This summer NW Oregon is experiencing an unprecedented heat dome. Last summer we lived through historic forest fires. Things are strange around here. A quote from a WP article this morning:

“As there is no previous occurrence of the event we’re experiencing in the local climatological record, it’s somewhat disconcerting to have no analogy to work with,” the National Weather Service’s Seattle office wrote in an area forecast discussion. “Temperature records will fall in impressive fashion.”

Perhaps applying that quote to current stock market behavior makes some sense. Change the input variables enough and the history based models no longer provide a reliable guide.

fomo is the most powerful of social forces:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2021/06/28/stock-market-record-wilshire-5000/

Here is the recent filing:
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1089951/000119312521201935/d196797d485apos.htm

Hello
Do you folks know any firm/broker that allow trading/ buying only partial of the funds instead of at minimal 1-2.5k to get in...or it depends on the manager and fund house rules that allow you to buy few hundreds dollars (exclude 401k brokerages)?

https://www.lordabbett.com/en/perspectives/economicinsights/2021-midyear-investment-outlook.html?ite=3076&ito=2067&itq=c52ab8f8-d9c4-4874-b389-888060e46474&itx[idio]=3427736&et_cid=84176034&[email protected]&et_fc=&cid=
2021 Midyear Investment Outlook
June 24, 2021
Lord Abbett’s investment leaders share their thoughts on key economic and investment issues that could shape the investment landscape in the second half of the year.
Slow as a turtle but we may get there someday

Financial literacy... The world's most serious issue.

Not even close. See how folks in Portland are handling 115 degree weather today. Now Imagine ten or twenty degrees hotter in places that have no electricity. Imagine living for generations by a river that suddenly dries up or floods so badly your village is washed away. Or an ocean devoid of edible fish.
Also, financial literacy is pointless if employees aren’t paid enough wages to have anything left over to save at the end of the month. About half of America lives paycheck to paycheck. I know—“personal responsibility.” Let them live on top ramen and gruel.

I think there is a bit of a balancing act here... It may be wage-related for some, but how about those living paycheck to paycheck (or close to it), but they still have iPhones, iPads, go out to eat and drink regularly, and basically just spend frivolously 100% of the time.... People still have to live within their means.

Financial literacy... The world's most serious issue.

Not even close. See how folks in Portland are handling 115 degree weather today. Now Imagine ten or twenty degrees hotter in places that have no electricity. Imagine living for generations by a river that suddenly dries up or floods so badly your village is washed away. Or an ocean devoid of edible fish.
Also, financial literacy is pointless if employees aren’t paid enough wages to have anything left over to save at the end of the month. About half of America lives paycheck to paycheck. I know—“personal responsibility.” Let them live on top ramen and gruel.

Hank said ; Good grief. This stuff is complicated!
So complicated that the Fidelity rep got it wrong. It wouldn't be the first time. Recently in passing I commented to a rep that QCDs are available once one is 70½. He immediately "corrected" me, saying that the rule had recently been changed (to age 72). That was wrong, and upon my insistence he retracted that.
The reason why I suggested asking Fidelity about their "FIFO" rule on its brokerage (not fund) short term trading fee is not that you'd get the right answer. Rather, if Fidelity did subsequently charge you a fee you'd have grounds to have them waive it. Insurance against another "expensive lesson".
Sounds like the two $100 charges were maybe something imposed by the funds themselves?
That would have to be disclosed in the funds' prospectuses: Calamos Market Neutral Income and Lazard Global Infrastructure. It would also be a remarkable coincidence if those two funds each imposed the identical $100 fee.
I think you got it right the first time: it appears that had I sold the funds online the commission would have been $50 each instead of $100.

I’ll continue to learn. Experience is a great teacher - but it can be expensive.

I've found that the more expensive the lesson, the more likely one is to remember it in the future :-)

Umm … Just to clarify … Fido doesn’t appear to call those “short term trading fees” when you sell a NTF fund early. In my case, they called them “deferred sales commissions.” So, on 2 of my NTF funds they force-sold (after the transfer of cash fizzled) the commission assessed was $100 each. (later reversed.) Reading their online lit, it appears that had I sold the funds online the commission would have been $50 each instead of $100.

In its Brokerage Commission and Fee Schedule, Fidelity writes:

Short-term Trading Fees
Fidelity charges a short-term trading fee each time you sell or exchange shares of a FundsNetwork NTF fund held less than 60 days. This fee does not apply to Fidelity funds, money market funds, FundsNetwork Transaction Fee funds, FundsNetwork load funds, funds redeemed through the Personal Withdrawal Service, or shares purchased through dividend reinvestment.

A fund itself can charge a redemption fee to defray the costs to the fund associated with the redemption. The money goes back into the fund, so it's not a load or commission. The charge may be a short term redemption fee, such as Royce Fund's 30 day short term fees, or it may be charged unconditionally upon redemption, e.g. VIAAX.
"Deferred sales commission" may be referring to a contingent deferred sales charge (commission) that applies to class B and some class C shares. But that's not something concerning no load (or load waived) funds. I've no other guess what this is about.
https://www.fidelity.com/mutual-funds/all-mutual-funds/fees

Fido’s Lit. makes clear that “first in / first out” does not apply if you sell one of their own funds inside of 30 days. What I’m not clear on is whether it simply goes down as a violation, or whether a fee is also attached.

No Fidelity fund has a short term redemption fee.

@msf -Thanks. I’ll continue to learn. Experience is a great teacher - but it can be expensive.
Umm … Just to clarify … Fido doesn’t appear to call those “short term trading fees” when you sell a NTF fund early. In my case, they called them “deferred sales commissions.” So, on 2 of my NTF funds they force-sold (after the transfer of cash fizzled) the commission assessed was $100 each. (later reversed.) Reading their online lit, it appears that had I sold the funds online the commission would have been $50 each instead of $100.
Where I think the short term fee might be assessed is on Fido’s own in-house funds if you sell shares inside of 30 days. But I’m not entirely clear on that or how much might be. Fido’s Lit. makes clear that “first in / first out” does not apply if you sell one of their own funds inside of 30 days. What I’m not clear on is whether it simply goes down as a violation, or whether a fee is also attached.
(I’d check, but they seem to have expunged those charges from my account after I had them reversed.)
FWIW - That question came up in a slightly different context when I asked a Fido rep about PRIHX (also transferred to Fido). My concern: I tend to use it as a “go-between” between longer term investments and cash for current consumption. I asked about what if I purchase additional shares of the fund (NTF), than unexpectedly have a need to withdraw some? Answer: It’s first-in / first out … However, “you should phone us first” and specify that you want us to redeem the “earlier purchased” shares. Seems odd to me that it would necessitate a phone call. Will comply.
Thanks again. I recently answered a question from @Crash in 1-minute’s time. (see “delete”) Thought that was pretty good. But you did even better by calling Fido before I even asked the question. :)
PS @msf wrote: “The short term trading fee applies to non-Fidelity NTF funds purchased and then sold within 60 days. There's no restriction or fee on the repurchase. (Unlike, say, Vanguard funds where Vanguard generally doesn't permit a repurchase within 30 days. )”
I have to assume both are correct. But not sure how I got hit with 2 $100 commissions when they force-sold two ntf funds (CVSIX and GLFOX). However, I was able to repurchase a bit of GLFOX without trouble after selling shares of PRWCX - So the second part is absolutely correct.

Sounds like a good question for @AndyJ
My comment (which Andy cited) was based on background info from my general reading (WSJ, Barron’s mostly) and from investing in and watching some funds in the commodities / NR sectors. Also, it’s pretty general knowledge that NYMEX “bottomed out” at - (negative ) $30 per barrel 15-16 months ago and has now climbed to around $75 - a gain of over $100 on the futures markets in little over one year. If that’s not being “bid-up” I don’t know what is. Lumber doubled or tripled in price over the past year (but is now beginning to pull back). Copper’s been hot. Corn has sky-rocketed in the past year.
Some one-year returns:
PRAFX +44% (I recently sold)
BRCAX +46% (still own)
PRNEX +48% (don’t own)
I don’t know much about growth funds. I’ve owned some DODBX for many years. That house is value focused. After many disappointing years value has turned up, and DODBX is reflective of that. One (but not the only) factor in value’s turn-around is that many bank stocks occupy that area. Banks do fine when interest rates are rising, and so with the expectation of higher rates, banks have turned up.
Hope this helps.
Analysts? I don’t trust any of them. But I enjoy Randall Forsyth’s column is Barron’s the most. This week he’s looking at bonds, which he considers at present valuations to represent “return free risk”. (take with grain of salt)
I also subscribe to Bill Fleckenstein’s daily “Market Rap“. But I don’t consider him an analysist. He’s more of a market “pundit” and a “contrarian” if ever there was one. His customarily bearish views on equities, central bankers, and the investing herd serve to keep me “sober” and perhaps prevent me from taking on too much market risk.

Schwab's platform fee discsloure to 403(b) plans includes:

Transaction-Fee Funds (“Fee Funds”)
As set forth in the Commissions and Transaction Fees section of the Charles Schwab Pricing Guide for Individual Investors, Schwab charges clients a transaction fee for the purchase or sale of certain funds that are not included in the Schwab Mutual Fund OneSource® program. Some Fee Funds pay Schwab an annual fee usually equal to $20, but sometimes as high as $30, per customer position, typically subject to a quarterly minimum of $7,500 per fund. Rather than paying a per-customer account fee, some Fee Funds choose instead to pay Schwab an asset-based annual fee of up to 0.25% of the average assets held at Schwab.
When adding a new fund to Schwab’s platform, Fee Funds also pay Schwab a one-time establishment fee, which Schwab may waive. The amount of this fee generally does not exceed $10,000 for the first fund added and $2,000 for each new fund after that. To the extent any of these fees are paid out of fund assets, fees are included in the fund’s OER and are indirectly borne by the fund’s shareholders

https://www.schwab.com/public/file/P-5358937
Fidelity used to have a similar disclosure, but about 4 years ago switched to an "infrastructure" fee that obfuscates the cost. It recently won an appellate ruling that this was legal.
In any case, as @Observant1 stated, the $75 fee is applied to funds that won't pay for shelf space. In addition to D&C and Vanguard funds, Fidelity also charges $75 for some Schwab funds, including SNXFX and SWTSX.

I think there is definitely a rivalry between Fido, Vanguard and even Dodge & Cox. From what I can tell ,Vanguard and Dodge & Cox funds are the only funds that Fido charges a $75 transaction fee to purchase !

Vanguard and Dodge & Cox choose not to pay distribution fees to be included on a brokerage firm's platform.
"Brokerage firms, for their part, have scant incentive to make it any easier to buy Vanguard products. Not only does Vanguard compete against their funds, but Vanguard has never paid for fund distribution. Fidelity and other brokerage firms have long chafed at Vanguard’s refusal to pay for distribution. Some fund companies pay more than 0.15% of fund assets to be on Fidelity’s platform, for instance. Those fees are increasingly important to brokerage firms as expense ratios decline and investors migrate out of actively managed funds to low-cost index products."
“'Vanguard doesn’t compensate us for the services we provide,' a Fidelity spokeswoman told Barron’s. 'That’s why there’s a higher transaction fee for its funds,' she added, referring to the $75 fee that Fidelity charges to buy a Vanguard fund, well above its normal $49.95 rate."
Link
N o M a r k e t i n g C a m p a i g n s
"Another important distinguishing characteristic of our firm is that we rely primarily on word of mouth to sell our Funds—you have never seen an advertising campaign for Dodge & Cox.
We neither pay for distribution nor pay brokers to sell our funds."
Link

Yeah ... lots of folks find the hassle of running a fund really unattractive. That partly explains the huge level of merger & acquisition activity. My general sense that is mid-sized managers - the 10-50 fund folks - are in the worst spot. Boutiques have at least a shot because they've got an institutional identity and, sometimes, a trusted name above the door. Behemoths are doing fine. It's the undistinguished folks in the middle - the Wells Fargos of the world - who are shedding funds and management teams, often by off-loading them to other advisors.

“Now if Vanguard and Fidelity would expand access for their funds, I wouldn't need 4 or 5 brokerage accounts!”
Interesting comment. I’m spread out across 1 brokerage now + 3 fund companies. In retrospect it was a mistake to let most of that pile up at TRP. For many years I held a kind of reverence for them. I know some disagree, but spreading it out a bit seems like a good idea. I’ve toyed with getting something going at Schwab. I’ll wait and see.

I think there is definitely a rivalry between Fido, Vanguard and even Dodge & Cox. From what I can tell ,Vanguard and Dodge & Cox funds are the only funds that Fido charges a $75 transaction fee to purchase !

I don't think TRP cares where you buy their funds. They saw their AUM stalling out and allowed Vanguard, Schwab and Fidelity to sell their funds etf. Apparently E-Trade and TD Ameritrade weren't generating enough sales, so they opened fund access to the Big 3. Now if Vanguard and Fidelity would expand access for their funds, I wouldn't need 4 or 5 brokerage accounts !

Thanks @carew388. There were brief times in my discussions when I thought I detected some animosity (maybe cultural clash is a better term) between the 2 firms. T Rowe wanted to keep me as much in the “fog” as to what had happened. Fido, on the other hand, seemed more open about what they knew. I’d say Fido’s mailing me copies of the bounced checks (unsolicited) sorta confirms that.

”If I recall correctly, TRP is a publicly traded company. It could be that large investors are pressuring the company to cut costs, leading to the decline in customer service. We invested directly with TRP for 25+ years, and their service has definitely declined in recent years.”

I’ve often wondered how that public ownership might play out - if at all. Assumed it would be on the fund management end. Likely it’s playing out instead on the client service end. Hard to think of any company where the client-customer end of the business hasn’t deteriorated. Humans are expensive to maintain due to their propensity to eat, along with the need for shelter, medical care, etc. A lot cheaper to have computers run the show - even perhaps at the cost of losing some business.

hank I don't think TRP cares where you buy their funds. They saw their AUM stalling out and allowed Vanguard, Schwab and Fidelity to sell their funds etf. Apparently E-Trade and TD Ameritrade weren't generating enough sales, so they opened fund access to the Big 3. Now if Vanguard and Fidelity would expand access for their funds, I wouldn't need 4 or 5 brokerage accounts !

If I recall correctly, TRP is a publicly traded company. It could be that large investors are pressuring the company to cut costs, leading to the decline in customer service. We invested directly with TRP for 25+ years, and their service has definitely declined in recent years.

“Is anyone out there looking around and deciding to bail or to substantially reduce their risk exposure?”
In short - Not here.
I agree things look bubbllish. But how you react depends on your initial positioning, as well as how diversified you are (plus lots of other factors). I try to look at “worst likely downside” for things I own. If I’m comfortable with that, than fine.
Probably more troubling than that initial downside, would be the persistency or length of the downtrend. A 7% yearly loss for 5 years would hurt more than a one year loss of 20% followed by some up years.
Was glad to get a second chance to add a bit to my mining fund at Invesco this week. NAV fell back down to where it was 3-4 months ago. I did bail from PRAFX couple weeks ago (and it’s continued rising). Shifted that to a good global infrastructure fund. But that’s related to my outlook on the two sectors rather than a fear of markets in general.
-
FWIW - Watching the charts … energy & broad based commodities look high, Value looks decent - but a lot of “hot” money’s been moving in this year. I wouldn’t add to it if already exposed. . Small caps have been bid up by the fanatics at Robinhood. EM is probably good longer term but may go down before up. Some observers I watch like EM bonds better than equities. I think the dollar will weaken. But I’ve been mostly wrong on that for years.
At this point it’s largely about gaming the central banks (and Fed) and anticipating how long they might allow a steep market slide to persist. My firm belief is they will continue to flood markets with easy money if necessary to keep the ship upright. (That doesn’t mean we can’t see a 20+% selloff in some equity markets nearer term. )