Bottom line: I [Ed Slott] believe this will be corrected by IRS to show that the 10-year rule means no required distributions until the end of the 10-year post-death period, and no RMDs will be required for years one through nine. However, RMDs can be taken voluntarily by beneficiaries at any time within the 10 years based on their own tax situations.

I keep looking through the Pub to find a statement that one must take RMDs.
p. 12 says that "if the deceased beneficiary was an eligible beneficiary, any remaining balance in the account must be distributed within 10 years of the beneficiary's date." The Pub then gives an example of how you might use standard RMD calculations for the first nine years without ever saying that you must draw money out this way. This is the example that Ed Slott refers to.
Other Pub writing says more even clearly that you must either start taking RMDs or take full distributions under the 10 year rule:
p. 10: "[Death in 2020] Any ... individual beneficiary of an owner who dies before the required beginning date ... must start taking distributions in 2021 based on his or her life expectancy (or elect to fully distribute the account under the 10 year rule by the end of 2030).
p. 11: "The terms of most IRA plans require individual designated beneficiaries, who are eligible designated beneficiaries, to take required minimum distributions using the life expectancy rules (explained later) unless such beneficiaries elect to take distributions using the ... 10-year rule.
Finally, worth noting is that IRS Pubs are just writing for the masses. They are not regs or legal interpretations of regs. (Though often, the IRS just carbon copies the regs into the Pubs, which defeats the purpose of making the regs clear to the general public.) As Slott notes, "IRS has not yet released official regulations." So it's absurd to think that this Pub could be presenting the IRS interpretation of regs that don't yet exist.
In the immortal words of Douglas Adams:

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

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

Secure Act, Ed Slott article
Regards,
Catch

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

I looked at AVUV awhile back and decided against it. The 2020 drawdown of AVUV was over -42% that took over 12 months to recover. That is somewhat worse than its benchmark, Vanguard small cap value index ETF, VIOV: -37% and 12 months recovery period.

LCB PRBLX's oft-forgotten sister, LCV PARWX is NTF at Fido and the leader of the LCV pack of NTF and/or TF funds over most periods. Have owned the latter since late 2020/early 2021.

Historically, tax changes have been retroactive. They have been effective the year in which they were passed. The only recent exception was the 2017 Tax Cut and Jobs Act, but that became law on Dec 22, 2017.
It's not as though people who might be affected couldn't have already planned for it:

In light of the U.S. presidential election on 3 November 2020, many investors and business owners expecting a liquidity event are focused on the possibility that the current capital gains rate (generally, 23.8 percent) could be subject to significant change, including potentially taxing long-term capital gains at higher ordinary income rates for certain filers. While overarching considerations weigh heavily in the context of voting decisions and private business sales alike, history suggests that, faced with the prospect of a potentially changing federal income tax rate, waiting to see legislative change might foreclose opportunities to realize gains at current favorable rates.
...because tax legislation enacted at any time in 2021 could potentially apply to all transactions occurring in 2021, investors and business owners expecting a liquidity event should consider completing their intended transactions on or before 31 December 2020 if they would like more assurance that they will benefit from the current long-term capital gains rate.

National Law Review, Oct 22, 2020.
https://www.natlawreview.com/article/capital-gains-rate-historical-perspectives-retroactive-changes

Tom Madell article:

-Vanguard index mutual funds and comparable Vanguard ETFs are merely different classes of the exact same fund. Their returns are virtually identical while they have had no capital gain distributions over the last five years. Therefore, there is no particular performance superiority of one over the other.
-An ETF will not always outperform a nearly matched mutual fund. Some ETFs can still sport higher expense ratios than comparable mutual funds. And managed, as opposed to indexed mutual funds, can tilt their portfolios as to sometimes achieve a better return than an ETF which adheres strictly to its benchmark index.
-Mutual funds with a load are typically, but not always, going to show lower fee-adjusted long-term performance than a comparable ETF or mutual fund without a load, although that difference can disappear the longer the mutual fund is held.
-Nowadays, many mutual funds have very low expense ratios, especially non-managed funds.
-Be leery of performance tables that do not take into account a load's effect on performance.
-When comparing an ETF with a mutual fund, investors should look beyond just the conventional fund vs. ETF label. Some apparently similar investment vehicles, even passively managed funds, may have important differences from each other which might favor one investing in a mutual fund, or vice versa.

not-simple-truths-etf-vs-mutual-fund-performance
Screeners:
https://etfdb.com/screener/
https://mutualfunds.com/screener/#etfs-anchor
https://mutualfunds.com/screener/

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

I wonder what would happen if the cap gains hike was retroactive. No incentive to lock in gains at lower rate.

“Private-equity-owned Secure Home Holdings LLC filed for bankruptcy protection after its top-ranking lenders agreed to award themselves the home-security systems business, leaving unsecured creditors owed $110 million unpaid ... Bank lenders are owed, in the aggregate, about $197 million ...”
“The terms are proposed in a ‘prepackaged’ chapter 11 reorganization plan that Secure Home filed Monday, shortly after the Sunday bankruptcy filing. Ballots haven't been cast yet, but top lenders, led by affiliates of Invesco Ltd. , have agreed to cancel part of their debt in exchange for ownership of Secure Home.
“Funds managed by Oaktree Capital Management * mostly own Secure Home, with Ironwood Capital and Alcentra Capital Corp. as minority stakeholders. Oaktree declined to comment.”
The Wall Street Journal, April 27, 2021
* Oaktree Capital Management / The Oaktree Funds specialize in distressed debt and are headed by Howard Marks who is often quoted on the board.

“Top shareholders said they would vote against re-electing key Credit Suisse Group AG board members, a broadside against the bank’s leadership following a $5.5 billion loss from hedge fund Archegos Capital Management.
“At the bank’s annual meeting this Friday, Harris Associates* and Norges Bank Investment Management said they would vote against the reappointment of Andreas Gottschling, chairman of the bank’s risk committee. Mr. Gottschling joined the board in 2017 from the top risk job at Austria’s Erste Group Bank AG.
“David Herro, a partner at Harris Associates with a roughly 8% stake in Credit Suisse, said he would vote against Mr. Gottschling because he was the director in charge of risk.
“Norges, an arm of Norway’s central bank that runs its sovereign oil fund, owns around 3% of Credit Suisse. It said it would also oppose re-electing the lead independent director Severin Schwan, who is chief executive at Roche Holding AG , and Richard Meddings, a veteran British banker who joined the board last year ... Under Swiss rules, more than half of voting shares must go against a Director to block re-election.”
From: The Wall Street Journal - April 27, 2021 - Reported by Margot Patrick
* Since Harris Associates operates the Oakmark Funds, I’ve elected to include this under fund discussions.

Related thread I started back Nov 2020 when I sold my home. Yes, an agent is probably a necessity, but that doesn't mean you can't shop for the best value. It is a seller market and inventory is scarce...that should help you set the terms.
My agent split a 4 % commission with the buyer's agent. They list and manage all of the offers and there will be multiple offers.
I will say my 36 year old house was move in ready. I spent 3 months preparing the house for sale. It sold in one week...over asking. A good realtor will guide you through the process and maximize your profit.
https://mutualfundobserver.com/discuss/discussion/57098/your-home-is-not-an-investment#latest

"The soon-to-be-announced tax hike will treat those investment gains as wages for top earners and applies only to about 500,000 households, according to Brian Deese, who runs Biden's policy-writing National Economic Council."
***************************
And when will the SS cap be removed??????????? Shit.......

Just posted today:
"By Andrea Shalal and Trevor Hunnicutt, WASHINGTON (Reuters) -
President Joe Biden's forthcoming capital gains tax hike proposal would affect only a 0.3% slice of U.S. taxpayers, a top economic aide said on Monday.
Biden is set this week to propose nearly doubling taxes on capital gains to 39.6% for people earning more than $1 million, Reuters has reported, in what would be the highest tax rate on investment gains since the 1920s.
The soon-to-be-announced tax hike will treat those investment gains as wages for top earners and applies only to about 500,000 households, according to Brian Deese, who runs Biden's policy-writing National Economic Council."

Australia, New Zealand, Thailand & Japan top my list and no I don't think that a rise in the capital gains tax rate on the rich will sink stocks.

@bee - your "image" doesn't include a link to an image.
Below are a couple of links to Portfolio Visualizer; it's easy to tweak the inputs to see how things would go under different assumptions. With my usual qualifications that I'm setting PV up to run a simplistic, normal distribution model that bears only a passing resemblance to reality.
SS adjusts payments for inflation, so the calculations are in real, 2021 dollars. The cited article says that (in 2021 dollars) taking SS at age 62 for this person would pay $2060/mo, while waiting until age 70 would pay $3643/mo.
Thus, if one takes the money starting at age 62 and invests it, then starting at age 70 that nestegg would have to provide (in 2021 dollars) $1583/mo (the difference) until death for the same income. If you run out of nestegg money before death you lose - you draw only $2060 rather than $3643 from that point until death. If there's anything left of the nestegg when you die, you win. What's left over is your bonus.
I've set up the accumulation phase (age 62-70) to contribute $2060/mo, inflation adjusted. I've set inflation at 2%, 0 volatility, and rate of return at 7% with 12% volatility (about that of VWELX). Make sure to check the inflation adjusted box at the bottom of the graph (to get the value in 2021 dollars rather than nominal 2029 dollars). Mouse over the graph to get the age 70 value after 8 years.
You've got a 50/50 chance (50th percentile) of doing better or worse than about $235K.
For the age 70+ phase, you have to withdraw a net $1583 as explained above. Again, I've used 2% inflation, 0% volatility, 7% rate of return, 12% volatility. And I took the $235K from the accumulation phase as the starting portfolio value.
This will show you how long your nestegg might last - will it outlast your life (you win) or will it run out early (you lose)? It depends on the parameters you pick, what you expect your lifetime to be, and what percentile of likely outcomes you choose to look at.

PV Accumulation Phase
PV Age 70+ Phase (up to age 100)

@Baseball_Fan are you doing the class action lawsuit as filed by Rosen Law Firm? If you are, I am trying to figure out how to fill out the section under purchases and sales. I bought IQDAX in October of 2020 and sold some of it in January of 2021. The only categories for those transactions are common stock, bonds, preferred stock, puts, and calls. Since it is a mutual fund it falls under none of those categories. Also, do you happen to know that if we don't join a class action lawsuit, it is possible we would get none of our money back? Thanks for any input.

Another tidbit from Barron’s:
“The average institutional equity fund, which includes mutual funds and capital ETFs, Is now holding a relatively low 4% of its portfolio in cash, according to Bank of America, which says a figure any lower would be a signal to sell, while an increase to 5% would indicate a buy.”
(Barron’s April 26, 2021)
“Buy? Sell?” / Commentary from BOA is obviously a subjective opinion.

“In Schwab‘s recent earnings release, capital CEO Walt Bettinger noted that client activity exceeded anything the company had ever experienced. And some days, the brokerage firm handled as many as 10 million trades and 15,000,000 logins across its website and mobile platforms. The market volatility even attracted more investors - rather than scaring them away. A Schwab survey found that 15% of all current U.S. stock investors first began treating in 2020.”
(Schwab’s stock price has risen 27% YTD.)
From: The Striking Price: Sharp Swings Favor Schwab
Steven M. Sears, writing in Barron’s, April 26, 2021