenish cash.

https://www.advisorperspectives.com/articles/2020/04/20/bucket-strategies-challenging-previous-research
As a complement to the final section of the paper, Other Strategies, here's Wade Pfau's Fortune piece on managing sequence of return risk.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/wadepfau/2017/04/12/4-approaches-to-managing-sequence-of-returns-risk-in-retirement/?sh=5bda15b66fcf

The problem is no one in Congress thought about putting an upper limit on Roth IRA withdrawals when they wrote the law

Congress has done the opposite for inherited IRAs by eliminating the stretch provision for heirs. All inherited IRAs (including Roth IRAs) must be fully distributed within 10 years. This at least forces this $5 billion Roth account to be liquidated 10 years after the death of the Account holder.
Had Theil bought these shares in a taxable account the $5 Billion would also be mostly tax free to his heirs based on the step up provision that:

When someone inherits property and investments, the IRS resets the market value of these assets to their value on the date of the original owner’s death. Then, when the heir sells these assets, capital gains taxes are applied based on this reset value. The result is a situation – often considered a tax loophole – that allows investors to pass assets to their heirs virtually tax-free.

https://darrowwealthmanagement.com/blog/step-up-in-basis-on-certain-inherited-assets/
Also,

If President Biden gets his way, many wealthy Americans will no longer be able to pass stocks, real estate, and other capital assets to their heirs when they die without paying capital gains tax. He wants to do this by changing the tax rules that allow a "step up" in basis on inherited property. This proposal, along with others designed to increase taxes on the wealthy, is included in Biden's recently released American Families Plan – a $1.8 trillion package that includes spending on childcare and education, guaranteed paid family and medical leave, tax breaks for lower- and middle-income Americans, and more.

https://kiplinger.com/retirement/estate-planning/602701/biden-hopes-to-eliminate-stepped-up-basis-for-millionaires

Was looking for a HY bond fund that had held up decently ("defensive?") in 1Q 2020. Found EIXIX with a 5.5% SEC Yield. $2,500 min at VGD (TF). May be my newest addition.

Seeing that you have the Rational options fund, fyi, they have a non-ag'y mortgage fund too, RFXIX I shares, which is relatively new but has about the same total return profile so far as EIXIX. Just found it so no due diligence dive into it yet on my part.
Availability prob'ly varies; at Fidelity the I shares are, with low minimum and a tf.
Cheers, AJ

As he is self employed and an owner of his venture capital firm, he arranged to be paid under the Roth limit the year he pulled this off.
The problem is no one in Congress thought about putting an upper limit on Roth IRA withdrawals when they wrote the law

One of a whole bunch (aka all) of the James Alpha funds
https://www.mutualfundobserver.com/2021/06/briefly-noted-58/
Aug 4, 2020 (Business Wire)
https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20200804005968/en/Easterly-Announces-Investment-in-James-Alpha-Advisors

-Easterly, an asset management holding company that owns stakes in third-party investment management businesses and assists them with strategic growth, announced today it has acquired an equity interest in James Alpha Advisors, LLC, a boutique asset management firm specializing in Global REITs and liquid alternative portfolio solutions for institutional and individual investors. ...
As a result of the investment, Easterly has assumed operational control of the firm. ...
[Darrell Crate, Easterly’s Managing Principal] helped to build an asset management powerhouse as Chief Financial Officer of Affiliated Managers Group (NYSE: AMG), established Easterly in 2009...

Which seems to bring us back to the thread AMG to Acquire Parnassus Funds:
https://mutualfundobserver.com/discuss/discussion/58434/amg-to-acquire-parnassus-funds