I don't know about Baseball_Fan, but I try to avoid funds with more than a token appearance of Amazon due to their labor history, among other factors. If it shows up in an ESG fund @ 5% I just laugh, and keep on moving.
@Mark,

Isn't it possible that these choices are the best of the bunch given Browns investing strategy and practices? I sure don't know so maybe you could fill us all in. I don't see anything on their website where they claim to be perfect in their execution of same. They just claim that they strive to be responsible.

Are there funds that claim to be perfect? Are there funds that strive to be irresponsible? I don't know. Maybe you could fill us in?

T Rowe Price has posted more information about PRCFX on its website. Although detailed holdings are not yet available, the asset allocation is posted. Currently, it’s holding 51% in domestic bonds, 40% in domestic stocks, 5% cash, 4% foreign bonds and less than 1% in foreign stocks. Dividends will be paid monthly and capital gains annually.

Bloomberg article (via MSN) discusses this OEF/ETF....
GMO’s $8 Billion Fund Beats S&P 500 Even Without Nvidia, Tesla

AAII Sentiment Survey, 12/6/23
BULLISH remained the top sentiment (47.3%; high) & neutral became the bottom sentiment (25.3%, below average); bearish became the middle sentiment (27.4%, below average); Bull-Bear Spread was +19.9% (above average). Investor concerns: Budget; inflation; economy; the Fed; dollar; crypto regulations; market volatility (VIX, VXN, MOVE); Russia-Ukraine (93+ weeks); Israel-Hamas (8+ weeks); geopolitical. For the Survey week (Th-Wed), stocks were mixed (cyclicals up, growth down), bonds up, oil down sharply, gold down, dollar up. The FED & fed fund traders have diverging rate outlooks. Crypto rally continued. #AAII #Sentiment #Markets
https://ybbpersonalfinance.proboards.com/post/1276/thread

@LewisBraham noted IYVAX, KLCKX, FMXKX, CREEX, DHSCX, JPDEX (tax-aware!), BTIIX (SP500!) in the 11/27/23 issue of Barron's.

Schwab seems to waive loads on a variety of fund class A shares where Fidelity still charges a load. I agree this isn't typical, but it isn't uncommon. For example, SHDAX has a load a Fidelity but is offered NTF at Schwab. Likewise BCAAX carries a load at Fidelity but is NTF at Schwab.
Among the T. Rowe Price funds, Fidelity charges a transaction fee for PATAX while Schwab does not. You'd have to be doubly masochistic to buy this more expensive share class instead of the cheaper PRTAX and pay a TF for the privilege. PRTAX is NTF at both brokerages.

I also verified that for PRCFX, Schwab test allows $100+ orders NTF/no-load.
But Schwab info on it is conflicting.
https://www.schwab.com/research/mutual-funds/quotes/fees/prcfx
Edit/Add. Test at Fido has $49.95 fee.

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1111565/000111156523000071/prosaistkr.htm
497 1 prosaistkr.htm SUPPLEMENT TO PROSPECTUS AND SAI
December 6, 2023
BNY MELLON FUNDS TRUST
-BNY Mellon International Equity Income Fund
Supplement to Prospectus and Statement of Additional Information
The Board of Trustees of BNY Mellon Funds Trust (the "Trust") has approved the liquidation of BNY Mellon International Equity Income Fund (the "Fund"), a series of the Trust, effective on or about February 9, 2024 (the "Liquidation Date"). Before the Liquidation Date, and at the discretion of Fund management, the Fund's portfolio securities will be sold and the Fund may cease to pursue its investment objective and policies. The liquidation of the Fund may result in one or more taxable events for shareholders subject to federal income tax.
Accordingly, effective on or about January 8, 2024 (the "Closing Date"), the Fund will be closed to any investments for new accounts, except that new accounts may be established by participants in group retirement plans (and their successor plans), provided the plan sponsor has been approved by BNY Mellon Investment Adviser, Inc. ("BNYM Adviser") in the case of BNYM Adviser-sponsored retirement plans, or BNY Mellon Wealth Management ("BNYM WM"), in the case of BNYM WM-sponsored retirement plans, and has established the Fund as an investment option in the plan before the Closing Date. The Fund will continue to accept subsequent investments until the Liquidation Date, except that subsequent investments made by check or pursuant to TeleTransfer or Automatic Asset Builder no longer will be accepted after January 30, 2024. However, subsequent investments made by BNYM WM-sponsored Individual Retirement Accounts ("IRAs") and BNYM WM-sponsored retirement plans (together, "BNYM WM Retirement Plans") and BNYM Adviser-sponsored IRAs and BNYM Adviser-sponsored retirement plans (together, "BNYM Adviser Retirement Plans"), if any, pursuant to TeleTransfer or Automatic Asset Builder (but not by check) will be accepted after January 30, 2024.
Shares held by shareholders who elect to redeem their Fund shares prior to the Liquidation Date will be redeemed in the ordinary course at the applicable net asset value per share. Fund shareholders may exchange their shares for shares of certain other funds comprising the Trust at any time before the Fund ceases operations. Except as described below for certain retirement plans, each shareholder who remains in the Fund until the Liquidation Date will receive a liquidation distribution equal to the aggregate net asset value of the shares of the Fund that such shareholder then holds. Fund shareholders are encouraged to consider options that may be suitable for the reinvestment of liquidation proceeds, including exchanging into another fund comprising the Trust.
Fund shares held on the Liquidation Date in BNYM WM Retirement Plans will be reallocated to other previously approved investment vehicles designated in plan documents as determined by BNYM WM and/or a client's trustee or other fiduciary, where required, within BNYM WM's investment discretion should the consent of a client's third-party fiduciary not be obtained prior to the Liquidation Date. Fund shares held on the Liquidation Date in BNYM Adviser Retirement Plans will be exchanged for Wealth shares of Dreyfus Government Cash Management ("DGCM"). Investors may obtain a copy of the Prospectus of DGCM by calling 1-800-373-9387.
6309STK1223

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/770540/000119312523289796/d390237d497.htm
497 1 d390237d497.htm NATIXIS FUNDS TRUST I
Supplement dated December 6, 2023 to the Mirova U.S. Sustainable Equity Fund’s Summary
Prospectus, Prospectus and Statement of Additional Information, each dated May 1, 2023, as
may be revised or supplemented from time to time.
Mirova U.S. Sustainable Equity Fund
On December 6, 2023, the Board of Trustees of Natixis Funds Trust I (the “Trust”), on behalf of the Mirova U.S. Sustainable Equity Fund (the “Fund”), upon the recommendation of the Fund’s adviser, Mirova US LLC, approved a Plan of Liquidation for the Fund pursuant to which the Fund will be liquidated (the “Liquidation”) on or about December 28, 2023 (“Liquidation Date”). Any shares of the Fund outstanding on the Liquidation Date will be automatically redeemed on that date.
Effective December 6, 2023, purchases made by existing shareholders will not be subject to front-end sales charges. No commission payments will be made to intermediaries on purchases effective this date. In addition, redemptions made by existing shareholders will not be subject to any sales charges, including contingent deferred sales charges. The proceeds from any such redemption will be the net asset value of the Fund’s shares after expenses and liabilities of the Fund have been paid or otherwise provided for. Lastly, the Fund may make one or more distributions of income and/or net capital gains on or prior to the Liquidation Date in order to eliminate Fund-level taxes.
On or before the Liquidation Date, the Fund’s affairs shall be wound up and its securities and other assets shall be sold for cash or cash equivalents. The Fund shall have the authority to engage in such transactions as may be appropriate to its dissolution, winding up, liquidation, and termination. In connection with the liquidation, the Fund may deviate from its investment strategies disclosed in its Prospectus and intends to invest all of the Fund assets in short-term cash equivalent securities starting in mid-December, to facilitate the payment of distributions, if required, and an orderly liquidation on or about December 28, 2023. For federal income tax purposes, the automatic redemption on the Liquidation Date will generally be treated like other redemptions of shares and may result in a gain or loss for federal income tax purposes. If Fund shares are capital assets in the hands of a shareholder, such gain or loss, if any, generally will be taxed as short- or long-term capital gain or loss depending on how long the shareholder held the shares.
At any time prior to the Liquidation Date, shareholders may redeem their shares of the Fund pursuant to the procedures set forth under “How to Redeem Shares” in the Fund’s Prospectus. Shareholders may also exchange their shares, subject to investment minimums and other restrictions on exchanges as described under “Exchanging or Converting Shares” in the Fund’s Prospectus. For federal income tax purposes, an exchange of the Fund’s shares for shares of another Natixis Fund is generally treated as a sale on which a gain or loss may be recognized. Each shareholder should consult with his or her tax adviser for more information on his or her own situation.
Absent an instruction to the contrary prior to the Liquidation Date, for shares of the Fund held in custodial accounts within an IRA, Roth IRA or plans such as SEP, SIMPLE, SARSEP or 403(b), or in certain other accounts, Natixis Distribution, LLC (“Natixis Distribution”) will exchange any shares remaining in the Fund on the Liquidation Date for shares of the Loomis Sayles Limited Term Government and Agency Fund at net asset value. Please refer to your plan documents or contact your plan administrator, plan sponsor, or other financial intermediary that maintains your account to determine whether the preceding sentence applies to you.
Effective December 6, 2023, Natixis Distribution will no longer accept investments in the Fund from new investors (subject to intermediary discretion). Effective December 13, 2023, Natixis Distribution will no longer accept additional investments in the Fund from current shareholders of the Fund, including additional investments through automatic or systematic investment plans.

If your main goal is winning an argument, define the thing you want to beat to suit your argument.
James Mackintosh sounds like an able representative of the Journal's long-standing point of view.
On the news side of the financial press . . . Where are we going to get the water for all those data centers?

In Microsoft’s latest environmental sustainability report, the U.S. tech company disclosed that its global water consumption rose by more than a third from 2021 to 2022, climbing to nearly 1.7 billion gallons.
It means that Microsoft’s annual water use would be enough to fill more than 2,500 Olympic-sized swimming pools.
For Google, meanwhile, total water consumption at its data centers and offices came in at 5.6 billion gallons in 2022, a 21% increase on the year before.

In the same article I read that Meta wants to build a data center in Spain

which it expects to use about 665 million liters (176 million gallons) of water a year, and up to 195 liters per second during “peak water flow,”

Those that read agricultural news might have heard the Spanish drought is effecting olive oil production.
Both topics have been covered by the WSJ. The links probably end at a paywall. But for those that subscribe, read all about it.
https://www.wsj.com/finance/commodities-futures/cooks-beware-olive-oil-is-getting-a-lot-more-expensive-ba4cfd26
https://www.wsj.com/articles/ais-power-guzzling-habits-drive-search-for-alternative-energy-sources-5987a33a
I won't wait for Mackintosh to connect the dots.
And needless to say, Spain is not the only place suffering from drought.

Outlier here (What’s new?). At 78 I go about activities including travel, theater, shopping, social events pretty much as before the Covid pandemic. My heart goes out to all who suffered, continue to suffer or lost loved ones. I avail myself of any and all vaccines for anything that come out (covid updates, flu, RSV, shingles, pneumonia, etc.) And I am much more focused on frequent hand washing than before. Being single I don’t have to worry about a spouse or child getting infected. I can see where that would factor into someone’s decision making. Further, being “under the weather” from from time to time doesn’t impact the “unemployed” (myself) the way it would a full time professor, author or physician. An important distinction.
I think @Baseball_Fan was on-track with his healthy living emphasis. It won’t keep you from getting ill, but might lessen the seriousness of the episode, make recovery faster or make some necessary treatments less risky. (Just back from a brisk 4+ mile walk near the water with about a 35-40 mph gale blowing. Felt great!).
I post only to suggest there are different perspectives on the broader issue, depending on one’s overall health, age, situation and willingness to accept a degree of risk in their daily living in return for partaking of various life enhancing activities. Not an easy decision. No 1 size fits all.

James Mackintosh, who has always been adamantly skeptical of ESG/SRI/green investing (though less loudly opposed to anti-woke/red investing, perhaps because it's so marginal), offered a nice analysis today (WSJ, 12/06/23, B1)of the year's ESG crumple and its prospects going forward.
"Invest according to your political views," he begins, "and you're unlikely to make money." One might point out that ESG investing isn't merely a political gesture (the "G" in ESG, especially, is predictive of corporate performance), but he's never been interested in nuance. And, heck, why bother pointing out that the Equal Weight ESG 500 has higher returns over the past year than the Equal Weight 500 (1.2% vs 0.7%, as of 12/6/2023). Or even that the ESG-screened 500 has outperformed the basic 500 over the same time period (15.7% vs 14.0%). And, by the way, the same is true over the past five years. It's much more fun to highlight the implosion of a few clean energy stocks and declare, "point made!"
The point that makes me less irked with him is "investors who bought green stocks probably didn't think they were making a leveraged bet on Treasuries, but that is what they ended up with." He argues that rising interest rates impact renewable energy stocks (for which he uses the synonym "green stocks") two ways. First, renewable energy projects are 80% debt-funded, and debt is increasingly expensive and hard to acquire. Second, consumers making personal investments in "green" products - heat pumps, solar, electric cars - also use debt, whether credit cards, HELOCs or second mortgages, to finance them. Higher borrowing costs lead to lower demand for those products.

High costs shift people's attention from the long-term - the need for renewables and global heating - to the short term - the need to cover the bill.

He also argues that much, though not all, of the "greenium" has been squeezed out of the market. Valuations on renewables are way down, if not deeply discounted. That makes that more economically rational purchases now than they were two years ago.
My sole green holding, which I've discussed in each of my annual portfolio disclosures, is Brown Advisory Sustainable Growth. It's up 32.4% YTD and has eked out 16% APR since I first bought it. Which is to say, I'm not sure that Mr. Mackintosh's analysis is quite so clear and profound as might be warranted by inclusion in the world's premier business paper.

Always trying to learn more here - to go beyond simply looking at a fund’s 10 year track record and assuming it’s a relatively profitable / safe / predictable investment.

Most of us MFO regulars certainly do that. But the average person probably doesn't, and probably only looks at the chart before making a decision -- heck, how many actually even look at a fund's holdings viz-a-viz their other holdings to see if they're overweighted anywhere in their accounts?
Speaking of which, remember those 'principal protected notes' sold to Joe/Jane Public going into the GFC? Folks only saw "won't loose money" and piled into those things, not reading the fine print in their prospectuses (not just the retail-grade marketing slicks) about when their 'profits' might kick in (or what probably would invalidate them) and especially counterparty risks. A $2500 initial investment into these eclectic 'private' funds smacks of that kind of target audience, imho ... but provides these firms a source of 'cheap' locked-up capital to play with. Caveat very emptor!!!!

BCRED is a nontraded credit fund by Blackstone/BX.
Some here may be more familiar with nontraded-real estate BREIT (Blackstone), SREIT (Starwood). They have been in the news for max redemptions for almost a year.
These nontraded/nonlisted funds can be bought through brokers, may have accreditation requirements, but have only optional redemption windows, typically, for up to 2% AUM/mo or 5% AUM/qtr. There is practically no secondary market, but someone was recently offering instant cash for BREIT at about 40% haircut.
Closest to them may be interval-funds.

Blackstone’s BCRED is mentioned (page 1) in today’s FT. Blackstone just floated a big loan to finance this private equity offering. Ostensibly, the fund is for high net-worth individuals. But I’ve come across some websites that mention a $2500 minimum investment. Fido doesn’t even show it when I do a search. Since I know nothing about it you may safely assume I’m not planning to invest in it.
I do understand that private equity / securities constitute an area of investment not typically recommended for or available to retail investors. Would like to learn more about BCRED and am also curious to learn whether any retail mutual funds / ETFs venture into private debt or equity. A guess would be that some CEFs probably can and do offer exposure.
PS - I was thinking (incorrectly) of Blackrock when I first posted. However, the issue of private securities vs public is much in the news lately. Apollo’s CEO Mark Rowan has been pushing the concept on Bloomberg - claiming valuations are much more reasonable in the private markets than the public ones.

Check it out:
The Blue Zones

and some more hackwork and a look at vibeflation:
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/05/opinion/inflation-disinflation-economists.html

Get off your ass and lose that 15 lbs. Take a walk or bike ride or swim. Toss a few dumbbells around a couple times a week. Get some fresh air, breathe deeply.

Have been doing for quite awhile. Goal is watch your diet, especially during the holidays. We are mostly vegetarian and it works for us.

Glad to hear all are doing ok and are and have recovered from their Covid challenges. It's real for sure not just the flu. Bigger picture this thread is a good reminder to proactively take care of your health
Don't smoke, only a little alcohol not on school nights, good sleep hygiene, meat of any kind only once a day, no excessive sweets junk food. Big it comes in a man made box or wrapper don't eat it, more vegetables
Get off your ass and lose that 15 lbs. Take a walk or bike ride or swim. Toss a few dumbbells around a couple times a week. Get some fresh air, breathe deeply.
Know your BP, insulin levels, cholesterol, weight BMI numbers. Freaking do something about it to improve them
Here's to good health to you and yours
Baseball fan

There are fund families that count a short term round trip trade as either a buy-then-sell or a sell-then-buy. For example:

If you purchase [T. Rowe Price fund] shares through an intermediary (e.g., a broker/dealer, recordkeeper or other third party), you are in violation of the [Excessive Trading] Policy if you exceed the limit of one purchase and one sale or one sale and one purchase involving the same fund within any 120-day period

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/710826/000119312505020894/dex99po.htm
Fidelity dings traders of non-Fidelity NTF funds for a buy-then-sell short term round trip, but not for a sell-then-buy short term round trip. See the first quoted block in my OP.
I'm rather familiar with Fidelity's rule. The purpose of my call was only to confirm my understanding before I set forth in a long sequence of trades. I don't like being surprised after the fact.
Some families deal with the question of a sell followed shortly thereafter with a buy by simply prohibiting it. Vanguard's policy is to prohibit repurchasing of shares within 30 days of sale for most of its funds. (Check any Vanguard prospectus.)
I read all of the text quoted in my OP to the rep, including "Fidelity charges a short-term trading fee ..." Yet he continued to insist that Fidelity does not charge any fees for online trading of funds. He chose to interpret "Fidelity charges" as "Fidelity doesn't charge, it just passes through a $49.95 fee imposed by the third party fund.
FWIW, Fidelity imposes excessive trading restrictions only on trades of its own Funds. On NTF FundsNetwork funds, Fidelity charges a short term trading fee for a buy followed by a sell within 60 days. (For the purpose of counting 60 days, Fidelity uses FIFO.)
https://www.fidelity.com/mutual-funds/all-mutual-funds/fees
"I just spoke with a Fidelity private client rep who said that this is a fee that Fidelity merely passes through to the brokerage."
I definitely misstated that. I meant to say that the rep claimed that the $49.95 short term fee that "Fidelity charges" is actually a fee that the fund charges and Fidelity brokerage merely passes through to the trader. It only looks like Fidelity is charging a fee.
This was not your typical rep misinformation. This rep did not simply state that Fidelity doesn't charge the fee. His response was positively creative. As I suggested in naming this thread - a novel explanation.