DavidV is correct on fees for vanilla TDA accounts. Here's the pricing page; click on Mutual Funds tab: https://www.tdameritrade.com/pricing.page
"Please note: No-transaction fee (NTF) funds (except ProFunds and Rydex) held 180 days or less are subject to a Short-Term Redemption fee, which is a flat fee of $49.99."
I disagree that 180 day holding period is an impediment to a fund investor. In addition, TDA has one of the largest lists of NTF ETFs (30 day holding period).
TDAmeritrade also has special accounts with different terms. For instance, here are my terms (90 day holding period, $25 TF funds):
https://www.tdameritrade.com/retail-en_us/resources/pdf/SDPS1009.pdf

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1444822/000119312516723525/d253834d485apos.htm
AQR Large Cap Relaxed Constraint Equity Fund
AQR Small Cap Relaxed Constraint Equity Fund
AQR International Relaxed Constraint Equity Fund
AQR Emerging Relaxed Constraint Equity Fund

@MJG
You noted:
"The most surprising statistic for me is that the average fund owner only has 3 funds. That's a basic minimum for portfolio diversification. I typically have a fund number that bounces around 10. But I also have a portfolio,size that greatly exceeds the averages presented in the survey report."
>>>Three funds won't kill an investment portfolio, eh?
1. For U.S. exposure (includes foreign earnings of U.S. companies)
---VBINX, 60/40 U.S. equity/bond
---VWINX, 40/60 U.S. equity/bond
2. For international, ex-US
--- no favorites here, but 60/40 or 40/60 would fit the basket. An ex-U.S., balanced holding.
If one chooses to expand beyond these 3, then the portfolio obviously becomes more select and personalized, eh?
You indicate about 10 funds for your portfolio. I may presume this is the number needed to satisfy your consideration for diversification. Cool !
From where ever the statistics have been gathered, as to individual monies held in 401k/403b type investments. Sadly too many folks have pretty crappy choices in these programs. One should consider these folks have chosen the best 3 with which they are comfortable.
Lastly, I don't find that portfolio dollar value necessarily has any overwhelming consideration for one's available choices. I'm not less happy with the long term returns of a VWINX than the neighbor who has a $100,000 account in the same investment.

Ooooh, did MJG just write that the average fund investor held three funds, when the statistic was for the median investor?
Shame, shame, shame :-)
OJ - without checking the ICI data, my guess is that the IBD column was poorly written. All the bullet item data apply only to households owning funds. It is almost certain that this restriction to fund-owning households also applies to the data above the bullet list (such as median balance of $120K).
As you correctly state, if more than half the households own no funds (so their fund balance is $0), then the median of all households must be $0.

From the article:
"The median value of mutual funds owned by U.S. families was $120,000 in 2015."
"Half of all households have fund balances higher than $120,000 and half have lower balances."
See below a chart from that article. It shows that roughly only 45% of US households own any funds.
Now I'm certainly not great at math. But if more than half own nothing at all, then they must be included in that "half have lower balances." If so, that would seem to skew that "median value" well to the low side, suggesting that those on the high side must have balances hugely in excess of $120,000.
If the 55% who own no funds are not included in the "half have lower balances", then I question the entire premise of the article, and it's value for much of anything.

Hi Guys,
I'm a sucker for presentations that are in the heavy weight statistical category. I'm often surprised by the survey numbers. That was again true as I read the referenced mutual fund owner report.
Not much to my surprise, I'm doing quite well on a comparison basis. I am more than comfortable on an absolute basis. I'm not surprised that the so-called GI generation is at the bottom of the curve in terms of mutual fund ownership. That industry was just making a positive market penetration during our meaningful earning and saving decision years.
I was a very lucky and fortunate soul during those years. In a totally random event, I was introduced to Jack Bogle. He is a very convincing advocate and salesman. He won that day and continues to win.
The most surprising statistic for me is that the median fund owner only has 3 funds. That's a basic minimum for portfolio diversification. I typically have a fund number that bounces around 10. But I also have a portfolio,size that greatly exceeds the averages presented in the survey report. I trade infrequently and am very much into cost control. I suspect many MFOers practice the same general policy.
Best Regards.

FYI: Financial advisers should be aware that funds could be doling out large capital gains payouts this year, says Morningstar's Russel Kinnel.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.investmentnews.com/article/20160929/FREE/160929914?template=printart
M*: Russ Kinnel Capital Gains Video & Text:
http://www.morningstar.com/cover/videocenter.aspx?id=771131

In the minor details department, might be worth noting that the PRBLX portfolio position in WF is an outlier in the Parnassus funds generally. Aside from PRBLX, the only P. fund that owns WF is PARNX, and it's top 25 but well down the list.
The firm as a whole is traditionally light in banks, putting most of its fairly limited financials stake in asset managers, insurance, credit cards, etc. The only other banks anywhere in the P. stable as of last report are Capital One (PARWX, PARNX) and the small-cap regional First Horizon (PARNX, PARMX).
Given the rest of the P funds' approach, I'd be interested in reading in some detail why Ahlsten went so heavily into WF in the first place. (I imagine WF will be a big topic in the Q3 report that should be coming out in a couple of weeks or so.) I can remember just once (in recent times, anyway) when he did another big leapfrog to a #1 position, and that was with Apple after a selloff, last year I think it was.
P.S. Naturally it's worth factoring into thinking on the subject that P. doesn't do nearly as much "house-view" investing as say Pimco, and that the two Dodson funds are growth funds, not blend like PRBLX and PARMX.

FYI: (I will link intereview as soon as it becomes available for free, generally early Sat. morning)
Regards,
Ted
September 30, 2016
Dear WEALTHTRACK Subscriber,
Few money managers have the conviction, wherewithal, stamina and independence to stick with positions that remain unpopular and unprofitable for years before paying off. This week’s guest is one of the few! We’ll be joined by Bruce Berkowitz, a deep value, long-term investor who rarely gives interviews. I have been interviewing him on WEALTHTRACK since 2007 and he has always generated a great deal of interest.
Berkowitz is Founder and Portfolio Manager of the three Fairholme funds - his Flagship Fairholme fund, launched in late 1999, the Fairholme Focused Income fund started in 2009, and the Fairholme Allocation fund begun in late 2010.
The Fairholme fund, for which he was given Morningstar’s Domestic Stock Fund Manager of the Decade Award in 2010 has delivered 10% annualized returns with dividends and distributions reinvested since inception, nearly triple the market’s total return.
However, the last decade has been much more difficult. The fund has badly lagged the market over the past 10, 5 and 3 year periods despite having several stellar years including 2012 and 2013 when it crushed the market and led its Morningstar Large Value category, gains that were offset by a big decline in 2011 and then another subpar performance in 2014, hurting its track record. The fund, which once had over $20 billion in assets, is now a fraction of that.
Berkowitz is famous for taking big positions in a handful of companies that are generally shunned and panned by Wall Street when he is accumulating them. He has made a fortune over the years in concentrated stakes in health care, energy and financial services. He has also poured a fortune in recent years into companies such as Florida real estate company The St. Joe Company and retailer Sears, as well as financial firms such as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which have yet to pay off.
There’s a well-known saying “Don’t fight city hall”… but Berkowitz is taking on the entire U.S. federal government. Fairholme is engaged in a multi-year lawsuit against the U.S. government over its handling of the conservatorship of the two mortgage giants, which although hugely profitable, are still under government control and paying enormous dividends to the government - but not to preferred shareholders like Fairholme. I began the interview by asking him why he is so committed to fighting this battle.
If you are unable to join us for the show on television, you can watch it on our website, WealthTrack.com, starting over the weekend. If you’d like to see it earlier, it is available to our PREMIUM subscribers right now. We also have an EXTRA interview with Berkowitz about his views on the presidential candidates. He says it is more about the team than the candidate.
Thank you for watching. Have a great weekend and make the week ahead a profitable and productive one.
Best Regards,
Consuelo

(PRBLX holds WFC as its #1 position, added there during the last quarter.)
Src: https://www.parnassus.com/our-firm/highlight/184
Due Diligence on Wells Fargo
SAN FRANCISCO, CA, September 27, 2016
You may have seen recent news that Wells Fargo (WF) is facing scrutiny over its cross-selling programs that resulted in employees opening accounts and credit cards for customers without permission. As a significant shareholder and a responsible investment firm, Parnassus Investments is deeply concerned about this information.
We are conducting a thorough due diligence process. We have initiated conversations directly with executive leadership at Wells Fargo, and are currently evaluating and monitoring the various remedies the firm has applied. As additional information becomes available, we will further engage directly with Wells Fargo leadership.
At this time, the Parnassus investment team does not believe there exists a deterioration in WF’s company fundamentals. Wells Fargo management is still working through revisions to their cross-selling policies to remove incentives for practices that could harm customers, employees and the firm’s reputation. Although these new incentive and compensation policies are still in development, WF management has assured Parnassus that the firm and its team members will continue to emphasize deep client relationships.
However, given the circumstances, Parnassus strongly recommends that the Wells Fargo Board of Directors consider pay packages for WF executives who were responsible for the cross-selling programs in accordance with the WF’s claw back policies.
While WF’s responsible investing profile has been temporarily weakened by the firm’s cross-selling practices, it is important to note that the firm has many positive social aspects. Wells Fargo remains one of the largest corporate charitable donors in the U.S., has a strong reputation for promoting diversity and inclusion, and in general is regarded as a positive workplace.
It is our current belief that Wells Fargo has the capacity to recover from the damage that has occurred to its brand, including its relationships with customers, employees and regulators. As more information is made publicly available, we will of course update our evaluation and communicate to our shareholders.
Mutual fund investing involves risk, and loss of principal is possible.

I've waffled about reducing PRBLX for general portfolio allocations this year but not pulled the trigger yet.
This situation inclines me to do that just on principle since WFC is their #1 position, at least until this thing blows over -- granted, a 5% allocation won't move the needle much on the fund's performance, but still. I like the rest of the fund's holdings/positioning, so not doing anything out of haste, obviously. I thought PRBLX and PRWCX would be a nice combination, but maybe I'll just fold some/all of PRBLX into PRWCX and call it a day. *shrug*

The more I read about the history and etiology of the WF churning,
http://blogs.wsj.com/moneybeat/2016/09/16/from-gr-eight-to-gaming-a-short-history-of-wells-fargo-and-cross-selling/
the more I am thinking I am going to bail completely out of PRBLX, 100%. I expect such a fund, that makes such whoop over its DD in the SR space, to at least read the financial press and raise a fuss as warranted. Must think about this and sleep on it. Jeez louise.

Isn't WFC on of Warren Buffet's largest holdings? I haven't seen any comments about Warren.

This was a rather strange sentence:
"Buying Scottrade could enable TD Ameritrade to reduce costs by eliminating redundant back-office systems, while bringing in new customers, he said."
The simplest interpretation is that what was meant was that the combined entity could save costs by settling on one of the legacy systems and tossing the other. But that wouldn't be eliminating redundant systems at TDAmeritrade, which is how the quote literally reads.
Another possibility, while similar, would have TDAmeritrade elimintating its own redundancy. I don't know how fully ThinkOrSwim has been integrated into TDAmeritrade, but TDA could eliminate that redundancy by tossing its system and taking Scottrade's.
Whatever they do (assuming this acquisition happens), watch out for glitches. Barron's wrote in 2011 about TDA's 2009 acquisition of ThinkOrSwim in Hiccups in TD's Latest Acquisition: "We've covered quite a few consolidations among online brokerages. Some went extremely well, some were disasters. "
http://www.barrons.com/articles/SB50001424052702303545104576524570860463438
Not to beat a dead horse, but one of the most notorious integrations of financial institutions was Wells Fargo's acquisition of First Interstate (can't WF do anything right?):
"In its haste to eliminate redundancies in the two organizations' branch networks, back-office systems and staffing, Wells Fargo had touched off a chain reaction of operational glitches and customer-service embarrassments. These caused cost overruns, serious damage to the bank's historically strong reputation and brand name and, worst of all, market share declines, which are very difficult to reverse."
http://www.institutionalinvestor.com/article.aspx?articleID=1027771

Let's try this again:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-09-28/brokerage-scottrade-said-to-work-with-adviser-on-possible-sale

Caught related info on the radio yesterday (while driving, so only got the gist).
It used to be that companies paid workers to go to college, but these days that's rare. And where these programs still exist, they're very limited. Starbucks was given as an example - they'll pay workers' tuition, but only for one college (Arizona State University), and only for an online program.
http://globalassets.starbucks.com/assets/2EA4CFEBE53E4771B8A6E038BB47AF8A.pdf
The report went on to observe a perhaps unintended consequence of tuition support programs. These programs usually require students to maintain a certain GPA (e.g. B). So students will avoid harder courses, or drop courses to concentrate on a few where they can keep their grades up.

I've waffled about reducing PRBLX for general portfolio allocations this year but not pulled the trigger yet.
This situation inclines me to do that just on principle since WFC is their #1 position, at least until this thing blows over -- granted, a 5% allocation won't move the needle much on the fund's performance, but still. I like the rest of the fund's holdings/positioning, so not doing anything out of haste, obviously. I thought PRBLX and PRWCX would be a nice combination, but maybe I'll just fold some/all of PRBLX into PRWCX and call it a day. *shrug*

The more I read about the history and etiology of the WF churning,
http://blogs.wsj.com/moneybeat/2016/09/16/from-gr-eight-to-gaming-a-short-history-of-wells-fargo-and-cross-selling/
the more I am thinking I am going to bail completely out of PRBLX, 100%. I expect such a fund, that makes such whoop over its DD in the SR space, to at least read the financial press and raise a fuss as warranted. Must think about this and sleep on it. Jeez louise.

FYI: How do you stack up against the typical person who owns mutual funds?
Mutual fund owners tend to reflect a cross-section of America. They're doing OK in terms of income and wealth, but they are not in Donald Trump's or Hillary Clinton's swanky neighborhood.
The median value of mutual funds owned by U.S. families was $120,000 in 2015, the most recent year for which the Investment Company Institute has data. The ICI is a mutual fund industry trade group.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.investors.com/etfs-and-funds/mutual-funds/how-do-you-compare-to-the-typical-mutual-fund-owner/

The more I read about the history and etiology of the WF churning,
http://blogs.wsj.com/moneybeat/2016/09/16/from-gr-eight-to-gaming-a-short-history-of-wells-fargo-and-cross-selling/
the more I am thinking I am going to bail completely out of PRBLX, 100%. I expect such a fund, that makes such whoop over its DD in the SR space, to at least read the financial press and raise a fuss as warranted. Must think about this and sleep on it. Jeez louise.

Not exactly the same animal, but RIV from RiverNorth has been operating since last December as a CEF of CEFs. Presently it trades at about a 2.7% discount. RIV can hold ETFs, but it does not seem to now. NAV has risen about 6%, but the price only 1%. While M* estimates the distribution rate at 8.5%, most of what the fund has paid out is in ST and LT CG, and some income.

Sometimes as early as the 1840s, William Henry Harrison said something that approached " the rich get richer and the poor get poorer". The industrial revolution had already started and it was hoped that major poverty would be eliminated. The data discussed in this exchange prove otherwise.
I thank you all for bringing the wealth distribution stats more fully into focus for me. I live in an affluent neighborhood in an affluent town and don''t often, if ever, come face-to-face with poverty and its victims. That's my shortfall.

If you look at the size of the middle class world wide since WWII it is usually large, historically speaking.
The theme of history is income inequality. The abnormality is recent history. Economically, the future world will look more like pre-industrial revolution world then post WWII - Rich, small fragile middle class and the rest poor.

Hi Guys,
Sometimes as early as the 1840s, William Henry Harrison said something that approached " the rich get richer and the poor get poorer". The industrial revolution had already started and it was hoped that major poverty would be eliminated. The data discussed in this exchange prove otherwise.
I thank you all for bringing the wealth distribution stats more fully into focus for me. I live in an affluent neighborhood in an affluent town and don''t often, if ever, come face-to-face with poverty and its victims. That's my shortfall.
The data that you guys referenced highlight the many shortcomings of wealth distribution in the USA. I was not aware that household wealth has basically stagnated since 2000 and the distribution has become even more distorted. The bottom 40% have lost ground while only the top 40% have gained ground, and only the elite 10% has done so significantly. We can do better than that although economic opportunity has never been equally distributed. Education is not the only cause for this distortion.
Thank you for calling my attention to these sorrowful statistics. I learned much.. Unlike a few others on this exchange, I do trust them. The detail contained in these government surveys and releases is truly amazing.
Best Wishes.

Surprise, surprise, surprise..... only a matter of time..... the first actively managed ETFs that will invest primarily in CEFs.
http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20160928005849/en/Trust-Launches-Trust-CEF-Income-Opportunity-ETFs

First Trust Advisors L.P. (“First Trust”) has launched two new exchange-traded funds (“ETFs”) that invest primarily in closed-end funds (“CEFs”), the First Trust CEF Income Opportunity ETF (Nasdaq: FCEF), and the First Trust Municipal CEF Income Opportunity ETF (Nasdaq: MCEF). Both funds seek to provide income by investing primarily in CEFs. FCEF has a secondary objective of total return. Furthermore, MCEF invests primarily in CEFs that invest in municipal debt securities and will seek to provide income that is exempt from regular federal income tax.

Ken Fincher will be the PM responsible for the day-to-day management of each fund’s investment portfolio.