I have been using CDs and MMs for the past several years in my retirement IRA portfolio. As those CDs mature, I am now considering adding some very low risk bond oefs, which can produce at least 4% total return. I am interested in low volatility funds, which have done well in down markets, and would be interested if other investors have some favorites they would recommend. Thanks in advance for your bond oef ideas.

People with working class retirement income get the ability to deduct $1K worth of charitable deductions without itemizing (starting in 2026). Only matters if their income is greater than the standard deduction.
Since their tax brackets are lower than the those of the wealthy, this deduction is of less value to them than to high earners. IMHO a fairer break would have been to give a tax credit of, say, 50% of the amount contributed, up to a $500 credit (50% of $1K).
With an increased standard deduction and an extra $6K "senior deduction", people with working class retirement income get the ability to convert more of their IRA tax free. That is, they can generate more income from conversions while still staying under the (now increased) standard deduction amount. This in turn gives them more flexibility in future years as the amount they must take from their T-IRA (RMD) is reduced.
Their tax bracket (assuming they are subject to taxes) is locked in at 10% or 12%. Without this legislation, roughly speaking the 12% bracket would have reverted to 15%.
https://smartasset.com/taxes/trump-tax-brackets
Chickenfeed. But slightly above zero. Perhaps.

Is it just me or do all things working class have far lower cutoffs than all things investment class? People with working class retirement income and a little deferred savings in RMD get little from the BBB. I, for one, got nothing.

Per CNBC:
T. Rowe Price shares rallied Thursday after the asset manager struck a $1 billion deal with Goldman Sachs to sell private-market products to retail investors.
Goldman will buy up to $1 billion in T. Rowe Price common stock through open-market purchases with the intention to own up to 3.5%, according to the announcement. The two financial firms will team up to offer wealth and retirement funds that give access to private markets for individuals, financial advisors, plan sponsors and plan participants.
https://www.cnbc.com/2025/09/04/t-rowe-price-shares-rocket-higher-after-deal-where-goldman-will-invest-1-billion-in-asset-manager.html
... the speed that Wall Street is inserting private-market products into retail products is certainly worth watching. Frankly, it makes me uncomfortable since most retail investors have no idea how to do any DD into their funds and see what kind of stuff (er junk?) their portfolios are being stuffed with. IMO Wall Street is again trying to offload its riskier assets onto the rubes who will suffer WHEN (not 'if') things go south in this space.

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1545440/000158064225005663/kempner497.htm
97 1 kempner497.htm 497
September 2, 2025
ULTIMUS MANAGERS TRUST
Kempner Multi-Cap Deep Value Fund
Institutional Class (FIKDX)
Investor Class (FAKDX)
Supplement to the Prospectus and Statement of Additional Information (“SAI”),
each dated September 28, 2024
Assignment of Investment Advisory Agreement and Expense Limitation Agreement
Effective August 9, 2025, upon the passing of Harris L. (“Shrub”) Kempner, Jr., President and owner of Kempner Capital Management, Inc. (the “Adviser”), the investment adviser to the Kempner Multi-Cap Deep Value Fund (the “Fund”), an assignment of the Investment Advisory Agreement between Ultimus Managers Trust (the “Trust”), on behalf of the Fund, and the Adviser occurred, resulting in the automatic termination of both the Investment Advisory Agreement and the Expense Limitation Agreement between the Trust, on behalf of the Fund, and the Adviser.
All references to Mr. Kempner with respect to the Fund are hereby removed from the Fund’s Prospectus and SAI. M. Shawn Gault remains as portfolio manager of the Fund.
Interim Investment Advisory Agreement and Interim Expense Limitation Agreement
An interim investment advisory agreement between the Trust, on behalf of the Fund, and the Adviser (the “Interim Advisory Agreement”), with substantially the same terms as the existing investment advisory agreement with the Adviser (the “Prior Advisory Agreement”), except for the start and end date of the agreement as required under the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended (the “1940 Act”) and rules thereunder, has been approved by the Trust’s Board of Trustees (the “Board”) at a meeting held on August 21, 2025 (the “Meeting”) and became effective as of August 10, 2025.
Under the Interim Advisory Agreement, the Adviser provides the same advisory services to the Fund on the same terms provided under the Prior Advisory Agreement. There are no changes to the advisory fees payable by the Fund to the Adviser under the Interim Advisory Agreement.
In addition, at the Meeting, the Board approved an interim expense limitation agreement (the “Interim Expense Limitation Agreement”), between the Trust, on behalf of the Fund, and the Adviser because the prior expense limitation agreement for the Fund (the “Prior Expense Limitation Agreement”) terminated upon the termination of the Prior Advisory Agreement. The terms of the Interim Expense Limitation Agreement are substantially similar to those of the Prior Expense Limitation Agreement except for the start and end date of the agreement. The expense limitation for each share class of the Fund is identical to the respective expense limitation under the Prior Expense Limitation Agreement. The Interim Expense Limitation Agreement became effective as of August 10, 2025.
Liquidation of the Fund
Effective immediately, the Fund has terminated the public offering of its shares and will discontinue its operations effective October 15, 2025. Shares of the Fund are no longer available for purchase and, at the close of business on October 15, 2025, all outstanding shares of the Fund will be redeemed at net asset value (the “Liquidation”).
1
At the meeting, the Board, in consultation with the Adviser, approved the discontinuation of the Fund’s operations based on, among other factors, the Adviser’s belief that it would be in the best interests of the Fund and its shareholders to discontinue the Fund’s operations. Through the date of the Liquidation, the Adviser will continue to waive investment advisory fees and reimburse expenses of the Fund, if necessary, in order to maintain the Fund at its current expense limits, as specified in the Fund’s current Prospectus.
In connection with the Liquidation, the Board directed that: (i) all of the Fund’s portfolio securities be liquidated in an orderly manner not later than October 15, 2025; and (ii) all outstanding shareholder accounts on October 15, 2025 be closed and the proceeds of each account, less any required withholding, be sent to the shareholder’s address of record or to such other address as directed by the shareholder, including special instructions that may be needed for Individual Retirement Accounts (“IRAs”) and qualified pension and profit sharing accounts. As a result of the Liquidation, the Fund’s portfolio holdings will be reduced to cash or cash equivalents. Accordingly, going forward, shareholders should not expect the Fund to achieve its stated investment objective. The Adviser will bear all of the expenses of the liquidation with the exception of brokerage costs associated with the orderly transition of the Fund’s portfolio holdings to cash and cash equivalents.
Shareholders may redeem all or a portion of their shares of the Fund on any business day prior to the Liquidation as specified in the Fund’s Prospectus.
The Liquidation will be considered for tax purposes a sale of Fund shares by shareholders, and shareholders should consult with their own tax advisors to ensure its proper treatment on their income tax returns. In addition, shareholders invested through an IRA or other tax-deferred account should consult the rules regarding the reinvestment of these assets. In order to avoid a potential tax issue, shareholders generally have 60 days from the date that proceeds are received to re-invest or “rollover” the proceeds into another IRA or qualified retirement account; otherwise, the proceeds may be required to be included in the shareholder’s taxable income for the current tax year.
For more information, or to obtain a copy of the Fund’s Prospectus or SAI free of charge, please contact the Fund at 1-800-665-9778.
Investors should retain this supplement for future reference.

If you have the same after-tax starting value at $78K, then a percentage-based tax is a linear operator. It doesn't matter if you double the money first and then apply the tax, or apply the tax and then double the money.

Correct. This addresses the question: is one better off contributing now to a Roth or to a traditional IRA? In that situation what matters is whether the future tax rate will be higher, lower, or equal to the current tax rate.
I was addressing a slightly different question: does allocation between tax free and tax deferred accounts matter? For that question, it doesn't matter what tax rates you might have been subject to in contributing to the Roth. You've already made your bed. Now you have to lie in it and allocate investments across whatever dollars you've put into the different accounts, traditional and Roth.
You are suggesting that rapid growth of tax-deferred moneys will move some of those assets into a higher future tax bracket vs. the future tax bracket all of those dollars would have been with slower growth. Perhaps. Bear in mind that tax brackets are adjusted for inflation, so the growth rate of import is the excess growth over inflation, not total growth. Still, one hopes with more aggressive investments, that this will be significant.
When one speaks of being in a higher bracket at retirement, one is looking at the size of RMDs. The first dollar gets taxed at one rate determined by considering all other ordinary income and then looking at the marginal rate. Subsequent RMD dollars get taxed at that rate or a higher rate if the RMD extends through brackets. Hence my assumption that the total RMD is taxed at the same marginal rate in retirement.
That's not always true, as you say (below). Often it is. Consider an individual, age 73, in the 22% bracket excluding RMDs. If that individual falls at the top of the bracket, virtually all RMD dollars will be taxed at 24%, whether from fast or slow growing investments. If that individual falls at the bottom of the bracket, they'll have nearly $55K of "space" to fill. They'd need a T-IRA of almost $1.5M for the RMD to exceed that (age divisor is 26.5). Put them at the midway point and the T-IRA would need to be around $750K before the tax brackets mattered.
The 24% bracket is even wider. The bracket where RMD size is most likely to matter is the 12% bracket. That's only $36K wide. If one is at the midpoint in that bracket, then a $500K T-IRA will have an RMD touching the next bracket. And since that next bracket at 22% is a whopping 10% higher, it becomes more important here to try to keep every last RMD dollar out of that bracket.
So it really depends on the situation. Personally, the part of the RMD trap that I'm more concerned about is having RMDs greater than needed for expenses. This is where Roth conversions years before retirement help. And for this purpose, it is better to keep slower growing assets in T-IRAs.

This equivalence only holds true if you assume the tax rate at withdrawal remains constant. In the real world, if doubling your traditional account pushed you into a higher tax bracket in retirement, the "Traditional Doubles" scenario would result in a lower after-tax total.

A place where slower growing assets can be even more beneficial is in HSAs. Suppose someone has been healthy (so has had few medical expenses during accumulation phase) and has a sizeable HSA. Then it is possible even in retirement that total medical expenses will not exceed the HSA value. If that happens, the excess dollars rather than being tax-free can get taxed as ordinary income upon withdrawal.

Not sure why you picked a scenario with both traditional and Roth at same $78K, who actually has that ratio?

The ratios don't matter. I just wanted to provide a concrete example. 100/0 or 0/100 wouldn't work when the question was how to allocate between non-zero T-IRA and Roth accounts. 50/50 is a simple split and it facilitated assuming 50% of the money was invested one way and 50% another.
Had I used a 20/80 split between accounts with the same investment assumption (half fast growth, half no growth), then the 20% account would have been invested one way along with 3/8 of the 80% account. The remaining 5/8 of the 80% account (i.e. half the total assets) would have been invested the other way. Same result, but I'd lose people with all the fractions and percentage.

Answers from AI just depend on which websites they choose to scrape. Perhaps their mood has something to do with it. I got different answers than @equalizer did.
I asked Bing for "5 picks for Roth for next 20 years" and got SPTM, VPMCX, JEPI, RQI, and IBIT.
Google Gemini was coy until I asked for "5 fund picks for Roth for next 20 years." It came up with VTI, VXUS, VUG, FSELX, and SCHD.
Gemini won't tell you which web sites it scrapes for its wisdom. But if you ask the AI available at google search, it will. You can find them to the right. It also gave me a slightly different answer: VTI, VXUS, BND, VNQ, and any target date fund at 2045 or 2050.
I basically got the same sort of diversified lineup from Perplexity: FXAIX, VTIAX, VSMAX, VNQ, and VWELX. Perplexity will clearly tell you what it scraped.
But this doesn't get us to the point of the thread. So I asked a new question: "Name five fund options for a roth account if you could only pick one for the next twenty years."
Bing suggested: VWELX, SPTM, JEPI, VPMCX, or RQI. It suggested: "Each of these funds could be your 'forever' pick depending on your risk tolerance and retirement goals. Want help narrowing it down based on your age or investing style?" I think it's not scraping as hard as it could.
Gemini grokked the question a little better than Bing, and came back with: VT, Fidelity Freedom Index Fund 2045 (no ticker), VTI, FZROX, or SCHD.
Google search AI came back with VOO, VTI, VFORX, VBIAX, or VIG.
Perplexity came back with: VTSAX, FXAIX, Vanguard Target Retirement 2065, VT or VIG.
I decided to get pushier. So I asked: "If you could pick only one fund for a roth for the next twenty years what should it be?"
Bing chose VWELX, Gemini chose VT, Google search ducked with "a target-date fund or a low-cost, total-market index fund," and Perplexity came back with VOO or FXAIX before reminding me about the other usual suspects.
These are no where close to what @equalizer was getting; so I asked one more question: "Give me five non-index funds for a roth for the next twenty years."
Bing: VWELX, VPMCX, JEPI, RQI, and SVOL. Gemini: FCNTX, FBGRX, FSELX, TRBCX, and AGTHX. Googel search: FCNTX, PRDGX, VPMCX, JEPI, and AVGV. Perplexity: VWELX, VWINX, JEPI, USMC, and FCNTX.
Well. At least the conventional wisdom is available without spending money for advice or doing your own homework.

msf,
If you have the same after-tax starting value at $78K, then
a percentage-based tax is a linear operator. It doesn't matter if you double the money first and then apply the tax, or apply the tax and then double the money.
This equivalence only holds true if you assume the tax rate at withdrawal remains constant. In the real world, if doubling your traditional account pushed you into a higher tax bracket in retirement, the "Traditional Doubles" scenario would result in a lower after-tax total.
Not sure why you picked a scenario with both traditional and Roth at same $78K, who actually has that ratio?
Placing your highest-growth investments in a Roth account can yield a significantly higher after-tax return, as all of that growth is completely tax-free.

The time from retirement to ss should be the time to convert as much as possible staying in the desired tax bracket IMHO. I took my ss at 63 and it would have been nice not to take it until later because ss income limits your conversions. Looking back I don't regret taking it at 63 because I converted a LOT even taking ss at 63. I converted a lot from 53 (retirement) to 63 (ss) since I had no other income at that time.

I'm currently trying to help a friend plan investments and cash flows for the next decade, when they will go from retirement pre-SS, to retirement w/SS, to retirement w/SS and RMDs. They also have two inherited IRAs, one traditional, one Roth.
How much should they convert pre-SS to reduce future RMDs (keeping tax brackets in mind)? What about the phasing out of the $6K deduction? They don't even know how much cash they are currently spending, and it could be quite variable.
My head is spinning as well.

Some unconventional thoughts on your allocation/drawdown plans, FWIW:
1. If all the money in your (future) RMDs will be taxed at the same rate, and if your RMDs will (along with other income including SS) will be less than your cash flow needs, then there doesn't seem to be much value in managing T-IRA and T-401(k) differently.
Reasoning: if RMDs are more than you need, then it is better to keep them down (and more assets tax-sheltered) by keeping slower growth assets in traditional accounts and faster growth assets in Roths, as you are doing. You don't want to be forced to draw more out of any sheltered account than you need. But this justification vanishes if RMDs are not sufficient for cash flow needs.
By "all RMD money taxed at the same rate" I mean: Suppose that you add up all your other ordinary income (SS, taxable interest, etc.) .and find that you're, say, in the 22% bracket. Then when you add in your RMD, you find that you're still in the same 22% bracket. Not higher. If this is true then it doesn't matter how you split investments between T's and Roths.
Say you've got $100K in your traditional accounts and $78K in your Roths. After tax, they're each worth $78K. Suppose you allocate assets so that your Roth accounts double and your traditional accounts stagnate. Then your Roth will be worth $156K after tax and your traditionals will be worth $78K after tax for a total of $234K after tax.
If you flip the allocations, then the traditional accounts will double to $200K pre-tax, or $156K after tax. The Roth will be sitting at $78K, for a total of $23KK after tax.
The trick is to keep after tax values in mind when allocating investments. Are there any portfolio trackers that can handle this?
2. Since cap gains don't (for the most part) affect what rate your ordinary income is taxed at, you might be better off holding onto your long term positions in taxable accounts (that are pseudo-tax-sheltered by deferring gain recognition) and instead sheltering cash by using it to pay the taxes on Roth conversions.
Suppose you have $22 in cash (taxable) and $100 in a traditional IRA (worth $78 post tax). That's worth a total of $100 after tax. Convert and you've got $100 in a Roth, also worth $100 after tax.
If you convert, then instead of having to pay tax on the cash as it generates income, you've fully sheltered that $22 in the Roth. As for the securities that you could have sold instead of converting, they'll continue to appreciate, tax-deferred, until you recognize the gain.
3. If you're planning on working past RMD age (currently 73), then you can defer RMDs longer in your 401(k) with your current employer. If that's the case, that may militate for keeping higher growth assets in the 401(k). Otherwise, allocation between T-IRA and T-401(k) doesn't seem to matter. Though the choice of investments available to you in your employer plan(s) could tilt the scales one way or the other.
4. Throwing a money wrench into all of this are oddballs like IRMAA and the 3.8% Medicare surtax. And Trump's $6K above-the-line (sort of) extra deduction for seniors in 2025-2028 that is also income-dependent.
In addition, your state may exempt some or all of retirement income from state taxes. Your state may also give other tax breaks that are income dependent (e.g. property tax reductions). And there's no certainty with respect to future tax rates.
I've been doing incremental Roth conversions since 2010 when the income limit on conversions was eliminated. So when I finally get to being subject to RMDs, their size will be closer to what I want to contribute to charities. And by identifying them as QCDs, I won't have to worry much about tax consequences of my RMDs.

One fund doesn't make any sense to me. For instance, I want my high growth entities in my Roth (PRSCX, TRLGX, TTMIX), next highest growth in IRA (similar, but alongside an index fund), more balanced approach in 401K (Index, growth, CEF, OEF), and a higher concentration of cash, index funds in my taxable (but still a growth component to juice returns).
How I begin to draw that down in retirement (to better manage taxes) is still a work in progress. The first year, I will probably sell some long term one-off positions at Computershare, for simplification. Get them off the books without doing transfers, and absorb the LTCG before I begin any RMDs.
I am thinking of trying to max out our current tax bracket, and take advantage of that before we ultimately end up one bracket higher. Some simplification will occur as I sell off any holdings not at my primary broker, and move funds from employer accounts to my primary broker. I already eliminated/absorbed an inherited IRA account into our current tax bracket this year.

Aug 30th Episode:

Financial planning thought leader Jamie Hopkins discusses why digital asset management is one of the biggest overlooked risks in retirement and estate preparation, and the steps we can take to fix it.

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1537140/000158064225005639/issachar_497.htm
497 1 issachar_497.htm 497
Lionx-Logo
Class N Shares (LIONX)
Class I Shares (LIOTX)
(a series of Northern Lights Fund Trust III)
Supplement dated August 29, 2025 to
the Prospectus and Statement of Additional Information dated February 1, 2025
The Board of Trustees of Northern Lights Fund Trust III (the “Board”) has concluded that it is in the best interests of the Issachar Fund (the “Fund”) and its shareholders that the Fund cease operations. The Board has determined to close the Fund and redeem all outstanding shares on or about September 29, 2025 (“Redemption Date”).
Effective immediately, the Fund will not accept any new investments, will no longer pursue its stated investment objective, and will begin liquidating its portfolio and will invest in cash equivalents such as money market funds until all shares have been redeemed. Any required distributions of income and capital gains will be distributed as soon as practicable to shareholders and reinvested in additional shares, unless you have previously requested payment in cash.
Prior to or on the Redemption Date, you may redeem your shares, including reinvested distributions, in accordance with the “How to Redeem Shares” section in the Prospectus. Unless your investment in the Fund is through a tax-deferred retirement account, a redemption is subject to tax on any taxable gains. 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.
ANY SHAREHOLDERS WHO HAVE NOT REDEEMED THEIR SHARES OF THE FUND PRIOR TO THE REDEMPTION DATE WILL HAVE THEIR SHARES AUTOMATICALLY REDEEMED AS OF THAT DATE, AND PROCEEDS WILL BE SENT TO THE ADDRESS OF RECORD. If you have questions or need assistance, please contact your financial advisor directly or the Fund at 1-866-787-8355.
This Supplement, and the Prospectus and Statement of Additional Information dated February 1, 2025, provide relevant information for all shareholders and should be retained for future reference. Both the Prospectus and the Statement of Additional Information, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, are incorporated by reference and can be obtained without charge by calling the Fund at 1-866-787-8355.

Stable-Value (SV) Rates, 9/1/25
TIAA Traditional Annuity (Accumulation) Rates
Restricted RC 5.00%, RA 4.75%
Flexible RCP 4.25%, SRA 4.00%, IRA-101110+ 4.00%
TSP G Fund pending% (previous 4.375%).
Options outside of workplace retirement plans include m-mkt funds, bank m-mkt accounts (FDIC insured), T-Bills, short-term brokered CDs.
#StableValue #401k #403b #TIAA #TSP
https://ybbpersonalfinance.proboards.com/post/2185/thread

@mskursh- Having used American Funds primarily for almost fifty years to build our retirement position we now have simplified to MMKT, CD, and Treasury holdings at Schwab. Having used many different American Funds over the years, I'm curious as to which one that you've chosen for your simplification situation.
Thanks- OJ

It was between American Fund Retirement Income Enhanced - FCFWX or simply Balanced Fund of America - BALFX
The distinction is the international exposure in the end. FCFWX is an allocation and BALFX isn't. We decided on FCFWX. its slightly less risky than the balanced fund. 60/40 as opposed to 65/35 and it had more international stocks.
My parents hold 2 years of cash in a money market fund, have a small annuity, and modest SS payments.

@mskursh- Having used American Funds primarily for almost fifty years to build our retirement position we now have simplified to MMKT, CD, and Treasury holdings at Schwab. Having used many different American Funds over the years, I'm curious as to which one that you've chosen for your simplification situation.
Thanks- OJ

am interested if anyone knows a tracker specifically for retirement flows in\out of S&P500 index vehicles.

From the linked article:

More than 100 publicly traded companies now have some crypto assets on their balance sheets. None owns more than Strategy MSTR (formerly known as MicroStrategy), a pioneer of this trend. The firm first started investing in bitcoin in August 2020 and now owns more than 600,000 bitcoins, or roughly $70 billion at current prices. That’s more than 60% of the firm’s market cap, so the stock’s fortunes rely almost entirely on bitcoin. The stock moved almost lockstep with bitcoin until 2024, when Strategy’s growth skyrocketed and began trading at a substantial premium.

Is-cryptocurrency-already-hiding-your-retirement-account?

Are there any concerns that Mr. Giroux might be spread too thin?

Sure I have a concern, plus he's been there a long time and could be considering promotion or retirement at some point. So I watch my PRWCX and would have no problem reducing to a toehold if necessary.
That said, I don't like how they're trying to capitalize on the 'Capital Appreciation' moniker. I get why TRowe would do it, but at times it does make me a bit uncomfortable seeing ithem expand the 'brand' like this.