Given the choice of Fido and/or TIAA-CREF in my 403b, I opted for Fido ten years ago. Some of the Spartan funds seemed off-limits initially, but I think they are now available. Made some money in New Markets Income and quite a bit more in FBIOX, but was surprised to receive a "Personnal and Confidential" envelope this month advising me that I had been detected violating their frequent trading rules by buying FBIOX with 1% of my total Fido investment, then selling some FBIOX that equalled 2% of my total Fido investment a month later. Admittedly, I sold 25% of my FBIOX holdings when it seemed too frothy, but it was a trivial amount of their fund and not much of my total.
When I protested that it seemed irrelevant in view of the size of the fund and my total Fido holdings, I received an email largely restating the warning letter, after the initial "we appreciate your business" boilerplate. Apparently $1000 will trigger their restrictions. It appears I will be allowed to liquidate my holding in a fund while on suspension, so I won't be forced to ride a market meltdown, but my suggestion that they adjust their software to higher percentages and higher amounts before imposing their frequent trading proscriptions either fell on deaf ears or were addressed by someone too far down the food chain to engender a reasoned response, even though I mentioned that I was not an airline pilot with excess time on my hands.
I don't know if a letter or email campaign will attract their notice, but I encourage anyone holding Fido to suggest that they raise their thresholds for frequent trading amounts to see if we have any impact.

NAFAX. ER too big, and a 5.75% front-load. Thanks, but no thanks.

Howdy folks,
Apparently, this is an ETF that invests in the 'S&P 500 Aristocrats. These consist of companies that have not only paid but increased their dividends over the past 25 years.
Any thoughts? There are other vehicles than NOBL. I would think this might be a nice core type holding for an income portfolio.
peace,
rono

This has been my main US "small cap" fund for many years....exactly how many is clouded by trimmings that have occurred during annual portfolio rebalancings and by a change in share class I made along the way. Fidelity currently offers it NTF under WEMMX. The fund held up well during the downturn of 2007 to 2009. It declined "only" 37% from 07/01/07 to 02/28/99 vs. 54% for the M* small cap index and 49% for the SP500. Since 2/28/09 it has slightly lagged that small cap index but has keep pace with the SP500. The fund tends to go to cash when the market looks rich. Cash was at 25%+ on 12/31/13 per M*. For me, the "high" fee is offset by the funds positive attributes. Its a good "sleep well" small cap fund.

Interesting. Wish I had found it 15 years ago! Quite an amazing 15-year return. Price tag a bit high, 1.41%, to want to take a stab at it for an unknown future; can't believe that Mario Gabelli is doing much work with this fund but his co-managers look interesting. With a portfolio of 475 microcap stocks, I'd be more interested in finding a low cost microcap index. The most attractive microcap fund I've run across is the DFA US Micro Cap I (DFSCX). Too bad DFA only allows access to their funds if you go through a Registered Investment Adviser which I have no interest in doing.

I enjoy watching many of the funds members discuss here and so am reminded of a comment last year in which a member alluded to short positions held by MFLDX in gold futures. I haven't been able to verify that --- but. if correct, it would help explain the fund's lack-luster performance this year.

The fund was short metals (and the closed end fund CEF) for a while, but I'm not seeing it as of 12/31:
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1469192/000119312514091117/d654075dncsr.htm

All very interesting. "What's in a name ..." might apply here to some extent. Meaning: When we wash-out fund name, stated objectives, M* category or whatever - what most of us want is to make $$ consistently without undue risk to our principal. MFLDX displays an amazing growth of AUM for a fund less than 7 years old. My question is: Why? Is MFO (where it's received a lot of attention) that influential? Or, have other media sources also been singing the praises? ... My reply to the poster's original question is that such short term results don't mean very much. They offer neither reason to sell nor reason to buy a fund.
Crash mentioned PRWCX - obviously a much different type of fund. Yet, it's interesting that both funds' total listed AUM are very similar - at something over $20,000M for each. There are a couple very sharp contrasts: PRWCX has been around 28 years - compared to less than 7 for MFLDX. And while the listed ER on MFLDX is high at 1.85%., PRWCX by contrast has an ER of only .72%.
All said, my own experiences with "go-anywhere" funds haven't been favorable - but that's a different issue and I have no intent here to go down that path. Additionally, my own experiences with PRWCX have been highly favorable. The latter might well be considered "go anywhere" in the sense that the managers will invest in most anything that appears promising (translated: undervalued). Over the past 3 decades the fund's taken sizable (but temporary) positions in junk bonds, government bonds, growth stocks, utilities and even miners - and currently sells put-options on some of its equities to enhance income. It's not using short sales yet ... but I wouldn't rule it out some day.
I enjoy watching many of the funds members discuss here and so am reminded of a comment last year in which a member alluded to short positions held by MFLDX in gold futures. I haven't been able to verify that --- but. if correct, it would help explain the fund's lack-luster performance this year.

Similar concerns and uncertainty about PAUDX led me to sell it and invest the proceeds in index funds.

PAUDX and index funds are really apples/oranges, but right decision short-term, at least. I do think that PAUDX was disappointing last year, but it's a highly conservative fund (I believe the benchmark is CPI + 6.5%?) and anyone expecting home runs from it in general is absolutely going to be disappointed.

A very confusing (and confused) article.
The bonds are CUSIP 74514LE86, with an 8.00% coupon, issued with OID (issue price of 93) for a YTM of 8.727%.
The requirement is that the face value of bonds in a trade not be less than $100K; not that the value traded be less than $100K. So if bonds trade at issue price (93), you can have a $100K denomination trade where only $93K of money is exchanged.
Nearly all the trades were above the issue price (i.e. at a premium). None reached 100 (which would be a premium of over 7%). The 10:47 trade on 3/12 the article gave as the highest price of 100 would thus have represented a premium. Calling this "100 cents on the dollar" is at best confusing.
In any case, that trade was not for $25K face value, but for $400K face value. The price was 96 5/8 (not 100) for a yield of 8.339% (i.e. below the issue yield).
The decline mentioned at the end of the article was just to 92 (vs the issue price of 93). This resulted in a yield of 8.838%, not "about 8.73%" as reported in the article. That latter rate was the rate at issue, i.e. you'd need a price of 93 for that yield.
Maybe some of the 75 trades mentioned in the article in denomination (not transaction) amounts under $100K were cancelled, because I count only 48.
The point of the article (about improper trades because of the small lot size) may be correct; but most of the figures are wrong. My data are from EMMA http://emma.msrb.org

I've often thought there are really two target dates, one targeting retirement from "work" and one targeting retirement from "earth".
Fully funding a retirement date fund makes perfect sense. As it glides towards your retirement date it provides a smooth landing at retirement. Effectively, at that retirement date, an investor would effectively have 100% of their assets in a very low risk retirement fund. This is helpful if markets happen to severely correct in those early retirement years, but this portfolio will have longevity risk (may not survive as long as you do). So my thought is to reallocate a portion of this portfolio into more aggressive retirement fund(s) which attempt to achieve portfolio longevity.
If I was 30 years old today I would be fully fund a 2050 fund. At retirement, a percentage of this low risk retirement fund would be reallocated into a more aggressive retirement fund(s) targeting "earthly retirement". One approach would be to hold one additional fund targeting an earthly retirement date (2085 fund) or it could ladder into a number of retirement funds much like cds or bonds using a 5 year increment (by rolling equal portions of 2050, 2055, 2060, 2065, etc.).
Your thoughts?

FYI:
Regards,
Ted
http://www.bostonglobe.com/business/2014/03/22/next-generation-new-challenges-fidelity/3SSeNqdYS5wNAFQgi8ap9O/story.html
M* List Of Fidelity Fund Snapshots: http://quicktake.morningstar.com/fundfamily/fidelity-investments/0C00001YR0/fund-list.aspx

FYI:
Regards,
Ted
http://www.investmentnews.com/article/20140322/FREE/140329975?template=printart

Hi Guys,
Harry Dent is extremely successful at promoting himself; he is far less successful at promoting wealth accumulation based on his often flawed forecasts.
Overall, Dent suffers from an abysmal forecasting record. He has a few random successes to his credit, but those few lucky projections have been overpowered by more than a few really dismal calls.
His basic approach in the past has been grounded in demographics. To oversimplify, from his perspective, more folks equate to a rising GDP growth rate and better market performance. His demographic analyses incorporate a lagging factor based on age. His data show that sometime around age a little North of 50, a person peaks in his spending and productivity levels. His modeling includes this age dependency adjustment. All his analyses seem to incorporate heavy weighting to population changes.
He has published numerous books that are closely coupled to this simplistic concept. I own a few of them. They are good reading and logically presented. I believe he is just too focused on a single market parameter. Investing is not that easy.
Dent captures a lot of media attention because of his outlandish, outlier-like predictions. I suspect he purposely adopts this marketing tactic. I imagine that he has earned far more from his book sales than from his personal investments. It is dubious that his clients profit from his outsized predictions.
Dent ran a mutual fund in the early 2000s. It was called Demographic Trends Fund. He abandoned that venture in 2005.after dissipating over half of the fund’s assets.
More recently, he projected severe equity market downturns in both 2012 and 2013. These failed predictions give further evidence of his checkered (mostly black) forecasting follies. He is surely consistent, again projecting painful downturns in 2014 and beyond. I suppose mostly because of stagnant population growth worldwide. At some point, he is likely to be randomly right.
I personally do not trust his forecasts whatsoever. These days I’m more amused than worried when he makes his usual negative prediction. His track record is surely not inspiring great confidence. In my opinion, accepting and acting on his advice and forecasts puts your portfolio at high risk. Once again, buyer beware.
Best Wishes.

It seems he's been saying it for awhile.
https://www.google.com/search?q=Harry+Dent&oq=Harry+Dent&aqs=chrome..69i57&sourceid=chrome&espv=210&es_sm=122&ie=UTF-8

~15% is the max. drop down difference during the great recession, while ~6% is the 2008 drop down difference. Pick your preference for your analysis:-).

FYI:
Regards,
Ted
http://www.thestreet.com/story/12539155/1/is-africa-the-final-frontier-for-value-investors.html
M* Snapshot Of NAFAX: http://quotes.morningstar.com/fund/f?t=NAFAX&region=usa&culture=en-US

According to the fund report on this site from 2012, the AUM for MFLDX was under 100 million at the end of 2009, and increased 20 times to 2 billion in mid-2012. According to Morningstar, it is now 21.3 billion, which would be an increase of more than 10 times in less than 2 years. The performance of MFLDX has been underwhelming of late. At least compared to the long-short category, according to Morningstar, it is in the 95th percentile for the last 1 month trailing period, 80th percentile for last 3 months, and 60th percentile for last 12 months. The S&P 500 is up 1.45, ytd, whereas MFLDX is down 1.89. It still might not be a long enough time period to judge, but do any of you who follow this fund think the increase in AUM is weighing on its performance, or is it simply going through a rough patch? I have owned this fund for about 3 years, and am wondering if it is now doomed to mediocrity, or worse.

Go here and compare VIG. Then hit expand. 2008 performance was FPACX -20.55% VIG -26.65%. That's all you need to know about 2008 returns. That's 6.07%. Ok so I was off .07%. Sue me. :)
http://performance.morningstar.com/fund/performance-return.action?t=FPACX&region=USA&culture=en-US

No offense. I frequently use Yahoo history data to confirm what I learn from MFO discussions. When I find inconsistency, I bring it up to your attention.
The difference of Max. Drop Down between VIG and FPACX is ~15% based on Yahoo Adjust Price history data.
VIG: 071009-090309 -46.82%
FPACX: 080605-081120 -31.63%

I have owned this fund for a good long while … since childhood ... and, I am now sixty six years in age as I write. In 1954, I invested some money in it that my late great grandfather gave me. He told me that he felt this would be a good long term investment vehicle ... and, thus far, it has been. The fund now accounts for about 6.5% of my overall portfolio which consist of fifty two funds and is the portfolio’s single largest holding other than cash. It use to pay a distribution yield of better than eight percent, at one time, and its yield has now dropped back of five percent as more and more investors discover and invest in it. Thus far, I have been a happy camper with it; but, I have not been growing my position in it for a long time now. I feel five percent of most any single investment is plenty to own within my portfolio.
Through the years I adopted the sleeve system within my portfolio and with this I divided the portfolio into twelve sleeves. There are two cash sleeves (one investment cash consisting of time deposits and one demand cash) ... two income sleeves (one fixed income the other hybrid income) ... four growth and income sleeves (global equity, global hybrid, domestic equity and domestic hybrid) ... and, four growth sleeves (global/foreign & emerging, domestic large/mid, domestic small/mid and a specialty sleeve that can hold just about anything).
Franklin Income Fund (FKINX) is one of six funds held within my hybrid income sleeve. The others are, listed by their ticker symbols, CAPAX, ISFAX, PGBAX, AZNAX and PASAX. This sleeve is currently the largest sleeve within my portfolio at a little better than twenty one percent.