@sma

I have not had the "sell one fund buy another" issue at Fido but usually dont do that. I find Schwab's attitude about Sweep accounts very irritating and is clearly designed to make money off of John Q Public. It seems nasty, especially coupled with their insistence on keeping cash balances high in some of their portfolios. I think the SEC went after them for that.

I don't know why it's nasty, I never use their portfolio or Intelligent Portfolios and I don't think anyone else should use these at any brokerages. What is so irritating about selling $100K of fund X and entering a trade to buy $100K in SWVXX or SNAXX? I have done it for years. If you sell shares and don't know exactly what it's going to be, you buy MM close to this amount and the rest the next day.
Most investors should just select their AA and hardly trade = not many irritations at all.
For me, there is nothing more irritating than calling Fidelity reps after I sell in an IRA, and half of them claim you can't do it, and then I insist on talking with a supervisor. That is 15 minutes and a lot longer than buying cash in 10 seconds at Schwab. I also noticed that the Fidelity reps' knowledge got lower in the last several years.

@Crash - I do not understand your problems with the Fidelity website. I think it’s fantastic. I’ve been one of their customers for 20+ years, so maybe your issues are due to lack of familiarity. I also had an account with TRP for more than 20 years until I transferred all the holdings to Fidelity. IMHO, the Fidelity website is much, much better than TRP. I used to do a lot of fund research at M* as well until it became so unwelcoming, and I actually find the Fidelity website more useful for researching and comparing funds. Although I seldom have to talk with a Fido representative on the phone, they are always very helpful and friendly. In addition, Fidelity has an office in my city, and I generally have a face-to-face meeting with my rep once a year. You do have to make an appointment, but that’s no unreasonable to me.

Fido has multiple choices for core/settlement, but the default in taxable a/c is its OK m-mkt fund SPAXX. But Fido will automatically draw from other Fido m-mkt funds, as necessary.
Vanguard has m-mkt VMFXX as core/settlement funds, and that is the best it offers.
Schwab doesn't offer any m-mkt fund as core/settlement fund. So, when using Schwab m-mkt funds, beware of T+1 settlement for them. Otherwise, trade may be disallowed, or 1-day margin interest charged.
I have had both Fido and Schwab brokerage a/c for years, and more recently, also VG Brokerage. All have their unique issues.

Up 4% as of 2/12/24. For those interested portfolio is Cash/bonds/stocks. 10%/17%/73%. I am retired and 65 years old.

M* 1* LG fund
ER over 1%
Consistently ranks 81% - 100% (worst) in its Category 1-10 years
Consistently underperforms S&P in arguably the easiest Category for success
S&P Index fund FXAIX outperforms it by at least their ER difference in ALL periods
UP only 4.7% YTD despite having over 50% Technology
Tons of other great active LG funds available
Same PMs who compiled the fund's past performance are still on the job
All four Fido funds suggested for comparison, FCNTX, FDSVX, FDCAX, and FDSSX ALL outperform it in ALL 1-10-Life periods except one fund in one period by 0.01%.
Um, lemme think...
Yeah, beyond OK to SELL!

I have no experience with Schwab.
Whenever I've read articles rating online brokers, Schwab always performs well in the ratings.
I've been with Fidelity for many years and am pleased with their service and offerings.

BIVIX is a long-short fund. The latest information can be found at https://www.invenomic.com
It says: Long 99.4% Short -89.4$ Net 10.1%. For 1 calendar year, from 30 Dec 22 to 29 Dec Jan 2023, it was 16.5% up. But wait a month: for 1 year, from Feb 10, 2023, to Feb 12, 2024, it is -1%. That is why it is not easy to rely on this fund unless it is on its way up as it was during the previous 2 years.

I am with @Baseball_Fan with respect to AKRIX and MRFOX. AKRIX was brilliant. I invested in it since its inception, but then its manager retired...
MRFOX is great, but the two main managers, Christopher Niemczewski and Elise Hoffmann, are husband and wife, planning to retire together in 5-10 years, see the last few minutes of their presentation at https://www.marshfieldinc.com. Thus, I would invest in it for a while, but I would watch it carefully.

Understand now?
MMM..maybe, congrats it's working for you, the more you or anyone else make the better.
On the other hand, many of us have different styles, risk tolerance and goals.
My main objectives were always to have an excellent risk/reward portfolio...and I did. What others do is their objectives. I'm OK with just beating the SP500 (although I only needed 6% annually) since retirement (6 years) with an extremely low SD < 3 and using just 2-3 bond funds instead of trading every week and holding over 30 positions (stocks, bonds, CDs). I didn't troll you in any way, but you did = old news. If my trading isn't good, how did I achieve the following(data)?
BTW, why bring up FSELX at all? Are you going to mention it any time someone posts about any fund?
Lastly, after years during 2015-17 that you claimed I would not retire and never make it, the reality is different, what a "surprise". I immigrated with nothing and retired after 23 years, and since retirement doubled my money.

additional thoughts re MRFOX...
It is NOT a long/short fund. It is NOT a tactical allocation fund. Nada, nope.
Composite record, going back 30+years from 1990 thru 2020 is ~ 283 bps above SPY
Low beta, ~30% less volatile and less correlation vs major indexes.
What does give me pause is that the managers have done an excellent job investing, they have done so thru key holdings such as ORLY, ROST and ACGL, etc...very "resilient" to market ups and down, well run companies...look at their stock charts, OMG...
Do wonder, what happens, like if an AKREX scenario unfolds...very concentrated, top holdings performed great until they didn't, brought in some newbies without as much experience at AKREX who invested in Snowflake and got schooled...kinda got stuck in their top holding conviction...that is what is interesting about Ravi Jain, GQEPX, that "NOT pale and stale, "his words, not mine" slick dude is NOT afraid to trade and pull the trigger...he's been mostly on target.
Hey your monies, invest it the way you are comfortable...Good Luck to ALL
Baseball Fan

MFROX
First test for me, can I buy it at Fidelity or Schwab? I can buy it at Schwab at $1000 min in IRA and $10K min in taxable. It has a$49.95 fee (that is waived for me). But, This fund has a 2 % redemption fee if sold within 90 days.
MFROX is an excellent risk-reward fund and how you should look at funds.
First question: how many stock funds do you know that were not down in 2018 + 2022 + beat the SP500 in the last 8 years? I bet not many
Let's go deeper
Using portfolio V and comparing SPY,MFROX,PRWCX (link) shows that MFROX has better Sharpe (risk/reward) than PRWCX(one of the best allocation funds). MFROX max draw is better than SPY+PRWCX. MFROX Sortino(down volatility) is great at 2. If a stock fund can compete on down volatility with an allocation fund, it's a good testimony.
Next test: I screened the Schwab database for all funds that have Sharp > 0.9 + average annual performance over 15%...and I got only 3 MFROX, FSPCX(Fidelity select insurance), BIVIX(Invenomic Fund Institutional ). BIVIX had Sharpe>1.6 + Performance>16% = extremely good.
Questions about FSELX
If every fund you are going to compare to FSELX, why are you holding anything else, or why not at least 30% of your portfolio, after all, hindsight is great.
Do most investors should own a unique fund like FSELX? No. FSELX had an amazing run, congrats to anyone who owned it.
MFO rating
Again, pretty good, see (https://www.member.mfopremium.com/riskprofile/)
OWL=yes
Composite MFO Rating:5-Best...
Fund Alarm Risk: -2 - Lowest Risk
Yield, 12-mo %: 0.46 (this is great for a taxable account because you don't pay a lot of taxes, VFIAX(SP500) TTM yield = 1.4%)
Can MFROX be a core fund for your portfolio? IMO, yes. But, a fund like this is based on great calls and trading. Will the future be as good as since inception? nobody knows.
BIVIX: why has everyone did not hold it from 01/2020 to 12/31/2023, see the chart (https://schrts.co/TXRrcXuN)
Do you know why only thru 12/31/2023 because hindsight is great and BIVIX lost 8% for YTD. Regardless it made 245% since 01/2020 while SPY made only 66% and QQQ only 111%. And as I said before it's risk/reward since 2020 is pretty good.

UPDATE_2
In case this thread survives as intended, I'll routinely recap what's been posted so as not to lose track of it.
FWIW, Mag 7 allocations continue to be VERY surprising (to me at least) so far!
Thanks to all who have reported. And thanks to all who have kept this thread on topic.
See also this similar thread that was started on the Fido Forum (invitation only still?) a coupla days after this MFO thread. Far different reporting there but OP is asking for technology % not Mag 7!
https://www.fidelityinvestorcommunity.com/t5/Market-Sector-Outlook/What-Percentage-of-Your-Portfolio-is-in-Technology-Did-You/m-p/399050#M40359
(BOLD added.)
@stillers:
AAPL 3.5%
AMZN 3.0%
GOOGL 3.8%
META 1.0%
MSFT 6.0%
NVDA 3.3%
TSLA 0.5%
Total 21.2%
@Art: Since I have stocks only at this time it's easy. NVDA at 3%.
@habsui: I put 2.4% of PV into AMZN,MSFT,GOOG over 11 years ago.
Only sold a little AMZN. So ... about 30%.
@hank: I stay as far away as I can from them.
@sma3: about 3%...Mostly MSFT for years. No TSLA or META Both run by lunatics!
@WABAC (as calc'd by me and OK'd by @WABAC):
AAPL 0.05%
AMZN 0.00%
GOOGL 0.40%
META 0.00%
MSFT 1.02%
NVDA 0.00%
TSLA 0.00%
Total 1.47%
@Mark
AAPL 1.18%
AMZN 0.32%
GOOGL 0.36%
META 0.25%
MSFT 1.21%
NVDA 0.59%
TSLA 0.018%
Total 4.09%
I also own shares of AAPL (6.1% of total portfolio value) and GOOGL (3.1%) outright.
@Roy
AAPL -1.88%
AMZN - 2.03%
GOOGL - 2.65%
META - 1.02%
MSFT - 4.41%
NVDA - 1.28%
TSLA - 0.00%
LLY - .63%, just for kicks.
13.9%, less than I expected, though Giroux did state recently they had trimmed some of the hot stocks.

Here is the Schwab MRFOX data sheet:
https://www.schwab.wallst.com/Prospect/Research/mutualfunds/Summary.asp?symbol=mrfox
=======================================
So @Graust makes a great point about what this fund actually may be, and that appears to be confirmed (to me at least) by the data sheet. MFROX has significantly outperformed the fund @Graust noted, PVCMX. And it ain't even close!
But, FWIW, if it is misclassified and more of a long-short or tactical allocation fund, then that leaves me even LESS interested in it as I do not use either of those categories in my port as I KNOW that I can and do select other dedicated stock funds that will outperform them. I also don't want to have to open a Marshfield or Firstrade a/c just to own MRFOX.
Bottom Line: ALWAYS good to know what we are BUYing BEFORE we BUY it, and thanks to @Graust for advancing the discussion on that critical issue. It makes a world of difference looking through the proper glasses and @Graust has assisted me on that plenty of times over the years!
========================================
@finder, I accept your or anyone's comparison to VOO as the overall, general comparison I also do for ANY dedicated stock investment I make. Any yes, it has performed, as you noted, far better than VOO since its inception. FWIW, outperforming VOO/FXAIX is the hurdle I use for selection of ANY dedicated stock fund I plan to own or own, so MRFOX at least is over that hurdle.
But I don't accept comparing it to PRWCX which routinely runs 70/30 to 60/40. One would need to gross up PRWCX's TR for a fairer comparison. Not going there.
That said, If it's OK to compare it to PRWCX, then wouldn't it also be OK to compare it to at least another fund in its (arguably incorrect) M* LCG category, like BPTIX:
MRFOX is 254% up since inception, BPTIX is up 384%, i.e. about 1.5x MORE than MRFOX.
And If it's OK to compare it to PRWCX, then why not also compare it to arguably the best performing dedicated stock fund on the planet since its inception, FSELX? At least FSELX is a dedicated stock fund like MRFOX:
MRFOX is 254% up since inception, FSELX is up 698%, i.e. about 1.75x MORE than MRFOX.
========================================
Bottom Line: I now have a better appreciation of the fascination for this fund. But now have less than ZERO plans to own it! YMMV.
Disclaimer: I am a LT holder of both PRWCX and FSELX, before the inception date of MFROX.

@hank I've searched for individual YOOTs. Valuation as measured by P/E are never in the same neighborhood as other value stocks. Guess there's lots of overhead, maintenance of wire lines and shrub and tree-branch cutting to be done. (Unless you just don't care, like PG & E.) Very "busy" that way. I've not bought one. Further, they are typically regulated pretty tightly, though I note that Regulators all seem to cave-in to demands from those Yoots. Reminds me of my teen years, when scum-hole Billy Bulger (brother of Whitey) "served" as Insurance Commissioner in MA. They'd come to him and he'd always just say: "sure, go ahead. Charge people more. Makes no difference to me. Will that be enough for you?"
Fred Gwynne, My Cousin Vinny: "What is a yoot?"

”Individual stock returns listed on M* and other sites(YTD, various average annual time periods) would be less annual dividends, correct?”

@Roy - I think you are incorrect. Pretty sure those M* annual return numbers (and those from similar sources) reflect average returns with dividends reinvested. Also, the numbers reflect the effect of compounding - especially important in the multi-year numbers. I’m less certain when it comes to graphs at Google & elsewhere. ISTM those are raw NAV numbers w/o dividends factored in. Fund prospectuses also provide a similar presentation of a fund’s return out to 10 years. ISTM they are required to provide that data. (Woe is Hussman)
Here’s what Chat GPT answered when I asked using Bing’s website:
”Published mutual fund returns typically do include the effect of reinvested dividends and compounding. Let me explain further:
1. Reinvested Dividends:
When you invest in a mutual fund, some of the companies held within that fund may pay out dividends to their shareholders. If you choose to reinvest these dividends, they are used to purchase additional shares of the mutual fund. The reinvested dividends contribute to the overall growth of your investment over time. Therefore, the published returns of a mutual fund usually account for the reinvestment of dividends.
2. Compounding:
Compounding refers to the process where your investment earns returns, and those returns themselves generate additional returns. In the context of mutual funds, compounding occurs when both the capital appreciation (increase in the fund's value) and reinvested dividends work together to boost your overall return. Published returns typically reflect this compounding effect.
3. Total Return:
The total return of a mutual fund includes both capital gains (price appreciation) and any income generated (such as dividends). It considers the reinvestment of dividends and the compounding effect. This total return is what you'll find in published reports or when researching mutual funds.
In summary: When you see published mutual fund returns, they already incorporate the impact of reinvested dividends and the power of compounding. Keep in mind that fees and expenses may also affect the actual returns you receive. Always review the fund's prospectus and consult with a financial advisor for personalized advice.”

As a person who has largely invested through open end mutual funds for 40 years with only holding a handful of individual stocks during that time, when I am researching mutual funds I am used to "total return" figures from mutual fund companies and M*.
Individual stock returns listed on M* and other sites(YTD, various average annual time periods) would be less annual dividends, correct?

This ad-hoc feature returns this week with several related stories. LINK1 LINK2 BarronsLINK
FORSYTH is a fan of CEFs at discount. He now likes muni MYD, VFL, LEO; options-writing equity GDV, ECF, AOD, AGD; term-trusts FTHY, BSL.
FUNDS. Cash/cash-equivalents won’t be attractive for long. Consider extending maturities with ultra-, short- and intermediate- term bond funds (ICSH, MINT, JAAA; BSV; BND). Multisector bond funds (OSTIX, TSIAX), and dividend-stock funds (VYM, XLV).
FUNDS. Thematic AI-ETFs are hot now, but those may include all sorts of related techs: BOTZ, AIQ, TECB, IGPT, CHAT, etc. Be aware that tech ETFs QQQ, XLK, etc have related tech exposures; SP500 (IVV, VOO, SPY) is also heavy in techs.
Q&A/Interview. Alesia HAAS, Coinbase/COIN CFO. The US-based Coinbase has been very volatile. It ran up on the excitement related to the SEC approval of several physical/spot-Bitcoin ETFs (iShares IBIT, Fidelity FBTC, Grayscale GBTC, etc), but then sold off when investors became concerned that its new Bitcoin ETF custody business was a low-margin business that may hurt its retail business. COIN has diverse businesses – exchange, broker-dealer, custody; recent rate hikes helped with higher interest income. It has also increased its global presence. The legal fight with the SEC continues. These new Bitcoin ETFs will appeal to institutions, pension funds, RIAs. This will be a long-term positive for the industry, and for COIN, despite some short-term concerns. Congress needs to pass new crypto legislations, but it has been bogged down with other pressing matters.
RETIREMENT. Homeowners may tap home-equity loans (HELOCs). Typical rates are variable, now around 9.27%. Beware of teaser rates and conditions that may trigger credit line reduction or cancellation. Of course, it’s a loan that has to be repaid, so discipline is required.
Supplement GUIDE TO WEALTH
In this expensive market, consider DIVIDEND-paying stocks. Only funds are mentioned below, but several stocks are also included in the article.
US: VYM, SCHD
Consumer-Staples: XLP
Financials: XLF
MLPs: SMAPX
Real Estate: VNQ, XLRE
Utilities: XLU, UTG
Foreign: IEFA, IEMG
Cash-Equivalents: in limited amounts.
Variations of BENGEN’s (1994) 4% initial withdrawal with COLA are discussed. Bengen himself says that 4.7% w/COLA is fine now; some advisors say that 6% w/COLA but annual monitoring may work. Others say to skip COLA in down years. Another variation is to just take 4% of the yearend balances – it removes the SOR risk, but annual withdrawals may vary widely. Immediate-annuities transfer longevity risks to insurance companies for fees. Keep in mind that increasing RMDs are also required from T-IRA and 401k/403b; Roth Conversions will reduce the RMDs.

@David, I agree 100%. Though if fund managers were content to not be beholden to (or required to track?) a benchmark, this probably wouldn't as big a concern for them. But if they can't brag about their performance vs. an index or fund category, they'd struggle to market themselves to attract AUM and/or differentiate from the crowd. Thus, many funds often act alike and become a costly jumble of 'me-too' vehicles in their manager's quest to dodge peer pressure.
I like absolute return metrics myself, at least in terms of overall analysis of performance - in my portfolio, I don't care if I 'beat/trail the S&P or my M* category or other funds. If I can SWAN and make a decent return for myself and my needs, whether that performance is +/- 5%, 11%, or 25% in a given year vs everyone else, I don't care. But the average investor tends to act only on recency bias, so immediate past/current performance is all the fund managers focus on to attract new money.
(I don't like most of the popular tracking/benchmarking indexes anyway, which are used by most passive indexing funds that are so widely held, because they're market-cap weighted, as I've said for years. But they're 'cheap' which is used as a carrot to attract investors, so....here we are.)

Different twist. This one’s for “ordinary” rather than “regular” investors - :)
“In the past several years, private-equity firms have begun to raise large amounts of money from retail investors, a group that most alternative-asset managers had typically neglected. Private funds are generally open to people with at least $1 million to invest or an annual salary of $200,000 or more …”
WSJ
Here’s a YAHOO link / story if you don’t have a WSJ subscription.

@dily Hi! Devesh makes the essential point: are you getting what you're paying for? Does the manager offer sufficient value to justify their fees?
For about 80% of all funds, the answer is "no." Our corporate position has always been that 80% of funds could close with no loss to anybody but the adviser's bottom line. Some funds, however, earn their keep. Devesh's explorations in international investing, for example, have led him to conclude, at least provisionally, that passive does not work in certain international arenas and that at least some managers fully earn their keep.
I have the same impression with absolute value or absolute return managers. There's an impossibly small pool of managers who are good at security selection but even better at being able to say "sometimes stocks are not worth the price, we're not owning them." That leads them to back out of the market's frothiest phases, which sorely affronts investors who expect ARKK-like upside paired with substantial downside protection. FPA, for example, lost half its AUM over a period of about four years even though it was posting double-digit returns with limited equity exposure. Leuthold likewise.
My own investment needs - reasonable upside, strong downside protection, the prospect of sleeping well - align with the willingness of Leuthold, FPA and Palm Valley to buy when conditions are good and turn away when they're not. I think that's valuable and worth the ask. I'd love to pay less but with investors relocating to passive competitors, it's not clear that will happen.
Does that make any sense?