reserving the right to reject orders exceeding ...
You were given imprecise information. Fidelity, like most fund sponsors, puts in boilerplate allowing them to reject any purchase, including a purchase via an exchange if they feel it would disrupt the fund. But not sell orders. If they did, the funds would no longer be classified as OEFs.

An open-end fund is required by law to redeem its securities on demand

https://www.sec.gov/rules/proposed/2015/33-9922.pdf
Based on the purchase dollar limit you were given for FCNTX, and the limit that I actually hit on a very new and very small Fidelity fund, it looks like Fidelity sets its fund limits at 0.1% of AUM. (M* shows FCNTX as having $139.5B, or roughly 1,000x the purchase limit.)
Regarding redemption in-kind, Fidelity (or any fund company) would distribute securities owned by the fund. Obviously if the fund were to sell some securities just to purchase other ones to hand you, it might as well hand you the cash since that would be no more disruptive.
As it constitutes 10.65% of the fund's portfolio, I'd expect you to get a ton of FB.
According to the latest semiannual statement, Fidelity Contra redeemed 293,065 FCNKX shares in kind, worth $5,071.454. It does happen.

It remains interesting. Turns out the prospectus, like most, has, or is officially reported to have, vague language about reserving the right to reject orders exceeding yada yada ...
without any figure given, said the rep.
He added that the current limit for FCNTX is $138M or something. (Coincidence that you mentioned it.)
This from the 'back desk', he said.
I was attempting 1/276 of that.
Minor irony is that on yet another day of a rising market, if I had put in my FMSDX order for a dollar under the half-mil, it would have gone through fine even as the actual sale amount would turn out to have been nontrivially >$0.5M.
Now, I am willing to believe that if you were an FAIRX or CGMFX (cheapshot examples) shareholder and sold several millions it might well take some time to settle to you.
I love the line about in-kind --- Fido are going to put a ton of VGIT or BSV into your account in lieu of cash ?
The rep did suggest next time (go, bull, next week!) to call them directly or use chat.fidelity.com ....

I don't believe that funds can outright reject redemption orders (though they can postpone orders as was done in Sept 2001 when the markets were shut down). However, funds can place restrictions that might trigger on large orders. It is easy to imagine that such atypical transactions could not be processed online.
From the prospectus of FCNTX:

payment of redemption proceeds may take longer than the time a fund typically expects and may take up to seven days from the date of receipt of the redemption order as permitted by applicable law.
...
a fund reserves the right to pay part or all of your redemption proceeds in readily marketable securities instead of cash (redemption in-kind). Redemption in-kind proceeds will typically be made by delivering the selected securities to the redeeming shareholder within seven days after the receipt of the redemption order in proper form by a fund.

It would be interesting to know what the stumbling block was.

No deductions. None. And I assume the tax applies to all income. For all taxpayers including businesses, which is the subject of this thread.
So we eliminate the deduction that mutual funds get for passing through their earnings to investors. Make no mistake, that's a deduction that they get now. See IRC 26 USC § 852, that talks about "the deduction for dividends paid", including "capital gain dividends". Mutual funds will be taxed on their earnings.
And we eliminate the IRA deduction. That's an "above the line" deduction rather than an itemized deduction, but a deduction is a deduction. We want to keep things simple. Obviously HSA, FSA, 401k deductions, and so forth also get tossed.
And income is income, no special cases there either. In the above cited 26 USC § 852 is §852(b)(6). That excludes certain sales of appreciated property from being counted as income. Of course that special treatment has to go in pursuit of simplicity and fairness. That's the exclusion that enables ETFs to spin off capital gains without them being taxed. So now we tax the ETF in-kind transactions like all other income.
Regarding the suggested tax regimen generally, Milton Friedman was more considerate of the poor. In 1962 he proposed what he called a negative income tax. The amount paid on zero income would be negative, and taxes increased (at a flat rate) as one's income increased.
https://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/23/business/23scene.html
https://mitsloan.mit.edu/ideas-made-to-matter/negative-income-tax-explained

15% on all forms for income (wages, cap gains, rents, interest, etc.) with zero deductions. None. Give every person (including corporations) a $25,000 personal exemption. This would mean a family of four wouldn't start paying taxes until they hit $100,000. Very easy - just pay at the window.
rono

Nice. I would add a deduction (childcare credit for working parents) or stay at home credit for parents with kids under 5 years of age. If you choose to stay home, a credit. SS and Medicare deductions worked into that credit to recognize that staying at home raising kids is a job. Stay at home requirement - both the child and the parent participant in Pre-K /Adult Training offered in the same facility.
Corporations and small businesses offer a paid / government supported entry level work program for graduating parents. This offers offers full-time pay of $50K / year.
Which leads me to the question of how do we get a handle the welfare side of government programs? Can this be simplified as well?

Howdy folks,
Right now, the dems are imploding in DC proving the adage, that the democrats are stupid and the republicans are mean. Being a 3rd term elected republican, I take it further to state that most republicans are dirty old white men who are racist sexist religinazi creeps that should even be allowed in public off leash and without a handler.
As for taxes, rono rolls out his solution. 15% on all forms for income (wages, cap gains, rents, interest, etc.) with zero deductions. None. Give every person (including corporations) a $25,000 personal exemption. This would mean a family of four wouldn't start paying taxes until they hit $100,000. Very easy - just pay at the window.
and so it goes,
peace and keep wearing the damn mask,
rono

According to M*, HSGFX has $365.7 Mil in assets.
I wonder why investors have stuck with this dog?
This reminds me of the Steadman Fund family.
Pundits have labeled several Steadman funds as the worst of all time.
"You might wonder why anyone would even consider investing in funds operated in such a manner and with such draconian performance. The answer is that they didn’t. From 1988 until 1998 the fund did not acquire any new investors. But many current investors simply failed to sell, which enabled Steadman and his family to continue to milk the funds as a source of income for themselves. While some investors presumably stopped paying attention, a large number actually died while holding the fund. The L.A. Times stated that by 1998 fully 40% of the accounts had been legally abandoned. One can only speculate as to whether or not the funds’ performance had any hand in their demise."
Link

Fido must be monitoring this board because when I went to buy BGHAX there, I noticed the 3.5% load. BGHAX is ntf at Vanguard with a 1,000 minimum so I bought it there before Vanguard changes their mind too !

LMZIX is (pardon the redundancy) BrandywineGlobal Global High Yield, as opposed to BGHSX, BrandwineGlobal High Yield without the global in the fund name. Two different funds.
Fidelity charges nothing to sell TF funds. However, as Crash noted, BGHIX has got a $1M min at Fidelity and everywhere else I've looked. If you can spring for a $1M investment, I don't think you'll blink at a $49.95 TF when buying.
BGHAX is NTF with a low minimum at several brokerages, but not at Fidelity.
On a test trade: "A sales charge of up to 3.50% may apply."
https://fundresearch.fidelity.com/mutual-funds/summary/52472T734

BGHAX available ntf at Fido, $2500 minimum.

This 21 year old fund’s a former board favorite. John Hussman’s writings were often displayed and discussed. Real looser of a fund however. You’d have made less than a half-percent annually had you bought the fund when it opened 21 years ago.
I owned the fund for a year or so and sold it probably 15 years ago. But can’t stop from tracking it and hoping this seemingly gifted financial analyst and writer could somehow turn his floundering fund around. HSGFX got off to a good start this year and everything looked promising. But the fund’s been in a nose-dive now for several weeks. Today’s negative 0.49% return puts the fund into negative territory YTD.
I can sympathize with him if he thinks the markets are overvalued and has pulled back./ gotten defensive. I happen to agree with that prognosis. But, managing a fund like this is “big league” stuff. More is expected.
HSGFX
ER 1.23%
Early Redemption Fee 1.50%
Lipper Link
Chart

OSTIX, Osterweis Strategic Income (TF at most brokerage houses)…..or ZEOIX, Zeo Short Duration Income (also TF). Also RiverPark has RSIVX…somewhat longer duration than RPHYX, but performing relatively well this year it seems.
Honestly, if you’re ok with courting risk, IOFIX is as steady as they come (the once-in-a-decade, plus, COVID crash notwithstanding….). 4-5% yield and it generally goes up or stays flat most days. I know it’s not high yield! Don’t kill me for suggesting it haha.

Great fund indeed...I shares would be ideal but Fido charges 49.95 to buy and sell. I can live with that.
Do you guys prefer lobal or US HY funds? Or do you own both and not worry about overlap on the domestic side?

davidr,
My interpretation of Joe's question: the 1 Million doesn't grow with inflation, but the annual spends increase each year.
An example. For convenience, say the annual inflation rate is 2%
So in Year 1, Joe's spending is 40,000;
in Year 2, Joe's spending is (1.02)*40,000 = 40,800;
in Year 3, Joe's spending is (1.02)*40,800 = (1.02^2)*40,000 =41,616;
in Year 4, Joe's spending is (1.02)*41,616 = (1.02^3)*40,000 =42,448.32;
etc, etc
in Year 25, Joe's spending is (1.02^24)*40,000 =64,337.49.
(For those of you unfamiliar with the jargon,
2*3 means 2 times 3, and
2^3 means 2 raised to the 3rd power.)
The question then becomes: what's the sum of all the annual spends?
That is, 40,000 +(1.02)*40,000+(1.02^2)*40,000+
(1.02^3)*40,000 + ...+(1.02^24)*40,000.
If we factor out the 40,000, then this total spending is
40,000 (1 +1.02+1.02^2+1.02^3+1.02^4+ ... + 1.02^24).
You could get out a calculator to add the 25 terms in the parentheses, but ...
wait for it
wait for it
there's a formula!
1 +1.02+1.02^2+1.02^3+1.02^4+ ... + 1.02^24 =(1.02^25 -1)/.02
A calculator can handle the 25th power term, to get
(.64061)/.02 = 32.031,
so the total amount Joe needs to live on for 25 years is
40,000*32.031 = $1,281,212.
So he needs to find 281,212 more dollars to stash away under his mattress.
The final answers:
for inflation rate 2%, the total initial amount needed is $1,281,212;
for inflation rate 2.5%, the total initial amount needed is $1,366,311;
for inflation rate 3%, the total initial amount needed is $1,458,371;
for inflation rate 6%, the total initial amount needed is $2,194,581.
David

If this takes effect, how will Mr. Market react ? Correction coming ? All up in the air at this time.
Derf

“We have a vision to be the premier active investment manager in the world,” T. Rowe President Rob Sharps said in an interview. “Alternatives is an asset class that is growing rapidly” and there’s increasing interest in it from an array of investors, he said. Sharps will become chief executive officer on Jan. 1.

T. Rowe Price to Buy Oak Hill

The separate currency is a point in favor of viewing Macau bonds as different from Chinese bonds. (Puerto Rico's bonds are a different story.) On the other hand, Macau's government seems substantially subservient to mainland China, raising doubts about true economic independence.
Both HK and Macau would like to think they're not part of China.
Life is rarely that simple.

[Macau's] Special Administrative Region ... uses the same political model as Hong Kong - "one country, two systems". ... But this is where the similarity between Hong Kong and Macau ends.
...
Hong Kong is now into its sixth month of protests [Dec 2019], but Macau has mainly remained silent.
"This dissent does not exist in Macau," Jason Chao, an activist and former president of the New Macau Association, a pro-democracy party, tells the BBC.
"A major difference between Hong Kong and Macau is a wish for autonomy. Hong Kong people need autonomy, freedom and rights and they are fighting for it. This does not apply to Macau. The majority of the population are pro-China."

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-50832919
Compare and contrast w/Taiwan:

Macau said Wednesday it was closing its representative office in Taiwan, following neighbouring Hong Kong which made the same move last month in protest at Taipei's support for pro-democracy activists.
...
Hong Kong and Macau abide by authoritarian China's view that democratic, self-ruled Taiwan is part of its territory and must be seized one day, by force if necessary.
...
Beijing loathes [Taiwan's President Tsai Ing-wen] because she regards Taiwan as a de facto sovereign nation and not part of "one China".

Agence France-Presse (AFP), June 16, 2021
https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20210616-macau-follows-hong-kong-in-shuttering-taiwan-office

FWIW, in my withdrawal account, which I haven't had to use yet, I hold RPHYX as the cornerstone, about 35% of the account, but other short/ultra-short deration ETFs I use are JPST, FLRN and MINT.

It's difficult to find US vs International % exposure on M*
http://portfolios.morningstar.com/fund/summary?t=HYSAX
(substitute your favorite ticker for other funds)
One does need to be careful with definitions, though. Apparently M* thinks that Macau is not part of China, and on the domestic front, that Puerto Rico is not part of the United States.

% Bonds		Category Avg
United States		 84.79		 86.17	
Canada			  6.18		  3.44	
France			  2.15		  1.33	
Zambia			  1.83		  0.23	
United Kingdom		  1.61		  1.85	
Jamaica			  1.14		  0.19	
Germany			  0.76		  0.67	
Macao			  0.42		  0.25	
Ireland			  0.36		  0.58	
Puerto Rico		  0.34		  0.20