I have been using Firstrade for years and happy with service overall. I can confirm that they do charge loads for load funds, but I still find they have the best selection of funds being offered at NTF AND institutional shares at low minimums in some cases.

Firstrade is great for access to shares that you can't get elsewhere. I used it for years to get Franklin-Templeton's lower cost Advisor class shares.
While it's not as bare bones as it was when I was a customer, it's still not a brokerage I'd use as my primary institution. It doesn't make ATM reimbursements (and charges foreign transaction fees except for one per month), and has check printing fees, ACAT transfer fees, and limited phone hours (M-F). They don't seem to offer mobile deposits. IMHO none of which is significant for a secondary brokerage.
The main question in my mind is how long the free fund trading will last. I'm repeating myself here: we've seen similar programs sent off to the dustbin of history including Welltrade, Scottrade, and Scudder Retirement Plus. Though even if it brings back its $9.95 charge per trade, that's little more than a nuisance fee and not much more than the $5 that Fidelity charges for incremental investments in TF funds.

@Mark

you speak as though she is deceiving/conning her investors and stealing their money.

No, I'm not. Don't put words in my mouth. I am speaking about a structural problem that has existed in the mutual fund and ETF industry since the beginning. This agency problem exists at any fund where there is a conflict of interest between the manager seeking to gather more assets and collect fees for himself/herself at the expense of fund shareholders. It's not a con, but it is a persistent problem that has often manifested itself especially with trendy niche funds. This phenomenon is nothing new. The irony is John Bogle spoke about it for decades in biblical terms, citing the roots of the fiduciary principal in the Gospel of Matthew: "No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other." In the fund industry he felt those two masters were the profit seeking fund management company and the fund investors, whose interests were often not aligned. It's the reason he created Vanguard with its quasi-non-profit structure. He wanted to eliminate the agency problem and have funds serve only fund shareholders. Unfortunately, the industry is fairly far from his original vision today. As for whether investors are capable of recognizing the risks of hot niche strategies, history has shown again and again that many are not. The tempation to performance chase is too great. I think 2020/2021's chasing after stocks like Game Stop is more than ample evidence that performance chasing persists. And when the music stops, the least sophisticated investors often get burned. What is irksome especially in this case is that this behavior is presented somehow as a godly pursuit. That and the extraordinary trendiness of companies with valuations exceeding many of those in the dotcom bubble with a portfolio p-e of 120: https://morningstar.com/etfs/arcx/arkk/portfolio For those that don't understand the risks this could end badly. The more trendy, faddish, narrowly focused, high cost and aggressive a fund is, the less like a fiduciary that puts his/her shareholders best interests first a manager seems.

That says that Moodys is sticking to its guns, having predicted 4.5% based on last month's data (CPI-W through June). However, unless you expect deflation in the next couple of months (Aug, Sept figures), the Moody's figure is too low.
Assuming no inflation for the months of August and September (and also no deflation), the 3Q average CPI-W for 2021 would be 267.789 (i.e. the July figure), and the 3Q 2020 average is 253.412.
https://www.ssa.gov/oact/STATS/cpiw.html
That would make the COLA adjustment 5.67% since 267.789/253.412 = 1.0567.
To get a 4.6% COLA, prices in Aug and Sept would have to average 1.5% lower than July prices. For example, prices could drop 1% between July and Aug, and drop another 1% between Aug and Sept (i.e. 2% below July prices). This doesn't pass the laugh test.
It is true that the CPI-W M/M increases are moderating. Prices went up 0.91% from April to May, and 1.06% from May to June, but only 0.52% from June to July. If this deceleration continues, August prices could be the same as July's, and September's could be 0.5% lower. Still not enough of a drop for Moody's projection.
I'm not so interested in SS COLA, as there's nothing one can do about that. Besides, it's a nullity in terms of real dollars. But one has a choice about whether to buy some I-bonds. For this, it would be helpful to get a handle on the upcoming 6 month adjustment.
Even if Moody's is right and inflation, whether CPI-U or CPI-W, is running around "only" 4.6% through Sept, that would mean that I-bonds purchased now would average a 4.6% rate of return for a year. Can't find a better 100% secure place to park cash for a year or more.

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1444822/000119312521252724/d210667d497.htm
497 1 d210667d497.htm AQR RISK PARITY II MV FUND
AQR FUNDS
Supplement dated August 20, 2021 (“Supplement”)
to the Class I Shares, Class N Shares and Class R6 Shares
Summary Prospectus, Prospectus
and Statement of Additional Information, each dated May 1, 2021, as amended, of the AQR Risk Parity II MV Fund (the “Fund”)
This Supplement updates certain information contained in the Summary Prospectus, Prospectus and Statement of Additional Information. Please review this important information carefully. You may obtain copies of the Fund’s Summary Prospectus, Prospectus and Statement of Additional Information free of charge, upon request, by calling (866) 290-2688, or by writing to AQR Funds, P.O. Box 2248, Denver, CO 80201-2248.
At a meeting held on August 19-20, 2021, the Board of Trustees (the “Board”) of AQR Funds (the “Trust”) approved a proposal to liquidate the Fund. Among other things, the Fund was not viable on an ongoing basis. Accordingly, effective 4:00 P.M. (Eastern time) on October 13, 2021, the Fund will no longer accept orders from new investors or existing shareholders to purchase Fund shares.
On or about October 13, 2021, AQR Capital Management, LLC, the Fund’s investment adviser, intends to begin liquidating the Fund’s assets in an orderly manner in advance of the Liquidation Date (as defined below), with the Fund’s commodities exposure potentially being liquidated in advance of this general liquidation. Proceeds from the liquidation of the Fund’s assets will be held in cash and similar instruments pending distribution to shareholders. As a result, the Fund may deviate from its investment strategies and policies and cease to pursue its investment objective. The Fund may incur transaction costs from liquidating portfolio holdings and performance may be adversely affected from holding cash and similar instruments.
The Fund has declared two dividends to occur prior to the Liquidation Date (as defined below), a special distribution to all holders of record as of August 30, 2021 and a second distribution to all holders of record as of November 1, 2021, collectively consisting of any undistributed income and capital gains (net of available capital loss carryovers). On or about November 5, 2021 (the “Liquidation Date”), the Fund will make a liquidating distribution of its remaining assets proportionately to any shareholders holding shares on the Liquidation Date. The Fund will then be terminated as series of the Trust. Shareholders may redeem their Fund shares or exchange their shares into shares of another series of AQR Funds, subject to any restrictions in the Fund’s Prospectus, at any time prior to the Liquidation Date.
The liquidation of the Fund is expected to have tax consequences for a taxable shareholder. Any final capital gain dividend will be treated as long-term capital gain, and any final income dividend will be taxable as ordinary income, or as qualified dividend income to the extent of the Fund’s income that so qualifies (which is taxed at the same preferential tax rate as long-term capital gain). The Fund’s final liquidating distribution will result in capital gain or loss to the receiving shareholder. Shareholders should consult their tax advisors concerning their tax situation and the impact of the liquidation and/or exchanging to a different fund has on their tax situation.
We appreciate your investment in the AQR Funds. For more information, please contact the Trust at (866) 290-2688.
PLEASE RETAIN THIS SUPPLEMENT FOR YOUR FUTURE REFERENCE

Looks like BG launched another China equities fund BGCBX, not to be confused with their China A equities fund BCANX which they launched at the beginning of 2020.

I can't say how much BG is getting per dollar under management. But I can address the capacity question.
As of August 31, 2020, the two BG fund managers at the time (Anderson and Coutts) were managing a bit less than $110B, including four mutual funds, around a half dozen pooled investments, and nearly two score other accounts. Of that, over half, $57B, came from the Vanguard fund. And the Vanguard fund accounted for nearly all the money that carried performance-based fees.
Data is from SAI, p. B-70 (pdf p. 80)
https://personal.vanguard.com/pub/Pdf/sai023.pdf?2210175721
Vanguard is not adding to the management burden, it is the management burden for this strategy.
I suppose BG could subadvise for a different family instead and charge more. With Vanguard they can be reasonably confident that the fund will not push more money at them than they feel they can handle. Vanguard would either add another investment management firm or close the fund, immediately. (None of this "we're closing the fund in two months" at Vanguard.)
As an example of what could happen with other families is what happened at IVINX two decades ago. The fund wanted to reopen. The subadvisor and original manager, Hakan Castegren, felt capacity limited. The fund reopened over his objections and he walked away. Sometimes, money isn't everything. Shocking. :-)
https://www.morningstar.com/articles/7158/ivy-international-replaces-castegren-with-former-scudder-kemper-manager

A year that has rewarded those who have simply enjoyed the ride.....

The gains are smaller, befitting a less hysterical year. When the S&P 500 Index has risen in 2021, the daily increase has been half what it was in 2020. But in terms of persistent, day-after-day gains, these seven months in the U.S. stock market have few historical precedents.
Over the last century, there has been just one other year when the benchmark set more high-water marks by this point in the summer -- in 1964.

Slow Slog
Plus, an optimistic view going forward:

What’s keeping stocks aloft? As usual, the answer is corporate America’s earnings machine.
...the equity market is not the economy. If you compare the two, the equity market has massive technology in it, a lot less small-caps. Those earnings are super defensive to a no-GDP-growth scenario.”
In the eyes of analysts who follow individual companies, profit growth is set to slow, but at roughly 10% in each of the next two years, that would still top the historic rate of 6% annually.
Profit margins, which just reached a record high, are expected to increase over the next years, analyst estimates compiled by Bloomberg Intelligence show.
To Paulsen, chief investment strategist at Leuthold, this boom cycle is just starting.

S&P 500 Snubbing Dire View

Here's the relevant data presented in the opinion column:
"consumer prices rose a lot less in July than they did in June."
At least that's two data points (July and June inflation figures) as opposed to the single data point that the Senior Citizens League seems to have used. Though hard numbers, even just those two, would have been informative.
In addition, since COLA is calculated using the consumer price "shadows", it really doesn't matter for the purpose of projecting COLA what the shadows represent. All that matters is how the shadows are flickering along the wall.
For a 3% COLA, the consumer price shadows (CPI-W) observed in August and September will have to average 3.8% lower than in July. That is, the CPI-W figure for July is 267.789, and the August and September values will have to average 257.628 (3.8% lower).
It's a simple calculation:
Avg CPI-W = (Aug 2021 + Sept 2021)/2 = [(July 2020 + Aug 2020 + Sept 2020) x 1.03 - July 2021]/2
https://www.ssa.gov/oact/STATS/cpiw.html

I've also migrated much of my portfolio to ETFs. Each year I start a new spreadsheet with the expected distributions. The mutual funds is a big guess, but I look at the past few years for a ballpark number.
As the year goes by and taxable money comes in, I replace my guesses with the actual numbers. I still guess between qualified and regular dividends.
By the end of the year, thanks to the kind folks here at MFO, I find out what the fund companies are estimating.
I might sell at gains during the year, but it is starting in November when I make my final plans on what I sell. Seems to work for me.

We migrated to index funds and ETFs in order to minimize large capital gains distribution. So far so good, but we still pay tax on dividends.

M* warns of a couple funds that might have biggies...
https://www.morningstar.com/articles/1052941/4-funds-to-watch-at-tax-time?utm_source=eloqua&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter_fundspy&utm_content=31014
Disclaimer: With 96% of our nest egg in tax-deferred a/c's, CGs are NOT an issue for us.

Mackenzie Scott's "384 Ways to Help," posted December 2020 on her Twitter account:
https://mackenzie-scott.medium.com/384-ways-to-help-45d0b9ac6ad8

Ben ,one option is to ACH transfer the Vanguard funds to E-Trade, as Vanguard funds are ntf at E-Trade. As a former client , their customer service isn't great but it's better than Vanguard. A second consideration is how long will this arrangement last, given that E-Trade is now part of Morgan Stanley ? I left E-Trade once T Rowe Price funds became available ntf at Schwab, Fido and Vanguard.

Thanks. My investments in Vanguard funds are from pre-brokerage days. I hold these directly in a non-retirement account bypassing the brokerage. I don't think ACH is available this situation. One would have to first sell all shares and of course pay income tax on the gains.
I do own shares in one T Rowe Price fund. I didn't need a brokerage to do this. I just invested directly. And T Rowe customer service has been splendid. I know some people are not having not-so-good experience with this but I got lucky I guess.

... general statements:
1. In order to calculate the cost basis for inherited real estate, you will use either the value of the property on the date of the original owner's death, or a date selected by the executor no later this six months after the death.
2. The basis of an inherited home is generally the Fair Market Value (FMV) of the property at the date of the individual's death. If no appraisal was done at that time, you will need to engage the help of a real estate professional to provide the FMV for you. There is no other way to determine your basis for the property
>>> Given that there may be a variety of documents in place to legally allow the inheritance of real real estate; my question is more related to:
----- are there real estate specialists who provide a legal value assessment for tax purposes; and/or are there other methods or individuals who are also legally qualified.
ALSO that capital gains taxation/estate tax varies by state; but this topic is directed to federal capital gains taxation
Thank you if you are able to provide guidance in this area; either from personal experience or definitive links to information.
NOTE: A go to I use for many items to help with information about whatever, is a YouTube search. I have not yet done this. But, if you have a useful YouTube link, please provide.
Hopefully, this topic area will be of help many others here, too.
Regards,
Catch

Prior annual report, May31,2020 shows 14% in short term investments. @rabockma1 : you're correct that it does better on the drop !
Derf

The issue with credit card companies and race seems not to be one currently of gouging with higher interest rates like payday lenders but who companies are offering credit to at all. My reading indicates that many minorities and African Americans especially don't have access to credit cards at all, often because fewer are home owners and don't have established credit histories. That's despite the fact that many might have established reliable histories as renters card companies could investigate if they chose. It's not so much racism of usury it seems but of exclusion altogether. This explains the issue rather well:
https://forbes.com/advisor/credit-cards/from-inherent-racial-bias-to-incorrect-data-the-problems-with-current-credit-scoring-models/
And this too: https://morningconsult.com/2019/06/03/access-to-cheap-money-has-a-racial-gap/

For more detail and additional issues: National Fair Housing Alliance, Discriminatory Effects of Credit Scoring on Communities of Color, 2012
There seems to be a lack of clarity in what people mean by "credit card companies". There are networks and brands (e.g. VISA, Mastercard) and there are credit card issuers (banks).
Discover is unique in that it operates its own network and is the exclusive issuer of cards, unlike Amex, and certainly unlike VISA and Mastercard that are only networks. Fidelity Amex Card was issued by FIA card services, a division of Bank of America. So before knocking American Express, check the back of your card to see who issued it.
It is generally the issuing banks, not the networks, that establish the criteria for credit, sets the rates, and charges consumers fees (late fees, annual fees, service fees, on and on). All based on nominally neutral scores and factors that are anything but.
One of Lewis' links contained a link to Discover's 2019 CRR. Here's the current 2020 version: https://www.corporatereport.com/discover/2020/crr/index.php

Thanks for giving examples of what bothers you. Some I agree with, some are beyond Vanguard's control, and some don't fall under the rubric "poorly designed and inefficient".
[snip]
Research facilities are clunky and barebones - I completely agree that Vanguard doesn't provide useful fund search tools (poorly designed site in this respect, since the info is there, just not easy to get to). Then again, I wouldn't use Fidelity's fund search tool or that of any brokerage for a new search. YMMV.
I don't use Fidelity's fund screener as my primary research tool.
However, I have discovered a few good funds via Fidelity's tool that I was previously unaware of.
I'm not asking for much in the way of research tools, but it would be nice if Vanguard offered a good fund screener.
[snip]
"Balances and holdings" view of data different from "account overview" view of data - These have a relatively small amount of data in common (current price and holdings), but otherwise differ in content and purpose.
The pages reached via "account overview" provide lots of data in addition to price and holdings (YTD/1/3/5/10 year returns, SEC yield) but only as of the current (or standardized) moment in time. The pages reached via "balances and holdings" provide only the price and holdings, but at multiple moments in time.
Where I think the "modern" layout erred was in including divs and capital gains data under "Holdings." These data belongs under "Activity" as they are historical. In fact, you can find them under the Activity tab, and filter for them using the Transaction Type select box.
When I login, the "normal" Account View is displayed. The second part of each example above refers to navigating the menu under "My Accounts". You're missing the larger point that page layouts are completely different. I can't think of a good reason to implement totally different page layouts for the same (or similar) data.
Two different presentations of transaction/activity/history data- Unlike the other example, here the two sets of pages really are presenting "the same (or essentially same) data".
Some people like the ability to choose a layout, especially a "classic" (what you call "dated") layout that they're accustomed to. Others, as you wrote can get confused by having too many (read: more than one) choice.
It might have been better had Vanguard provided a mode setting for the website: "new" vs. "classic". Though given Vanguard's inability to support a "new" (brokerage platform) and "classic" (fund platform) simultaneously I have doubts about their ability to implement a mode setting.
I never wrote that others can get confused; I said it can be distracting.
It would have been better if Vanguard provided "new" and "classic" views.
Personally, what I care about is functionality and ease of use for buying/selling/exchanging mutual funds (including the ability to cancel orders). Not research, and not nightly updates by 9PM ET. Sure the website could be better, though.
Functionality and ease of use are also my two primary concerns.
I don't expect a vast array of research tooIs but a good fund screener would be nice to have.
Although Vanguard has many other strengths, their website could be improved.

Thanks for giving examples of what bothers you. Some I agree with, some are beyond Vanguard's control, and some don't fall under the rubric "poorly designed and inefficient".
Going one by one, and recognizing that what matters to some doesn't matter to others:

• Inconsistent holdings data (balances), varying by page - I haven't experienced this, but then again I don't go into Vanguard's site two different ways in the same session. I'll take your word for this. Sounds like a similar problem to what Fidelity has where one sees updates in one's portfolio view soon after market close, but one has to wait until the wee hours of the morning to see the same account updated on the Full View holdings page. This problem clearly comes under "poorly designed".
  
• Mutual fund orders cannot be cancelled once placed - this is simply not correct. I just tested this by submitting an order on Vanguard's brokerage site and cancelling it a few seconds later.
  
• It can take several days for a non-house fund distribution to show up in an account - I see the same thing at Fidelity, where two funds (different families) make a distribution. One shows up that evening, the other isn't posted for days (though it is backdated). It's likely a matter on the third party fund side, especially since it is the same families repeatedly that I see posted days late at Fidelity.
  
• Inconsistent statistics by page - is this different from the first item, that the holdings data (and hence derived data like asset mix) vary by page?
  
• Research facilities are clunky and barebones - I completely agree that Vanguard doesn't provide useful fund search tools (poorly designed site in this respect, since the info is there, just not easy to get to). Then again, I wouldn't use Fidelity's fund search tool or that of any brokerage for a new search. YMMV.
  A Fidelity-specific problem is that in order to see closed funds (which may be open, just not at Fidelity), you have know it's necessary to include closed funds. Then you have to work to find "include closed funds" checkbox. It's buried under "Fund Features" in full criteria screener.
  More generally, brokerage screeners won't show you funds that the brokerage doesn't carry, unlike MFO or M*. For example, Fidelity's screener doesn't show you Vanguard U.S. Multifactor Fund. But Schwab's screener does, because Schwab sells VFMFX.
  
• Can take up to twelve hours for a trade to post - I see the same thing at Fidelity. The impression I have is that on the fund side, they gather all the orders together and process them in bulk. If that's correct, this would be an example of efficiency, not inefficiency. And not a problem with the website, but an attribute of the in-house fund family.
  
• "Balances and holdings" view of data different from "account overview" view of data - These have a relatively small amount of data in common (current price and holdings), but otherwise differ in content and purpose.
  The pages reached via "account overview" provide lots of data in addition to price and holdings (YTD/1/3/5/10 year returns, SEC yield) but only as of the current (or standardized) moment in time. The pages reached via "balances and holdings" provide only the price and holdings, but at multiple moments in time.
  Where I think the "modern" layout erred was in including divs and capital gains data under "Holdings." These data belongs under "Activity" as they are historical. In fact, you can find them under the Activity tab, and filter for them using the Transaction Type select box.
  
• Two different presentations of transaction/activity/history data- Unlike the other example, here the two sets of pages really are presenting "the same (or essentially same) data".
  Some people like the ability to choose a layout, especially a "classic" (what you call "dated") layout that they're accustomed to. Others, as you wrote can get confused by having too many (read: more than one) choice.
  It might have been better had Vanguard provided a mode setting for the website: "new" vs. "classic". Though given Vanguard's inability to support a "new" (brokerage platform) and "classic" (fund platform) simultaneously I have doubts about their ability to implement a mode setting.

Personally, what I care about is functionality and ease of use for buying/selling/exchanging mutual funds (including the ability to cancel orders). Not research, and not nightly updates by 9PM ET. Sure the website could be better, though.

I'll draw your attention to the chart in the CEF Analyzer link. Click on the 2Yr option and look at April of 2020. If you can handle a $5 drop in market price then explore the other tabs on the website as well. Note also the drop in distributions over time. I'm not saying that it's a bad current holding but I personally would be looking for a larger discount before considering a purchase.

Not that any lender doesn’t have issues but:https://investorrelations.discover.com/newsroom/press-releases/press-release-details/2020/Discover-Releases-Latest-Corporate-Responsibility-Report/default.aspx
https://google.com/amp/s/www.cnbc.com/amp/select/discover-coronavirus-assistance/