If a fund has a $100,000 minimum, is it OK if you invest with this amount and shortly afterwards, remove a large portion of the initial sum while maintaining the rest of the investment?
Maybe, maybe not. It depends on what the fund requires for a maintenance balance, and then if you fail to maintain that balance, whether the fund company chooses to exercise its right to give you notice (if required) and close (or downgrade) your account.
For taxable accounts, FZDXX requires $100K to open, but only $10K to maintain. From its statutory prospectus:

If your fund balance falls below $10,000 worth of shares for any reason and you do not increase your balance, Fidelity may sell all of your shares and send the proceeds to you after providing you with at least 30 days' notice to reestablish the minimum balance.

So by prospectus, you're allowed to drop the balance by 90% with no consequences. And even if you drop the balance lower, it's up to the discretion of the fund company (here, Fidelity) to close out the account after appropriate notice.
The reality is that for this particular fund, Fidelity is pretty lax. But don't push things too far. I did. For RMD purposes, I sold $10K of a fund in a Roth IRA and moved it to FZDXX ($10K min in IRAs). I announced to the Fidelity rep that my intent was that some of that be used for the RMD and the rest stay there to maintain open position in FZDXX. Even though this would drop the balance below the min; I would rely upon Fidelity's discretion not to close the account.
While the rep acknowledged that Fidelity doesn't really close these accounts, my explicit acknowledgement was a bit too much for him. He (rightly) felt compelled to check with his back office whether this was okay before he put the trade through. The back office said what I was planning was fine and the rep placed the trade. But I did, inadvertently, put him in an awkward position.
A few years ago, two Vanguard funds we held in admiral shares dropped below the admiral class min. Vanguard converted one of the funds back to investor class shares. The other fund Vanguard left alone. FWIW, the funds were submanaged by different money management firms.
The bottom line is that it depends. If the rules allow a lower maintenance balance, all is well and good. If not, it's up to the fund company. In my experience, most times the fund company won't care. But sometimes it does act.

But all you can come up with now is a mortgage fund and a one-day inverse gov ETF?
Weren’t you whingeing on about BSV months ago?
Do you have any nonwacky thoughts?

I posted already "You can make several % more in managed bond fund, this is where they shine. Think DODIX for higher rated bonds, HY Munis and good Multi (where I find my best ideas)."
In HY Muni there are funds such as ORNAX.
Both DODIX+ORNAX are not wacky. I'm a trader and based my decisions on big picture + T/A. I think 2023 would be a good year for bonds. If you want to make more, you got to know the funds you own. Good trading can add even more.
Hint: none of these funds are Vanguard (or other) vanilla funds.
BTW, I made a lot of money in "wacky" funds. In the early years of PIMIX, many claimed it's wacky and can't be done.
FAIRX was a great "wacky" fund in 2002-2008.
I love to find these funds.

Thanks for all the useful information
@msf
NALFX available at Schwab without a load.
NEE has an enormous portfolio of renewable energy so it can really not be considered as fossil fuel dependent as other utilities.
I have not found ESG calculations at M* very useful, as they are too inflexible. "G" is so widely defined almost any tech company qualifies.
Making money on the alternative energy ETFs seems dependent on when you buy them, and the price, as always. That is one reason why I think an active fund has advantages.
A lot of the performance of many of these funds recently is dependent on how much TSLA they own. Active management can cut back large positions like this when they price gets too extreme, but even funds without TSLA have gotten burned last year. ZGEIX for example held onto Beyond Meat as it crashed but sold it before the third quarter.
There are other sources of information but most cost a lot. For example, "Thunder Said Energy" sends out daily emails about their extensive engineering based research, but charges $500 a report. The free charts are very useful, however. As an example, they list projected Lithium demand, or requirements to upgrade the electrical grid. This lead me to GRID, for example, which has number of positions that are critical to upgrading the power grid, many of them in other funds.
The jury is still out on the environmental impact required to implement alternative energy infrastructure. Minerals, steel cement are all needed in much greater quantities than traditional oil and gas extraction.
One point the people at Thundersaidenergy make over and over again, is that the "transition" to decarbonization will require A LOT of energy and fossil fuels. I think it is short sighted to eliminate all oil companies from your investments because they will do well in the near term.
I have small positions in PWO, LIT, REMX,GMET,TAN,FXC NLR as water and minerals and nuclear power will have to assume greater roles than oil and coal in the years ahead.

@LewisBraham
I have owned FPNIX for years but lightened up last year as they lost money.
Does the large exposure to asset backed securities based on automobile loans bother you? If we hit a serious recession a lot of these are going down. Obviously, the managers are aware of this and must think they will not loose much

I agree with @yogibearbull. There must be a program that watches some of these transactions; and then makes an okay or not okay decision based upon the account holder history and likely total accounts values. Several years ago I typed the wrong ticker into a buy choice. The transaction was completed (pending market close). A few hours later, I realized my mistake. This was for a mutual fund that would't process until 4pm (market close). I spoke with a Fido rep. and he killed the transaction. Perhaps this would have been done for any Fido account holder, regardless of account value or longevity.....I'll never know. I would imagine, that fund houses have some amount of flex to keep their clients happy; aside what may be written in a prospectus.

I did that maybe 15-20 years ago with a Summit fund held directly at TRP when I believe the entry point was $25,000 - and it worked until I eventually sold the fund and moved on. Recall one of their (previously very capable) phone reps suggested the tactic to me. My guess would be that it would work until it doesn’t (ie for a number of months but not for years). If there are any “low balance” fees associated with fund, that should appear in the fund prospectus.

I did a little poking around when doing a writeup on ESG investing. Criteria and metrics are all over the map, so one needs to take care and understand the underlying methodology in looking at any scorecard. With all that said, a site I found useful (and one that Kiplinger lauds), is As You Sow - Invest Your Values.
https://www.asyousow.org/invest-your-values/
Lots of criteria with fund ratings and explanations. Here's their list of top fossil fuel free funds. Clicking on a particular fund will take you to a page that explains the letter score.
https://fossilfreefunds.org/funds
It really is important to go past the grade and understand what is going on. For example, it rates ZGEIX a 'D' on fossil fuels (though 'A' on all other ESG criteria). That low score comes from the fact that 5.51% of its portfolio invests in a single "bad" company, NextEra Energy (NEE).
Here are a couple of scorecards on NextEra Energy:
ClimateAction 100+ takes a very unfavorable view https://www.climateaction100.org/company/nextera-energy-inc/
Sustainalytics (a M* subsidiary) reports NextEra Energy's biggest ESG concern to be carbon.
https://www.morningstar.com/stocks/xnys/nee/sustainability
Is a 5.5% ownership stake enough to downgrade what appears to be an otherwise fine fund? Don't know.
With regard to New Alternatives, that's a fund I've loosely followed for a long time. Over the past several years it has performed well. My suspicion is that this reflects the world catching up to what it has focused on for decades.
As a mutual fund, it provides a rare window into marketing costs. You gave the ticker NALFX. Those are the older A shares, that come with a load. The newer, no load NAEFX shares have a higher ER due to their 12b-1 fee.
E*Trade sells NALFX NTF, and Schwab sells it TF, load waived. But these are likely new developments and most brokers sell it with the load. So an investor has a choice of paying for the transaction up front with a load, or paying it over time, with a 12b-1 fee. One way or another (except for E*Trade) one pays for the transaction service.

I'm married. So, I never know what the Big Picture actually looks like. It morphs and changes, with items added to it, always along the way. Rather than panic and try to respond with a huge, total makeover, I adjust.
In order to cover the spouse-person's most recently communicated priority, I'll be starting a TIPS account, while their landscape looks quite positive. Looks like that $$$ will get slud into SCHP.
Dizzy Dean: "He shoulda slud into 3rd, but he didn't, and he was out by a heifer's step."
******************
Otherwise, I'll keep things rather the same. I'll add to equities if/when things go south. Our investing time-horizon is lengthy. If one or two single-stocks on my watchlist falls far enough to look attractive, I'll start a position there. (FNLC. CMTV. TGH. BBVA. WFG. SCHN.) But growing the TIPS will be at the top of the list, until that puppy rolls over. We do not need to obtain that newest priority-item for several years, at least--- the item that the TIPS account is intended to address. I don't want to be so spread out that I'm actually "de-worse-ifying."
PRISX will be held at a greatly-reduced level. (DAWG!)
PRNEX will remain in the portfolio.
Here's hoping PRFDX will do as well for me in '23 as it did in '22.
PRWCX and PRCPX and TUHYX round out the mutual fund section of the portfolio.
Today is the first trading day of 2023. My holdings which bucked the fall in the Indices are the ones I own the least of: PSTL. JRSH. The others, I still think, are worth keeping: BHB. NHYDY. ET.

I am now K-1 free!
But until a couple of years ago, I used the PWC site (registration required) that consolidates reporting of most K-1s. Typically, they start to become available in mid/late-March.
https://www.taxpackagesupport.com/

I have been exploring funds focused on investing in "climate Change" which is a very nebulous focus, but essentially includes renewable energy, electrical efficiency, basic materials and minerals required for renewable energy, carbon capture, recycling, and mitigating the effects of climate change on society
I have tried to avoid ETFs and funds based on indexes as I believe this is essentially an engineering problem and requires active management to pick the companies most likely to be successful. An alternative is to use ETFs focused on minerals and resources required for renewable energy and electrification, like Copper, rare earths LIT etc.
There is not a specific category yet, I searched M* database looking for appropriately named funds. I have been able to find a number of funds, but most have limited track records, as they started in 2020 or 2021. NALFX has a long track record, and is widely available. Others to consider include GCEBX, RKCIX, HEOMX, and an ETF run my the group that put two climate activists on XOM board NETZ.
Vanguard recently stated a "Global Environment Fund" VEOIX and VEOAX run by a South African management company "Ninety One" mimicking the strategy in their existing fund ZGEIX at less cost. ZGEIX is supposedly available on many platforms, but not Schwab or Fidelity that I can determine.
GMO, prodded by Jeremy Grantham, has run a great fund for several years GCCHX, but it requires $1,000,000 minimum.
Another alternative is Valueline, which publishes a "Climate Change Portfolio" with about a dozen stocks with monthly reports for $200
Has anyone else looked into this?

Learned from past drawdowns that losing to a lesser degree provides a shorter time to fully recover and respond appropriately without triggering panic selling. Some funds may take 4-5 years just to reach breakeven point. Kind of like the hare and tortoise race.

Yes, always good to limit losses. The math works against you on the way back up as has been pointed out here many times.
Example - a 25% loss requires roughly a 33% gain to get back to break-even.

That is nuts for Blackstone to meet that 11% return for next 6 years. That is several % higher than average stock return.

Thanks @hank, good information. Learned from past drawdowns that losing to a lesser degree provides a shorter time to fully recover and respond appropriately without triggering panic selling. Some funds may take 4-5 years just to reach breakeven point. Kind of like the hare and tortoise race.

UC invests $4 billion in a special class I of BREIT that will guarantee 11.25%+ return over 6 years. Sort of an expensive financing for BREIT. UC reached out to Blackstone/BX for the deal.
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/blackstone-breit-gets-4-billion-133750550.html

@kings53man The problem with the "strong leader" is the strongman leader is the hallmark of fascism. In fact, one could say the "only I can fix it" strongman leader is the defining characteristic of fascism. Usually, the leader's popularity and strength comes from oppressing or demonizing a minority within a nation and/or outside the nation. I prefer squabbling democracies where no one person has too much power. One thing the past few years have taught us is how fragile such democracies are. In fact, I think the world would be better off if nations didn't have a single leader at all such as a president or prime minister. Throw in a requirement that every politician has to put their own children and/or themselves on the front lines of any military conflict and the world would be a much more peaceful place.

With respect to PRWCX’s time horizon, Giroux stated several times that he invest with the goal to match the return of S&P500 within a full market cycle but with less volatility. He has done that more than once. Question is his fund is much bigger now, can he still meet his goals going forward?
-
Here’s PRWCX’s expected time-horizon as stated by Giroux in PRWCX’s Semi-Annual Report - June 31, 2022:
“Before we discuss fund performance, I would like to review the three goals of the Capital Appreciation Fund:
(1) Generate strong risk-adjusted returns annually
(2) Preserve shareholder capital over the intermediate term (i.e., three years)
(3) Generate equity-like returns with less risk than that of the overall market over a full market cycle (i.e., normally five years)”
-
As I understand Giroux’s words, they mean that if you had money in his fund on January 3, 2022 when the markets / fund topped-out, you can expect to get back to “break-even” no later than January 3, 2025. That would appear to be in nominal dollars - not inflation adjusted. Hypothetically, should inflation run at a 5% annual rate over that 3-year period, you’d be “poorer” in purchasing power by about 15%. (Of course, Giroux seems to view this as a worst case scenario.)

In my circumstances, munis don't make sense. For a few different reasons, I'll be adding bonds to my taxable account. I've already got a slug of bonds in the IRA. I want to track the new TUHYX twin, the new ETF: it's THYF, before throwing money at it. Lots of options available. There's a strange contradiction about TUHYX, when I look at what Morningstar offers. Granted, Morningstar is not gospel, and there are many other sources to turn to. Anyhow, Morningstar rates it with 2 stars and with a SILVER decoration. On the surface, it looks not bad.... HIGH marks for the "Process/People/Parent" wonky categories, too. But then they show it at the bottom for '22 among peers. 2018 was some sort of watershed for the fund, probably a change in style or mandate. Since then, there have been three pretty good years, bookended by two awful years. Still, the dividends remain juicy. Can the share price still be falling much? Are we at the nadir? Different opinions about that sort of thing are what makes a Market........ At the moment, I'm looking at Schwab's TIPS ETF. (SCHP.)

I will invest hugely in bond OEFs in 2023, as I have done in the last several years.
But, I must see an uptrend to be invested. I think 2023 will be a good year.
You can make several % more in managed bond fund, this is where they shine. Think DODIX for higher rated bonds, HY Munis and good Multi (where I find my best ideas).
I made 9.7% in 2022, mostly in 3 HY munis trades. See ORNAX (chart). The 3 trades were several days in May + July and several weeks in Nov. All are based on T/A.

I had an investment with Dodge a number of years ago, but left when they carried a heavy load of financial & got toasted in 07-08 .

Yes @Derf. I remember it well.
The last thing I would ever do is try to steer anyone into any particular fund. But I like to note that DODBX’s track record extends clear back to the 1930s. Longevity - if not consistent performance!
Thanks for the comments.

Thanks for the reply @hank . I had an investment with Dodge a number of years ago, but left when they carried a heavy load of financial & got toasted in 07-08 .