Would it be an over simplification to say that you own bond funds if you are afraid that you might panic and sell if there is an equity crash? Is that the primary reason? The market watch article says you own bond funds for safety and not return.
Ignoring the definition of a bond fund for the moment… as PRWCX (an AA fund with a LOT of equities) and HY (junk) bonds are not the same as an FXNAX. Those that held mostly or a large percentage of bond funds in their portfolio in Feb or March 2020 were probably very happy. How did they feel at the end of 2020 when measuring their bond returns vs equities or the S&P Index?
I admit I don’t know enough about bonds and that was the purpose of this post. I read with interest FD’s take: “ Many retirees I know who have enough, including me, don't care as much about performance as they care about volatility.”… Here is my ignorant question… Wouldn’t the superior performance or returns from equities vs. bonds over 2-3 years far outweigh the “safety” and less volatility from bonds? Caveat: If one is relying on living only on their portfolio gains or returns and do not wish to touch the principal from their investments… I can clearly see the need for ballast and low volatility. However, if you can weather a “crash”…and recovery as has always been the case- why wouldn’t you just stay invested in equities? The longest collapse in history was 1929 and lasted 2.8 years. The 2007 recession lasted 1.3 years. I suppose I am obsessed with performance but perhaps there will come a day when I’m not and it will be all about preservation. In full disclosure, I own 2 bond funds and some AA. The bond funds are PONAX and FXNAX but are a very small portion of port.
Note: Coincidently, I wrote this before seeing FD’s post on selling when market crashes and @hank funny response. Thanks @Crash - yes I meant PRWCX -corrected

Here’s a good article that looks into this topic: https://humbledollar.com/2020/06/farewell-yield/
From the article:” That brings me to an idea advanced in 1989 by the late Peter Bernstein. Instead of the classic balanced portfolio with 60% stocks and 40% bonds, perhaps investors should opt for 75% stocks, with the other 25% in cash investments like money market funds and high-yield savings accounts. Bernstein found that the latter investment mix had a similar risk level to the classic balanced portfolio, but higher returns.”

Except today high yield savings is hardly yielding anything significant either unless the yield is coming from investments of lower grade or banks of having shaky balance sheets. But as long as there is FDIC to back it up, you can keep a portion of cash there.

“Online brokerage Robinhood touts its willingness to lend money to customers so they can multiply their returns just like Wall Street pros, even likening investing with borrowed money to the thrill of riding a motorcycle. What the company doesn't say is that its lending strategy has put clients — who tend to be younger and less experienced at playing the market — in financial peril even before many piled into the shares of struggling video game retailer GameStop in January.
“Robinhood's lending so customers could "buy on margin" — in which someone takes out a loan to buy stock, options or other securities — more than doubled in the first six months of 2020, all too often with negative results. Regulatory filings reviewed by CBS MoneyWatch show that investors who borrowed money from Robinhood were nearly 14 times more likely to be unable to repay the loans than investors who borrowed from rival brokerages eTrade, TD Ameritrade and others.”
(Sorry / Article a bit dated.(References 2020) Likely, more relevant today than then)
Story

Things in bond-land suck, these days. I'm hoping for just a 3% yield, lately
Then you're pretty much stuck with junk or an equity kicker. Otherwise you get that 3% yield at the expense of capital. That is, IG bond funds w/o equity get their yield by going long and losing value as rates rise.
This is what I've been able to find in terms of IG bond funds available to retail investors with a trailing 12 mo yield of at least 3%. Once one discards funds with significant equity states (allocation funds, target date funds), most of what's left are intermediate to long term funds with negative total return YTD.
Allocation 15%-30%: BLADX
Allocation (higher): NADCX (30%-50%), NADMX (50% - 70%), NDMAX (70%-85%), NDAAX (85%+)
Convertibles: SBFCX
Corporate: BYMIX, SIGYX
EM local currency: PYELX
HY muni: ETHYX (has IG portfolio)
Core bond: DUTMX (taxable munis), VKMGX
Core plus: AKGAX, MGBIX, CUGZX, FBDAX, PICYX, IICIX
Intermediate Gov: BTTRX (2025 zeros)
Long bond: DEEAX, RPLCX, VBLAX, VLTCX (corp.), VWESX
Muni long: VWALX, GUTEX
Short gov: IPFIX
Short bond: ANFLX, CSTBX, THOPX
Target date: NWHAX (2025), NWLAX (2035), NWMAX (2040), NWNAX (2045), NTDAX (2055), NWWRX (2060+)
World allocation: TEZIX
World bond: MPIFX
World bond, hedged: GBUSX, FGBFX

“Publicly traded companies are selling bonds that can convert into stock at a record pace this year, with nearly a third of those issuers paying nothing in interest, as they seek to take advantage of low rates and investors’ ravenous appetite for fast-growing firms.
So far this year, 97 U.S.-listed companies have issued $54.3 billion worth of convertible bonds, according to Dealogic, a data provider. That is the highest year-to-date volume ever—and 11% more than the amount raised at this point in 2020, which was a record-setting year for convertible-debt issuance.Bankers and advisers say the pace of issuance has been swift as inflation fears and the potential for rising interest rates have come to the front of many investors’ minds.
The terms have been so good for companies selling convertible debt that 28 of them are paying no interest on the bonds, the highest number since 2001. The average interest coupon on convertible debt in 2021 is 1.41%, the lowest on record. On average, this year’s crop of issuers will only need to convert bonds into stock if their share price rises 39% typically within a five-year period, the highest so-called conversion premium since 2003, according to Dealogic.”
WSJ Saturday, May 29, 2021

“Shares of AMC Entertainment Holdings Inc. AMC finished Friday with their best weekly gain in four months, surging 116% for the week, in a rally that has once again astounded analysts, enriched individual investors and punished Wall Street traders betting against the company. The movie-theater chain, whose stock closed last year just above $2, finished Friday at $26.12, giving the shares a year-to-date gain of more than 1,100% and the company a market capitalization of nearly $11.8 billion. The rally marks an astounding turnaround for a company that last year was reeling from the coronavirus pandemic and trying to stave off bankruptcy.
Once again fueling this week’s rise: enthusiastic individual investors who have banded together on Reddit’s WallStreetBets forum, in Discord chat rooms and in text chains with friends. Throughout the week, hashtags including #AMCSTRONG and #AMCSqueeze splashed across Twitter, with many predicting more gains ahead. The chatter helped drive $209 million of net inflows into the stock from individual investors between Monday and Thursday, according to Vanda Research’s VandaTrack, more than 15 times the amount seen during the same period of April’s final week.”
WSJ Saturday May 29, 2021

It is not the first to occur. Check out this SEC filing as of 3/22/21:
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/882443/000119312521087801/d111545d497k.htm
497K 1 d111545d497k.htm AMG FUNDS I
Filed pursuant to 497(k)
File Nos. 033-44909 and 811-06520
AMG FUNDS I
AMG Managers Emerging Opportunities Fund
Supplement dated March 19, 2021 to the Summary Prospectus, dated February 1, 2021
The following information supplements and supersedes any information to the contrary relating to AMG Managers Emerging Opportunities Fund (the “Fund”), a series of AMG Funds I (the “Trust”), contained in the Fund’s Summary Prospectus (the “Summary Prospectus”), dated as noted above.
At a meeting held on March 17-18, 2021 (the “Meeting”), the Trust’s Board of Trustees (the “Board”) approved the appointment of Veritas Asset Management LLP (“Veritas” or the “Subadviser”) as the subadviser to the Fund on an interim basis to replace Next Century Growth Investors LLC, WEDGE Capital Management L.L.P. and RBC Global Asset Management (U.S.) Inc. (each, an “Existing Subadviser” and together, the “Existing Subadvisers”), effective May 21, 2021 (the “Implementation Date”). The appointment of Veritas is pursuant to an interim subadvisory agreement between AMG Funds LLC (“AMGF”) and Veritas (the “Interim Subadvisory Agreement”), to be effective until the earlier of 150 days after the termination of the existing subadvisory agreement between AMGF and each Existing Subadviser with respect to the Fund (each, an “Existing Subadvisory Agreement” and together, the “Existing Subadvisory Agreements”), which will occur on May 21, 2021, or the approval of a new subadvisory agreement between AMGF and Veritas by the Board and Fund shareholders. At the Meeting, the Board also approved the longer-term appointment of Veritas as the subadviser to the Fund, a new subadvisory agreement between AMGF and Veritas (the “New Subadvisory Agreement”), and the submission of the New Subadvisory Agreement to Fund shareholders for approval. The rate of compensation to be received by Veritas under the Interim Subadvisory Agreement approved by the Board is lower than the rate of compensation that each Existing Subadviser receives under the applicable Existing Subadvisory Agreement.
In connection with the hiring of Veritas, effective as of the Implementation Date, the Fund will (i) change its name from AMG Managers Emerging Opportunities Fund to AMG Veritas China Fund, (ii) make changes to its principal investment strategies and principal risks, and (iii) replace its primary benchmark index with the MSCI China Index and remove its secondary benchmark index.
Also in connection with the hiring of Veritas, the Board approved the following fee changes for the Fund, all of which will be implemented upon the effectiveness of the New Subadvisory Agreement and will result in the overall reduction of the Fund’s net expense ratios: (i) the management fee for the Fund will be reduced from 0.74% to 0.71%; and (ii) the Fund’s existing contractual expense limitation agreement with AMGF will be replaced with a new contractual expense limitation agreement with AMGF pursuant to which AMGF will agree, through at least March 1, 2023, to limit total annual operating expenses (exclusive of taxes, interest (including interest incurred in connection with bank and custody overdrafts and in connection with securities sold short), shareholder servicing fees, distribution and service (12b-1) fees, brokerage commissions and other transaction costs, dividends payable with respect to securities sold short, acquired fund fees and expenses, and extraordinary expenses) of the Fund to the annual rate of 0.93% of the Fund’s average daily net assets, subject to later reimbursement by the Fund in certain circumstances. AMGF pays a portion of the management fee to the Fund’s subadviser for its services.
The disposition of Fund securities in connection with the transition of the Fund’s investment objective and strategies is expected to cause the Fund to realize taxable income for U.S. federal income tax purposes. The Fund intends to make a special distribution to shareholders of all or a portion of such income and any other undistributed income for the current taxable year. This distribution will be taxable to shareholders who hold their shares in a taxable account. See “Certain Federal Income Tax Information” for further information.
In addition, effective as of the Implementation Date, the Summary Prospectus is amended as follows:
All references to the name of the Fund shall refer to AMG Veritas China Fund...
AMG Managers Special Equity (MGSEX) was also reorganized into another type of fund as of 3/22/21:
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/720309/000119312521087802/d127352d497k.htm
497K 1 d127352d497k.htm AMG FUNDS III
Filed pursuant to 497(k)
File Nos. 002-84012 and 811-03752
AMG FUNDS III
AMG Managers Special Equity Fund
Supplement dated March 19, 2021 to the Summary Prospectus, dated March 15, 2021
The following information supplements and supersedes any information to the contrary relating to AMG Managers Special Equity Fund (the “Fund”), a series of AMG Funds III (the “Trust”), contained in the Fund’s Summary Prospectus (the “Summary Prospectus”), dated as noted above.
At a meeting held on March 17-18, 2021 (the “Meeting”), the Trust’s Board of Trustees (the “Board”) approved the appointment of Veritas Asset Management LLP (“Veritas” or the “Subadviser”) as the subadviser to the Fund on an interim basis to replace Federated MDTA LLC, Lord, Abbett & Co. LLC, Ranger Investment Management L.P. and Smith Asset Management Group, L.P. (each, a “Former Subadviser” and together, the “Former Subadvisers”), effective March 19, 2021 (the “Implementation Date”). The appointment of Veritas was pursuant to an interim subadvisory agreement between AMG Funds LLC (“AMGF”) and Veritas (the “Interim Subadvisory Agreement”), to be effective until the earlier of 150 days after the termination of the former subadvisory agreement between AMGF and each Former Subadviser with respect to the Fund (each, a “Former Subadvisory Agreement” and together, the “Former Subadvisory Agreements”), which occurred on March 19, 2021, or the approval of a new subadvisory agreement between AMGF and Veritas by the Board and Fund shareholders. At the Meeting, the Board also approved the longer-term appointment of Veritas as the subadviser to the Fund, a new subadvisory agreement between AMGF and Veritas (the “New Subadvisory Agreement”), and the submission of the New Subadvisory Agreement to Fund shareholders for approval. The rate of compensation to be received by Veritas under the Interim Subadvisory Agreement approved by the Board is the same rate of compensation that each Former Subadviser would have received under the applicable Former Subadvisory Agreement.
In connection with the hiring of Veritas, effective as of the Implementation Date, the Fund (i) changed its name from AMG Managers Special Equity Fund to AMG Veritas Asia Pacific Fund, (ii) made changes to its investment objective, principal investment strategies and principal risks, and (iii) replaced its existing benchmark index with the MSCI AC Asia Pacific ex Japan Index.
Also in connection with the hiring of Veritas, the Board approved the following fee changes for the Fund, all of which will be implemented upon the effectiveness of the New Subadvisory Agreement and will result in the overall reduction of the Fund’s net expense ratios: (i) the management fee for the Fund will be reduced from 0.90% to 0.71%; and (ii) the Fund’s existing contractual expense limitation agreement with AMGF will be replaced with a new contractual expense limitation agreement with AMGF pursuant to which AMGF will agree, through at least May 1, 2023, to limit total annual operating expenses (exclusive of taxes, interest (including interest incurred in connection with bank and custody overdrafts and in connection with securities sold short), shareholder servicing fees, distribution and service (12b-1) fees, brokerage commissions and other transaction costs, dividends payable with respect to securities sold short, acquired fund fees and expenses, and extraordinary expenses) of the Fund to the annual rate of 0.93% of the Fund’s average daily net assets, subject to later reimbursement by the Fund in certain circumstances. AMGF pays a portion of the management fee to the Fund’s subadviser for its services.
The disposition of Fund securities in connection with the transition of the Fund’s investment objective and strategies is expected to cause the Fund to realize taxable income for U.S. federal income tax purposes. The Fund intends to make a special distribution to shareholders of all or a portion of such income. This distribution will be taxable to shareholders who hold their shares in a taxable account. See “Certain Federal Income Tax Information” for further information.
In addition, effective as of the Implementation Date, the Summary Prospectus is amended as follows:
All references to the name of the Fund shall refer to AMG Veritas Asia Pacific Fund...
Until late last year, I owned MECAX, formerly AMG Managers Cadence Emerging Companies Fund, a micro cap fund, which was converted to an international small cap fund as of 10/9/2020:
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/720309/000119312520266471/d46556d497k.htm

God's investing finger's are everywhere.....,eh??? The God's ??? Whichever persuasion they may bow to.
----- Lloyd Blankfein, Chairman and CEO of Goldman Sachs, speaks during a panel discussion at the Clinton Global Initiative in New York September 23, 2009. REUTERS -----
LONDON (Reuters) - The chief executive of Goldman Sachs, which has attracted widespread media attention over the size of its staff bonuses, believes banks serve a social purpose and are doing “God’s work.”
In an interview with London’s Sunday Times newspaper, Lloyd Blankfein also said he believed big profits and bonuses at banks were a sign that the world economy was recovering.
“We help companies to grow by helping them to raise capital. Companies that grow create wealth. This, in turn, allows people to have jobs that create more growth and more wealth. We have a social purpose,” he told the paper.
The dominant Wall Street bank posted third-quarter earnings of $3 billion and plans to hand out more than $20 billion in year-end bonuses.
Blankfein told the Sunday Times that the bank’s compensation practices correlated with long-term performance.
“Others made no money and still paid large bonuses. Some are not around anymore. I wonder why?”
He added that he understood, however, that people were angry with bankers’ actions: “I know I could slit my wrists and people would cheer.”

Many small investors are beating Wall Street pros at their own game.
“A basket of stocks favored by individuals has outperformed the broader market since March of last year, according to Vanda Research. This group, which includes behemoths like Apple Inc. and Tesla Inc. alongside electric-vehicle maker NIO Inc. and digital-payments company Square Inc., has gained 68% since the beginning of March 2020 through Monday, far outpacing the S&P 500’s roughly 36% climb.
“And meme stocks popular with individual investors have been on a tear again. Shares of movie-theater operator AMC Entertainment Holdings Inc. jumped 36% Thursday, continuing a string of double-digit gains that pushed them to $26.52, their highest close in four years. The recent rally in AMC shares has catapulted them above levels recorded during the initial retail-driven frenzy in GameStop Corp. and other stocks this January. On Thursday, AMC was the most actively-traded stock in the U.S. market, according to Dow Jones Market Data.
GameStop has advanced 46% this month, far outpacing the S&P 500’s gain of 0.5%. Shares of Hertz Global Holdings Inc. have nearly tripled in May. Short sellers who bet against GameStop, Hertz and AMC—a group targeted by many smaller investors who have favored these stocks—have lost almost $9 billion this year, according to data provider S3 Partners.”
The Wall Street Journal - May 28. 2021

A somewhat dated piece from The Finance Buff, reiterating what I wrote above - you're not getting advice from these assigned reps or assigned teams.
https://thefinancebuff.com/vanguard-fidelity-large-account.html

don’t mistake the Flagship rep [now the Flagship "team"] for an advisor. The Flagship rep is still in the customer service role. If you need advice, ask the Flagship rep to arrange a meeting with an advisor.

And from a related Finance Buff piece:

Customer service reps are in an execution role. If you want to do X, they will do X for you. ... Ask them whether they offer X or how to do X at that institution. Research and decide on your own whether you can or should do X.

https://thefinancebuff.com/customer-service-questions.html
At the end of the day, they're just doing what salespeople are supposed to do: present product and services, walk the customer through the process of getting those services, and above all Keep the Customer Satisfied. How well they do that is another question.

I do not know what you would get if you signed up for "management services" for a fee.
I do. I have a relative who had an Investment Advisory Program account (wrap fee, discretionary) with TIAA for a few years, and moved it to Vanguard PAS (also wrap fee, discretionary) upon my recommendation.
At TIAA (with a much higher fee) this person worked with an individual adviser. Based on the relative's assets and future plans, the adviser worked up a plan for investing, for managing a mix of IRAs, taxable accounts, inherited assets, etc., for drawing how much from which accounts in what sequence, etc. A good customer-facing adviser.
Actual investment decisions and execution were handed off to a back end team that traded mutual funds and ETFs somewhat frenetically. So much so that they "harvested" a loss in the taxable account that they irretrievably washed out with a replacement purchase in an IRA. The antithesis of personalization.
In contrast, Vanguard PAS preserves non-Vanguard assets if they have high unrealized gains, and it offers some flexibility in keeping them regardless. The market swoon was an opportunity to move some of those into Vanguard funds without taking a tax hit. That's when the portfolio became somewhat more "cookie-cutter". The service even allows a fair amount of tweaking by the customer (e.g. expressing a preference for actively managed funds or more corporate bonds or ...), but then why have a discretionary account?
They review and discuss the portfolio with the customer quarterly and on-demand as the customer's needs change. They keep customers informed of any upcoming changes in the program. When my relative's adviser decided to take another position within Vanguard (it was something he was interested in doing and the opportunity opened up), he contacted my relative.
If you're interested in what you would get if you signed up for "management services" for a fee, it's all laid out in detail in the Vanguard Personal Advisor Services Brochure
https://personal.vanguard.com/pdf/vpabroc.pdf

Whatever else, must protect cash position from the 60-day STT fee. Maintaining the cash allocation in their cash management account would work, as they exempt money markets from that fee. BTW - Is there a ticker symbol for the cash fund at Fido (where my liquidated assets from TRP should land)?
The .44 YTD loss would be least of my worries. Essentially, it attempts to track an index. Might be that it’s avoiding the overvalued TIPS market.

If your concern is to be able to withdraw cash quickly, be aware that ETFs have two-day settlement periods, during which time the cash value must stay in the account. (A margin account could float the money for a day if that's really critical.)
Cash in your core account or in another Fidelity MMF is available for withdrawal "immediately" (don't recall whether that's literal or end of day since even MMF shares must be sold). Cash pulled from an internet bank is usually available within a day, though you're advised it could take longer.
I mention internet banks again because the shorter the trigger, the more important low volatility/preservation of capital becomes.
"Track an index" IMHO doesn't say much without examining the index. This index is untested, dynamic, and proprietary. Its objective is to improve "both returns and risk ... relative to traditional U.S. IG floating rate note indices." It invests in a mix of "U.S. corporate floating rate notes with less than 5 years maturity and U.S. Treasury Notes with 7 to 10 years maturity." From its statutory prospectus. It's not avoiding TIPS because they're overvalued but because it can't invest in them.
It's hard to find a reason to prefer FLDR to JPST. The latter has lower volatility (std dev 0.80 vs. 1.13 over the past year) resulting in better Sharpe ratio (2.54 vs. 1.61 over past year), smaller bid/ask spread (0.02% vs 0.06% median over past 30 days), longer history, similar ER (0.18% vs 0.15%). The smoother curve in the graph below is JPST.

You can invest in MMFs in any Fidelity brokerage account, it doesn't have to be the CMA account. The only advantage I can find to the CMA account is that it provides unlimited US ATM rebates on its debit card. AFAIK, all its other features are available in any brokerage account.
EDIT:CMA accounts use a bank sweep as their core account. This is not available in other some other brokerage accounts.
https://www.fidelity.com/bin-public/060_www_fidelity_com/documents/fdic.pdf
The "ticker" for Fidelity Cash is FCASH. It is kept as a general obligation of Fidelity; in essence you are lending the cash to Fidelity, which can use it for general business purposes. It is one of three choices you have for your "core" (transaction/checking) account inside a taxable brokerage account. Catch gave the tickers for the other options.
https://www.fidelity.com/mutual-funds/fidelity-funds/money-market-funds-fcash

On another note, I hadn’t realized that a TIK “insulates” your fund’s value during the process so that the holding neither gains nor looses value. Dug that up this morning. Casts a different light on everything.

You can think of "transfer in kind" as picking up the fund shares (electronically) at one institution and transporting them to the other. So you can gain or lose value in transit, since you always retain "real" ownership of your shares.

Thanks @msf. I’ll figure out some kind of work-around. Whatever else, must protect cash position from the 60-day STT fee. Maintaining the cash allocation in their cash management account would work, as they exempt money markets from that fee. BTW - Is there a ticker symbol for the cash fund at Fido (where my liquidated assets from TRP should land)?
The .44 YTD loss would be least of my worries. Essentially, it attempts to track an index. Might be that it’s avoiding the overvalued TIPS market.
On another note, I hadn’t realized that a TIK “insulates” your fund’s value during the process so that the holding neither gains nor looses value. Dug that up this morning. Casts a different light on everything.
Do you know whether the 60 day short term trading fee would apply to funds that are “transferred in kind” - or might those be exempt from the fee because they wasn’t purchased NTF at Fidelity?

+1 I've been using ACSNX PRWBX EALDX and VUSB in this area,with slight allocations to TRBUX and BBBMX as these funds each lost more than 150 basis points in 1Q 2020.

The M* fund category assigned to a fund may not be a good fit.
For example, NWFFX is classified as a Diversified Emerging Markets fund but it allocates substantial capital (averaging ~ one-third of total assets) to developed markets.
Also, all World Large Cap funds were lumped together into a single category until recently.
Performance rankings for many value-oriented World Large Cap funds were noticably lower compared to their growth-oriented "peers". I'm not very familiar with PRAFX but the fund appears to be unlike the standard index used by M* (MSCI ACWI NR USD).

PRAFX is sporting a 1-star rating at Morningstar at this time. Guess that’s due to its only being up 50% over the past year. Don’t intend to sell based on this dismal assessment. Only hold a “smigin” anyway, choosing to complement it with 3 other funds inside my 7.5% allocation to “real assets”. Just points to how crazy the M* ratings can get.
There is no consistent approach in the commodifies / real assets sector. Anything from gold miners
to John Deere farm equipment - and from oil rigs to mobile home parks is fair game for these type of funds and their managers. So trying to award “stars” on some kind of commonality among them is pretty futile.
In contrast, Lipper gives PRAFX the following scores (scale of 1-5)
Total Return 5
Consistent Return 5
Capital Preservation 1
Low Expense 5
Tax Efficiency ) 5
Admittedly, there’s a world of difference between Morningstar’s rating system and the “ranking” by percentiles that Lipper publishes.
Anybody else sitting on a 1-star fund? This is my first ever - based on recollection. No place to go but up …

@Crash
You noted:

But if a trade is disallowed until you speak to someone personally, that just tells me that the outfit has their heads up their asses, no? So, why would I want to use them at all? I can never tell if THEY know what they're doing. And they are the ones presuming to take my money and use it ?????

--- Municipal Bonds in an IRA (not a Fidelity written opinion below, but obviously shared by Fidelity)
***** One of the most critical considerations is to ensure you avoid placing municipal bonds (munis) in an IRA. The primary attraction of munis is that the interest on individual muni bonds and municipal bond funds is tax-exempt, which means that they also tend to offer lower pre-tax yields than taxable bonds.
The key to strategically using an IRA is to use the tax advantages of the account on investments that otherwise don't provide an advantage.
Since the interest and capital gains in an IRA are already tax-exempt, there isn’t any benefit to holding munis in the IRA. Instead, use a regular (non-IRA) account to hold munis and save the IRA for other investments that require a tax shelter. *****
>>> While there are time periods when one is able to have a decent profit from pricing in muni's, generally; taxable bonds are more appropriate in an IRA account. As @msf stated, a purchase for muni's may be made into an IRA, but not via the user online interface. Aside from a "disallowed" statement, Fidelity should add a full statement that such a trade is not beneficial into an IRA account; and to call if one really needs this purchase.
I view this purchase restriction as a form of a fiduciary electronic tap on one's shoulder about such an investment in an IRA.
Contact a financial advisor and ask the question: Should I hold muni bonds/funds in my IRA account?
You paint with a very broad brush of misunderstanding and distrust (that just tells me that the outfit has their heads up their asses, no? So, why would I want to use them at all? I can never tell if THEY know what they're doing.), based upon a small operational function within Fidelity.
Crash, you would be pleased, had you become a Fidelity account holder.

Lots of semi-random comments:
Hank's The [Fidelity] 30-day limitation for in-house funds is perfectly reasonable - roughly what TRP insists on.
This reflects each fund house's excessive trading policy - something similar to but different from short term redemption fees. A key difference is that redemption fees are "just" money. Excessive trading rules can lock you out of trading. No Fidelity fund has a short term fee, and I believe the same is true for TRP funds.
TRP's policy can be found in each fund's statutory prospectus. It bars you from buying shares in a fund account if you sold shares from that account within 30 days. Notice the time constraint is on sell followed by purchase. All you need are two transactions (sell followed by buy) to trigger a restriction. Vanguard has a similar policy.
Fidelity's policy is more complex. It defines a short term round trip as a buy followed by a sell within 30 days. The policy begins to take effect only if you execute two round trips within 90 days of each other.
This seems somewhat less restrictive: you're allowed to buy/sell/buy in any time frame with no consequences. It's only the second short term (30 day) sell that triggers a freeze. But if triggered, it lasts longer than at TRP; at Fidelity the bar against purchases lasts 85 days and you're placed on a watch list.
Fidelity's Excessive Trading Policy and 2020 Update
In Mona's boglehead's link, the OP writes: HSA w/ company which im maxing out and investing it in Vanguard Real Estate Fund.
There's no response to this part of the post, but Fidelity offers the cheapest, broadest HSA around (it's a regular brokerage account). Many employer HSAs have fees or restrictions attached. What one can do is contribute to the employer's HSA (to get added employee tax benefits and match) and then transfer the money to an external (Fidelity) HSA. One can even buy a share class of Vanguard Real Estate Fund VNQ with no commission in a Fidelity HSA.
I agree with much of what sma3 wrote (also having had accounts at Vanguard, Fidelity, and Schwab for years). Though here are some items that reasonable people can view differently:
Vanguard is clunky
Likely true for many operations; I find it easy to use for the only thing I care about there: buying and selling mutual funds
Fidelity has ... an easy website
Yes, but the more they change it to look like their small screen ap, the worse it gets. Fidelity recently changed its bill payment interface so now I have to go through multiple screens to accomplish what used to be easier. And I can no longer give it a list of payees to display by default; it always starts with every one I've left in the system.
Vanguard is ... putting up more and more restrictions on nonV funds
It doesn't let you buy or sell leveraged/inverse ETFs. OTOH, to buy aggressive funds like PQTAX, Fidelity requires you to sign an agreement and set your account investment objective to most aggressive, while Vanguard just puts up a dialog box informing you that you should be aware of the risks.
A few years ago, Schwab stopped selling load funds (unless they were sold load-waived). I believe Vanguard has a similar policy. Fidelity still sells funds with loads. The way this may play out is that, e.g. for NMFAX, Fidelity will sell the A shares with a load, Schwab will have arranged for them to be sold NTF, and Vanguard won't sell them.

With comparable returns (both funds returned the identical 43.21% over the past year ending 5/21/21, and were within 1 basis point annualized over the past three and five years), I'd prefer the one that didn't impose a tax drag on my returns.
Sure Schwab's TTM yield is higher. The fund recognizes and distributes capital gains. This is a good thing?
SWPPX has been continually distributing capital gains, sometimes even short term gains, year after year after year. Though it did manage to break its streak last year.
2015: 32.45¢ LTG
2016: 18.05¢ LTG + 1.13¢ STG
2017: 1.66¢ STG
2018: 6.97¢ LTG + 0.87¢ STG
2019, 8.91¢ LTG
VFIAX hasn't had a cap gains distribution this century. Admittedly it has an advantage because the fund has an ETF share class that enables the fund to spin off cap gains. But isn't that the point, that it has an advantage?
As article after article has stated, there's more to "best" or even "cheapest" than stated ER.
In terms of raw performance, there's a MUTUAL FUND that SWPPX has been unable to beat in even a single calendar year over the past decade. Even though that fund has "a cost factor DOUBLE schwab 0.04%". It's VINIX. A Vanguard fund.
M* ratings are a measure of risk adjusted performance within a category of funds. SWPPX gets four stars. Rarely do index funds get five stars, so that rating isn't surprising. But it does make one wonder about whether it really is "the best". Especially since there are other index funds in its category that have five star ratings, like VFIAX and VINIX.
Schwab is a boutique fund house. It's got a slew of target date funds and index funds, but sizeable holes elsewhere. No government bond funds, no mortgage funds, no core plus, no taxable high yield. On the equity side, no growth funds, foreign or domestic, aside from a pair of domestic large cap growth funds. This is just the basic stuff, the minimum one would expect to find at a one-stop shop.
Schwab is a great brokerage. And I'll continue to laud it. But as a fund house, it's far from top tier. Some of us still remember its Yield Plus fund. Maybe that's why it no longer offers an ultrashort term bond fund.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/lessons-from-schwabs-yieldplus-debacle/

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1318342/000139834421011101/fp0065643_497.htm
497 1 fp0065643_497.htm
WCM International Small Cap Growth Fund
(Institutional Class Shares - Ticker Symbol: WCMSX)
A series of Investment Managers Series Trust
Supplement dated May 20, 2021 to the
Prospectus dated September 1, 2020,
Statement of Additional Information dated September 1, 2020,
as amended February 24, 2021, and Summary Prospectus,
dated September 1, 2020.
IMPORTANT NOTICE REGARDING PURCHASE OF FUND SHARES
Effective as of the close of business on June 18, 2021 (the “Closing Date”), the WCM International Small Cap Growth Fund (the “Fund”) will be publicly offered on a limited basis.
Effective as of the Closing Date, only certain investors will be eligible to purchase shares of the Fund, as described below (the “closure policy”). In addition, the Fund may from time to time, in its sole discretion based on the Fund’s net asset levels and other factors, limit the types of investors permitted to open new accounts, limit new purchases into the Fund or otherwise modify the closure policy on a case-by-case basis.
Effective as of the Closing Date, the following groups will be permitted to continue to purchase Fund shares:
1.Shareholders of record of the Fund as of the Closing Date may continue to purchase additional shares in their existing Fund accounts either directly from the Fund or through a financial intermediary, and they may continue to reinvest dividends or capital gains distributions from Fund shares.
2.Existing registered investment advisors, bank trust firms and broker dealers or other financial intermediaries that have an investment allocation to the Fund in a fee-based, wrap or advisory account may continue to add new clients and purchase shares.
3.New shareholders may open Fund accounts and purchase shares directly from the Fund (i.e., not through a financial intermediary).
4.Group employer benefit plans, including 401(k), 403(b), 457 plans, and health savings account programs (and their successor, related and affiliated plans) (collectively, “Employer Benefit Plans”), which made the Fund available to participants on or before the Closing Date, may continue to open accounts for new participants with the Fund and purchase additional shares in existing participant accounts. New Employer Benefit Plans may also establish new accounts with the Fund, provided the new Employer Benefit Plan approved and selected the Fund as an investment option by the Closing Date and the Employer Benefit Plan was accepted for investment by the Fund by the Closing Date.
5. Members of the Fund’s Board of Trustees, persons affiliated with WCM Investment Management, LLC, the Fund’s advisor, and their immediate families may continue to purchase shares of the Fund and establish new accounts.
In general, the Fund will rely on a financial intermediary to prevent a new account from being opened within an omnibus account established at that financial intermediary if the account would not otherwise satisfy the conditions outlined above. The Fund’s ability to monitor new accounts that are opened through omnibus accounts or other nominee accounts is limited, and the ability to limit a new account to those that meet the above criteria with respect to financial intermediaries may vary, depending upon the capabilities of those financial intermediaries. Investors may be asked to verify that they meet one of the exceptions above prior to opening a new account with the Fund. The Fund may permit you to open a new account if the Fund reasonably believes that you are eligible. The 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 exceptions. If all shares of the Fund in an existing account are redeemed, the shareholder’s account will be closed. Such former shareholders will not be able to buy additional shares of the Fund or reopen their account.
Please file this Supplement with your records.

Northern US Quality ESG (NUESX) a fund Dr Snowball will be highlighting in June and apparently highly rated by Morningstar, holds Bank of America, Citigroup, and JPMorgan, which collectively loaned US$8.4 billion to single use plastics manufacturers from 2011-2020 (according to the article).
I don't want to single out one fund or banks in general. A bank gave me a loan to buy my house and I've planted over 30 trees on our 2.67 acres. So "thanks bank" for helping me do good!
But I still find it hard to reconcile the dichotomy of an ESG fund investing in companies which enable the plastics industry to not only survive - but thrive. By making such investmemts are they not complicit in the plastics problem themselves?
As for NUESX (actually I will single out this fund...why not?) the fund page states: "This Fund seeks to invest in high-quality companies that are industry leaders with regards to their environmental, social and government practices. These standards can help protect the environment and foster more favorable living conditions for future generations".
Maybe this fund's managers need a lesson on how single use disposable plastics protect the environment and help future generations?