@Crash I think you may be correct... Bonds may just be poison. I'm looking at my FUAMX , FXNAX , FNBGX and wondering what the future holds. I don't like making changes either but what does the next 2-3 years mean for bonds? It seems like foul weather ahead.

I'm still 55% bonds, in retirement, and wanting to reduce risk and volatility. Though I'm still re-investing the monthly dividends, I'm glad to see that income show up at the end of each month. (Though my PTIAX pays in the middle of the month, after someone thought it would be a better idea.) 38% stocks is about enough for me. The Fund Managers of the funds in my portfolio together have me holding 8% in cash. I'm giddy to see days like today, even though I know I'm missing a chunk of the profits by holding all those bonds. The ballast feels comfortable when the Market drops, the way it did, last week. ..... So..... I'm sure you'll think this through to do the best thing in your own situation.
I'm happy with my bond funds: PTIAX, PRSNX, RPSIX. I think I'd steer clear of anything specifically devoted to long term bonds right now. (FNBGX.) Those are all Fidelity funds. Maybe you're semi-married to Fidelity? The same way I'm rather married to TRP? I'm in my holdings DIRECTLY with the fund family, not using a brokerage. If you use a brokerage, that would make spreading out your stuff a lot easier than in my case.
Anyhow, if you've got some years to go, wanting to grow rather than preserve, I'd create a meaningful position in small-caps. Just don't bet the farm. I own PRDSX and it's great. @TheShadow pointed out to me that it is open to new investors. I was mistaken.
FOCSX (A Fidelity fund.) HASGX (Harbor, $50k minimum to get in.)
Also, global: HGGIX (Harbor, again.) PRGSX (TRP Global.)
...Or a million others you might prefer. Zero interest rates and a big investment in bonds will not serve you well if you still have several years to go.

Expect the unexpected. The most bizarre year for investing that I've experienced in all my years and it defies any logic or sense that I can apply to it.

@Crash I think you may be correct... Bonds may just be poison. I'm looking at my FUAMX , FXNAX , FNBGX and wondering what the future holds. I don't like making changes either but what does the next 2-3 years mean for bonds? It seems like foul weather ahead.

All MF's are NTF. No commission. I did not mention load. That is a separate item. In my account if you click on" research and tools", then click on mutual funds, a page appears where you choose( in small letters) the list you wish ,either load list, no load list or NTF funds. Clicking on the no load list brings up a page and at the bottom it notes there are 11090 funds on the list. My checks were free. My Fidelity and Firstrade checks both list UMB bank in Missouri. I did not look at the ATM cards.
If purchasing TF funds at Fidelity for $5 is by first setting up the account for recurrent purchases on a timed basis and then discontinuing this, I prefer just buying NTF without the extra work. There is no secure e-mail that i know of.
Again I have no connection to Firstrade. For those who are willing to deal with the negatives and fees are an issue with another company then this may be an option. I have had a good experience so far. Yours may be different. As I noted earlier, I buy load waived funds at Fidelity ,if need be. I think Fidelity is a great company and have had an account with them for at least 20 years. Due diligence as always before making any decisions.

The high turnover appears to be more for making profit than protecting against loss. For example:

A funds turnover ratio can vary and rise due to a plethora of causes. Pastor, Stambaugh, and Taylor (2016) suggest that turnover ratios are higher when the market environment falls within certain parameters. Their findings suggest that turnover ratios are higher in an environment where investor sentiment is high, stock volatility is high, and stock market liquidity is low. These market characteristics allow for more profitable opportunities for fund managers, as well as an increase in flows in to the funds as investor sentiment rises. These parameters are similar to that of the recovery period following the time period one which is the time period analyzed in the research by Li, Klein, and Zhao (2012) who find that the highest turnover ratios are found during the time following a financial crisis. Following a time when markets are severely down it is not unexpected that many old positions would be sold off in order to replace them with new more promising positions that arise as the market begins to see positive returns again.

https://scholarsarchive.library.albany.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1013&context=honorscollege_finance
SEC yield is based on the idea of constant yield to maturity. Think about a yield curve where 2 year bonds pay 2% to maturity and one year bonds pay 1%. If you buy a two year bond with 2% YTM, you're getting a total of 4% interest. After a year, the market says that it will pay 1% interest.
The price adjusts accordingly though effectively you're getting 3% for that first year and 1% for the second year. If a fund continually buys two year bonds and sells them off after a year, it achieves a 3% yield. That comes at a cost. The average maturity of that fund is 1.5 years (bonds are all between one and two years from maturity). If the fund held the bonds to maturity, the fund's average maturity would be one year. Shorter maturity and less risk.
Here's a brief paper explaining this phenomenon:
https://www.northerntrust.com/documents/commentary/investment-commentary/maturity-bond-funds-vs-individual-bonds.pdf

I'll first reiterate that if there's a specific fund that you want, there's a good chance that Firstrade has it with no brokerage-charged commission and that it may have a lower min than one would find elsewhere.
That said, there are a lot of other statements that seem to be misunderstandings or misleading; or I don't understand.
Every MF on the platform is NTF.
If NTF means "no commission", that's true. But if it means no fee including no load, that doesn't appear to be the case. (Note that load funds are generally commission-free everywhere even though you may still have to pay the load.)
Consider Praxis Genesis Growth Fund. It has only one share class, MGAFX. When I log in to Firstrade, go to the customer fund screener, check Fund Family (Praxis), and check Load Type (Load), this fund along with a few others shows up. (It does not show up if I select no load instead of load to screen.)
FWIW, it appears to be NTF (really NTF, i.e. load-waived) at TD Ameritrade.
Firstrade does sell this fund: I go to my mutual fund trading page (from the "Trading" drop down, select "Mutual Funds") and enter MGAFX. It says that at Firstrade the fund has a $1K min and three day settlement. Since I closed my account years ago I can't actually test a trade.
The site is quirky in that the M* info page shows the normal 50,000 minimum [for VWIAX] but on the buy ticket the minimums change to $500
Same as for me, so that's evidence that I'm looking at the same page when looking up VWIAX or MGAFX. Note that if one enters VWELX or VWENX one sees that Wellington is not open to new investors at Firstrade. But if you could open VWENX at Firstrade, you'd only need $500.
Old joke: Customer - the guy down the street is selling the same thing at half the price
Shopkeeper - why don't you go down the street and buy it there?
Customer - he doesn't have any left
after becoming a customer and opening an account (no minimum) that number became 11,090 no load NTF funds when you are signed into the site and click on the no load fund list and they are all listed as such.
Yet the customer screener shows "just" 9,903 no load share classes. In addition, it shows 6,316 load share classes. To borrow from Graeme Edge of the Moody Blues: which is right and which is an illusion?. Buffalo Springfield also comes to mind.
I re-balance twice yearly. Also I prefer to reapportion monthly dividends/gains to positions of my own choice based on the economy, my current financial and tax situation or cash needs. Typically I would do about 40 buys/sells a year. At Fidelity about $800-1000/yr
At Fidelity, I can add to a TF position for $5 and sell for $0. 20 buys and 20 sells would run me $100 bucks.
I'm glad you mentioned tax situation. Fidelity has had online cost basis services - specific lot identification and changing default disposal method - down pat for decades. These days, most other brokerages make it easy as well. All I've found so far at Firstrade is: "Please contact your broker if you wish to change the default tax-relief method for your account or specify different tax lots for liquidation".
https://www.firstrade.com/content/en-us/accounts/taxcenter/?h=costbasis
Though few in number, Firstrade does have some nickel and dime fees. It charges $15 (or $50) for check printing. It doesn't appear to provide ATM rebates and charges 3% for foreign transactions after the first one each month. (BTW, Fidelity's debit card is provided by PNC bank, not UMB.)
Lewis asked about security against hacking. A question worth thinking about considering that I was able to log in years after closing my account by just looking up my old login/passwd/pin in my home files. The system didn't suggest that I might want to change my password (no password aging).
It doesn't seem to offer two factor authentication, though it claims that a PIN constitutes "an additional factor". It does not.

there are three generally recognized factors for authentication: something you know (such as a password), something you have (such as a hardware token or cell phone), and something you are (such as your fingerprint). Two-factor means the system is using two of these options."

https://www.pcmag.com/how-to/two-factor-authentication-who-has-it-and-how-to-set-it-up
As near as I can tell, Firstrade doesn't provide secure email.
https://www.firstrade.com/content/en-us/customerservice/contactus
(The internal contact page has a different URL but the same info.)
Firstrade does meet legal requirements on security but doesn't seem to go beyond that.

We maintain physical, electronic, and procedural safeguards that comply with federal standards to guard your personal information. We protect your account information by placing it on the secure portion of our website and use industrial strength firewalls and encryption technology to protect personal information on our computer systems.

https://www.firstrade.com/content/en-us/customerservice/onlinesecurity/onlineprotectionguarantee
Note that SIPC insurance (or excess insurance) only kicks in when a brokerage is in financial trouble or filing bankruptcy. It doesn't cover run of the mill hacking or identity theft.
Firstrade, as with other brokerages (e.g. Fidelity), guarantees to cover your direct losses. This guarantee "does not include any tax consequences, legal fees and expenses, or any consequential, lost opportunity, special, indirect, incidental, punitive, exemplary or non-monetary damages."

Every MF on the platform is NTF. Also instead of VWINX I bought VWIAX the admiral share with a lower ER with a $500 minimum. Same with the other Vanguard admiral funds so far. The site is quirky in that the M* info page shows the normal 50,000 minimum but on the buy ticket the minimums change to $500. I also have a Vanguard acct that was switched from the MF account that I had for 20 years and find that Firstrade is much easier to use online.

I've had Firstrade among the brokerages I use for many years and for precisely the reason stated by the OP. I've had one fund order rejected but most work, great to get a foothold in institutional shares at a low minimum. One minor difference in my experience is that ACH transfers are NOT immediately available at least for mutual fund purchases, not sure if that holds true for stocks and ETFs.

Dodge & Cox has a high manager retention rate and manager tenure is very high.
Many of its managers/analysts choose to work at the firm for most (if not all) of their careers.
Here are a few examples:
Charles Pohl - nearly 40 years
Dana Emery - since 1983
David Hoeft - since 1993
Bryan Cameron - 38 years

I would like to know how I can find out how much leverage is used in a fund. I use the Schwab platform. Tkx!

It's being delved into here:
https://armchairinvesting.freeforums.net/thread/733/introducing-svarx

The above will not show you how much and how long leveraged was used over the years. The managers can change it anytime.
I found the semi-annual report for SVARX (link) from 3/31/2020 and more than 50% is in treasury bills, mutual funds about 30%, MM at 13.8%(maybe used for leverage).
What was the leverage 3-6-12 months prior at any time? no way to know

FD takes EVERYTHING personally. I just pointed out the FACTS about his posts on this topic.
He "Introduced" this fund to the world (sic) on two forums recently BUT had to be informed by other posters that it was highly leveraged. Read this full thread and his parallel thread on armchairinvesting and it's pretty clear that's the case.
That's all.
No reason to take it personally or claim after the fact that he actually knew it was leveraged. He did NOT know that, or at least he forgot to note that critical point (sic) in any of his posts about it until AFTER other posters pointed it out to him.
Hey, we ALL make mistakes and most of us freely admit them. Some though try to drag tired old stories into every discussion as though they provide absolution or are relevant to the topic at hand.

FD takes EVERYTHING personally. I just pointed out the FACTS about his posts on this topic.
He "Introduced" this fund to the world (sic) on two forums recently BUT had to be informed by other posters that it was highly leveraged. Read this full thread and his parallel thread on armchairinvesting and it's pretty clear that's the case.
That's all.
No reason to take it personally or claim after the fact that he actually knew it was leveraged. He did NOT know that, or at least he forgot to note that critical point (sic) in any of his posts about it until AFTER other posters pointed it out to him.
Hey, we ALL make mistakes and most of us freely admit them. Some though try to drag tired old stories into every discussion as though they provide absolution or are relevant to the topic at hand.

Fact check. I did post on the sites above but the same person Big Tom = BT2020 = Stalker made the same arguments in both places.
There was not a mistake. As I said before, I don't owe you ALL the information. I presented several numbers. If there are errors in these numbers I will fix them. So far in the last several years the leveraged didn't affect the results, and we know that past performance isn't a guarantee of future results.
BTW, in my first post I have a link (site) and if you open it you can see SVARX total = 148.89%(clearly leveraged)
But, your supposedly "innocent" remarks are nothing new. Your posts over several years are far from it but nice try.
Did you post in the past (I have the link) that I have "NO CHANCE of meeting my annual TR performance goals, this year and for the foreseeable future"? Were you wrong?

@msf and anyone else who might know.
Do bond fund managers typically try and sell bonds before they mature to decrease the chance of losing principal? Is this why the turnover can be so high in some funds. I just have had a hard time understanding why the distribution yields can be so much greater than SEC yields (without ROC) for years at a time in many funds. Any thoughts would be appreciated. And thank you @msf for your wonderful explanations about similiar questions in the past. Fundly

Historical market data can’t help you predict the future but I still find it useful as a way to understand the potential risks and rewards you can see as an investor.

Looking through 93 years of returns for stocks, bonds and cash won’t help you predict future returns for these asset classes.
But it can give you a better sense of the risk involved in these asset classes since risk is much easier to predict than returns.

Stock, Bond & Cash Returns: 1928-2020
stock-bond-cash-returns-1928-2020/

Original posting on this thread, 5 years ago:
"....relatively conservative LC/All Cap dividend value fund..."
Are you still intent on a value emphasis, in 2021?
I'm doing just a quick look... Vanguard has been getting negative reviews here in terms of customer service. But VEIPX certainly looks good. Then there's PRDGX. But just lately, Index performance has beaten the fund's performance by a bit. .....Alternatively, what about investing in a single stock that strikes your fancy? For income, I use bond funds. These days, bonds are poison, I know. But I can't be pulling up roots and making changes all the time, depending on which way the wind blows. I've got the other bases covered to my satisfaction.

Hey @newgirl. The way I have invested in EM is to take positions in MIOPX, FSEAX, and CHIQ. By its nature EM tends to be more volatile so its difficult to try to invest in it without taking on a fair amount of risk. MIOPX diversifies that risk because EM is "only" about 37% of the portfolio whereas the balance is mainly in Europe, the U.S. and Canada. Kind of a barbell strategy which has worked very well over the long term. The fund is in the top 10% over the past 1, 3, 5, and 10 years for its category. however, its returns have been more muted over the past 1 and 3 months. FSEAX has had much higher returns over that short timeframe and if you pull up its long term performance on Morningstar its quite impressive. I really like the consistency in the performance of this fund. The other thing I like about FSEAX is that the manager has rotated more into financials so appears to be increasing his stakes on the value side more. I like to see a manager making those types of modifications to the portfolio based on valuations and their assessments of where the market is going. India and China are now the largest countries in the portfolio. I don't see any investments in Japan for FSEAX. here's the latest fact sheet.
https://www.fidelityinternational.com/legal/documents/SG-en/hffs.SG-en.SG.G-FEMU.pdf
You should also take a look at MATFX. I really like the manager of this fund very much and he's been running it with strong performance for about 15 years. This one is going to have a larger position in technology and communication services so that's something to consider. Those sectors are starting to lag here in the U.S. Will that be the case for EM too going forward? not sure.
For myself, I haven't added to EM in several months and have instead increased my stakes in U.S. financials and also in U.S. small cap because I see those as being a bit stronger in terms of opportunities and because my personal asset allocation has been low in those areas. But I will probably do so soon. I think EM Asia is very promising over the long term.

1.99% car loan, just a year ago. But lately, bonds have been misbehaving. We make sure not to pay interest on anything except the car loan. 4 years to go with that. Paying interest is like paying a tax you aren't required to pay. Unless unavoidable, like on big-ticket items, like a car. Strategy: I could have plunked-down the full price in cash, and pay no interest on the car. But I'd then never be able to grow the portfolio back to where it was, beforehand. That would mean reduced monthly dividends and yearly cap gains forever, thus permanently hobbling ourselves. Meanwhile, the portfolio is growing well beyond 1.99%.

EMQQ I attended a meeting about 2 years ago and bought it. Glad I did, it took about a year and is well placed.

Same posters, same distractions for years, nothing new. Expect it to continue.
BT2020 or BigTom have been following my posts for years over 3 different sites where he tries to find anything(even one word) wrong and/or one number out of order and claim...haha, this time I got you...just, laughable.
stillers claimed years ago that I will never retire, I will never have enough, and I will never make it...the fun continues.
All I did is presented a fund and its performance and SD. I don't owe you anything more. I'm not anybody's financial advisor or get paid by anyone. It's common sense to do your own due diligence regardless if I mentioned it or not. This is a message board where we post ideas. It doesn't matter if I made the warning in the first post or third post. Of course, I knew about the leverage, it's the first thing you see when you look at M* holdings(link) but as usual, you look at any word I post for anything for a gotcha...again, old news...mmm...maybe jealousy, after all, your predictions were far from the truth.

@BenWP: I'm guessing you're meaning ARKK? ARKK has a little of everything, but is getting HUGE...
I personally like ARKW as a hold, and I'm in and out of ARKG; since the volatility there is just CRAZY; 4-5% in a day isn't uncommon!!! And that recent week's runup; what was that; like 20%? More? Man...
Say what you will, Catherine Wood has been on fire for a few years now, and the only regrets I've had came on SELLS! I know it has to end, maybe badly, but until then...

BT2020: What FD is missing here is the leverage is HIGHER now then earlier in the year.
With HIGHER leverage and the corresponding INCREASE in treasury rates, interest costs and the associated risk for the leverage has increased then earlier in the year.

Maybe you are the one who missed my main 2 points. Please reread it.
It means you can't predict where the leverage will be next week or in 4 weeks. Leverage was used years ago. Example: the 10 year treasury is around 1.1%, in 2018 it was over 3% and in 2019 over 2%...mmm...are we anything close to that?
In fact, in 2017-2019 the 10 year was higher than 2%.

Maybe you need a lesson on leverage.
A fund manager can control the *amount* of leverage they use.
(aka the amount/quantity of swaps & margin in their fund)
The cost of leverage is what they don't directly control.
The cost of leverage is what is determined by interest rates.
If a fund manager uses a excessive *amount* of leverage and the *cost* of leverage goes up (interest rates) they will be pressured to sell something.
Your example talks about the interest rate (cost) of leverage but just because the *cost* of leverage was higher back in 2018 doesn't mean the fund manager was excessively leveraging a fund (amount) at that point.
There is a huge amount of leverage in the fund now and if investors want to ignore that risk than its on them.
Also, there have been numerous examples of funds going bell up due to excessive leverage and/or non-liquid securities.
But go ahead and keep pushing highly leveraged and/or non-liquid funds...
So what's next?
Are you going to start pushing 2x and 3x leveraged funds like Profunds & Direxion too?