baron list is bogus! out of fifty top brokerage houses, no listing at all for the very best: charles schwab!
[...] baron's list should not be considered for guidance.

>> Barrons List of 50 Best Mutual Fund Families in 2020 (From February, 2021)
As a mutual fund family, Schwab is no better than mediocre, with exactly half of its 60 funds rated 3 star, It's got just one five star fund along with 15 four star funds; at least that's slightly better than its dozen 2 star funds. (In case you're counting, two of its funds are too new to have star ratings.)
Though if you really want to know why Schwab wasn't even in the running, it's because it offers no actively managed taxable bond funds. Which means that it doesn't offer a full suite of funds. For similar reasons (e.g. no muni bond fund), D&C isn't on the list either.

I don’t know how to thank everybody for the great response. Am humbled by how little i knew about Fidelity, Schwab & brokerages in general. This thread will be saved and referenced repeatedly. For now, I’m staying put with Price. Hopefully, the technical related issues will be resolved. Suspect I (and some of you) understand how to navigate and utilize their website better than many of the current phone reps - for reasons unclear to me.
FWIW - Later in the evening Tuesday after reading all the responses, I researched practically every fund house on the attached list. Went right to their website. Late into the night. The changes in the mutual fund business since I joined TRP around 1995 are unbelievable. Only the strong survive. Many merged out of existence. With possibly a dozen exceptions (counting the big brokerages), all the houses on the Barron’s list appear to be front loaded, And few offer a diversified stable of funds for individuals. Several cater to institutions or very large investors. And none can compete with the 4 or 5 giants on fees. Their top rated house, Manning & Nappier is interesting. Not front loaded, but their 12B-1 fee is considered a “level load.” I actually like some of their allocation funds - but the added fee reduces attractiveness compared to TRP.
Looks like increasingly the fund universe is dominated by a few mammoth houses. The big get bigger - which explains Fidelity’s current push to bring the “teeny-boppers” under its umbrella. I’ll pursue @msf’s use / suggestion of online banks which would negate the already limited need for checkwriting at a fund house. If the local bank on the corner you’ve been with for 15 years is unable to provide a medallion signature guarantee when you walk in the front door without your having to jump through hoops, what value is there to staying with them?
Barrons List of 50 Best Mutual Fund Families in 2020 (From February, 2021)
Manning & Napier Advisors $5,755 72.54 26 3 6 4 2
2 54 Guggenheim Investments 40,034 70.56 20 16 15 1 11
3 10 Vanguard Group 1,836,704 66.07 8 19 26 5 9
4 9 Fidelity Management & Research 1,779,875 64.79 16 24 8 8 35
5 47 Morgan Stanley Investment Management 77,902 62.95 1 10 18 51 52
6 35 Transamerica Asset Management 48,738 62.46 10 8 9 48 23
7 14 Lord Abbett 175,300 61.26 9 31 3 46 30
8 51 Brinker Capital 14,011 60.52 2 9 7 53 48
9 28 American Century Investment Mgmt 154,321 60.50 18 13 19 27 6
10 4 Columbia Threadneedle Investments 179,658 59.90 13 32 14 15 42
11 2 Virtus Investment Partners 48,912 59.41 28 36 1 39 4
12 20 T. Rowe Price 761,480 59.38 32 17 4 24 33
13 25 Saratoga Capital Management 1,251 59.23 50 4 24 2 53
14 53 American Funds 2,290,068 58.93 43 12 35 3 18
15 23 John Hancock 188,266 58.74 27 22 13 17 40
16 27 First Trust Advisors 33,377 58.07 4 43 12 40 39
17 45 Thrivent Mutual Funds 30,089 57.97 6 46 22 19 24
18 13 BlackRock 340,679 57.69 24 15 21 18 47
19 6 Nuveen 233,819 57.19 14 7 16 47 32
20 52 AssetMark 3,952 56.21 3 52 31 13 36
21 21 PGIM Investments 163,978 55.94 7 1 52 42 27
22 8 Putnam Investment Management 82,302 55.78 11 26 20 41 26
23 46 SIT Investment Associates 1,826 55.22 21 6 2 52 49
24 18 J.P. Morgan Asset Management 454,621 55.16 12 18 29 34 29
25 42 UBS Asset Management 12,563 55.00 23 37 10 43 10
26 29 BNY Mellon Investment Management 63,649 54.41 5 34 38 32 25
27 26 Amundi Pioneer Asset Management 46,209 53.07 34 2 36 38 28
28 15 Wells Fargo Funds 88,736 52.93 19 28 44 9 44
29 38 Pimco 415,290 51.95 17 51 25 29 5
30 32 Ivy Investment Management 60,875 51.78 38 20 17 35 34
31 31 Delaware Management 64,045 51.53 41 14 51 6 1
32 30 Federated Investors 84,141 51.41 47 11 33 7 45
33 3 DWS Group 30,427 50.36 42 21 23 23 37
34 1 MFS Investment Management 370531 49.79 36 39 27 12 38
35 11 Natixis Investment Managers 151,678 49.49 45 5 34 31 51
36 49 Affiliated Managers Group 88,905 49.38 30 40 11 49 7
37 12 Hartford Funds 114,072 48.78 25 27 46 25 12
38 36 Neuberger Berman 38,096 48.40 35 48 32 10 43
39 34 Goldman Sachs Asset Management 120,060 48.01 37 38 39 14 22
40 7 State Street Bank & Trust 22,867 47.96 49 47 5 30 31
41 22 Invesco 324,250 47.28 39 25 45 20 20
42 5 Principal Global Investors 183,536 47.16 46 30 28 28 21
43 39 MainStay Funds 66,624 46.44 29 44 37 37 3
44 43 USAA Investments** 60,434 45.25 22 45 48 21 14
45 48 Franklin Templeton Investments 472,488 44.74 33 35 49 26 17
46 24 Northern Trust Investments 28,110 43.75 53 23 40 16 16
47 37 SEI Group 97,141 42.75 48 50 42 11 13
48 33 Eaton Vance 106,755 42.36 52 29 30 33 19
49 17 Victory Capital Management** 36,030 42.32 44 33 50 22 8
50 50 Russell Investments
Barron’s February 19, 2021

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1494928/000139834421011115/fp0065693_497.htm
RiverPark Funds Trust
RiverPark Short Term High Yield Fund
Institutional Class (RPHIX)
Retail Class (RPHYX)
Supplement dated May 20, 2021 to the Summary Prospectus, Prospectus and Statement of Additional Information (“SAI”) dated January 28, 2021.
This supplement provides new and additional information beyond that contained in the Summary Prospectus, Prospectus and SAI and should be read in conjunction with the Summary Prospectus, Prospectus and SAI.
IMPORTANT NOTICE ON PURCHASE OF FUND SHARES
Effective as of 4 p.m. on June 18, 2021 (the "Closing Date"), Retail and Institutional Class Shares of the RiverPark Short Term High Yield Fund (the "Fund") are closed to new investors.
After the Closing Date, existing shareholders of Retail and Institutional Class Shares of the Fund and certain eligible investors, as set forth below, may purchase additional Retail and Institutional Class Shares of the Fund through existing or new accounts and may reinvest dividends and capital gains distributions.
Existing shareholders include:
• Shareholders of record of the Fund as of the Closing Date (although if a shareholder closes all accounts in the Fund, additional investments into the Fund may not be accepted).
• Clients of a financial adviser or planner who had client assets invested in the Fund as of the Closing Date.
After the Closing Date, the following eligible investors may open new accounts:
• New shareholders may open Fund accounts and purchase shares directly from the Fund (i.e. not through a financial intermediary).
• Any trustee of RiverPark Funds Trust, or employee of RiverPark Advisors, LLC or Cohanzick Management, LLC, or an investor who is an immediate family member of any of these individuals.
The Fund reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to determine the criteria for qualification as an eligible investor and to reject any purchase order. Sales of Retail Class Shares and Institutional Class Shares of the Fund may be further restricted or reopened in the future.
PLEASE RETAIN THIS SUPPLEMENT FOR FUTURE REFERENCE.

>> This idea that SS increases at 8% per year strikes me as fallacious. In "dollars," sure, but not in purchasing power ... the rate at which SS benefits are adjusted for inflation is only a fraction of the rate of inflation actually experienced by most people, especially seniors. Rerun those numbers with annual benefit increases that account for 4.0 to 4.5% inflation, a number more people are actually likely to face
Huh? The 8% figure is for delaying.
Not CoLA.

Absent COLA adjustments, the real value of waiting would be substantially less, and could even be negative. To take an extreme example, suppose prices doubled in a year. Then your 108% of benefits would be worth 54% of what your base benefit was worth a year before. That is, rather than getting an 8% return, one would suffer a 46% loss.
But because the payments would go up not 8% (nominal) but 8% in real terms, you really would get 8% more purchasing power by waiting a year.

CPI of course does not take into account (e.g.) property tax increases, or only very indirectly.

You might as well say that CPI of course does not take into account the cost of buying or financing a home. That's because homes are capital goods, and CPI measures consumables (services are considered consumables). So instead, CPI considers rent equivalent (what you'd have to pay in rent for the shelter you own).
The cost of rent incorporates all the landlord's costs that get past through, including property taxes. Just one step of indirection, not so tenuous.
https://www.bls.gov/cpi/factsheets/owners-equivalent-rent-and-rent.pdf

But on what bases do you state what you state?

That's the key question, because all we have here is a bald assertion about costs people are likely to face. Spot checking a few numbers ...
Not seasonally adjusted, April Y/Y inflation is 4.2%. Food is up 2.4%, energy is up 25% (with some components like gasoline up 50%). Used cars are up 21%. Car/truck rentals are up 82%.
Drug prices are down 1.5%. Medical care services are up 2.2%. Health insurance is down 3.0%. Shelter's up 2.1%.
While it may seem that inflation is outstripping COLA, it's worth taking a close look at everything, not just the high flying items that are catching your eye.
And the one figure that might matter most here: Financial service costs are down 0.2%.
All numbers above are from Table 2 in the latest BLS CPI news release.
https://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/cpi_05122021.htm#cpipress2

Was researching FIDO's structure just now, and found this article from 2016 that I wish I hadn't read. The Johnson family is sneaky, and they seem to use Fido mutual funds for their own PRIVATE gains.
Not sure if this situation has since changed this article was written.
William Danoff paid $.07/share for Alibaba via the VC fund controlled by the Johnson family. Nice "compensation" for this Fund mgr.
https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/usa-fidelity-family/

“Fidelity Investments Inc. plans to open the door to a new generation of investors who will be able to trade stocks even before they learn how to drive or head to college. Fidelity said Tuesday it will issue debit cards and offer investing and savings accounts to 13- to 17-year-olds whose parents or guardians also invest with the firm. The accounts will let teens buy and sell U.S. stocks, Fidelity mutual funds and many exchange-traded funds. Similar to how it works for adults, the service won’t charge account fees or commissions for online trading.
“The offering marks Fidelity’s latest move to position itself as a lifelong financial adviser to millions of Americans. Once known for the stock-picking mutual funds it sold through other brokers, the firm has spent the past few decades building direct connections to individual investors. Today, Fidelity runs one of the world’s biggest brokerages and the nation’s largest servicer of 401(k) plans and other retirement accounts offered by employers.
“Fidelity and other major wealth managers slashed their stock-trading commissions to zero in recent years. Eliminating those costs had set the stage for the industry’s banner 2020, when many individual investors rediscovered the allure of trading stocks. Many brokerage and wealth-management firms reported a surge in enthusiasm and new accounts, especially among younger participants. Fidelity is among them. In the first three months of 2021, the company added 1.6 million accounts from investors 35 years old or younger—more than triple the number of new accounts from that demographic a year earlier, Fidelity said.”
The Wall Street Journal - May 19, 2021

With a comprehensive personal investment strategy an investor can avoid the inevitable, repetitive and difficult questions like those asked in the OP. Or, at least have the answers at the ready.

@Stillers: I agree with you that the total of 3 Discussion Topics you have posted for the community in the 16 months since you arrived are all vastly superior to any topic @Derf or I have offered up. That #3 - “Your tax dollars at work” sounds particularly compelling.
As to your investment prowess, I’ve been wanting to thank you for the tip on DODFX back during the first half of December.
“The conclusions that should be drawn are: DODFX is a mediocre FLV stock fund that has only kept pace with IC+ bond fund DODIX for the past ten years. DODFX is inherently a much higher risk fund than DODIX and the chance of it not meeting investors return expectations is significantly higher.” - Posted by @Stillers, December 2020.
Admittedly, it’s only been 5 months. But here’s what’s happened since your post:
- DODIX -5% (or more) / DODFX +14%.
- DODFX has outpaced DODIX by approximately 20% over the 5 months.
- DODFX is now in the top 20th percentile of its peer group based on recent performance (Lipper).
- Meanwhile, DODIX peaked December 17 at $14.98 and has been falling ever since. Looks like you caught the high. Sure glad I listened and sold my depressed DODFX at that time, while putting the money into high flying DODIX.

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/793769/000119312521166201/d168244d497.htm
 
111 South Wacker Drive, 34th Floor
Chicago, IL 60606-4302
harborfunds.com
Supplement to Statement of Additional Information dated March 1, 2021
May 19, 2021
Harbor Mid Cap Growth Fund
The Board of Trustees of Harbor Funds (the “Board”) has approved a change in Harbor Mid Cap Growth Fund’s (the “Fund”) name and principal investment strategy, together with certain related changes. Effective on or about September 1, 2021 (the “Effective Date”), the Fund will be renamed the Harbor Disruptive Innovation Fund and will no longer have a policy to invest, under normal market conditions, at least 80% of its net assets, plus borrowings for investment purposes, in securities of mid cap companies. As of the Effective Date, the Fund will seek to invest in what it believes to be disruptive and innovative companies of any market capitalization. The Fund’s benchmark index will change from Russell Midcap® Growth Index to the S&P 500 Index and the Russell 3000® Growth Index. There will be no change in the Fund’s investment objective.
In connection with the changes noted above, Wellington Management Company LLP will no longer serve as the Fund’s suabadviser as of the Effective Date. Instead, the Fund will employ a multi-manager approach to seek to achieve its investment objective, whereby Harbor Capital Advisors, Inc. (the “Adviser”), the Fund’s investment adviser, will manage the Fund’s assets based upon model portfolios provided by multiple non-discretionary subadvisers. The Board has appointed 4BIO Partners LLP (pending approval of its registration as an investment adviser with the Securities and Exchange Commission), NZS Capital, LLC, Sands Capital Management, LLC, Tekne Capital Management, LLC and Westfield Capital Management Company, L.P. to serve as subadvisers to the Fund as of the Effective Date.
The Adviser will, starting on the Effective Date, reposition the Fund’s portfolio in accordance with the new investment strategy for the Fund. In connection therewith, the Fund expects to experience portfolio turnover, which will result in higher than normal transaction costs to shareholders and may also result in the realization and/or distribution of higher capital gains than might generally be expected under normal circumstances.
In connection with the changes described above, the rate of advisory fees payable by the Fund to the Adviser will be reduced as of the Effective Date from 0.75% to 0.70% annually as a percentage of the Fund’s average net assets. In addition, as of the Effective Date, the Adviser has contractually agreed to limit the Fund’s operating expenses, excluding interest expense (if any), to 0.50%, 0.58%, 0.83%, and 0.94% for the Retirement Class, Institutional Class, Administrative Class, and Investor Class, respectively, through August 31, 2022.
An amended and restated Statement of Additional Information will be available for the Fund on the Effective Date.
Harbor Global Leaders Fund
Effective immediately the following information replaces the corresponding information on page 52 of the Statement of Additional Information.
Harbor Global Leaders Fund. The Fund is subadvised by Sands Capital Management, LLC (“Sands Capital”). Sands Capital is an independent investment management firm, ultimately controlled by Frank M. Sands, Sands Capital’s CEO and CIO. Frank M. Sands controls Sands Capital by virtue of his position as, among other things, trustee, manager, or officer, respectively, of various intermediate holding entities and trusts through which voting or management rights with respect to Sands Capital are held and/or exercised.
Investors Should Retain This Supplement For Future Reference
S0521.SAI

… Fidelity's holding period to avoid early redemption fees is 60 days, compared to Schwab's 90 days.
Thanks @carew388,
That’s an unexpected issue for me. I shuffle a fair amount of $$ around at TRP (and Invesco). Not selling entire fund - just adding or subtracting. During periods like March & April 2020 you want to be moving from less aggressive into more aggressive funds. Usually abide by a self imposed 30 day rule - in addition to TRP’s own 30-day block.
*Question: Is that early redemption fee only applied to the most recent shares bought? First in / first out perhaps? Makes a heck of a difference!
I did find this …..
“Fidelity charges a short-term trading fee each time you sell or exchange shares of a FundsNetwork NTF fund held less than 60 days. This fee does not apply to Fidelity funds, money market funds, FundsNetwork Transaction Fee funds, FundsNetwork load funds … “
That’s good news. But still trying to figure out whether first in / first out applies in the NTF cases.
Ahhh … Fidelity sounds fine (as does Schwab). Fido has a lot of good funds of its own - and there’s no short term trading fee. Used to play around with their sector funds when younger.
I’ve dealt with TRP for 25 years. Their online system is great 99% of the time. Pretty slick. But the method of switching over to electronic delivery is a bit gimped up. My talk with them today reminds me of the old line: A man said to the Universe … “Sir, I exist …”

Having gone through this exercise a few years ago when vanguard unfairly dropped their decently integrated banking services, I was on the verge of moving to Fidelity and hit 2 roadblocks :
1. their may be some funds that are restricted from transfer, probably the good ones. (e.g., admiral and primecap for vanguard). serious golden handcuffs.
2. the moved funds may not count towards your asset limit to get the best benefits. in which case, you may have to move cash-like assets, or worse, realize tax gains just to get a similar holding.
in the end, i had to open a conventional online bank account with needed services (capital1 , a nightmare in itself since it took almost 9 months to set up due to repeated administrative hassles)
let us know if there is a silver bullet solution.

Here’s a list of the 50 largest houses. Some are load-based. Any stand out as worthy of consideration? The number on the right references total number of distinct fund offerings.
SOURCE
Retail Net Assets # of distinct funds
1 Fidelity Investments $984,173,589,258 315
2 Vanguard Group $962,331,327,507 148
3 American Funds $956,584,547,987 42
4 Franklin Templeton Investments $377,385,331,414 122
5 T. Rowe Price & Co. $345,725,591,811 110
6 Columbia Management $167,493,529,444 140
7 Dodge & Cox $126,826,526,974 5
8 OppenheimerFunds $125,473,946,434 72
9 John Hancock Funds $119,789,419,458 225
10 Pacific Investment Management Co. $118,411,876,036 73
11 Invesco Ltd. $95,323,126,745 92
12 BlackRock Inc. $90,785,119,662 116
13 Janus Capital Group $84,717,855,431 48
14 American Century Investments $71,948,919,961 86
15 MFS Investment Management $71,059,542,832 74
16 Lord Abbett & Co. $66,647,971,069 42
17 ING Retirement $58,294,891,374 150
18 Wells Fargo Advantage Funds $48,938,991,118 101
19 Putnam Investments $48,697,487,901 79
20 AllianceBernstein Inc. $48,012,344,847 74
21 Eaton Vance Corp. $45,749,419,375 91
22 DWS Investments $43,664,723,778 67
23 JPMorgan Funds $43,495,216,232 108
24 USAA $41,901,152,367 41
25 Legg Mason Inc. $40,997,886,898 87
26 Hartford Mutual Funds $39,801,202,624 81
27 Dreyfus Funds $35,223,057,365 105
28 Ivy Funds $34,953,774,009 30
29 First Eagle Funds $34,849,628,600 5
30 Northern Funds $34,626,707,067 51
31 Schwab Funds $34,218,636,841 47
32 Principal Funds $33,220,356,251 63
33 Prudential Investments $32,560,310,174 44
34 Thornburg Investment Management $30,706,861,162 16
35 Royce Funds $30,583,106,754 30
36 Russell Investments $29,943,773,637 39
37 Artisan Funds $28,990,199,955 12
38 Federated Investors $27,512,268,214 66
39 Goldman Sachs Asset Management $26,350,742,126 72
40 Pioneer Investments $24,616,061,833 37
41 Davis Funds $24,203,544,825 8
42 Natixis Funds $22,552,861,400 28
43 Oakmark Funds $22,312,816,162 7
44 Waddell & Reed Inc. $21,894,219,733 22
45 VALIC $20,406,552,997 45
46 TIAA-CREF $20,067,405,527 50
47 Nuveen Investments $19,271,984,888 106
48 Delaware Investments $18,747,941,089 64
49 Vantagepoint Funds $18,216,359,065 29
50 MainStay Funds $18,123,576,513 43
Source: Morningstar

Thanks for your figures. Now I can be more specific to your particular "what if". Since I'm still making estimates, feel free to adjust the calculations as needed.
For the sake of argument, let's assume that your SS benefits are 50% taxable. (It could be as high as 85%.) Let's also assume that you're working part time until age 70 so that we don't have too many different intervals to compute.
Finally, let's assume a fed marginal tax rate of 22% and a state marginal rate of 6% for a combined 28% rate. We have to pick some figure to work with to make this concrete.
I gather from your followup that you need an extra $20K/year (after tax) over and above your part time income for your expenses until you fully retire (assumed age 70). The fact that you'd be drawing from your IRA for this money suggests no money in taxable accounts - since that's what conventional wisdom says to deplete first.
So if you defer benefits, you'll need to draw $27,778/year from the IRA. (72% of this gives $20K post tax).
OTOH, if you take benefits at age 67, you'll get to "bank" $14,028/year, assuming you bank it in that same deductible T-IRA:
$35K pre-tax SS benefits = $20K for expenses + $14,028 to IRA + $972 taxes
[ net taxes = tax on SS benefits - tax savings on deductible IRA contribution
$972 = (28% x 1/2 x $35K) - (28% x $14,028) = $4,900 - $3,928]
So from age 67 to age 70, you're either reducing your IRA by $27,778/year or growing it by $14,028. That's a difference of $41,806/year for three years. In pretax dollars. In post-tax dollars (72%), that's $30.1K.
I already explained how to account for the growth of this amount in an earlier post in this thread. So I'll just give the results here:
Expected value of $30.1K (post-tax) difference/year over three years: $104K (portfolio visualizer), $93K in real (inflation adjusted) dollars.
After age 70, if you've deferred SS, you'll be receiving 132%/108% x $35K, roughly $42.8K/year.
Compared with the $35K you'd get by starting at age 67, that's a $7.8K/year difference pre-tax, real dollars. Post tax, the difference is $7.8K - (28% x $7.8K x 1/2) = $6.7K/year.
The extra savings and growth ($93K real dollars to age 70) that you get by taking SS at age 67 can on average be expected to cover this $6.7K shortfall through age 87 (portfolio visualizer).
That's a tad under what the new RMD table1 (single life) gives as the expected lifetime (88.2) for someone now age 67.
The comment "by the way your dead at the end anyway" suggests that you're not giving much weight to the risk of loss once you're dead, since, well, you're dead anyway. OTOH, the risk of having less money while you're alive is going to matter. A risk averse person who values these two risks (dying before "breaking even", and living "too long") differently will tend to make the choice that reduces the more important risk.
In addition, the estimate that by deferring benefits one will begin pulling ahead around age 87 is a result subject to wide variations. Maybe the market will not produce 7%/year (the figure I used as input), maybe it will swoon early in your drawdown period. Maybe you'll do much better, maybe you'll do much worse.
In contrast, SS is a steady (inflation adjusted) income stream. All else being equal, the risk averse person will take the sure thing.
A final note on the numbers. The calculations above incorporate the effect of taxes and account for investment growth. Your potential shortfall by taking benefits at age 67 and living to 100 still comes out to nearly triple magnitude you hypothesized: ""$10k, 20k, 30k maybe?" Or maybe $87K (13 x $6.7K, post tax, in real dollars).

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/915802/000139834421010939/fp0065552_497.htm
497 1 fp0065552_497.htm
FINANCIAL INVESTORS TRUST: GRANDEUR PEAK FUNDS
GRANDEUR PEAK EMERGING MARKETS OPPORTUNITIES FUND
GRANDEUR PEAK GLOBAL REACH FUND
(Each, a “Fund,” and together, the “Funds”)
SUPPLEMENT DATED MAY 17, 2021 TO THE SUMMARY PROSPECTUS AND
PROSPECTUS OF THE FUNDS DATED AUGUST 31, 2020,
AS SUPPLEMENTED FROM TIME TO TIME
Effective as of the close of business on May 28, 2021, the Grandeur Peak Emerging Markets Opportunities Fund will no longer accept purchases, from new or existing investors, through financial intermediaries unless the purchase is part of:
● a retirement plan which held the Fund prior to this closure,
● an automatic reinvestment of a distribution made by the Fund, or
● a de minimis annual rebalancing approved by a member of the Grandeur Peak client team.
Also, effective as of the close of business on May 28, 2021, the Grandeur Peak Global Reach Fund will close to new investors seeking to purchase shares of the Fund through third party intermediaries subject to certain exceptions for financial advisors with an established position in the Fund and participants in certain qualified retirement plans with an existing position in the Fund.
The Funds remain open to purchases directly from Grandeur Peak Funds by existing investors and by new investors.
The Funds retain the right to make exceptions to any Fund closure or limitation on purchases.
INVESTORS SHOULD RETAIN THIS SUPPLEMENT FOR FUTURE REFERENCE

"But why stress over that choice? Whats the + or - going to be, $10k, 20k, 30k maybe? A piddly amount in the scheme of things?"
Here's a quick look at the magnitude of the risk, worst case. According to SSA, the average retiree monthly check (as of Dec 2020) is $1,544. That is likely less than what the average PIA (primary insurance amount - amount one would get at normal retirement age) is, because so many people take SS benefits early. For our back-of-the-envelope purposes, $1600 seems like a reasonable amount to use for the typical full retirement monthly benefit.
Someone born in 1954 retiring in 2021 (age 67) would receive 108% of PIA if they started benefits at age 67, and 132% of PIA if they waited until age 70.
https://www.ssa.gov/benefits/retirement/planner/1943-delay.html
https://www.ssa.gov/benefits/retirement/planner/delayret.html
So we can compare a benefit of $1728/mo for an extra 36 months to a benefit of $2112/mo starting at age 70. Worst case if delaying is 36 x $1728 = $62,208 (dying right before turning 70). If we use 100 years old as an upper bound on living, the "worst" case (living too long) of not delaying is:
lost extra income over 30 years minus gained extra income over first three years =
30 years x 12mo/year x ($2112 - $1728) - $62,208 = $138,240 - $62,208 = $76,032.
That's about 2.5x as big a variation as suggested. But that's not the key point. The key point is that by deferring benefits risk of a lower cash flow in very old age is being reduced, and risk reduction has real value. At least for the risk averse.
(FWIW, one of my grandparents lived to near 100, and while 1 in 4 aren't the best odds, it's enough to offer hope and for me to use age 100 for my own planning purposes.)
In short, the piddly (or not so piddly) variation in possible legacies may pale in comparison to the value of the risk reduction achieved should one have the "bad luck" of living a long life.

@bee
FCONX is an ultrashort bond fund....but interesting to compare it to VWINX. It looks like COTZX’s ramp up to higher equity %age in spring-summer of 2020 caused it to shoot past VWINX, after mostly underperforming prior to that (but having less equity than Wellesley?).
I think a lot of people hoped FPACX, and other high cash funds, would behave like this, but the latter has not let go of much of its cash holdings due to inability to “find value in today’s market” or the like.
I may have to consider this as a bond-ish holding appropriate during rising rates/threat of rising rates, similar to how I hold VWINX (I am early 40’s, so can afford to be a little more aggressive like that I suppose).

I charted COTZX against a more "static" conservative allocation fund (FCONX) as well as a VWINX. COTZX seems to have done a great job recently Identifying the March 2020 buying opportunity. I wonder if the fund can manage its high allocation to bonds with the same opportunity.
PV Link

Yes-this was the allocation policy before the 2020 change which established the stock floor at 50%. It's good to see Columbia go back to its original allocation, which differentiated this fund from other allocation funds. I wish they could just stick with the 10% stock floor and stop changing it based on asset inflows, etc !

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/916006/000119312521160629/d159594d497.htm
497 1 d159594d497.htm BRIDGEWAY FUNDS INC
BRIDGEWAY FUNDS, INC.
Small-Cap Growth Fund
Small-Cap Value Fund
Supplement dated May 13, 2021
to the Prospectus and Statement of Additional Information dated October 31, 2020
At a meeting of the Board of Directors (the “Board”) of Bridgeway Funds, Inc. (“Bridgeway Funds”) held on May 13, 2021 (the “Meeting”), the Board unanimously approved a Plan of Reorganization (the “Plan”), providing for: (i) the conversion of the shares of the Small-Cap Growth Fund (the “SCG Fund”) into shares of the Small-Cap Value Fund (the “SCV Fund”) and (ii) the resulting transfer to the SCV Fund of all of the property, assets and goodwill of the SCG Fund (when completed, the “Conversion”). The Board determined that the Plan and Conversion would be in the best interests of the SCG Fund, the SCV Fund, and their respective shareholders. The effect of the Plan and Conversion will be that the SCG Fund shareholders would become shareholders of the SCV Fund.
The Plan will require the approval of the shareholders of the SCG Fund. A special meeting of the shareholders of the SCG Fund is being called for that purpose. Shareholders of the SCG Fund will receive proxy solicitation materials providing them with information about the SCV Fund and Plan. If approved by shareholders of the SCG Fund, the Conversion is expected to take effect on or around the end of the third quarter of 2021. Share purchases of the SCG Fund will no longer be permitted approximately one week prior to the Conversion. Investors should check the Bridgeway Funds’ website (bridgewayfunds.com) for further information.
PLEASE RETAIN THIS SUPPLEMENT FOR FUTURE REFERENCE