The investor share of American Beacon Sound Point Floating Rate Income fund, SPFPX is available at $2,500 minimum (instead of $250K for institutional shares) and at a higher expense ratio of 1.11%.

FYI: Vanguard's not likely to react to Fidelity's move, says CIO Greg Davis.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.google.com/search?source=hp&ei=P_1mW8WoJsWwjwSMi5a4Bw&q=Vanguard:++++Investors+Should+Look+For+'The+Catch'+In+Fidelity's+No-Fee+Fund&oq=Vanguard:++++Investors+Should+Look+For+'The+Catch'+In+Fidelity's+No-Fee+Fund&gs_l=psy-ab.3...3512.3512.0.4637.3.2.0.0.0.0.82.82.1.2.0....0...1.2.64.psy-ab..1.1.68.6..35i39k1.68.dTXEnh1wTXs

Hi @Mark, I have to say my above example was borderline. But ... Just as Duke Energy "lied" to the North Carolina Utility Commission in their merger with Progress Energy and just hours after the merger they fired the new CEO who was Bill Johnson & CEO from Progress Energy. Mr. Johnson was suppose to run the new company under an agreement with the commission. They replaced him with Lynn Good ... I cut and ran. What a hood wink! And, they got heavily fined. He received a nice termination package and, in time, became the CEO of TVA. I owned shares in both companies. Again, what a hood wink job on the commission. Today, this still lingers in the minds of many folks. Myself being one of them and I think their action back then still impacts their relationship with the commission.
I'd also have to say being light technology by about 9% (I'm @14%) from its S&P 500 Index weighting (it is @ about 23%) is more than a rebalance. In addition, I'm light consumer discretionary, industrials, and healthcare. I'm overweight materials, real estate, consumer staples, energy, utilities and communication services. I'm about equal weight in financials with the Index.
A normal sector weighting for me in a major sector is 9% with no major being greater than 15% or so. For a minor sector a normal weighting for me is 5% with no minor being greater than 8%, or so. This means that there is a sizeable amount (about 17%) that can be spread to overweight sectors from my normal weightings.
Anyway, this is how I roll when it comes to my sector weightings.

@MJG - Thanks,
Yep - My original post mentioned not being able to identify the author. Later I did learn his name and position with IAG and so corrected that. There were some redundancies I weeded out as well. Apologize for throwing you a knuckle ball. You handled it like an expert.
So Mr. Chisholm graduated from college in ‘99 with an economics degree ...
These young ones - still in college at the height of the 90s boom - really don’t have the same perspective as you, me and some others here who’ve been investing and following the trends for 50+ years since the ‘60s. The inflation of the 70s & 80s, seeing gold soar from $35-$500, the Volcker years, the tech bubble & wreck, and October 19, 1987 all influenced my perspective. Mr. Chisholm did live through the ‘08-‘09 collapse. But I fear the unusually strong and rapid recovery may well have taught him and many the wrong lesson.
A degree in economics is nice. I’d be more impressed with a CFP and a bit more experience out in the field. I probably should not have referenced your source as an advertisement. While it does have some promotional attributes (plugging for his firm) I think the content was well intended. I continue to be a bit agitated when anyone tosses out that corellation between trading frequency and poor performance. While that’s a part of the picture, it’s not the whole picture.
Great biking day here in northern Michigan.
Wishing you good investing.

“Individuals make decisions every day with their emotions assisting their judgment. It is part of who we are as human beings. Unfortunately making emotional decisions can be a detriment in the investing world. Individual investors who let their emotions guide them have a much harder time investing than people who have found ways to master their emotional decision making. Some investors try to master their emotional involvement by using a rules-based system, others use computers to make the decisions for them, and still others invest in indexes through ETFs or mutual funds. There are many ways to remove the emotional component from investing, but most investors don’t realize that their emotions are the problem. You can read my post about fear and greed investing or investing is not gambling to learn more.”
The link MJG posted is an advertisement for Investment Advisory Group. The writer’s name is Kirk Chisholm. He’s employed by Investment Advisory Group. I’ve noted the qualifications he provided at bottom. No accredited instructions or degrees are listed. No reference to specialized training in either finance or psychology is indicated.
(1) Correlative statistics: The writer cites statistics showing a correlation between poor investment outcomes and frequency of trading (higher trading being associated with poorer performance). I dont think many would doubt that correlation. It’s pretty widely accepted.
(2) Assumptions The writer makes numerous assumptions about the psychology of different investors which (presumably) led to some engaging in higher than average trading. What are the writer’s qualifications re human psychology? It’s a big leap to go from the correlation between trading frequency and performance to the particular psychology which led to that. At that point you’re likely delving into problems like compulsive personalities, low educational attainment, delusional thinking - and quite possibly substance abuse, gambling addiction and dysfunctional families. I don’t know what leads some investors to trade so frequently. I don’t think the author knows either. I’d suggest the he and his firm stick to dispensing investment advice.
(3) Causal relationship - I don’t think he’s demonstrated that convincingly. It is equally possible that those who trade frequently are poor money managers to begin with and would still have found a way to lose money in the markets. Their heightened trading activity might be more a consequence of more serious underlying issues (including financial) rather than the cause of their predicament. So, was the frequent trading the cause of their problem or was it the result of other problems?
Author: Kirk Chisholm is a Wealth Manager and Principal at Innovative Advisory Group (IAG). His roles at IAG are co-chair of the Investment Committee and Head of the Traditional Investment Risk Management Group. His background and areas of focus are portfolio management and investment analysis in both the traditional and non-traditional investment markets.
-
I liked this thread in general. To me it does not appear to be about frequent trading. I suspect Old Skeet was more interested in that 2, 3 or 5% of an investor’s decisions based on strong conviction for / against a particular opportunity. “Doubling down” is a treacherous path to making money which nearly everyone has previously noted. “Cut and run” references selling a bad investment or fund. If you’ve invested for more than 50 years without ever making a bad investment (one you needed to sell) you are indeed fortunate.

My floating rate fund (GIFAX) makes up about 15% of my income sleeve, has a yield of about 4%, and is the year-to-date total return leader within its sleeve of six funds which also consist of BAICX, CTFAX, LBNDX, NEFZX & TSIAX Interestingly, year-to-date, only two of the above funds GIFAX and CTFAX have out performed my money market fund GBAXX. Seems, there might be somthing to the saying ... Cash is King ... at least for the near term.

Mine too. But it pays 5+ seven-day yield.
As long as it stays steady, I’m good.

I know it's just another number but $1 trillion for one company--wow! That makes Apple's market capitalization on par with Pakistan's 2017 GDP, a nation with a population of 193 million people:
https://cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2001rank.html
Meanwhile Apple employs 123,000: https://statista.com/statistics/273439/number-of-employees-of-apple-since-2005/
Even more remarkable, if Apple were a country's market, it would be worth more than Brazil's, South Africa's and the Netherlands' and right behind Korea's, making it the 13th largest market in the world for one company:
https://indexmundi.com/facts/indicators/CM.MKT.LCAP.CD/rankings

FYI: U.S. stocks traded mostly higher on Thursday, as investors set aside concerns over trade issues between the U.S. and China and focused on a batch of corporate results that largely beat expectations.
Both the S&P 500 and the Nasdaq Composite were lifted by a rally in technology stocks, as Apple Inc. briefly crossed the threshold necessary to give it a $1 trillion market cap.
Regards,
Ted
Bloomberg:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-08-01/asia-stocks-head-for-weaker-start-treasuries-drop-markets-wrap
Reuters:
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-stocks/apple-hits-1-trillion-mark-boosts-nasdaq-and-sp-idUSKBN1KN1KP
IBD:
https://www.investors.com/market-trend/stock-market-today/stocks-apple-sturm-ruger/
MarketWatch:
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/us-stock-benchmarks-poised-to-slump-as-trade-angst-rattles-global-markets-2018-08-02/print
CNBC:
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/08/02/us-markets-trade-concerns-resurface-and-earnings-due.html
Bonds:
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/08/02/bonds-and-fixed-income-central-banks-data-and-trade-in-focus.html
Currencies:
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/08/02/forex-market-dollar-moves-and-trade-tensions-in-focus.html
Oil:
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/08/02/oil-market-us-crude-inventories-in-focus.html
Gold:
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/08/02/gold-market-dollar-moves-in-focus.html
WSJ: Markets At A Glance:
http://markets.wsj.com/us
SPDR's Sector Tracker:
http://www.sectorspdr.com/sectorspdr/tools/sector-tracker
SPDR's Bloomberg Sector Performance Pie Chart:
https://www.bloomberg.com/markets/sectors
Current Futures: Positive
https://finviz.com/futures.ashx

Cliff believes in socialism but only for the rich:
https://vanityfair.com/news/2016/11/libertarian-hedge-funder-accepts-35-million-aid
https://nytimes.com/2016/11/22/business/dealbook/investment-funds-get-millions-to-stay-in-connecticut.html?smid=tw-dealbook&smtyp=cur

@Old_Joe. Exactly. Sometimes an observation is an observation. The extreme version of this is some people at work who say things like "I find this interesting" - means absolutely nothing and they could have just kept their mouths shut.
Now I own all 3 funds, but frankly, one reason to own FMI is to not have to bother with knowing how they invest. Investing with an active manager means to trust them. It does not matter how intelligent they are as long as they perform for you.
Finally, what I want to know is given S&P 500 is market weighted in first place, wouldn't it be normal to expect few stocks to dominate performance? Whether it is 5 or 15, both are fractions of 500. I really don't think it helps individual investor anyway regarding how to invest. I'm not any more appalled it is 5 stocks than it would be if it was 15 stocks.
PS - I've been taking profits in FMI funds and buying back too? When my ANALysis told me international was tanking I sold. Recently I bought FMIJX again.

Fidelity ZERO Total Market Index Fund & Fidelity ZERO International Index Fund filing:
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/35315/000137949118003935/filing836.htm

Its interesting to contrast this view of the stock market with the one noted in @bee 's 7/31 post regarding earnings driven valuations (see The Tell: (Caution!) Morgan Stanley warns prepare for the biggest stock market selloff in months!!!) from which this is excerpted:
https://content.screencast.com/users/smhag/folders/Jing/media/3c06eac0-2877-4204-8844-70ad2f41c607/2018-07-31_0954.png
Perhaps the future will continue to be a little different this time for a while longer.

An excerpt:

Year-to-date, the five FAANG stocks account for 79% of the performance of the S&P 500. The market cap of FAANG is $3.2 trillion. For the same price, one could own every single company in the S&P 400 and S&P 600 and still have nearly $500 billion left over! That $500 billion could buy five blue chips such as Dollar General, Stanley Black & Decker, Honeywell, Bank of New York, and Aetna, leaving almost $250 billion to spare.

Thank you all for attending our recent webinars!
Please find chart deck here.
Please find link to video recording (of initial session) here.
c
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Two sessions planned, one hour each nominally, on Tuesday 7 August 2018 at 2pm and 5pm eastern ... 11am and 2 pm pacific.
Like last time, we will employ easy-to-use Zoom.
Plan to illustrate numerous upgrades since our last webinar, including calendar year and period performance analysis, batting averages, Ferguson metrics, upside and downside capture, MultiSearch column organization and control, and the new Lipper Global Data Feed.
Please register here for first session:
https://zoom.us/meeting/register/6836e49b19b99183d746f627e8486654
Or, here for second session:
https://zoom.us/meeting/register/704989d8e7a8820ecde7dc3c8da9331e
Thank you!

Much of this trend is by design. That sharp drop in the 90s came when tax laws were changed so that corporations could no longer deduct executive compensation above $1M, except if it was in the form of pay for performance such as stock options. That was to "align" execs' interests with that of shareholders.
So stock grants to execs soared. A natural consequence appears to have been a shift to distributing earnings as buybacks (boosting share prices) rather than as dividends. The latest tax cut built on this by giving corporations piles of cash that they have been using for buybacks rather than as special dividends.
Buried in that statute is an undoing of the 1990s rule allowing companies to deduct pay-for-performance payments to execs. But that comes with some qualifications:
- contracts in place as of Nov 2, 2017 are grandfathered (so these buybacks help all the current execs)
- corporate tax rates were cut from 35% to 21%. Previously, the value of this pay-for-performance deduction to corporations was 35¢ on every dollar of compensation. Now it's only 21¢. That reduced the impact of removing the deduction.
As it turns out, companies have gotten so used to paying out these huge grants that getting rid of their tax break doesn't bring about any change in policy. That's the conclusion of this Economic Policy Institute study. The ACA had already cut back the deduction for CEOs of health insurers as of 2013. Didn't change anything.
https://www.epi.org/publication/does-tax-deductibility-affect-ceo-pay-the-case-of-the-health-insurance-industry/

Both of the above funds in registration with Hennessy:
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/891944/000089853118000429/hft_bpcf-485a.htm