Over the past couple of decades, there have been a few $0 TF services. Not surprisingly virtually all have fallen by the wayside. Mutual funds are generally not sold short, so there's no money to be made in lending the shares. Unlike Fidelity offering up a couple of loss leaders (losing but a few basis points) to draw profitable business traffic, providing a full menu of competing products below cost won't drive customers to proprietary products and services.
A good reference for 2001 brokerages and rates (I take 0 TF funds offered to mean all are NTF):
https://www.aaii.com/journal/article/discount-broker-shopping-guide-mutual-fund-supermarkets
At the time, Baker & Co, NetVest, Scottrade, and York Securities sold all the funds they offered without a transaction fee. I've never heard of the first two. Scottrade offered all funds NTF from roughly 2001 (based on skimming Wayback Machine pages) to the end of 2004.
I do recognize the name York Securities, but never tracked it. It's still around, though no longer selling all its fund offerings without commissions.
FWIW, here's Baker & Co's site (I think). Finding NetVest is trickier. The website listed with NetVest in 2001 takes you to an investing app startup. Possibly NetVest became NetVest Financial. In any case, Baker and NetVest Financial are now focused on financial services, not low cost brokerage services.
Apparently, Firstrade also offered all the funds it sold without commissions in the early 2000's (though not in 2001). That rings a faint bell with me.
Other financial institutions have tried to offer all funds without transaction but only to investors keeping significant assets with them:
WellsTrade required you to keep a PMA account ($25K+) with Wells Fargo to get 100 trades/year. Grandfathered accounts, no new ones for the past several years.
Scudder Preferred Investment Plus ($100K+ in assets) - 1998-1999 unlimited trades
Vanguard: 25 free trades/year for Flagship customers ($1M+ in Vanguard funds), 100 trades/year for Flagship Select customers ($5M+ in Vanguard funds).
Vanguard looks to be in it for the long term, but think about how they're doing it. You must funnel seven figures to their money managers, not just into their brokerage account. Fidelity may offer some good funds, but I don't see their customers having the same loyalty to their proprietary funds. Their customers are not likely to commit $1M to Fidelity funds just to be able to trade non-Fidelity funds without a fee.
Who else could make a go of this business model? T. Rowe Price? It recently upped its min in proprietary funds from $100K to $250 for a free M* membership. Would its customers spring for $1M to invest in outside funds w/o a fee? Or could they make a go of it with a min below $1M?

@VintageFreak: You said, " The only reason I have multiple brokerage accounts is because I've over the years become a COB, and worry about scandalous behavior from people at any brokerage sharing same genes as Bernie Madoff and want to protect myself. May seem irrational to some, but it helps me sleep a bit better." Don't worry Freak, Black Sabbath has a song for that !
Regards,
Ted:)

P.S. What does COB mean ?

Vanguard systems cannot do "math rounding" properly. Schwab is one of the best "rounders". This is the only consistent problem for me with Vanguard when tracking cost basis come tax time.
I come here for research. For me broker is just broker. I also have accounts at brokergages mentioned by johnN and also Fidelity. I am happy to report I've begun process of ridding myself of TDAmeritrade out of my life!
The only reason I have multiple brokerage accounts is because I've over the years become a COB, and worry about scandalous behavior from people at any brokerage sharing same genes as Bernie Madoff and want to protect myself. May seem irrational to some, but it helps me sleep a bit better.

@MikeW
Our house has been with Fidelity for 40 years and we're "self-educated" regarding investing. Our family backgrounds provided for learning and experiences from our parents which allowed both of us to be prudent in the area of personal finance and investing. No financial planners or advisors.
Thank you for being gracious enough to share your particular investment needs.
Not knowing your background or comfort level with investing; I tend to agree with @slick
that: "I think you are on the right track of finding a fee only planner but managing the assets yourself with occasional meetings to make sure you stay on track."
You noted, Schwab. I'm aware of the roboadviser, but not familiar with its functions as used by Schwab for guidance for an individual investor.
You also mentioned changing investments. Do you feel your current portfolio mix is not suitable?
Making a decision to use an investment advisor , would be a tough chew for me today (not to be confused with other estate planning functions). He/she would soon become tired of my questions.
Got to get pillow time. Perhaps other tomorrow.
Regards,
Catch

@Mikew, I hired an advisor who was a certified financial planner ar ML whom I knew for a few years with my work for a nonprofit after I inherited money from my spouse. It was more than I had managed previously so I thought it wise. She created a plan for me and transferred my assets from Fido. There were some funds that would not transfer so substituted a few, which were perfectly good funds. We did buy stocks, but she was not a fan of etfs as I was. There were some funds I wanted that I could not buy because they were not compensated, and frankly I found I was better at fund picking than she was. I ended up transferring back to Fido after 3 years, and manage my own assets, but do have use of an advisor with whom I meet with quarterly, no charge. I had more of an issue with ML than my advisor there, and we are still friends. I think you are on the right track of finding a fee only planner but managing the assets yourself with occasional meetings to make sure you stay on track. Fido also has advisors for half the cost of ML if you choose that route.

HI folks,
I wonder if I could ask for the board's advice on how to identify a good fee-only financial planner. I have had an initial meeting with an advisor at Merrill Lynch and he seems to be good. However, he only provides financial planning if I turn over my assets to him. He will create a financial plan and then charge me 1% for assets under management on an ongoing basis. I'm not sure that I want to go that route. I need to do some retirement planning that will evaluate my financial picture with the intention of retiring in 10 years. But I'm more of a buy and hold investor. I think that I might want to go the route of working with a financial planner who can develop the plan but that I would continue to manage my own assets. I'm not sure that the ongoing fee of paying 1% for someone else to manage my assets is worth it. I'd value your thoughts on how to identify a good planner. If anyone has had good experience with someone in the Washington DC area please message me.. Thank you.

FYI: If you have any clients retiring today, and they’ve had money working for the past 40 years, large caps were their best bet. Ideally, large-cap growth.
With all due respect to small-cap enthusiasts, high-yield fanatics or gold bugs, large caps have dominated a rollicking good ride from the late 1970s to today. These funds powered through good times and bad: sky-high inflation, bull markets, crashes and irrational exuberance. There were low points along the way, of course. That’s why we added both the best, and worst, annual performances for each fund, in addition to the 40-year annualized average.
Spoiler alert, the worst year for each one was 2008, the year of the financial crisis. The best year for 11 of 20 of these funds was either 1979 or 1980. But before you get too envious of the days of disco, bear in mind that the 30-year mortgage rate reached 16% in 1980, according to numbers from FreddieMac.
To be sure, a lot of funds aren’t eligible for this list. Any fund launched in the past 40 years obviously won’t be here, impressive gains notwithstanding. The biggest case in point: There are no ETFs on this list because they’re too new for our time frame in this analysis. The first ETFs made their appearance on the scene in the early 1990s.
So which funds have posted the best performance for the past 40 years? Scroll through to see the top 20. All data is from Morningstar as of 12/31/2016.
Regards,
Ted
https://bic.financial-planning.com/slideshow/top-funds-for-the-past-40-years
FMAGX annual return since inception, 2/5/63, is 16.04%

Yep, I like Fidelity too and am currently with them because they won the benefits business for the company I retired from. But this article was between Schwab and Vanguard. After a couple years now, I think I found the Schwab platform easier to negotiate actually. My two cents. c

I'll step forward, again, and restart the thread as we open September. Some may remember this thread was started by Scott who left the board three years ago, or so; and, I kept it going with his blessing. In the meantime the below link will take you to my last reported thinking.
https://mutualfundobserver.com/discuss/discussion/42056/old-skeet-s-market-barometer-and-report-june-july-recaps#latest

@Junkster et al.
IOFIX, 3 year chart.
In many years of charts, I've not seen this relative to the top portion of the chart for RSI. This fund has generally maintained an above 70 RSI (daily or weekly chart) and is currently at 93.5. Above 70, for the technical aspect, is a "watch this", as this investment has entered an "overbought" area. To maintain in the 80-90 range is very unusual. Most technical folks would be yelling, sell. One may also see the price spikes near the end of calendar months as noted by @Junkster, including a most similar pattern from August of 1 year ago.
@Junkster , have you an opinion as to whether the technical aspect is worth regard.
@Tony , if you still receive notifications from MFO; take a look and please offer your technical view opinion.
This link provides a basic description of ABS, relative to some IOFIX exposure. To the right edge of the page is a list of defined aspects of ABS.
Asset backed securities
Whatever management has figured out at this time in the investment area(s) is surely working.
Regards,
Catch

This is such a great thread ... It would be nice if someone would start hosting it again. I did it for a couple of years and felt ... Well, it was time to pass it on to another ... Wonder what happened to @pudnhead?

@Old_Skeet,
Re The Pudd - Don’t know - But I like to think he got it right with one of his typical “long shots” and won a ton of money. I’d guess he’s out relaxing somewhere on the sun-deck of his 200-foot yacht mid-Atlantic and out of reach of any communications. Or, he might be reading the board somewhere and laughing at those of us still striving to make the perfect call.
Of course, anyone is free to post their recent trades at any time, regardless of the BOS thread. I’ll say I do enjoy reading your normally very thorough weekly commentaries, although my approach is far less complex - perhaps because I hold maybe a quarter the number of funds you do. Was wondering whether you posted this weekend? Perhaps I missed seeing it?
Personally, I’m in the distance out from retirement phase (I guess similar to an Apollo flight out on the far side of the moon) and so don’t take much risk. I’m also leary of this long term bull and geopolitical environment and rising rate scenario. Still sitting with a stable Core weighting just over 75%; about 19.8% in short-term near cash-equivalency funds; and a little over 5% in an equity fund. That’s not as Draconian as it sounds, since within that Core are some moderate risk funds like DODBX, RPGAX, OAKBX, PRPFX - along with a slice of mining, real estate and global infrastructure.
Last week I switched my real estate holding from Oppenheimer (OREAX) to Price (TRREX) for no good reason except that my accounts are held directly through the fund companies. While the performances are near identical, it had the effect of burning some excess cash at Price and building a bit at Oppenheimer which might be put to good use there should market valuations drop. Oppenheimer has a slightly more aggressive near cash equivalancy fund in OUSGX which might yield a percent better longer term than TRBUX which I use at Price. And the transaction gave me a chance to toss a few more dollars into my depressed gold fund, OPGSX - literally pennies, because I consider gold too volatile to speculate on - though continue to like it longer term. Except for that minor rearranging of deck chairs, nothing cooking.

Hello,
This is such a great thread ... It would be nice if someone would start hosting it again. I did it for a couple of years and felt ... Well, it was time to pass it on to another ... Wonder what happened to @pudnhead?
It looks as @Crash started this one. Perhaps, he knows something?

Thank you Junkster.
I have considered DPFNX, but will look closer. I remember feeling a bit uncomfortable about the advisor in 2017, which was not helped when I saw this earlier this year ...
Deer Park SEC Probe
Here's side-by-side comparison of IOFIX and DPFNX this past year (99 peers):
Risk & Return Metrics ...

And looking back 3 years:
Period Performance ...

Batting Averages ...

I'll try briefly beating a dead horse one more time :-)
TDA charges a "regular" (not grandfathered) customer $49.99 to by a TF fund, and $49.99 to sell that same fund, regardless of whether the sale is after 1 day, 180 days, or 10 years. (See, e.g. this 2012 Forbes article saying that that TDA charges fees on both buys and sells of TF funds.)
It's charging nothing extra to sell that TF fund in under 180 days. That's why I view it as charging no special short term trading fee on TF funds. You won't save money by waiting 180 days to sell.

Exactly, So basically $100 total to buy and sell a transaction fee fund. I simply said I was paying $17 to sell and $17 to buy and then you said I was getting the short end of the stick. I couldn’t understand your logic of how I was getting the short end of the stick.

I'll try briefly beating a dead horse one more time :-)
TDA charges a "regular" (not grandfathered) customer $49.99 to by a TF fund, and $49.99 to sell that same fund, regardless of whether the sale is after 1 day, 180 days, or 10 years. (See, e.g. this 2012 Forbes article saying that that TDA charges fees on both buys and sells of TF funds.)
It's charging nothing extra to sell that TF fund in under 180 days. That's why I view it as charging no special short term trading fee on TF funds. You won't save money by waiting 180 days to sell.

As you can see, I edited my response while you were writing yours. I did try rereading your post until I could see what you were getting at.
I hope you'll read my last (updated) paragraph to see that one can pull off $5 round trips at Fidelity, with the proviso that one leaves a small amount in the TF fund for the next round trip. I have done this, but my round trips unlike yours last years.

I think we have different views on short term trading fees vs what you call routine trading fees. All I know is that TD will charge its regular customers 49.99 to buy a TF fund and 49.99 to sell if sold within 180 days. That is among the most onerous in the business and why I was about to transfer my account to Fidelity where they charge you 49.95 to purchase a TF fund and 0 to sell. But when I found I was only paying 17 to buy and 17 to sell on my short term trades I gladly stayed with TD.

As you can see, I edited my response while you were writing yours. I did try rereading your post until I could see what you were getting at.
I hope you'll read my last (updated) paragraph to see that one can pull off $5 round trips at Fidelity, with the proviso that one leaves a small amount in the TF fund for the next round trip. I have done this, but my round trips unlike yours last years.

TRP had a 90 day holding period with a 2% 'early trade' penalty and TDA has a 180-day holding period for a $50 'early sale' penalty. I just dumped a TRP at Day 90 to avoid the 2% ... .

T. Rowe began imposing early redemption fees on select funds around the time of the frequent trading scandles involving Dick Strong and other insiders (late 90’s or early 2000s). T. Rowe was not involved. But there were rumors that some of their international funds were being successfully “gamed” by schrewd investors taking advantage of the time disparity between international markets and the U.S. Around that time, SEC began allowing fair value pricing on international funds (another topic) which Price also adapted.
Initially, only a handful of Price’s funds were affected. The list has grown over the years and now extends to some domestic funds as well. Occasionally I’ll forget to check and get tripped-up by one of these fees. To their credit, Price is endeavoring to achieve a fairer playing field for all. Investors who successfully game a fund on a regular basis can/do lower the returns for everyone else. Price rolls these fees back into the affected funds for the benefit of long-term holders.
Price uses “first in / first out” for computation. So you might add to a fund in August and than sell the same amount in September. No fee is applied as long as the amount sold doesn’t exceed the amount you’ve held in the fund for the required period. While 90 days and 2% seems to be the norm, a few funds, like real estate and high yield bond, have only 1% fees. And, one fund (noted below) has a 365-day holding period. This information is published in the Prospectus of each and every T. Rowe Price fund (whether affected or not). Here’s the list of affected funds as near as I can get.
Africa & Middle East
Asia Opportunities
Credit Opportunities
Emerging Europe
Emerging Markets Bond
Emerging Markets Corporate Bond
Emerging Markets Local Currency Bond
Emerging Markets Stock
Emerging Markets Value Stock
Equity Index 500
European Stock
Extended Equity Market Index
Floating Rate
Global Growth Stock
Global High Income Bond
Global Real Estate
Global Stock
High Yield
Intermediate Tax-Free High Yield
International Bond
International Bond Fund (USD Hedged)
International Concentrated Equity
International Discovery
International Equity Index
International Stock
International Value Equity
Japan
Latin America
New Asia
Overseas Stock
QM Global Equity
QM U.S. Small & Mid-Cap Core Equity
QM U.S. Small-Cap Growth Equity
Real Assets
Real Estate
Small-Cap Value
Spectrum International
*Tax-Efficient Equity (365 days)
Tax-Free High Yield
Total Equity Market Index
U.S. Bond Enhanced Index
U.S. High Yield

fundalarm and others,
I only mentioned the K-1 because it was issued by an MLP....and preferreds issued by publicly-traded partnerships that issue K-1s, issue K-1s. Non-partnerships do not. And since NSS is a debt instrument, it doesn't issue a K-1 so it should be safe to hold in any account (but it is NOT QDI so probably better to hold in an IRA or other tax qualified account.

i've been buying those for clients. only the QDI paying - equity preferreds that are fixed for a few years and then either get called or start floating with the 3 mo LIBOR and a nice spread. the equity preferreds dont produce K1.

@Ted for a little “higher on the risk spectrum” floating rate preferred (actually a note...it’s debt, not a preferred stock, so no K-1 issues to deal with) to add to something like ALLY-A, maybe look at NSS (NuStar Logistics 7.625% fixed-to-floating subordinated note). It’s yielding approx 9%. Holding about 2% position and not looking to add, but would if it was smaller or I didn’t own it.

i've been buying those for clients. only the QDI paying - equity preferreds that are fixed for a few years and then either get called or start floating with the 3 mo LIBOR and a nice spread. the equity preferreds dont produce K1.

@Ted for a little “higher on the risk spectrum” floating rate preferred (actually a note...it’s debt, not a preferred stock, so no K-1 issues to deal with) to add to something like ALLY-A, maybe look at NSS (NuStar Logistics 7.625% fixed-to-floating subordinated note). It’s yielding approx 9%. Holding about 2% position and not looking to add, but would if it was smaller or I didn’t own it.