If I recall correctly, somewhere in the 1990s or early 2000s, American Funds F shares (before they split into F-1 and F-2) were available through some second tier brokerages. That is, not Fidelity or Schwab, but some of the more obscure brokerages of the time.
Regarding loads and advice. Over at M*, John Rekenthaler wrote a column a few years ago (that I cannot seem to find) detailing why loads can actually work better (read: cost less) than other forms of compensation for small investors.
What I could find was a more recent paragraph by him summarizing his position (with which I concur):

While most financial writers--and many if not most of this column's readers--believe that commission-based advice is inherently worse than advice that is purchased by ongoing fees (mostly asset-based, sometimes flat), I do not. A front-end load fund that is bought and held for the long term is a relatively cheap investment and often a relatively good one at that. What matters is not the payment structure for the advice, but if it is offered solely in the client's best interest and comes at a fair cost.

Emphasis added.
He goes on to sketch figures comparing access and costs of wrap accounts vs. loads, though in the broader context of discussing the new DOL fiduciary rule.
http://ibd.morningstar.com/article/article.asp?id=718083&CN=brf295,http://ibd.morningstar.com/archive/archive.asp?inputs=days=14;frmtId=12, brf295
Since I don't seek advice (heck, I actively run away from anyone pushing advice at me), this "back to the future" sales channel of American Funds is attractive to me, as it may be for many people here. But it won't work for everyone.

FYI: The $44 billion Templeton Global Bond Fund (TGBAX) is probably not what most financial advisers would expect from a strategy in such a bland and stoic category as world bond funds.
But, based on the pace of money flowing out of the fund over the past few years, advisers and investors are catching on that this is far from a plain vanilla global fixed-income portfolio.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.investmentnews.com/article/20161005/BLOG12/161009971?template=printart
M* Snapshot:TPINX:
http://www.morningstar.com/funds/XNAS/TPINX/quote.html
Lipper Snapshot:TPINX:
http://www.marketwatch.com/investing/Fund/TPINX
TPINX Ranks #44 In The (WB) Fund Category By U.S. News & World Report:
http://money.usnews.com/funds/mutual-funds/world-bond/templeton-global-bond-fund/tpinx

Worrying about a brokerage firm going belly up, especially one like Schwab, is not really warranted, Vintage. Your holdings are protected under SIPC, even cash up to a very high amount. The issue I have with the smaller firms (like Scottrade) is they are likely takeover targets, as we are now seeing. They may or may not provide great service to clients, but we should be mindful of the financial disadvantage under which they operate. Each company has some things we might really like and use a lot, but that can change pretty quickly. If, as many expect, a lot of active funds will be biting the dust in the next few years because of performance, lack of dollars, M&A, legal problems, etc., it might be prudent to look at what index funds and ETFs are available at the bigger custodians, not to mention expenses for each, trading costs, trading restrictions, and overall account expenses/fees, and technology available to customers. I am not saying your fears are unjustified. I am suggesting that all investors should understand the ever-smaller margins firms have to deal with and the probable decisions that result from that, especially the smaller custodians that each of us might like. Another factor in all this are the ever-expanding federal regulations forced upon all in the securities industry. Dodd-Frank was a killer, and the newer regs just get more and more numerous, no matter how redundant, unnecessary, and strange many of them are. They all cost firms mega dollars to enact, monitor, and report, not to mention the hundreds of hours and larger and larger compliance staff needed to oversee. Companies have to offset these ever-growing expenses somehow, whether it is higher fees to customers/clients or even deciding a merger/acquisition is a better option.
We deal with client account transfers on a daily basis, and it is still surprising the road blocks different custodians throw at account owners. Fees here, fees there. Fidelity's comment about not waiving a fee is baloney. This is just not true. But think what it means to Fidelity, a $50 fee times many thousands of accounts is a nice chunk of change, and that is just the tip of the iceberg for them.

To the extent that the Fund seeks to invest in the securities of Indian companies, it currently intends to do so by investing in shares of the Mauritius Subsidiary, a wholly-owned, investment holding company registered with and regulated by the Mauritius Financial Services Commission that is also managed by the Adviser. The Mauritius Subsidiary was formed to allow the Fund’s investments in Indian companies to benefit from a favorable tax treaty between Mauritius and India. In order to do so, the Mauritius Subsidiary will seek to maintain residency in Mauritius. Please see “Risks of Investment through Mauritius” under “More About the Fund’s Risks – Principal Risks of the Funds” below for additional information.

Hmmmmmm.
(page9) http://www.citynationalrochdalefunds.com/Content/pdfs/prospectus/CNR_Statutory_Prospectus_Class_Y_2016.pdf

@learningcurve Yes, apparently Fidelity has found that @Junkster is one of those special individuals with unique financial wellness needs, and they have tailored one of their programs to address his concerns (a.k.a. good old-fashioned incentive pay). :)
http://www.plansponsor.com/Fidelity-Finds-Individuals-Have-Unique-Financial-Wellness-Needs/

Dan:
We are probably in agreement as to 'diminished work options' for the current college-age kids. And that is govt-policy driven, by the pols who serve the Establishment/Elite/Aristocracy of this country. Hillary, Bush 41, Obama, Bill Clinton, and Bush 43 served the interests of the American Aristocracy quite well. The dismantling of the American Middle Class was not by accident, it was by design.
But I am talking about spending, not income. -- Its been my life’s observation that most Americans tend to spend up to their income, or overspend, regardless of their income (unless they make obscene amounts of money). There is a desire among the majority of our people, no doubt fostered by corporate-marketing types, to consume today, at the expense of putting away money for a rainy day – even if one must borrow to do so. Parents splurge on their kids, husbands splurge on their wives, most everyone insists on “keeping up with the Joneses”. Bigger houses, bigger cars, more & endless indulgences. “Enough” is never enough. The financial impact of decisions is ignored – especially if such an analysis might cause one to defer immediate gratification.
So of course (maybe), the ‘median’ household has little savings. That is what happens when you choose to spend, borrow to spend, and choose not to save -- and make those choices so frequently that having little/no savings becomes who you are.
David:
As for UBI, I recently heard an interesting saying that applies: “Politicians who chose to take from Peter in order to pay Paul, can ALWAYS count on the vote of Paul.”

FYI: Financial advisers should be aware that funds could be doling out large capital gains payouts this year, says Morningstar's Russel Kinnel.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.investmentnews.com/article/20160929/FREE/160929914?template=printart
M*: Russ Kinnel Capital Gains Video & Text:
http://www.morningstar.com/cover/videocenter.aspx?id=771131

FYI: (I will link intereview as soon as it becomes available for free, generally early Sat. morning)
Regards,
Ted
September 30, 2016
Dear WEALTHTRACK Subscriber,
Few money managers have the conviction, wherewithal, stamina and independence to stick with positions that remain unpopular and unprofitable for years before paying off. This week’s guest is one of the few! We’ll be joined by Bruce Berkowitz, a deep value, long-term investor who rarely gives interviews. I have been interviewing him on WEALTHTRACK since 2007 and he has always generated a great deal of interest.
Berkowitz is Founder and Portfolio Manager of the three Fairholme funds - his Flagship Fairholme fund, launched in late 1999, the Fairholme Focused Income fund started in 2009, and the Fairholme Allocation fund begun in late 2010.
The Fairholme fund, for which he was given Morningstar’s Domestic Stock Fund Manager of the Decade Award in 2010 has delivered 10% annualized returns with dividends and distributions reinvested since inception, nearly triple the market’s total return.
However, the last decade has been much more difficult. The fund has badly lagged the market over the past 10, 5 and 3 year periods despite having several stellar years including 2012 and 2013 when it crushed the market and led its Morningstar Large Value category, gains that were offset by a big decline in 2011 and then another subpar performance in 2014, hurting its track record. The fund, which once had over $20 billion in assets, is now a fraction of that.
Berkowitz is famous for taking big positions in a handful of companies that are generally shunned and panned by Wall Street when he is accumulating them. He has made a fortune over the years in concentrated stakes in health care, energy and financial services. He has also poured a fortune in recent years into companies such as Florida real estate company The St. Joe Company and retailer Sears, as well as financial firms such as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which have yet to pay off.
There’s a well-known saying “Don’t fight city hall”… but Berkowitz is taking on the entire U.S. federal government. Fairholme is engaged in a multi-year lawsuit against the U.S. government over its handling of the conservatorship of the two mortgage giants, which although hugely profitable, are still under government control and paying enormous dividends to the government - but not to preferred shareholders like Fairholme. I began the interview by asking him why he is so committed to fighting this battle.
If you are unable to join us for the show on television, you can watch it on our website, WealthTrack.com, starting over the weekend. If you’d like to see it earlier, it is available to our PREMIUM subscribers right now. We also have an EXTRA interview with Berkowitz about his views on the presidential candidates. He says it is more about the team than the candidate.
Thank you for watching. Have a great weekend and make the week ahead a profitable and productive one.
Best Regards,
Consuelo

(PRBLX holds WFC as its #1 position, added there during the last quarter.)
Src: https://www.parnassus.com/our-firm/highlight/184
Due Diligence on Wells Fargo
SAN FRANCISCO, CA, September 27, 2016
You may have seen recent news that Wells Fargo (WF) is facing scrutiny over its cross-selling programs that resulted in employees opening accounts and credit cards for customers without permission. As a significant shareholder and a responsible investment firm, Parnassus Investments is deeply concerned about this information.
We are conducting a thorough due diligence process. We have initiated conversations directly with executive leadership at Wells Fargo, and are currently evaluating and monitoring the various remedies the firm has applied. As additional information becomes available, we will further engage directly with Wells Fargo leadership.
At this time, the Parnassus investment team does not believe there exists a deterioration in WF’s company fundamentals. Wells Fargo management is still working through revisions to their cross-selling policies to remove incentives for practices that could harm customers, employees and the firm’s reputation. Although these new incentive and compensation policies are still in development, WF management has assured Parnassus that the firm and its team members will continue to emphasize deep client relationships.
However, given the circumstances, Parnassus strongly recommends that the Wells Fargo Board of Directors consider pay packages for WF executives who were responsible for the cross-selling programs in accordance with the WF’s claw back policies.
While WF’s responsible investing profile has been temporarily weakened by the firm’s cross-selling practices, it is important to note that the firm has many positive social aspects. Wells Fargo remains one of the largest corporate charitable donors in the U.S., has a strong reputation for promoting diversity and inclusion, and in general is regarded as a positive workplace.
It is our current belief that Wells Fargo has the capacity to recover from the damage that has occurred to its brand, including its relationships with customers, employees and regulators. As more information is made publicly available, we will of course update our evaluation and communicate to our shareholders.
Mutual fund investing involves risk, and loss of principal is possible.

I've waffled about reducing PRBLX for general portfolio allocations this year but not pulled the trigger yet.
This situation inclines me to do that just on principle since WFC is their #1 position, at least until this thing blows over -- granted, a 5% allocation won't move the needle much on the fund's performance, but still. I like the rest of the fund's holdings/positioning, so not doing anything out of haste, obviously. I thought PRBLX and PRWCX would be a nice combination, but maybe I'll just fold some/all of PRBLX into PRWCX and call it a day. *shrug*

The more I read about the history and etiology of the WF churning,
http://blogs.wsj.com/moneybeat/2016/09/16/from-gr-eight-to-gaming-a-short-history-of-wells-fargo-and-cross-selling/
the more I am thinking I am going to bail completely out of PRBLX, 100%. I expect such a fund, that makes such whoop over its DD in the SR space, to at least read the financial press and raise a fuss as warranted. Must think about this and sleep on it. Jeez louise.

Isn't WFC on of Warren Buffet's largest holdings? I haven't seen any comments about Warren.

This was a rather strange sentence:
"Buying Scottrade could enable TD Ameritrade to reduce costs by eliminating redundant back-office systems, while bringing in new customers, he said."
The simplest interpretation is that what was meant was that the combined entity could save costs by settling on one of the legacy systems and tossing the other. But that wouldn't be eliminating redundant systems at TDAmeritrade, which is how the quote literally reads.
Another possibility, while similar, would have TDAmeritrade elimintating its own redundancy. I don't know how fully ThinkOrSwim has been integrated into TDAmeritrade, but TDA could eliminate that redundancy by tossing its system and taking Scottrade's.
Whatever they do (assuming this acquisition happens), watch out for glitches. Barron's wrote in 2011 about TDA's 2009 acquisition of ThinkOrSwim in Hiccups in TD's Latest Acquisition: "We've covered quite a few consolidations among online brokerages. Some went extremely well, some were disasters. "
http://www.barrons.com/articles/SB50001424052702303545104576524570860463438
Not to beat a dead horse, but one of the most notorious integrations of financial institutions was Wells Fargo's acquisition of First Interstate (can't WF do anything right?):
"In its haste to eliminate redundancies in the two organizations' branch networks, back-office systems and staffing, Wells Fargo had touched off a chain reaction of operational glitches and customer-service embarrassments. These caused cost overruns, serious damage to the bank's historically strong reputation and brand name and, worst of all, market share declines, which are very difficult to reverse."
http://www.institutionalinvestor.com/article.aspx?articleID=1027771

I've waffled about reducing PRBLX for general portfolio allocations this year but not pulled the trigger yet.
This situation inclines me to do that just on principle since WFC is their #1 position, at least until this thing blows over -- granted, a 5% allocation won't move the needle much on the fund's performance, but still. I like the rest of the fund's holdings/positioning, so not doing anything out of haste, obviously. I thought PRBLX and PRWCX would be a nice combination, but maybe I'll just fold some/all of PRBLX into PRWCX and call it a day. *shrug*

The more I read about the history and etiology of the WF churning,
http://blogs.wsj.com/moneybeat/2016/09/16/from-gr-eight-to-gaming-a-short-history-of-wells-fargo-and-cross-selling/
the more I am thinking I am going to bail completely out of PRBLX, 100%. I expect such a fund, that makes such whoop over its DD in the SR space, to at least read the financial press and raise a fuss as warranted. Must think about this and sleep on it. Jeez louise.

The more I read about the history and etiology of the WF churning,
http://blogs.wsj.com/moneybeat/2016/09/16/from-gr-eight-to-gaming-a-short-history-of-wells-fargo-and-cross-selling/
the more I am thinking I am going to bail completely out of PRBLX, 100%. I expect such a fund, that makes such whoop over its DD in the SR space, to at least read the financial press and raise a fuss as warranted. Must think about this and sleep on it. Jeez louise.

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1376720/000139834416018968/fp0021776_497.htm
497 1 fp0021776_497.htm
STEWART CAPITAL MID CAP FUND
(a series of Stewart Capital Mutual Funds)
Supplement dated September 27, 2016 to
the Prospectus and Statement of Additional Information dated May 1, 2016
The Board of Trustees of Stewart Capital Mutual Funds has concluded that it is in the best interests of Stewart Capital Mid Cap Fund (the “Fund”) and the Fund’s shareholders that the Fund cease operations. The Board has determined to close the Fund and redeem all outstanding shares on or before December 31, 2016. You will be notified in writing of the date selected (the “Redemption Date”).
Effective immediately, the Fund will not accept any new investments and will no longer pursue its stated investment objective. The Fund will liquidate 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. Shares of the Fund are otherwise not available for purchase.
Prior to or on the Redemption Date, you may redeem your shares, including reinvested distributions, in accordance with the “How to Redeem Fund 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 “Dividends, Distributions and Taxes” 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 THE REDEMPTION 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 (877) 420-4440.
This Supplement and the existing Prospectus dated May 1, 2016, provide relevant information for all shareholders and should be retained for future reference. Both the Prospectus and the Statement of Additional Information dated May 1, 2016, have been filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, are incorporated by reference and can be obtained without charge by visiting www.stewartcap.com or calling the Fund at (877) 420-4440.

FYI: Municipal bond funds have been on a tear, witnessing 51 consecutive weeks of net inflows as of the third week in September (the second-longest run since Lipper began tracking weekly flows in 1992). With equities hitting new highs and related dividend yields on the decline, nervous investors — many of whom may believe the recent equity rally has gotten a little long in the tooth — have been flocking to the relative safety and high tax-equivalent yields provided lately by municipal debt.
The question is, will the rally in the asset class continue, or are its winning ways nearing an end?
Regards,
Ted
http://lipperalpha.financial.thomsonreuters.com/2016/09/is-it-too-late-to-get-on-the-municipal-bandwagon/?elq=69da1c233003412d853fc08ad6c3f126&elqCampaignId=166&elqTrackId=AA3443C01D888AA41AF69EC70CDC4DFB&elqaid=2024&elqat=1&utm_campaign=Newsletter_LipperAlphaInsight_FundInsightsWeeklyUpdate&utm_content=Newsletter_FundsWeekly_September27&utm_medium=email&utm_source=Eloqua

Hi Mark,
A lot of folks have been asking the same question: Given their documented performance successes, why not more females in the financial industry?
Many studies have addressed this issue, and some easy answers have been proposed. Some elements of those answers can be found in the Morningstar paper that I referenced. Here is a Link to yet another article proposing a simple answer:
https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-02-24/why-don-t-more-women-hold-top-jobs-in-finance
Basically, women choose other fields. Their educational achievements and other glittering attributes surely qualify them. Biases quickly give ground to performance in the financial world. So the quick answer is that it is a simple matter of choice. Women choose other occupations. More power to them and the freedom of choice.
Best Wshes.

The paper does not express concepts clearly, giving the writers the benefit of the doubt that there are well-defined underlying concepts.
For example, is human capital "the net present value of his or her future earnings" (p. 6, pdf p.8)? That's how I would have defined it.
But in the spreadsheet (Figure 12, p. 17, pdf p. 19), human capital is shown to be the present value of future savings. Put a savings rate of 0% into column D, and your human capital comes out as 0. So I guess if you're not going to save anything, you might as well not work, even if you could bring in a half million bucks a year, as in the spreadsheet example?
Getting back to bee's question about reading the chart. First, remember that it is illustrative. The only thing it's designed to show is that as you get older, your human capital declines (as you, well, decline). Consequently, even if your financial assets don't grow, they grow as a percentage of your total. That's all you can read into this chart.
Second, the value of human capital (as muddled through above) is not your annual salary, but your lifetime future earnings reduced to present value. Take your hypothetical person earning $25K at age 25, with salary expected to grow to $100K at age 60. Suppose that this is the last year he plans to work.
At age 25, the human capital (using 3% discount rate) is worth somewhere around $1.2M. (With 0% discount, you'd get a bit over $2M.) At age 60, the human capital is worth around $100K (one final year's earnings). The youngster has a lot more, not less, human capital than the senior about to retire.
I agree with the paper's idea of reducing future income (e.g. future wages) to NPV and increasing equity allocation accordingly. Beyond that, I'd look closely at every assumption and calculation (and figure label, e.g. there are two Figure 10s) in the paper.
I would apply the same idea to Social Security - another income stream that one can reduce to present value and use to increase equity allocations.

Hi Bee,
I likely am greatly overconfident in my contribution here since I'm running naked now. I did not and do not intend to read the referenced article.
Just as DanHardy implies, the Human Capital chart that you culled from the article is just too, too simplistic. Perhaps it is representative as a gross average, but there must be a host of significant exceptions. So many exceptions that the curve itself is a distortion of reality.
For example, as I aged, I collected human capital through study and experience without really increasing my wealth. Life is not a smooth function of time. Successes and failures happen abruptly. Even represented as a percentage, financial assets and human capital are not necessarily a well behaved trade off. Learning benefits often exceed financial rewards. Life is a very non-linear, uncertain process.
I don't plan to research any such perceived relationship. Life is too short.
Best Wishes.

Why stop at human capital? Why not include:
Legal capital
Social capital
Infrastructure capital
Environmental capital
Health care capital
Educational capital
Nutritional capital
Financial Markets & systems capital

Check out this article:

Thanks for the article. If I am reading this chart correctly.

The chart illustrates that a 25 year old has 9x as much human capital as financial assets. A 40 year old has an equal amount of human capital as financial assets and at 60 year old should have financial assets equal about 9X their human capital. This chart seems like a pretty good way to gauge where a worker needs to be in the process of using human capital to accumulate financial assets which I assume is the intent of this chart.
I'll assume we're equating human capital (income producing activities moment by moment) to accumulated financial wealth.
As a simple example, if human capital at 25 years old is say, "$50K", then by 40 years old financial assets should equal "$50K". A 25 year old has 15 years to save some of his/her human capital each year to reach this goal at age 40. This amounts to investing about $2100 / yr with an average return of 4%. Seems very achievable.
If at age 60 your human capital is say "$100K", your financial assets should equal "$900K". A 40 year old has 20 years to invest some of his/her human capital each year to reach this goal at age 60. This would amount to investing about $25,500 / yr with an average return of 4%. This seems a bitt more challenging especially when things like college tuition, weddings, and elderly parents (or unemployed kids) are siphoning off some of your human capital.

@MSF, Agreed BlackRock still has a long way to go, but is somewhat ahead of the curve relative to Vanguard in acknowledging that climate change is a material financial risk. This is why of the three big indexers I say State Street is now the best choice for both the environmentally conscious and the cost conscious. For those who are primarily concerned about ESG factors, smaller boutique shops like Pax World and Parnassus are light years ahead of any of these big firms. Perhaps Deutsche Bank's funds might represent an interesting compromise between concern for ESG and cost.