Following are excerpts from a current NPR report:

About 8.9% of credit card balances fell into delinquency over the last year, according to the Federal Reserve Bank of New York — a sign that a growing number of borrowers are feeling the strain of rising prices and high interest rates.
"Everything is more expensive. Debt is more expensive. Rent is more expensive. Food, gas, everything," says Charlie Wise, senior vice president at TransUnion, the credit reporting firm. "Even with relatively healthy wage gains we've seen over last several years, many consumers just aren't keeping up with the price pressures."

Maxed-out borrowers are a big concern-
The New York Fed's report shows the pain is not evenly spread. While many households are on solid financial footing, almost 1 in 5 cardholders is "maxed out," using at least 90% of their credit card limit. That's worrisome, the report says, because maxed-out borrowers are much more likely to fall behind on their bills.
People under 30 and those who live in low-income neighborhoods were particularly likely to be maxed out, according to the report. Among Generation Z borrowers, about 1 in 6 was close to exhausting their credit, compared with 4.8% of baby boomers.

Hank, sounds similar to the Capital One card I got a couple years ago. Cap-1 also gave me $200 if you charged 'x' amount in 'y' amount of time. That limit wasn't hard to reach, so a free $200. I try to use this card as my primary means of paying. I think I've accumulated $5-600 cash back so far. I don't travel a lot, other than visiting the kids in Columbus and Pittsburgh. I don't remember any problems.
I used to be a primarily cash person also, but I now find it very handy and useful to have a record of purchases at your finger tips. I also have a MM with Capital One and use that transfer feature to pay off the card monthly, fwiw.
@hank, are you on Credit Karma? There are a bunch of options there for new cards based on your credit score, fwiw. Most with about the same benefits as the Fidelity card you describe. Many will give you a bonus as I described.

When I moved from TD to Schwab in 2020 after the merger was announced, it took a few days for my cost basis / history to populate, but it did. Same thing happened when I transferred that Schwab account into a new Schwab account last fall so I could (re)gain futures access. So just give it a little time during the chaos. (I had exported my TD records to Excel spreadsheet before I moved, just in case.)
For longer-term investors, I think Schwab's site is more useful than TD's -- you never could see your account history/performance @ TD, but you do at Schwab. They have had a few hiccups w/portfolio income reporting in recent weeks, but it seems to have worked out since.
Unfortunately ThinkDesktop's position reporting doesn't always match with the website, but I only use that for charting and options so I don't rely on the portfolio data -- and that was also a problem at TD, too.
On the whole, I'm satisfied w/Schwab. I've had a few enquiries disappear into the ether and their mobile app has a few quirks, but for the most part it's been a decent ride.
BTW for those who track and/or trade IPOs, Schwab isn't the best and rarely has them. Buf it you do want to play, when making your expression of interest always be sure to indicate it's a 'speculative' trade (even if you see it as a 'growth' think) or else their IPO nanny-state minders will deny your request. (It took a few tries, b/c their IPO nanny-state minders were rather coy about how to answer those questions when I was exploring the site back then.)

Reiterating, "Unfortunately, the industry has done a good job of conflating two different concepts: cost basis and share (lot) selection."
Schwab makes total hash of this distinction in the page I quoted. Again reiterating: "This page conflates cost basis (average vs. actual) and selection method, so perhaps it will work, perhaps not."
As you reported, the instructions on that page apparently don't work even though that page includes "average" among its list of several cost basis methods to choose from. The others given are LIFO, FIFO, Low cost, High cost, Tax Lot Optimizer, and Specified lot.
Elsewhere, Schwab does make a stab at differentiating the two concepts (cost basis and selection method), using its own unique terminology:

There are two components of cost basis accounting at Schwab: the Cost Method and the Lot Selection Method.

• The Cost Method determines how to calculate the cost of securities sold to determine gains and losses.
     1) The Average Cost Method calculates the average price for shares bought and sold ...
     2) The Identified Cost Method reflects the actual cost basis for each individual lot bought or sold. ...
  
• The Lot Selection Method determines the order in which lots are selected.
  • First In, First Out (FIFO) ...
    
  • Last In, First Out (LIFO)...
    
  • High-Cost Lot (HCLOT) ...
    
  • Low-Cost Lot (LCLOT)...
    
  • Tax Lot Optimizer™ (TLO)...

https://client.schwab.com/secure/file/P-4705302/APP105445-02-01-fill.pdf
That pdf includes the form you requested of Schwab: "Change the Cost Basis Accounting Method on My Schwab Brokerage Account". One doesn't have to log in to access it, and it appears in its own page (not a popup).
Here's Schwab's full 10 page cost basis disclosure statement, April 2024.
https://www.schwab.com/resource/cost-basis-disclosure-statement

I would wait to check tomorrow or day after your unrealized gains and losses information as cost basis information of your positions, especially the date when a position was opened, is screwed up. E.g., most of my long term gains are shown as short term gains because they used a different date of acquisition. I am told they are going to re-run and fix it overnight tonight.

Schwab did not carryover my cost basis settings and defaulted stocks and ETFs to FIFO and mutual funds to average cost basis. Strangely, the cost basis settings at Schwab look very primitive relative to how they were at TD. I do not see a way to change online the cost basis for mutual funds. Called the rep and was told I have to submit a paper form request to change the default method for mutual funds and once selected, I can not change the method at the time of the trade or otherwise, except through another paper form request.

Unfortunately, the industry has done a good job of conflating two different concepts: cost basis and share (lot) selection.
There are only two cost basis methods: actual basis and average basis. Generally speaking, stocks must use actual basis. (There is an exception for some dividend reinvestment plans, but let's not go there.) FIFO is a way of selecting shares sold; it is not a cost basis method.
If shares are being tracked using average basis, then the oldest shares are automatically sold first (FIFO) - there is no choice. If shares are being tracked using actual cost, then there are a variety of methods to select which shares are sold. You can explicitly indicate which shares you are selling (up to the date of settlement), or you can let the broker select them for you using your chosen algorithm, such as FIFO, HIFO, tax optimization, etc.
In order to change to or from average basis for a mutual fund account holding covered shares, one must submit a change request in writing to the broker. (One cannot change from average cost on uncovered shares without IRS permission.)
https://fairmark.com/investment-taxation/capital-gain/selling-mutual-fund-shares/changing-cost-basis-methods/
Where the rep seems to have gone awry was in telling you that this writing has to be on paper. It can also be an online directive. According to Schwab's website:

To change your default cost basis method, log in to your Schwab.com account and select your account icon in the upper right corner and select Account Settings. This brings up a page where you can change your cost basis method for each of your accounts.

https://www.schwab.com/learn/story/save-on-taxes-know-your-cost-basis
That's dated Feb 9, 2024, so I assume it is current. This page conflates cost basis (average vs. actual) and selection method, so perhaps it will work, perhaps not.

The graphic is set for the 5 days ending May 10, Friday; for the best to worst % returns in select etf categories. One may then also select the one month column to align the one month return best to worst; or for the other listed time frame columns.
ADD an etf performance of your choosing, if you desire. ***
*** Requested ADD: For the week and YTD
--- MINT = +.09% / +2.3% Pimco Ultra Short Term Enhanced Bonds
--- EWW = +2.5% / +.91% (I Shares, Mexico)
MMKT note: Fidelity core mmkt's yields remain basically unchanged this week, having .01% yields downward, with core acct's yields at 4.95% (SPAXX) and 4.98% (FDRXX).
NOTE: The broad U.S. equity and bond sectors finished the week with generally positive performance in many sectors through a very erratic market week. China large cap (FXI etf) , had another week of 'performance+', with a +15.6 YTD; as well as DXJ etf(Japan large cap), which is now +23.9 YTD. Bonds in many sectors ended the total week performance with mixed gains. Bond funds ranged from +.09% to a +.73%, with the ultra short term being the lowest positive (as expected) and the very long term being the best sectors. See the 'graphic' link at the beginning of this write for details of weekly returns.
NEW: 1 week 'heat map' by sectors. This is an interactive graphic. You may hover the computer pointer over the various blocks to view portions of sectors and/or stocks within those sectors. NOTE: to the left of the graphic, one may change the 1 week performance drop down menu to another time frame. Another example: at the left edge of the graphic, select exchange traded funds and then 1 week or a time period of your choice.
Remain curious,
Catch

The JEPI fund managers also run JHEQX which has an inception date of 12/13/2013.
These two funds are not clones.
JEPI is "designed to provide current income while maintaining prospects for capital appreciation."
JHEQX is "designed to provide capital appreciation through a diversified equity portfolio,
while hedging overall market exposure."
With that said, here's a Portfolio Visualizer Backtest for JHEQX, RLBGX, VWENX, and VFIAX.
https://www.portfoliovisualizer.com/backtest-portfolio?s=y&sl=5276rWmbK9uD5mgRq56Fhw

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1414039/000158064224002661/millerconvert_497.htm
497 1 millerconvert_497.htm 497
Ticker Symbol By Class I
Miller Convertible Plus Fund MCPIX
Supplement dated May 10, 2024 to the Fund’s Prospectus, Summary Prospectus, and
Statement of Additional Information (“SAI”), each dated March 1, 2024
This Supplement provides new and additional information beyond that contained in the Prospectus, Summary Prospectus and SAI and should be read in conjunction with the Prospectus, Summary Prospectus and SAI. This Supplement supersedes any information to the contrary in the Prospectus, Summary Prospectus and SAI.
The Board of Trustees of Miller Investment Trust (the “Trust”) has concluded, based upon the recommendation of Wellesley Asset Management Inc., that it is in the best interests of the Miller Convertible Plus Fund (the “Fund”) and its shareholders that the Fund be liquidated. Pursuant to a Plan of Liquidation (the “Plan”) approved by the Board of Trustees, the Fund will be liquidated and dissolved on or about June 10, 2024.
The Fund is closed to all new investments as of May 10, 2024. The Plan provides that the Fund will begin liquidating its portfolio as soon as is reasonable and practicable. The Fund may pursue its stated investment objective until June 10, 2024, but may, at the discretion of the Adviser and in accordance with its Prospectus, liquidate its portfolio prior to June 10, 2024, and invest in cash equivalents such as money market funds until all shares have been redeemed. On or about the close of business on June 10, 2024, the Fund will distribute pro rata all its assets in cash to its shareholders and all outstanding shares will be redeemed and cancelled.
Prior to June 10, 2024, you may redeem your shares, including reinvested distributions, in accordance with the “How to Redeem Shares” section of the Fund’s Prospectus. Unless your investment in the Fund is through a tax-deferred retirement account, you will recognize gain or loss for federal income tax purposes (and for most state and local income tax purposes) on a redemption of your shares, whether as a result of a redemption that you initiate or upon the final liquidating distribution by the Fund, based on the difference between the amount you receive and your tax basis in your shares. The Fund may make one or more distributions of income and/or net capital gains on or prior to June 10, 2024, in order to eliminate Fund-level taxes. Please refer to the “Tax Status, Dividends and Distributions” section in the Prospectus for general information. You may wish to consult your tax advisor about your particular situation. Plan sponsors or plan administrative agents should notify participants that the Fund is liquidating and should provide information about alternative investment options.
You should read this Supplement in conjunction with the Fund’s Prospectus and Statement of Additional Information each dated March 1, 2024 which provide information that you should know about the Fund before investing. These documents are available upon request and without charge by calling the Fund toll-free at 1-877-441-4434. The Prospectus, Summary Prospectus and Statement of Additional Information may be obtained by visiting www.MillerFamilyOfFunds.com. You should retain this Supplement for future reference.

How far does $1M go in to NYC (Manhattan)? Not very. A $50K salary elsewhere would need to be $150K in NYC. Use this Calculator (linked below) to compare costs to where you live now.
cost-of-living/index

Doesn't that figure really depend on where "elsewhere" is? Even Boise, Idaho would cost over 25% more than your base $50K, using the CNN calculator.
And for that matter it also matters where "here" is - Manhattan's population is less than 20% of NYC's; Manhattan's land area is under 8% of NYC's.
According to the same calculator, one would need "only" $87K to live in Queens (another part of NYC) - where 40% more people live than in Manhattan. While that's far from inexpensive, it helps to look at where "real" people live. Queens has the reputation of being NYC's bedroom borough.

Also welcome to extremes..some have...many have not. 25% are millionaire and 20% are below the poverty line.
...
cost-of-living-calculator/city-life/new-york-manhattan-ny

This NerdWallet site is similarly confused about NYC. The URL and the drop down city selector say "Manhattan", and its top line figure, "median salary in New York (Manhattan), NY is:$51,270. Yet in the detail data, it gives the population as 8M (all of NYC) and the average salary per person as $31,417. Hard to tell what "average" means, though I'm guessing it is calculated across the whole city, not just the 1/5 of people living in Manhattan.
Here are some "alternative facts". Directly from the US Census Bureau, the per capita income in NYC (8M people) is $48,066. Since not everyone works, that makes the mean (not median) salary higher than $48K. Another page (SmartAsset) claims that "According to the U.S. Census Bureau’s 2020 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, the average individual income in New York City is $107,000."
The level of poverty in NYC is not good, though it is lower than cities such as Detroit, Laredo, Cincinnati, Memphis, Baton Rouge (all above 25%), Richmond, Miami, Tuscon, Atlanta, Dallas, Columbus (all above 20%). The whole country needs to do better.
100 largest US cities ranked by poverty level (sourced from US Census Bureau)
US metro areas w/highest and lowest poverty rates - Madison Trust Co. analysis of Census Bureau data - percentage of households w/income under $35K (noting that HHS defines poverty line as $30K income).
That last source gives Albany, GA as the 6th poorest metropolitan area. I mention this because that is the baseline area used by CNN/Money (see above) for how far $50K would go in other areas.

Well, NY has about 4% millionaires, but it is still behind Tel Aviv which has about 10%.
https://www.i24news.tv/en/news/israel/economy/1663172527-israel-nearly-1-in-10-tel-aviv-residents-is-a-millionaire-study

FD makes a different apples-to-oranges error. Consistent source (Henley and Partners) cited, but different years. The i24 News piece references the 2022 study which reported 42,400 millionaires in Tel Aviv (detailed data is in Middle East top 5), while the current study reports "only" 24,300. Over a 40% decline.
https://www.henleyglobal.com/publications/wealthiest-cities-2024

Interesting article and the graphics in the article remind me of our MFO graphic:
Morgan Housel:

I think this is the most practical way to think about debt: As debt increases, you narrow the range of outcomes you can endure in life.

how-i-think-about-debt
Also this, from Matt Levine, regarding Debt and "Narrow Banking"

The traditional view of banks is that they have lots of money: They take deposits from their customers, giving them cheap funding that they then use to make corporate loans and mortgages and credit cards and everything else. [1] But when the actual bankers at Barclays think about how to fund their credit cards, they come up with ideas like “ask Blackstone for the money.” Blackstone has lots of money too, but its money comes not from bank depositors — who can withdraw their money at any time — but, in this case, from insurance customers, who have longer-term and more predictable liabilities. This makes Blackstone’s funding safer: Its customers are not going to ask for their money back all at once, the way that Barclays’ customers theoretically might (and the way that some banks’ customers actually have). Everyone knows this, which is why Barclays is subject to strict banking capital requirements, [2] making it expensive for it to do credit-card loans, while Blackstone is not, [3] making it cheaper for it to provide the money for those loans.
I mean, “cheaper” in some sense; Arroyo and Johnson add that “because non-banks have higher costs of funding, consumers and businesses may see loan rates rise.” The traditional view is that non-banks have higher costs of funding than banks: Blackstone’s insurance customers want to earn a juicy return on their investment in risky credit-card assets, while Barclays’ depositors are happy to get a return of 0% on their checking-account balances. It’s just that those cheap deposits are not actually so cheap anymore, when you take into account their risk, and the regulation designed to confine that risk. Barclays is in the traditional business of lulling depositors into lending it money at 0% so it can turn around and lend money to credit-card customers at 20%, but that trick no longer works as well as it used to.
One thing I wonder about is: If you were designing a financial system from scratch, in 2024, would you come up with banking? That central traditional trick of banks — that they fund themselves with safe short-term demand deposits, and use depositors’ money to invest in risky longer-term loans, with all of the run risk and regulatory supervision and It’s a Wonderful Life-ness that that involves — would you recreate that if you were starting over?

Banks-are-still-where-the-money-isn-t

Hopefully, I can explain the situation and my objective.
I have retirement accounts and non-retirement accounts at two institutions. I set this up because I did not want to have all at one institution plus I was able to purchase funds at one that I could not at the other. These dual objectives remain, but as I will explain, two funds are in focus. The below four accounts are all retirement accounts and being that I no longer have earned income, I can no longer contribute to a retirement plan.
Institution A
I am not certain where the names of these accounts came from.
I have a “Rollover Brokerage Account”. I have no problem selling any fund that is currently in this account - $460k current value.
I have a “Roth IRA Brokerage Account” (converted to a Roth many years ago). In this account, I own Artisan International Value (ARTKX) and T. Rowe Price Capital Appreciation (PRWCX) - $501k current value.
Institution B
I am not certain where the names of these accounts came from.
I have a “Rollover IRA Account”. I have no problem selling any fund that is currently in this account - $535k current value.
I have a “Roth Conversion Account” (converted to a Roth many years ago). In this account, I own Artisan International Value (ARTKX) - $176k current value.
As I recall, I have kept some of these fund separate (pure) mainly for asset protection (right or wrong). I believe that the “Rollover IRA Account” in Institution A came from an IRA. I believe the “Rollover Brokerage Account” in Institution B also came from an IRA. I now have an umbrella policy for which the coverage exceeds the value of all my retirement accounts.
My objective is to buy more ARTKX and PRWCX and I can't do this in my “Roth IRA Brokerage Account” at institution A or in my “Roth Conversion Account” in institution B. I could purchase all equity TCAF (which would be fine) without any maneuvering, but that does not address the problem with ARTKX. Either ARTKX or PRWCX can be purchased at A or B and a purchase fee is a non-factor.
I do not see an obvious solution. Combining both Roth accounts does not do anything for me other than allow me to allocate between ARTKX and PRWCX. Combining Traditional IRA's does not do anything for me because I do not own ARTKX or PRWCX in either. I have to check if either of the “Rollover” accounts in A and B are Roth accounts. If so, that would be an answer, but I doubt either are as they do not contain the word “Roth”. That seems to leave a Roth conversion in A or B, which I do not want as I am in a 24% marginal and 18% effective tax bracket, and to purchase a good amount of ARTKX or PRWCX, I would have to Roth an amount that would even put me in a higher tax bracket.
Am I boxed out of purchasing more ARTKX and PRWCX?

@sma3 - I can't argue that about SCHD at all. All I was trying to say originally is that it wasn't paying enough to suit my goals for that type of investment.
When I set out on this path (i.e. dividend growth investor) I was looking for stocks that had a track record of consistent, long-term dividend growth with the opportunity for capital appreciation as a secondary objective. The funds I scoured (many) all seemed to be paying yields that one could easily increase (often substantially) by simply investing in their top-5 or 10 picks. TIBIX was the fund I was using back then but after a few years of doing as advertised, building their income, it stagnated and eventually came to a halt. I wasn't smart enough to figure out why that happened and I wasn't sure any similar fund wouldn't do exactly the same.
As also previously mentioned, I get that it's not everyones cup of tea. I'll also admit that holding my current choices may constrain the capital appreciation aspect but the income continues to increase which was my primary objective.

That's another trick.
CEFs that have managed-distribution policies set an attractive distribution rate. But if that isn't supported by fund income, the difference is ROC - return of capital (i.e. your own money). ROCs aren't taxed on distribution but reduce the cost basis (thankfully, major brokers keep track of this), so when you sell, you end up paying higher tax.
ROCs are final only after the yearend, but the CEFs must report estimated ROC monthly; see April report for FOF. As FOF is a CEF of CEFs, ROCs can be from FOF or the underlying CEFs.
https://assets-prod.cohenandsteers.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/29181236/FOF-Section-19-Notice-Apr-2024.pdf
Have you looked at ETFs of CEFs?
Edit/Add. Interesting that FOF doesn't disclose the ERs attributed to its underlying funds in the usual documents. Its reported fee of 0.95% looks misleading for a CEF of CEFs.

A Basic Guide To Financial Derivatives
Interesting line: ”Most derivatives are margin-powered, meaning you may be able to enter into them putting up relatively little of your own money. This is helpful when you’re trying to spread money out across many investments to optimize returns without tying a lot up in any one place, and it can also lead to much greater returns than you could get with your cash alone.”
Just to illustrate one possible method of boosting a fund distribution (in this case by a CEF I own):
* ”The Fund may pay distributions in excess of its net investment company taxable income, and this excess would be a retum of capital distributed from the Fund's assets.” FOF Fact Sheet
Technically a “distribution” is not a ”dividend”. But taken at a glance may at first appear so.
Watch out! @Crash! Be sure to read the fine print. :)
I think it was Marty Zweig who said, “It’s treacherous out there.”

An article from Barrons with apologies for any paywall(s) encountered.
However, from the comments section there was this posted by a reader (not I):
"A quote from the article:
“It’s been a challenging market for dividend investing,” says one of those managers,"
Yes. It's very challenging to beat the no brainer bread & butter SP500 Index. Which way is better :
1) Buying a dividend paying fund & holding for the long run? or
2) Buying the no brainer bread & butter SP500 index & withdraw the % yield difference, & hold for the long run?
Lets mine the data:
Fund Yield ER YTD 1yr 2yr 3yr 5yr 10yr Delta
SPY 1.35 0.10 5.5 20.4 21.4 19.9 70.1 167
NOBL 1.79 0.35 1.7 3.7 5.6 7.5 40.4 118 -49%
LCEAX 2.09 0.82 3.4 2.7 -6.7 -18.3 -7.8 4.2 -163%
INUTX 2.76 1.05 3.6 5.8 -1.8 -6.4 -2.8 -11.8 -179%
VDIGX 1.69 0.30 1.0 4.4 4.1 4.0 30.9 73.2 -94
If you own any of the dividend funds you are not a happy investor after reading this post. Because you would would have done much better owning the no brainer bread & butter SP500 Index fund & had the capital appreciation cushion to pay yourself a much higher yield if wanted to."

The graphic is set for the 5 days ending May 3, Friday; for the best to worst % returns in select etf categories. One may then also select the one month column to align the one month return best to worst; or for the other listed time frame columns.
ADD an etf performance of your choosing, if you desire. ***
*** Requested ADD: For the week and YTD
--- MINT = +.12% / +2.21% Pimco Ultra Short Term Enhanced Bonds
--- EWW = -.07% / -1.55% (I Shares, Mexico)
MMKT note: Fidelity core mmkt's yields remain basically unchanged this week, with core acct's yields at 4.96% (SPAXX) and 4.99% (FDRXX).
NOTE: The broad U.S. equity and bond sectors finished the week with generally positive performance in many sectors through a very erratic market week. China large cap (FXI etf) , had a second week of 'performance+'. Bonds in many sectors ended the total week performance with decent gains. Bond funds ranged from +.12% to a +2.77%, with the ultra short term being the lowest positive (as expected) and the very long term being the best sectors. See the 'graphic' link at the beginning of this write for details of weekly returns.
NEW: 1 week 'heat map' by sectors. This is an interactive graphic. You may hover the computer pointer over the various blocks to view portions of sectors and/or stocks within those sectors. NOTE: to the left of the graphic, one may change the 1 week performance drop down menu to another time frame. Another example: at the left edge of the graphic, select exchange traded funds and then 1 week or a time period of your choice.
Remain curious,
Catch

Fidelity Investments (05-03-24):
Effective June 3, 2024, the transaction fee for Vanguard and Dodge & Cox mutual funds will increase from $75 to $100 per purchase. Also effective June 3, 2024, participants purchasing shares in applicable ETFs will now be subject to a new service fee of up to $100 per purchase. For purchase orders below $2,000, the service fee will be reduced to an amount that is approximately 5% of the purchase value. The complete list of ETFs currently subject to this service fee can be found here, and will be updated periodically.
UPDATE 05-09-24: Just got to reading May MFO Commentary and saw that @TheShadow had already highlighted the ETF part in Briefly Noted (05-01-24):
Fidelity Investments is planning to charge a $100 servicing fee when placing buy orders on exchange-traded funds issued by nine firms. The new servicing charge, which may be imposed on ETFs issued by Simplify Asset Management, AXS Investments, Day Hagan, Sterling Capital, Cambiar, Regents Park, Rayliant, Adaptive, and Running Oak, is set to take effect on June 3. The new fee will apply to ETFs that do not participate in a maintenance arrangement with Fidelity. Fidelity may update its “Surcharge-Eligible ETF” list again.
It seems like the ETF list had indeed been shortened rather dramatically in just a couple of days, so it might be worth checking the Fidelity link (same as above) periodically to see if they decide to further reduce or entirely eliminate it.
In the same spirit, I sure hope that they stop at Vanguard and Dodge & Cox with the elevated fees as well. Please post if you see any updates re transaction fee policies on the mutual funds side.

"How Schwab handles free cash is the only serious problem I've had with them since moving from TD back in Oct 2020."
I thought their handling cash has been the same ever since the acquisition was announced. So, even if you were to stay with TD until next week, the irritation would have been the same. The free cash situation has been worse at TD but I tolerated for the better customer service.
@Graust,
I moved most of the positions that are not somewhat permanent out of TD so they do not go to Schwab, and moved somewhat permanent positions to Schwab.

From May 1st market commentary by the Palm Valley Capital Fund (PVCMX) co-manager Eric Cinnamond.
Original blog post can be found here: https://www.palmvalleycapital.com/post/undateable
*****************************************************************************************************************************
Undateable
May 1, 2024
You can learn a lot about the financial markets by watching Seinfeld. In season 7 episode 114, Jerry and Elaine have a conversation about the lack of dating opportunities. Although they were talking about the percentage of people they consider dateable, by making some minor changes to the script, their conversation fits the current stock market perfectly.
Jerry: Elaine, what percentage of people [stocks] would you say are good looking [attractively priced]?
Elaine: 25%
Jerry: 25%? No way. It’s like 4% to 6%. It’s a 20 to 1 shot.
Elaine: You’re way off.
Jerry: Way off? Have you been to the motor vehicle bureau [screened through stocks]? It’s a leper colony down there [horrendous opportunity set].
Elaine: Basically, what you’re saying is 95% of the population [the stock market] is undateable [overvalued]?
Jerry: Undateable [overvalued]!
Elaine: Then how are all of these people getting together [why are all these people buying stocks]?
Jerry: Alcohol
As if our dating scene couldn’t get much worse, the S&P 600 soared 15% in the fourth quarter of 2023. Encouraged by the Federal Reserve’s year-end pivot, investors piled into stocks, attempting to front run the return of easy money.
At the time, we were baffled as to why the Fed was in such a rush to cut rates. For the most part, corporate earnings remained inflated. Financial conditions were already loosening, with equity valuations elevated and credit spreads tight. Home prices were also rising and remained out of reach for millions of Americans. And while the rate of inflation had declined, many of the items helping inflation moderate were plateauing, and in some cases, reversing. Further, accumulated inflation remained a serious problem, putting pressure on middle- and lower-income consumers and keeping inflation expectations elevated.
Unsurprisingly, by pivoting before the inflation battle was won, the Fed unleashed another round of asset inflation, bolstering demand and pricing power. Instead of declining back to the Fed’s 2% target, inflation bottomed and is on the rise again. To date, the Fed’s 2023 preemptive pivot is aging about as well as its “inflation is transitory” assurances in 2021.
Instead of declaring victory on inflation, we believe the Fed prematurely signaled rate cuts to head off building threats to asset prices and the economy. While there are many risks to defuse, we believe refinancing risk was, and remains, near the top of the Fed’s list of concerns. With each passing day, the amount of low-cost government and corporate debt nearing maturity grows.
Extremely low interest rates allowed the U.S. government to borrow aggressively, supporting massive fiscal deficits and artificially inflating economic growth. Corporations also benefited from elevated government spending and lower rates. Low-cost debt allowed companies to acquire, fund generous dividends, and turbocharge earnings per share (EPS) through buybacks and depressed interest expense.
As accumulated inflation continues to build, along with a seemingly endless supply of U.S. Treasuries, we believe the era of ultra-low interest rates has ended. With interest rates remaining higher for longer, a growing number of businesses are facing difficult refinancing decisions as their maturity walls approach. While some are pushing off the decision—hoping rates will decline—the market isn’t waiting and is beginning to sniff out companies that require funding over the next 1-2 years.
As we search through our opportunity set of small cap companies, many of the stocks that have performed poorly have bonds approaching maturity or have refinancing risk. For example, Cracker Barrel Old Country Store’s stock (symbol: CBRL) has fallen 45% over the past year and 61% from its 2021 high. Cracker Barrel operates restaurants that are typically located along interstate highways. We know their home-style country food well, as we hold Palm Valley’s annual founders meeting at a local Cracker Barrel (and yes, we all order from the value menu!).

Similar to many consumer companies that cater to the middle class, Cracker Barrel’s traffic growth has slowed and has recently turned negative. Accumulated inflation has placed stress on discretionary spending and many of the casual dining companies we follow. Management expects industry and traffic challenges to continue. Based on analyst estimates, adjusted EPS is expected to decline from $5.47 in fiscal 2023 (ending July 31) to $4.60/share in fiscal 2024.
Even as operating results have weakened, Cracker Barrel has remained committed to its generous quarterly dividend of $1.30/share. If maintained, the $5.20/share in annual dividends will exceed this year’s expected net income. The company has also been an active buyer of its stock, purchasing $184 million over the past three fiscal years (2021-2023). Combined, dividends and buybacks have consumed $447 million in cash over the past three years versus $461 million of free cash flow.
With practically all of Cracker Barrel’s free cash flow being consumed by dividends and buybacks, debt reduction doesn’t appear to be a priority. As of January 26, 2024, debt was $452 million. Based on 2024 estimated EBITDA of $242 million, debt to EBITDA is 1.87x, or slightly above the high-end of the company’s target range of 1.3x to 1.7x.
On June 18, 2021, Cracker Barrel opportunistically issued a $300 million convertible bond with a 0.625% coupon. At the time of issuance, its stock was trading at $150.51. With a conversion price of $188, the bonds had a conversion premium of 25%. Currently, Cracker Barrel’s stock is trading near $59; therefore, the odds of the bond converting to equity before maturity are low. With a maturity of June 15, 2026, refinancing will likely become an increasingly important issue for the company and investors.

Cracker Barrel has $511 million available on its $700 million credit facility that could be used to fund its convertible bond maturity. However, the weighted average interest rate on the credit facility is currently 6.96% versus the 0.625% coupon on the convertible bond. Assuming the credit facility is used to fund its bond maturity, at current rates, Cracker Barrel’s interest expense would increase $19 million, causing a meaningful hit to earnings. For reference, earnings before interest expense and taxes (EBIT) in 2023 were $120.6 million. Like many companies with debt, Cracker Barrel’s cost of borrowing has shifted from an earnings tailwind to headwind.
We classify Cracker Barrel as a cyclical business. To consider cyclical businesses for purchase, we require a debt to normalized free cash flow ratio of 3x or less. Based on our free cash flow estimate, Cracker Barrel currently has too much financial leverage for our absolute return strategy. Nevertheless, its substantially lower market capitalization has caught our attention, and we’ll monitor its balance sheet closely for potential deleveraging catalysts, such as a cut in its dividend or sale-leasebacks of owned properties.
The small cap dating scene remains unattractive, in our opinion. However, for many consumer discretionary companies with debt, equity prices have fallen sharply, and valuations have become more attractive. That said, these aren’t dream dates! Cyclical companies with debt often come with a lot of baggage and potential drama. Before committing and getting too serious, we recommend stress testing the balance sheet and cash flow by including periods with high unemployment and tightening credit conditions. And if alcohol is needed to stomach the risk, we suggest patience and waiting for a better match. When it comes to leveraged cyclicals, there are plenty of fish in the sea!
Eric Cinnamond
eric@palmvalleycapital.com