I just listened to Cathie Wood talk on CNBC Half Time Report. She said more than 50% of her net worth is invested in the ARK funds. Can not say too many fund managers can claim that level of personal conviction, FWIW. (As an aside, of all the things she talked about, I understand fixed income and her statement about interest rates makes me think she uses hyperboles to make her points. Not sure if that is also indicative of her thought process or just public posture / marketing.)

Is there no fiduciary responsibility to represent an investment offering in as objective a manner as possible - including mention of potential risks?
I ask after viewing a more than hour-long interview with Wood on CNBC Today. My Lord - she comes across as a carnival barker with an evangelical bent (although she avoided mention of God). I can imagine many vulnerable individuals having been lulled into buying ARKK near its highest valuations.
What else to say? I’m sure all managers believe in what they’re buying. But I’ve never seen such “zeal” (for lack of a better word) on their part and literally no attention paid to risks. This is certainly not the way TRP depicts their higher octane funds. Yes - The ARKK Prospectus would mention risks - assuming anyone reads it. If you’re inclined to gamble in the first place, maybe not.
This is not to criticize AARK’s holdings. As I’ve said before, most anything that falls over 50% from peak will experience a rebound. So chances are good here if you can hang on long enough. I hope Gensler will take a look at this overall issue. Couple Robinhood with ARKK and you can do a lot of damage to the unsuspecting retail investor. FWIW - CNBC seemed to be pandering to Wood. A few softball questions. She talked pretty much non-stop. How does an hour-long show like this differ from outright solicitation?
PS - And BTW - How about a requirement that CNBC (or other media outlet) add a prominent disclaimer somewhere in the interview telling viewers to “Be sure to read the Prospectus before investing or sending money”? No doubt they’ve covered their legal *** with a more generic disclaimer somewhere in their programming.

I think dry powder is alright to hold at this time. It lets me sleep like a new born baby!

Is this what you mean Derf?

Online edition:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/jpmorgan-to-add-ukraine-bonds-to-debt-index-despite-war-threat-11644933115
The contrast between Ukraine’s rising geopolitical risk and JPMorgan’s decision to proceed with the inclusion reflects the burgeoning power and occasional disconnect of passive investing.

There’s no way I know of to tell what inflation will be in future years. I hope the low-ball theories are correct. Just for the hell of it I ran a calculation using annual compounding and the latest government reported 7.5% YOY inflation rate. That resulted in a doubling of prices in just over 9.5 years. Admittedly, we’re talking about averages here and a basket of different goods and services. Not everything inflates in price at the same rate. Cars are just one component, but a large portion of most household budgets.
Taking Kelly Blue Book’s end of 2021 average new and used car prices ($47,000 and $28,000 respectively) that would put average car prices 9 years from now at about $94,000 new and over $50,000 for a used one.
Point? None really. But I think we all tend to underestimate the impact of inflation as it compounds on top of the prior year’s increase year after year.

While I agree that the scenario is unlikely, it's still a valid hypothetical question and I don't know the rule that handles this.
That said, I really like the idea of redemption in kind. Normally that's a pain for the retail investor, but here, where there's a single stock (or two) distributed, it's a very good thought. Even better (for the investors) because redemptions in kind make cap gains go poof. That's the loophole that ETFs use, and it's a generic loophole for all types of funds.
26 U.S. Code § 852(b)(6):

Section 311(b) [saying that funds recognize gains when they sell holdings] shall not apply to any distribution by a regulated investment company to which this part applies, if such distribution is in redemption of its stock [fund shares] upon the demand of the shareholder.

Thee thread doth drift … though I’m all in favor of saving the manatee.
In investment news, the free-fall in fixed income slowed or stopped today - only temporarily arrested I suspect. All mine were flat or slightly up: DODIX, CVSIX, PRIHX, DODLX. And a weird ETF I own, GLDB, that mixes gold and long-term corporates finally had a decent day, up .83%.

In this extreme hypothetical example, each $1 redemption in TSLA would create $1 in realized CG distribution liability, and the point when the fund would be broke is when it still has $5.6B + $1.3B - $6.9B/2 = $3.45B in nominal assets, but $0 in unencumbered assets. Probably, the SEC or a fund acquirer would step in well before that point.

It's hard to think of this as a mutual fund when 50% is in one stock. The other issue I could image is the potential tax liability if the fund starts experiencing redemptions and the manager has to sell appreciated stock. Given that, if one is a Tesla fan, why not just buy Tesla directly? According to the fund's June 30, 2021 semiannual report--https://sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1217673/000119312521257076/d171358dncsrs.htm#cov171358_33--the fund had $5.6 billion of unrealized capital gains in its $6.9 billion portfolio. One could easily imagine the fund distributing some hefty taxable distributions if some of those unrealized gains have to be realized because of shareholders selling the fund.

This situation suggests an interesting problem which I've never researched. What happens if the realized gains in a fund exceed the assets in the fund?
To see how this could happen, suppose the fund bought TSLA at $0 (or for a penny if it makes people more comfortable). Assume that the fund's holding in the company is now worth $5.6B; the other $1.3B are in assets that have not appreciated.
Fund shareholders redeem $5.6B worth of shares. The fund, perhaps foolishly, decides to satisfy the redemptions by selling all its TSLA stock. The fund is left with $1.3B in assets and a gain of $5.6B. When December rolls around, what does the fund distribute in the way of cap gains dividends?
One possibility is for the fund to distribute $1.3B in divs, and carry forward the remaining gains. The pragmatic problem with that solution is that no one would buy shares of a fund that would immediately distribute 100% of the investment back as a cap gain. Talk about buying a dividend! I don't know the real answer to what the rule is.

yeah
the OP quoted from Barron's
Most of its recent gains came from just one stock, Tesla (TSLA), which accounts for 50% of its portfolio.

so I was not seeing the problem, not seeing any problem. Then you posted
It's hard to think of this as a mutual fund when 50% is in one stock.

(and the answer to your question 'Why not just buy that stock?' is that you still want active management, presumably.)
A colleague who writes European prospectuses ventured:
... if an investment policy violation occurs (over a maximum, under a minimum, bond downrated to below credit threshold, etc.), the manager must make it a priority to resolve the problem as soon as possible within the normal course of business. So you don't have to suddenly dump so many now-junk bonds on the market that you push down the price you get for them, because that is not in the shareholders' best interest --- which is the paramount test for anything a fund does or doesn't do, though somehow they've managed ways to persuade regulators that giant fees are in the shareholders' best interest.
But yes, you gotta ditch the stuff or, as likely, offset some of the exposure through short sales or derivatives or whatever. This is an actual reg, not just a policy, and is about diversification and smoothing out volatility, and it is so heart-and-soul a mutual fund feature that you gotta follow it, eventually.

2/16/22 SCHD - inflow alert https://www.nasdaq.com/articles/schd:-etf-inflow-alert-1
"SCHD ETF (Symbol: SCHD) where we have detected an approximate $1.9 billion dollar inflow -- that's a 5.9% increase week over week in outstanding units (from 412,300,000 to 436,750,000). "
SCHD ... a SPY substitute via SeekingAlpha https://seekingalpha.com/article/4485315-schwab-schd-spy-substitute-for-etf-investors Summary: "The SCHD mirrors the SPY's performance but with a higher yield."

My impression is that as long as the purchases of the stock did not exceed 25% of the fund's assets, the manager can have as much of the stock as a percentage of the portfolio as they want if the stock has appreciated beyond that 25% threshold. I don't think they're required to sell the position down, but they wouldn't be able to add to it.

+1.
Because Waikiki is most famous, I mention it here:
https://www.hawaiibusiness.com/sea-level-rise-effects-honolulu-hawaii-waikiki-map-future-climate-change/#:~:text=Waikīkī at 4 feet of,at 5 feet of SLR.
The Ala Wai canal was originally planned with outlets at both ends to the sea. Some genius decided there should only be ONE. It is regularly dredged and cleaned. Otherwise, it would turn into a cesspool.

Franklin Income/FKIQX is misclassified as conservative-allocation/30-50% equity. When looking at its Relative-SD/Effective-Equity (65.8%; 73.6% for TSHIX), it is like moderate-allocation/50-70% equity. That can lead to unhappy experiences.
Edit/Add: Using PV for 33-month common run, the Relative-SDs/Effective-Equity are:
FKIQX 65.6%, TSHIX 73.6%, TSUMX 61.4%. So, all 3 are acting like moderate-allocation/50-70% equity.

Dumb question, must be missing something --- how does it (is it supposed to) work when one of the holdings increases just stupendously and thus goes far above some percentage threshold ? Are managers somehow obligated or mandated to sell to get the percentage of the total back down?
>> prohibits the fund from investing more than 25% of its assets in a single company.
Assuming investing also entails having, I guess the answer is managers are supposed to (quickly? is there a time schedule?) whittle down, or whatever the phrase is. Unless I am missing something.

Has anyone looked at Franklin Income A FKIQX or Transamerica Multi-Asset Income I TSHIX also in 30-50% category?

Davep:BIVIX Risk varies between 4 and 5 at MFOP. Max DD -14.1% 202003, Recovery months +3. MFO Great Owl (GO). Capture Ratio Overall vs. S&P is Up 72%, Down 4% = Overall U/D of 17.7% 500. Beaten S&P 500 in all periods since inception in all up-and-down periods.

Just a matter of political will. And a reduction of GREED.

Perhaps using the word Just in this context is akin to waving a magic wand.
Here is a piece of the puzzle.....Within each nation and among rich and poor nations it is necessary to reach consensus related to "adequately" addressing the wants and needs of present day adult populations while simultaneously adequately setting aside resources to account for the wants and needs of the young and and the unborn. And, related to that, within each nation and among rich and poor nations it is necessary to determine who pays how much to achieve those goals (and then to successfully monitor and to adjust -- when climatic evidence dictates -- those commitments through extended time periods).......sounds like a tall order based on our checkered human history. Perhaps fumbling our way forward over an extended time frame and avoiding the worst possible outcome is likely (this coming from a person who began to advocate for substantially higher gas taxes 50 years ago as a way to reduce fossil fuel consumption and to account for the external costs associated with their use.) Here is a current article about some of what fumbling our way forward may entail over the next 30 years. (Hawaii takes a relatively mild hit in this telling.)

Team,
Please note avail at Schwab, Fidelity in IRA for $2500 minimum, not sure of other platforms. Holding up well YTD. WIthout using your qualified monies, bring your platinum checkbook or cash out your Bitcoin, then yes min's are high.
"For investors looking for inflation protection with a focus on risk adusted returns" We sure are, yes we are.
"Flexible, global mandate"
Been watching this one almost since it started. What peaked my interest is that I had good results with Thornburg Income Builder back in the day, way prior to 08'
It is NOT a "best idea" fund, has ability to short, very good returns so far.
In my no nothing opinion it might be one of the better allocation fund out there, might be a smaller more nimble and more conservative FPACX, dunno?
It might be one that you can hold thru thick and thin and come what may...and many grey beards feel there are storm clouds on the horizon.
Full Disclosure: I hold a noticeable 6-figure position in this fund and plan on sticking with this one. Do your own homework, do what is right for you and your situation, be careful.
Good Luck to All,
Baseball Fan

Thornburg describes TSUMX newer (3/1/19- ; AUM $70 million only ) as multi-asset fund (stocks, bonds, alternatives) that is "unconstrained" or go-anywhere. No ranges for assets are specified in the prospectus but M* puts it in conservative-allocation/30-50% equity based on its current positioning. It may be a milder version of Thornburg's world-allocation/multi-asset TIBAX (NTF/no-load at Fido and Schwab) and its newer type of CEF TBLD (term-structure; not leveraged for now). TSUMX has transaction-fees at Fido and Schwab and both have lower min for IRAs (Fido $2,500; Schwab $1,000). I am surprised that Thornburg hasn't made it available as NTF/no-load at Fido and Schwab.