I am waiting for Fidelity to reduce trading fees to $2.95.

There's a new (to me, anyway) fund "presentation," as the IOFIX guys call it, up on the site, dated July. Just about everything you ever wanted to know about it, all there in living color ...
Here's a tidbit I'd forgotten: the holdings are almost entirely floating rate (95% in this report).
The one thing I can't find is the current price to par of the holdings (M*'s 68.31 is at least five months stale, and my default position these days is not to trust any M* data without some sort of corroboration). There's a nice graph of purchase price to par on p. 16 of the IOFIX presentation, the average being 67.50, which imho is still pretty decent considering the AUM runup.
P.S. Good info on the manager call, Junkster.

This thread is a followup to a bullpen post:
https://mutualfundobserver.com/discuss/discussion/40777/is-loss-aversion-a-myth
That post links to a column that in turn cites the paper that the Scientific American piece linked here is summarizing. How's that for circular references :-)
That column argues that loss aversion is still real, though it suggests a refinement to the concept.
My question is: if investors do not weigh losses more heavily than gains (i.e. are averse to losses), then why do so many people here keep looking at Sortino ratios and maximum draw downs? Why don't we have maximum gain data as well?
That's not a joke. I'm as concerned when a fund I have performs way out of line with my expectations on the upside as when it underperforms.
I owned a legacy fund that had originally been an income oriented sector fund that evolved into a respectable broad based large cap value fund. I had been considering selling it for a variety of reasons. What finally made me pull the trigger was one year when it wound up as the top performing LCV fund (can't verify, but M* says it was in the top 1%).
The fund was so volatile that even with top quartile returns for the past 3, 5, and 10 years, it had a 1* rating. Yet the last straw for me was the upside risk.
So, why all these biased metrics? Junk statistics, or do investors really care more about their risk of loss then their risk of gain?

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?

Agree that TRP is moving in the direction not so friendly for small investors with less than $250K in asset. M* X-ray is a useful tool in analyzing one's portfolio when it was available for TRP investors.

@slick thanks for sharing. Yes it appears challenging to find a good small cap fund thats still open. Is there a way of purchasing AOFAX without paying the 5% sales load? Looks like a very strong fund.

Through today YTD the average high yield junk bond fund is up 1.05%. Some of the better managed ones of course are outperforming the average. But overall I would say “barely” continuing its winning ways. Been a lot better places to be in Bondland in 2018.

If we were talking about the current Fed policy of raising interest rates, could we disregard the report that the President over the weekend once again questioned Mr. Powell's actions?

@BenWP - Absolutely - You just need to think outside the box. No need to link words or actions to any particular politician. That’s the whole reason Merriam Webster invented the indefinite and third person personal pronouns - to protect politicians against criticism for what they say or do.
Here’s a “sanitized” version of a Reuters report on today’s utterances - which may hopefully serve as a suitable model for future posts on the matter.
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - (Someone) said on Monday (he / she) was “not thrilled” with Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell for raising interest rates and accused China and Europe of manipulating their respective currencies. ...
The independence of the Fed is seen as important for economic stability. U.S. stocks dipped after the comments to and the dollar .DXY edged down against a basket of currencies.
“I’m not thrilled with his raising of interest rates, no. I’m not thrilled,” (he / she) said in the interview, referring to Powell. ... “We’re negotiating very powerfully and strongly with other nations. We’re going to win. But during this period of time I should be given some help by the Fed. The other countries are accommodated.”
The Fed has raised rates twice this year and is expected to do so again next month.

(Edited) excerpts from : https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-fed-exclusive/exclusive-trump-says-not-thrilled-with-feds-powell-for-raising-rates-idUSKCN1L5207?ref=hvper.com&utm_source=hvper.com&utm_medium=website

@BrianW, the Wilshire 5000 Index has 3500 companies...because there are only 3500 "public" companies. Consuelo Mack weekend guest, Joel Greenbatt, mentioned that it cost $2-3 million a year to meet regulatory paperwork to be a "public" company and so many companies stay "private" or go "private".
Great interview if you missed it:
consuelo-mack-s-wealthtrack-encore-guest-joel-greenblatt-overcoming-destructive-investor-behavior

I was just listening to Liz Claman (commenting on this issue) and she made the comment that the number of companies traded publicly have been cut in half during her career from around 7k to 3.5k. Honestly, I had never paid attention to it. Made me go looking for information and I found this article on Bloomberg. https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2018-04-09/where-have-all-the-u-s-public-companies-gone

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?

Tanks @Ted...great read. My favorite comment:

Saut: I have said for months now that the economy is stronger than a garlic milkshake, and I'll continue to make that statement.

As for Small Cap suggestions...
the Pudd AKA @Puddnhead always like DISSX, a Small Cap Index fund, that seems to show up regularly on my personal screener which searches for funds with low ER, high alpha, low beta, and 1,3,5 year out- performance compared to its peers.

FYI: Jeffrey Saut is chief investment strategist for Raymond James & Associates, which has more than $750 billion in assets under management. He is well-known for his insightful commentary regarding the stock market, and makes regular appearances on major financial news networks. ETF.com recently spoke with Saut to discuss his outlook for the U.S. economy and stocks.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.etf.com/sections/features-and-news/market-sweet-spots-small-midcaps

@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 ?

Impressive performance for 3y, but I might be jittery going forward about a fund comprising "securities backed by credit card receivables, automobiles, aircraft, student loans, and agency and nonagency residential and commercial mortgages ... also ... corporate debt securities".

Altho the AUM's climbing, the trade's not going to last forever, and IOFIX lives in the junkier end of it, it's still primarily a legacy RMBS fund, the debt trade of the decade; see p. 2 of this fact sheet.
The credit card, student loan, auto etc. debt makes up 0.5% of the portfolio. No reason to be complacent, but the non-mortgage ABS stake won't likely be a reason to worry about it for a while, anyway.

Like so many I was too conservative when I shoulda been more equities, but you know this is bull hindsight.
We have all been insanely fortunate to have lived in this time.
I had a lot of balanced and AA things in the 1980s and 1990s, also gogo equity funds (worked in tech; Robertson Stephens!!), and gradually moved more and more to LCV funds w some MC and SC and some balanced. Kids in college through the 2000s, plus lots of unemployment (freelancing).
But now I am 71 and do not have anything like your situation, and this have moved to 75-25 equity-bond (more 50-50 if you count SS as a bond), and it is chiefly DSENX and PONAX w/ a few other things here and there (FLPSX, PCI, FRIFX ...). I really think I should be tilting back toward 50-50, and shall. With SS it will be effectively much more bond-heavy than 50-50.
But ymmv, bigtime.
I do think sleep-at-night is a high criterion.
I like your diy approach but no reason not to mooch off edelman or equivalent, plus your ML friend as she is willing, plus free Fido. Depends on how much time you want to give to pondering. I assume you have a competent trust and estate atty already to help with your needs.

@MikeW, at Edelman as with most indies, maybe all, you can get an hour or more of free consult and general back and forth and scope of work for issue areas and all.
I am sure this is followed w gentle sales pings, probably more than one.
So you could get a headstart that way maybe if you could ward off followups.
I also failed to mention that I too do it all via Fido and ML myself, self-directed w/ conferring sometimes (rarely), and have for 35y. Don't use / have never used Edelman and don't know the first thing about them except what I hear from their show and from articles.

Good read on the fund/s performance - March 2018 summary:
https://ctpf.org/
and,
https://ctpf.org/fund-performance

Dream on. If 'twere only so simple.
Vanguard's fees are tiered and on both buy and sell. Fidelity's and Schwab's are buy side only, with Schwab having a (sort of) set fee for all TF funds, Fidelity charging more for some funds (e.g. Vanguard's).
Fidelity has a back door for buying additional shares one time for $5/transaction. That's by using its automatic investment system and cancelling after one buy. Vanguard has an automatic investment system too, and it charges only $3/buy, but you have to let it do at least two buys before cancelling, so it's not an effective "on demand" tool. AFAIK, Schwab only allows automatic investments on OneSource (NTF) funds.
Here's the comparison:

Transaction    Schwab            Fidelity       Vanguard 
Buy           $76 or            $49.95         $20 (online)
8.5% if less    $75 some funds   $8 ($500K+ in VG funds)
($0 for < $100 buy)  (e.g. Vanguard)  $0 (first 25 w/$1M+ in VG funds)
Sell          $0                   $0          same as buy
Automatic       -                   $5          $3 
Buy                             cancel after 1  cancel after 2

"An important factor for me is reducing minimums to get into institutional funds. For example, you can get into PIMIX with $25K at Vanguard. At Schwab, you'll need $100K."
Thank you msf ... I did not realize that.
I suspect the trading fee remains about for $50 for non-NTF funds between all three houses.
c