Thanks folks.
Today (Saturday) is the first time in 10 days I’ve logged in to my Fido account when the news wasn’t worse. Actually improved overnight. Possibly, the discussions with 3 different reps yesterday helped. Notably, the earlier mentioned restrictions now apply only to my Traditional IRA. On the Roth & non-retirement accounts they’ve disappeared.
@msf questioned the “bounced check” restriction. While not posted to my account, it was related to me by a rep at Fido’s trading desk after being transferred to him with some fund specific questions. I do believe it’s on file there - but is likely such an infrequent (and serious) infraction that it’s not mentioned elsewhere. The “free ride” likely refers to the small position I’d opened in a favorite stock (mostly for fun) that was sold by Fido only 1-2 days later.
Fido mailed me copies of TRP’s 3 bounced checks. They were written on an account at Mellon Bank of Delaware. They are stamped: “Return to Maker - Reason S”.
Here’s a copy & paste I pulled from my Traditional IRA at Fido this morning:
Free Ride Violations – 1 Violation in last 12 months
Good Faith Violations – None in last 12 months
Liquidation Violations – 1 Violation in last 12 months
Hoping to buy back into those mutual funds and the ETF next week. The stock was temporarily depressed when I bought it. It’s bounced back to the point now that I likely won’t buy it again.
FWIW (unrelated): I’m sharing a link to a 2020 informational piece at Fidelity regarding their dollar “threshold” as to when a round trip in one of their funds is likely to get you into trouble. That’s an area I’ve been trying to nail down as I do tend to increase / decrease exposure to certain positions fairly often. If the (monitored) threshold really is $10,000 (as their memo suggests) that’s good news for a lot of us.
https://www.fidelity.com/bin-public/060_www_fidelity_com/documents/mutual-funds/2020-08-31-Excessive-Trading-Policy-Web-Post.pdf
PS - Try to be kind when talking to the reps at TRP. It’s not their fault things are so off the rails there. I actually apologized Thursday to a young lady after raising my voice in frustration. Her kind response assured me I was being tame compared to some of the interactions.

Schwab seems to have the clearest description of violations and how they can/must be treated by the broker ("creditor" in the regs). The rules come from Regulation T, and in particular §220.8 covering cash accounts.
https://www.schwab.com/resource-center/insights/content/stock-settlement-why-you-need-to-understand-t2-timeline
I found this part interesting:

Extensions
At Schwab, if you fail to make payment on a purchase of stock or deliver shares for a sale of stock within the designated time frame, you will receive a notification asking that you take action.
If you fail to act upon notification, industry regulations require that Schwab either request an extension, or buy back or sell out the position, as well as mark your account with a freeriding violation. Your account may also be placed on a 90-day settled-cash restriction, or incur more severe penalties, including account closure or removal of electronic access. Again, Schwab clients can request a one-time exception (i.e., once in the life of the account) to remove the restriction.
Schwab doesn't grant extensions for trades in retirement accounts (IRA's, SEP's Keogh's, etc.), or accounts with existing trading restrictions.

I suspect that Schwab doesn't grant extensions in IRAs because of the stringent law against borrowing in IRAs. But that wouldn't seem to preclude waiving the 90 day restriction imposed.
Reg T itself says:

(d)(1) Unless the creditor's examining authority believes that the creditor is not acting in good faith or that the creditor has not sufficiently determined that exceptional circumstances warrant such action, it may upon application by the creditor:
...
        (iii) Grant a waiver from the 90 day freeze.

Certainly there are exceptional circumstances here. If the freeze is important to you, it's worth poking Fidelity about their applying for a waiver.
All of this is bringing back memories of a vaguely similar experience I had with Fidelity. In an IRA I set up an auto purchase of a TF fund. I set the amount to be the available cash in the account. The system permitted this order to go through even though there was a $5 TF added. (Fidelity says that "If the cash needed to fund your automatic investment is not available in your core position, your scheduled transfer will be skipped", so this should have been caught.)
"Fortunately", the purchase was for one of the few OEFs with T+2 settlement. I worked with Fidelity and they agreed that if I were to sell $5 of another holding the next day, a fund with T+1 settlement, that would cover the shortfall. Both trades would settle on the same day.
According to Schwab, that still constituted a liquidation violation:

If an option or mutual fund is sold the day after a stock is purchased, a liquidation violation will be charged even if the proceeds settle on or before the purchase settlement date.

https://help.streetsmart.schwab.com/edge/1.22/Content/Unsettled Funds.htm
Fidelity never informed me that I had committed a liquidation violation.

This is an interesting development for ESG investors. The Engine No. 1 ETF will be seeded with $100 million, has a 0.05% expense ratio, invests like the S&P 500 and will finally vote the right way on ESG issues: https://etf.engine1.com/ That means if it gets a suitable amount of trading volume, it could easily compete with Vanguard's and BlackRock's S&P 500 ETFs, which generally vote against ESG shareholder activists.

The average employee has trouble often understanding how a 401k works in many cases let alone cryptocurrency. I find the "personal responsibility" argument to be a hackneyed one I often hear emerging from libertarians. One response I have to that--as you can make a similar argument for almost any dangerous product--what is the personal responsibility of the drug dealer to the drug taker? Why is it always the consumer of the product that is blamed with that personal responsibility mantra? If you offer a faulty dangerous product and sell it to consumers, you should be blamed. And yes, offering crypto will be a magnet for lawsuits. 401ks are a common target for lawsuits as they work well in class action suits and the laws about what are suitable investments for retirement plans are strict.

It’s not a bad idea at all. Yes, crypto is volatile, but the participants make the elections for their 401(k)s so if they are willing to take the risk then so be it.

I respectfully disagree.
The "average" investor often buys high and sells low when using volatile investments.
Since crypto assets are extremely volatile, this will lead to bad outcomes for certain investors.
Most 401(k) plans are governed under ERISA and plan adminstrators have a fiduciary responsibility.
IMHO, it would be reckless for a 401(k) plan to offer crypto investment options for participants.
People who are inclined toward crypto assets can always purchase these assets outside of their 401(k) plans.

...And another quick item: the one single stock I own (in a very small quantity) closed at a share price of $2.91 at the end of the day today. But TRP shows it at $2.95. There's only one word for that: WRONG. I bought those shares using my TRP brokerage account, for ZERO fees. Is the zero-fee aspect actually worth it, though? Ticker: ENIC.

hank I'm sorry to hear of your situation and appreciate all of your contributions to this board ! I've done enough of these ACAT transfers, so that I have to have procedures set in place.First, I verify that the in-kind funds are carried by the receiving brokerage. Then, I try to transfer as few in-kind assets as possible, usually reserving the in-kind procedure for closed funds or funds with a large minimum. I liquidate the mutual funds that I'm not transferring prior to starting the ACAT transfer. Ideally for a full account transfer, I'll be transferring 1 or two funds at most and transferring the rest in cash. I don't worry about having funds out of the market, since ACAT transfers take 4 to 5 business days at the most, and the most important thing for me it to grab the assets from the relinquishing brokerage as soon as possible. I will be unfortunately using this procedure in the next week, as my newest brokerage is causing me unnecessary headaches.

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1089951/000119312521200586/d578063d497k.htm
(see link for table)
497K 1 d578063d497k.htm AMG FUNDS
Filed pursuant to 497(k)
File Nos. 333-84639 and 811-09521
AMG FUNDS
AMG Yacktman Focused Fund – Security Selection Only
Supplement dated June 25, 2021 to the Summary Prospectus, dated May 1, 2021
The following information supplements and supersedes any information to the contrary relating to AMG Yacktman Focused Fund – Security Selection Only (the “Fund”), a series of AMG Funds (the “Trust”), contained in the Fund’s Summary Prospectus (the “Summary Prospectus”), dated as noted above.
At a meeting held on June 23, 2021 (the “Meeting”), the Trust’s Board of Trustees (the “Board”) approved the following changes for the Fund, all of which will be implemented on July 1, 2021 (the “Implementation Date”): (i) the Fund will change its name from AMG Yacktman Focused Fund – Security Selection Only to AMG Yacktman Global Fund; (ii) the Fund will change its principal investment strategies; and (iii) the Fund will replace its primary benchmark index with the MSCI World Index and remove its secondary benchmark index.
The Board also approved the following fee changes for the Fund, all of which will be implemented on the Implementation Date and will result in the overall reduction of the Fund’s net expenses ratios as compared with the Fund’s current fee structure: (i) the management fee for the Fund will be reduced from 0.87% to 0.71%; and (ii) the Fund’s existing contractual expense limitation agreement with AMG Funds LLC (“AMGF”) will be replaced with a new contractual expense limitation agreement with AMGF pursuant to which AMGF will agree, through at least May 1, 2023, to limit total annual operating expenses (exclusive of taxes, interest (including interest incurred in connection with bank and custody overdrafts and in connection with securities sold short), shareholder servicing fees, distribution and service (12b-1) fees, brokerage commissions and other transaction costs, dividends payable with respect to securities sold short, acquired fund fees and expenses, and extraordinary expenses) of the Fund to the annual rate of 0.93% of the Fund’s average daily net assets, subject to later reimbursement by the Fund in certain circumstances. AMGF pays a portion of the management fee to the Fund’s subadviser for its services...

In the U.S., the so-called Henry Hub futures prices have more than doubled over the past year to the highest seasonal level since 2014. Inventories are 5.8% below normal for the time of year, the widest deficit since 2019 on a seasonal basis, signaling tighter supplies for next winter.
Did Covid-19 have anything to do with tighter supplies ? If like other commodities, the answer is yes.
Stay Kool , Derf

I must not have been paying attention. While Schroder has been submanaging several Hartford funds for some time, it looks like they have also been moving out of the retail business. They currently have just two US funds still marketed under their own name, and this will reduce that to one fund.
https://www.schroders.com/en/us/private-investor/mutual-funds/mutual-funds-range/
For example, a 2017 proxy includes the statement:

As part of [Schroder Investment Management North America Inc.'s] SIMNA’s overall strategic plan regarding US mutual funds, effective October 24, 2016, ten of the funds in the Schroder mutual fund complex were reorganized as series of The Hartford Mutual Funds II, Inc., and it was subsequently determined that another fund would be liquidated (collectively, the “Other Fund Restructurings”). In anticipation of the Other Fund Restructurings, SIMNA was concerned that, with only five remaining Funds, the Trusts would have a significantly smaller asset base and therefore would incur expenses at potentially significantly higher rates than they have historically.

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/908802/000110465916163079/a16-23354_1pre14a.htm

The fund industry is a supertanker. Its turns are almost imperceptible. This sluggishness occurs not only because the industry is mature, such that existing assets dwarf the amount of annual sales, but also because old habits die hard....Eventually, though, the future will arrive, with millennials taking the place currently occupied by baby boomers, just as the boomers displaced their predecessors. And when that happens, the leading funds will look rather different than today’s.

https://morningstar.com/articles/1044327/the-next-generation-of-fund-investing

Just keeping an eye on the evolution of the tug-of-war between fossil fuels and renewable energy. Fossil fuels are having a better year so far (at least judging by my investments). The continuation of the multi-decade transition towards renewable energy appears critical and clear. But, it doesn't appear to me the time for fossil fuel investments has fully passed (I still own gas powered cars and a house heated with natural gas). Anyway....

“Supply will likely remain tight for the next two or three years as the industry makes up for the lack of new supply investments in 2020 and catches up with robust demand growth,” said Whistler.

https://bnnbloomberg.ca/there-isn-t-enough-natural-gas-to-calm-down-a-global-price-rally-1.1621711

Here's a little more info:

Freeriding
In a cash account, an investor must pay for the purchase of a security before selling it. If an investor buys and sells a security before paying for it, the investor is “freeriding” which is not permitted under the Federal Reserve Board’s Regulation T and may require the investor’s broker to “freeze” the investor’s cash account for 90 days. During this 90-day period, an investor may still purchase securities with the cash account, but the investor must fully pay for any purchase on the date of the trade.

https://www.investor.gov/introduction-investing/investing-basics/glossary/freeriding
See also:
http://personal.fidelity.com/products/stocksbonds/content/cash-restrictions-free-ride-violations.shtml
I would guess that the restriction would not apply to exchanges within a fund family, because these are executed as a single trade through the distributor. But exchanges across fund families are technically two trades, so you would not be able to place the second trade until the first trade settled. Likewise, buying and selling ETFs are separate transactions so a purchase of an ETF would also be restricted to settled cash.

A cash liquidation violation occurs when a customer purchases securities and the cost of those securities is covered after the purchase date by the sale of other fully paid securities in the cash account.

https://www.fidelity.com/trading/faqs-trading-restrictions
If I understand this violation correctly, it happens when you sell a different security to cover the cost of what you purchased, as opposed to a free ride violation where you sell the same security to cover the cost. It sounds like this happened because the price of the funds went down, so Fidelity not only sold the funds purchased with bounced check money but also some other holdings to make up the shortfall.
I can find very little on Fidelity's site about restrictions due to a "bounced check violation". All I can find about bounced checks is in (among other places) their CMA agreement:

If a deposited check or ACH does not clear, the deposit will be removed from your account, and you are responsible for returning any interest you received on it. ... In addition, if we have reason to believe that assets were incorrectly credited to your account, we may restrict such assets and/or return such assets to the account from which they were transferred.

https://www.fidelity.com/bin-public/060_www_fidelity_com/documents/customer-agreement-cash-management-account.pdf

Seems really dangerous and a path towards potential employee lawsuits against 401k plan sponsors and administrators.

If it's just an option, I don't get how you can file a lawsuit. Complete BS if you ask me. Just make it clear that it is a high risk investment. Nobody is being forced into selecting it... IMHO, as an employer, if you have cheap passive index options available for your employees then you're doing your job. You can offer other more costly active funds for employees that want that as well as high risk investments. The onus is on the employees when it comes to their allocation to the different instruments. The employer can't be responsible for everything..... People need to take some personal responsibility these days rather than just say everything wrong is someone else's problem.

Most employees have no say into what their state pension board and their investment managers invest the pension funds in -- so they could be exposed to crypto/PE/whatever and have little to no recourse. I vehemently disagree with the infatuation state pensions have with paying high-priced advisors millions of dollars in fees to get 'exposure' to PE and hedge funds thinking - er, hoping - it will jack up their returns. Which is one of the reasons I didn't go into the state pension system and took the 403(b) option.
By contrast, if crypto is offered as an investment option in a state-provided 403(b) type plan, then sure, you can chose whether or not to add it to your holdings.

I’ve avoided sharing my frustrations over the past few weeks. But perhaps the experienced investors at mfo will indulge my venting or possibly offer some advice. In May I began the process of transferring all my accounts from TRP to Fidelity. This out of frustration with TRP’s front office / client relations. Held at TRP were Traditional and Roth IRAs, in roughly equal amounts, plus a non-retirement account. Completed the applications online, but needed to sign, date and mail some papers to Fido.
For the largest holdings I specified “transfer in-kind”. For 3 short-term bond funds having relatively low balances, I elected the “liquidation” option. The transfer-in-kind went through as intended and much faster than the cash transfers, Later, 3 separate checks from the liquidated accounts arrived at Fido, appearing there as “cash available to trade”. I invested the cash in 3 mutual funds, 1 ETF and 1 stock.
Three days later my account turned “delinquent”. Fido without consultation began force-selling those assets. After I called, Fido’s team informed me that all 3 checks from TRP has “bounced” - meaning they’d been returned to Fido unpaid by TRP’s bank. I and Fido’s reps nearly immediately contacted TRP. Their answer was that there’d been a “systems error” resulting in an unspecified number of similar cases and they were “investigating”. A week passed. Untold hours on the phone with both. At TRP the average wait is about 30 minutes (followed by additional delays while they “check”). Yesterday, TRP informed me the checks had been resent and should arrive at Fido next week.
At Fido things went from bad to worse. I suffered a modest market loss when the 4 investments were sold out under me after only a few days. Than, they hit me with 3 commissions or early redemption fees totaling $233 (later reversed). The real issue now is that all of my Fido accounts are saddled with a multitude of “restrictions”. The Roth, which hadn’t even been funded when the issue arose in the Traditional, is also restricted. And, so is my cash management account, though the impact would seem slight. Fido says I’ll still be allowed to trade, but only with “settled” cash - a minor nuisance.
Here’s the restrictions placed on all my accounts as I understand them. There may be more I’m not aware of.
- 3 separate “bounced check” violations which won’t clear for one year
- 1 “free ride” violation in effect for 90 days
- 1 “liquidity violation” in effect for 90 days
As I said, none should prevent me from trading with settled cash - but any additional could cause me to be banned from trading. Since I’m still waiting for 4 more checks to arrive (3 for the Traditional and 1 for the Roth), I’m on “pins and needles” here. Fido’s says their refusal to remove the restrictions is because they are from violations of SEC regulations. I’ve searched for similar reported problems online - but found only one (from a semi-literate poster) that went up last week. I’ll share FWIW.
https://www.reddit.com/user/DistrictFinal5222/

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/908802/000139834421013371/fp0066221_497.htm
497 1 fp0066221_497.htm
Filed pursuant to Rule 497(e) and Rule 497(k)
under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended
File Registration No.: 033-65632
SCHRODER SERIES TRUST
Schroder Core Bond Fund
(the “Schroder Fund”)
Supplement dated June 25, 2021 to
the Summary Prospectus and Prospectus,
each dated March 1, 2021 and as supplemented
This supplement provides new and additional information beyond that contained in the Summary Prospectus and Prospectus and should be read in conjunction with the Summary Prospectus and Prospectus.
At a meeting held on June 23-24, 2021, the Board of Trustees (the “Board”) of Schroder Series Trust (the “Trust”) approved the reorganization (“the Reorganization”) of the Schroder Fund into the Hartford Schroders Sustainable Core Bond Fund (the “New Hartford Fund”), a series of The Hartford Mutual Funds II, Inc.
The Reorganization is subject to a number of conditions, including approval of the Schroder Fund’s shareholders and approval of the terms of the agreement and plan of reorganization by the Board.
If the Reorganization is completed as proposed, each shareholder of the Schroder Fund would become a shareholder in the New Hartford Fund with a substantially similar investment objective and substantially similar principal investment strategies, except for the inclusion of additional sustainability criteria. Hartford Funds Management Company, LLC would serve as the investment adviser to the New Hartford Fund. Schroder Investment Management North America Inc. (“SIMNA”), the current investment adviser to the Schroder Fund, is proposed to serve as the sub-adviser to the New Hartford Fund, and the portfolio management team of the Schroder Fund is proposed to be unchanged in connection with the Reorganization.
The Reorganization is intended to be tax-free, meaning that the Schroder Fund’s shareholders would become shareholders of the New Hartford Fund without realizing any gain or loss for federal income tax purposes.
The Board’s decision to reorganize is subject to shareholder approval, though no shareholder action is necessary at this time. Shareholders of the Schroder Fund will receive a combined proxy statement/prospectus that contains important information about the Reorganization and the New Hartford Fund in which they would own shares upon closing of the Reorganization, including information about investment strategies and risks, fees and expenses. Prior to the Reorganization, Schroder Fund shareholders may continue to purchase, redeem and exchange their shares subject to the limitations described in the Schroder Fund’s Prospectus. If shareholders approve the Reorganization and other closing conditions are met, the Reorganization is anticipated to close in the fourth quarter of 2021.
The foregoing is not an offer to sell, nor a solicitation of an offer to buy, shares of the Schroder Fund or the New Hartford Fund, nor is it a solicitation of any proxy. When it is available, please read the combined proxy statement/prospectus carefully before making any decision to invest or when considering the Reorganization. It is currently expected that the combined proxy statement/prospectus will be sent in September or October 2021 to shareholders of record as of the record date applicable to the Reorganization. The combined prospectus/proxy statement also will be available for free on the SEC’s website (www.sec.gov).
Please retain this supplement for future reference.
SCH-SK-014-0100

Seems really dangerous and a path towards potential employee lawsuits against 401k plan sponsors and administrators.

If it's just an option, I don't get how you can file a lawsuit. Complete BS if you ask me. Just make it clear that it is a high risk investment. Nobody is being forced into selecting it... IMHO, as an employer, if you have cheap passive index options available for your employees then you're doing your job. You can offer other more costly active funds for employees that want that as well as high risk investments. The onus is on the employees when it comes to their allocation to the different instruments. The employer can't be responsible for everything..... People need to take some personal responsibility these days rather than just say everything wrong is someone else's problem.

Seems really dangerous and a path towards potential employee lawsuits against 401k plan sponsors and administrators.

Not to mention, with few exceptions, I have little faith in the competence of state pension investment boards. Hell, many of them are enamored w/the proprietary nature of PE and still projecting 7-8 percent annual growth thesre days.

Other than David Swensen of Yale's endowment who was the early adopter of private equity as part of the portfolio, many pension plans lagged significantly. CALPER, California teacher pension plan, is a good example.
Cryptocurrency is too new and carry even more risk than private equity. My 401(K) plan use inexpensive index funds and target date funds. Getting marketing return is good enough for me.