Tax-Loss Harvesting (TLH), 2024
It’s never too late to plan for TLH. But some critical dates are approaching.
Funds are allowed to close their books for the year in OCTOBER so that they can timely announce yearend distributions in November/December for fund investors to plan. But some funds still follow the old practice of closing the books in December, but then their distributions may be in the next year (2025) with taxes due in the current year (2024).
Retail investors often wait until DECEMBER for TLH. The market has regular hours on the last day of trading & that is Tuesday, 12/31/24.
The last day to DOUBLE-UP & sell the older lot by the yearend is Friday, 11/29/24 (early market close at 1 PM ET) in order to avoid wash-sale. With commission-free trading, this practice is less popular now. It is easily possible to sell & simultaneously buy something SIMILAR BUT NOT IDENTICAL.
With TLH spread out in October & December, the related JANUARY EFFECT (in 2025) for losing stocks in 2024 will also be weak.

Robert Frost might be impressed to know his simple 20-line poem has prompted someone to write a 1000 + word explanation. This poem’s never been a favorite of mine. But I hold his longer “The Death of the Hired Man" in high regard. With all due respect to Frost, I think Poe was the better poet.
“And the stars never rise, but I feel the bright eyes Of the beautiful Annabel Lee …”

Yahoo Finance is showing DJT short interest as 8.44% of the float, 5.12% of the total shares. That is high but not record-breaking.
This Yahoo Finance Statistics page also has related fundamental details.
https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/DJT/key-statistics/

I read an article recently about a man who lost a substantial portion of his retirement savings by investing in DJT — more than $500,000. The article wasn’t political, more of a business article about the dangers of investing with your emotions and lack of diversification. Sorry, I didn’t copy the link.

AAII Sentiment Survey, 9/11/24
BULLISH remained the top sentiment (39.8%, above average) & neutral became the bottom sentiment (29.3%, below average); bearish became the middle sentiment (31.0%, average); Bull-Bear Spread was +8.0% (above average). Investor concerns: Elections, budget, inflation, economy, the Fed, dollar, Russia-Ukraine (133+ weeks), Israel-Hamas (48+ weeks), geopolitical. For the Survey week (Th-Wed), stocks mixed (growth up, cyclicals down), bonds up, oil down, gold up, dollar up. NYSE %Above 50-dMA 54.30% (positive). CPI +2.5%, core +3.2%; (wholesale) PPI today at 8:30 AM ET. #AAII #Sentiment #Markets
Edit/Add. PPI +1.7%, core +3.3%.
https://ybbpersonalfinance.proboards.com/post/1650/thread

What are the fees? Brokerage windows within workplace plans aren't cheap and that may be by design to discourage overuse by the uninitiated.
https://www.tsp.gov/mutual-fund-window/
"Fees you’ll pay
$55 annual administrative fee to ensure that use of the mutual fund window does not indirectly increase TSP administrative expenses for TSP participants who choose not to use the mutual fund window
$95 annual maintenance fee
$28.75 per-trade fee
Other fees and expenses specific to the mutual funds you choose, which you can review in each fund’s prospectus"

I have never come across a stock whose options are more expensive than that of DJT. The Nov 15 calls with $17.5 strike are trading nearly at $6. (Of course, the Jan 2026 calls with the same strike is only at $8.) By comparison, NVDA options are cheap.
Any way, if you are a lottery buyer, you might be able to buy more lottery with a DJT option play than with its stock.
Good luck.

Frost said he wrote it to tease an overthinking indecisive friend ....
And:
https://www.theparisreview.org/blog/2015/09/11/the-most-misread-poem-in-america/

Down 12.5% today to $16 + change.
It now appears debate is more than a purely academic exercise!

The fund status is closed to all investors (see prospectus). Only div reinvestments are permitted.
This fund was formerly a State Street Research fund (not to be confused with SSgA). FWIW, there is a sibling fund, formerly SRLAX, now MDFGX. It was created and managed in the late 90s by STSEX's manager at the time, Pete Woodworth.
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/big-cap-stocks-state-street-manager-looks-for-return-on-capital-1-25-99
The two funds appear to have continued using the same managers, as M* reports nearly identical teams (including changes) over the past decade. Until 2017 MDFGX's performance was virtually identical to STSEX's. Since then, STSEX has gone on wild rides (both up and down) but otherwise followed a similar trajectory. I'd guess that its huge (excessive?) bets on single stocks accounts for that.
Both funds are extremely concentrated. However, while 1/3 of STSEX is invested in Microsoft, "only" 10.37% of MDFGX is. The latter fund is not quite as concentrated, and actually turns over stocks once in awhile (21% turnover ratio).
If what you're looking for is a large cap 0% turnover fund, there's LEXCX. It's even more concentrated than STSEX, and like that fund, has BRK.B as its second largest holding (15.68%).

Per Barrons this post-debate morning....
Shares in the Truth Social parent company, which trade under the ticker DJT, were down over 17% to $15.43 in the Wednesday premarket–its lowest price since the merger with the shell company Digital World Acquisition Corp.

I also checked ultra-ST FCNVX prospectus & it's still exempt from frequent trading.
As is FMNDX.
The frequent trading rule quoted applies just to Fidelity funds. Other NTF funds purchased at Fidelity are subject to a completely different short term trading rule.
Note also that any trades of $10K (not $1K) or less are ignored. This was changed in 2020 even though it isn't reflected in the cited text.
https://www.fidelity.com/bin-public/060_www_fidelity_com/documents/mutual-funds/2020-08-31-Excessive-Trading-Policy-Web-Post.pdf
The wording that Fidelity used in the quoted part of its Excessive Trading Policy is, um, unfortunate. A round trip (a buy and sale w/i 30 days) is not a round trip violation; it's simply a round trip transaction. Fidelity corrected its wording in that 2020 update.
A violation occurs if you make a second round trip within 90 days:
Shareholders that place a second roundtrip transaction in the same fund within a 90-day period will be blocked from making additional purchases and exchange purchases into that fund for 85 days.
Now that's a violation.
While yogi's interpretation of the 2 round trip violation is consistent with Fidelity's wording, I don't think that's Fidelity's intent.
Round trip 1 = Buy shares on 1st of month, sell some on 2nd of month
Round trip 2 = Buy shares on 1st of month, sell some other shares on 3rd of month.
The underlying idea is that you don't rapidly (frequently) trade in and out of a fund. That's not what you're doing here. Somewhat the opposite. Instead of buying $10K worth of shares and then dumping them all the next day (putting stress on the fund), you're spreading the sale over several days, thus reducing the stress on the fund.
But now consider this 2 round trip violation:
Day 1 = buy $30K
Day 2 = sell $15K (round trip 1)
Day 3 = sell $15K (round trip 1A)
Day 87 = buy $11K
Day 93 = sell $11K (round trip 2)
That second round trip is not within 90 days of round trip 1, but it is within 90 days of round trip 1A. So there appears to be a violation - two round trips within 90 days.
Pardon the obvious suggestion here: try asking Fidelity.

David Snowball reminded us in this month’s Commentary that M* sees small cap value stocks as being undervalued. He reported that a screen for MFO Premium highly rated SCV funds produced BSCAX and PMJAX. The Brandes fund is small at $54M in AUM, so screens setting minimum size at $100M might miss its outstanding record. The PIMCO fund, OTOH, has attracted $1.4B.
Brandes also offers BISAX, International Small Cap Value, another fine vehicle. AUM clock in at $634M, lots more than the domestic fund. I was surprised to learn that the two funds have exactly the same four portfolio managers. I cannot recall encountering such a perfect overlap. In the same shop, the Brandes LC International and the EM fund have entirely different teams managing them. At places like Invesco, it seems that a single PM is listed as managing a slew of ETFs, but I doubt there’s a lot of day-to-day work happening on every fund. I’m impressed enough with BISAX to own it. Can @TheShadow or other sharp-eyed members find actively-managed funds, investing in different asset classes, having exactly the same portfolio managers, and rated 5 stars?

@Observant1

100% equities

I can't find where I posted 100% equities. Use SP500 for the stock portion.
Remember, we are talking about a lifetime period with no change = B&H.

This is no different than what some posters do on investment sites.
They regurgitate essentially the same information (with minor intermediate changes) ad nauseam.

The difference is that these people get paid and supposed to be "experts".

Many predictions turn out to be inaccurate.
However, longer-term "predictions" may be useful in setting expectations which can be valuable for planning.
Unfortunately, there are no simple metrics that can reliably and consistently predict future market performance.

Thank you for proving my point. I can show some of the best "experts" making huge prediction mistakes. The stock markets don't work based on expectations.

Reading numerous articles which are deemed not worthwhile seems like an awful waste of time.

That's exactly what many posters do on these sites, including me and you :-)

The idea is to be in good categories, because markets proved they can be one sided for many years. I never understood why investors are overdiversified.
MFO is an amazing place to find great risk/reward managed funds, but I hardly see discussions about it.
How can anyone miss PIMIX great performance from 2009 to the end of 2017? or PRWCX for 2-3 decades? or SPY since 2010?
In the last 3 years compare ICMUX, BND, DODIX(good bond funds). The chart (https://schrts.co/cQPAWsgM) shows total returns: ICMUX=16.8%...DODIX=0.1%...BND=(-5.2).
See ratings at MFO (https://www.member.mfopremium.com/riskprofile)

MikeM said- "I personally won't be taking 5% because I don't need to, but the thought of taking 3% sure sounds safer."
And of course the key words there are "because I don't need to". So it's evident that there really is no percentage "rule" that fits everyone. Everyone's portfolio is different and everyone's needs are different. We, for example, have been retired over 20 years, are in our 80's, and have yet to need to take any percent from our portfolio/savings. In fact that has grown significantly since retirement.
Neither of us came from wealth- I retired as a radio tech and my wife as a teacher. We both were super fortunate to have pensions and SS retirement income. But we began planning for retirement in 1970, and were very careful about expenditures. Being blessed (so far) with good health is a really major factor also.
To reiterate: everyone's needs are different. There is no one percentage that fits all.

Who wants to risk 10% chance of having no money?

And the invers might be, who wants a 90% risk of not enjoying life to its' fullest.
That said, I personally won't be taking 5% because I don't need to, but the thought of taking 3% sure sounds safer.

Let's examine some of these assertions.
"Bogle, and Burton Malkiel's Book, Random Walk proved decades ago that if you buy and hold the SP500 you would likely beat most investors and mutual funds for decades to come."
Adding a low-cost S&P 500 fund to your portfolio can be part of an effective investment strategy.
But what if an investor doesn't have the risk capacity or risk tolerance to be 100% invested in equities?
If someone heavily invested in the S&P 500 needed to make withdrawals
from 2008 - 2011 how would this have impacted portfolio longevity?
"Many writers are very educated but it has nothing to do with market performance So, they discuss mostly economics or tell you what happened already; they repackage the same articles they published before with changes to fit whatever."
This is no different than what some posters do on investment sites.
They regurgitate essentially the same information (with minor intermediate changes) ad nauseam.
"We also know that most predictions are useless.
After decades of listening and reading thousands of articles and interviews, I came to a conclusion based on facts that the economy, inverted yield, PE, PE10, valuation and many more can't predict what markets would do next 1-4-16 weeks or even months and years."
Many predictions turn out to be inaccurate.
However, longer-term "predictions" may be useful in setting expectations which can be valuable for planning.
Unfortunately, there are no simple metrics that can reliably and consistently predict future market performance.
"I have been reading this type of articles for years, and they follow the above. I just do it because investing is my passion. None made me real money."
Reading numerous articles which are deemed not worthwhile seems like an awful waste of time.

@bee
Thanks for the link to the Allan Roth article.
I've previously read that Harry Markowitz split his contributions 50/50 between stocks and bonds.
The Father of Modern Portfolio Theory didn't utilize efficient frontier analysis for his own portfolio!
Markowitz's intention was only to minimize future regret.