Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Here's a statement of the obvious: The opinions expressed here are those of the participants, not those of the Mutual Fund Observer. We cannot vouch for the accuracy or appropriateness of any of it, though we do encourage civility and good humor.
  • TD Ameritrade new OEF pricing
    Firstrade:
    A Short Term Redemption Fee of $19.95 will be applied to redemptions of mutual fund shares held less than 90 days. Broker-Assisted redemptions will incur a charge of $19.95. Redemptions of less than $500 will incur a $19.95 fee, unless the entire value of that fund is less than $500. For mutual funds transferred to Firstrade, the 90 day holding period will begin when the account transfer process is complete.
    https://invest.firstrade.com/cgi-bin/main#/content/customerservice/pricing/
    Once one logs in, there's a fund screener that gives not 11,000 funds but 16,854 funds, of which 10,265 are described as no load, and 6,589 of which are called load funds.

    Before Firstrade dropped all fund transaction fees
    , it charged no transaction fee for funds on its NTF list and for load funds (since it collected loads on those funds), while charging $9.95 for no load, TF funds. I'm inclined to think that all Firstrade did was remove the $9.95 charge on the TF funds but that it still charges loads on funds it labels load funds. Especially since it shows 6K load funds in addition to the 10K+ funds that are "no load".
    NTBAX is one such fund. Firstrade lists it as open but as a load fund. However, it does also list NTBIX as a noload fund, albeit with a $25K min.
    While you won't find NTBAX on the Firstrade's public pages, you will find its sister fund NAVAX / NAVCX there, displayed as a load fund. That gives you a good indication of how NTBAX is handled there as well.
    Interestingly, you will also find its purported sister fund NDNAX /NDNCX listed. The problem is that this fund is defunct. Which suggests that the number of funds Firstrade is claiming is inflated, whether intentionally or not.

    I have been using Firstrade for years and happy with service overall. I can confirm that they do charge loads for load funds, but I still find they have the best selection of funds being offered at NTF AND institutional shares at low minimums in some cases.
  • TD Ameritrade new OEF pricing
    Firstrade:
    A Short Term Redemption Fee of $19.95 will be applied to redemptions of mutual fund shares held less than 90 days. Broker-Assisted redemptions will incur a charge of $19.95. Redemptions of less than $500 will incur a $19.95 fee, unless the entire value of that fund is less than $500. For mutual funds transferred to Firstrade, the 90 day holding period will begin when the account transfer process is complete.
    https://invest.firstrade.com/cgi-bin/main#/content/customerservice/pricing/
    Once one logs in, there's a fund screener that gives not 11,000 funds but 16,854 funds, of which 10,265 are described as no load, and 6,589 of which are called load funds.

    Before Firstrade dropped all fund transaction fees
    , it charged no transaction fee for funds on its NTF list and for load funds (since it collected loads on those funds), while charging $9.95 for no load, TF funds. I'm inclined to think that all Firstrade did was remove the $9.95 charge on the TF funds but that it still charges loads on funds it labels load funds. Especially since it shows 6K load funds in addition to the 10K+ funds that are "no load".
    NTBAX is one such fund. Firstrade lists it as open but as a load fund. However, it does also list NTBIX as a noload fund, albeit with a $25K min.
    While you won't find NTBAX on the Firstrade's public pages, you will find its sister fund NAVAX / NAVCX there, displayed as a load fund. That gives you a good indication of how NTBAX is handled there as well.
    Interestingly, you will also find its purported sister fund NDNAX /NDNCX listed. The problem is that this fund is defunct. Which suggests that the number of funds Firstrade is claiming is inflated, whether intentionally or not.
  • TD Ameritrade new OEF pricing
    @carew388. goofed. SVARX and NTBAX both available. $500 minimum. PACLX and PRWCX both closed to non shareholders
  • TD Ameritrade new OEF pricing
    The available funds listed on the informational pages without an account is far from complete. With an account the available funds are many more. I own SVARX as a matter of fact and both this fund and PACLX are both available with $500 initial amount. The other 2 are available but closed to non shareholders. Hope this helps.
  • TD Ameritrade new OEF pricing
    Forgot to add. Free cash management is available with a minimum 25K in the account. This has to be applied for separately and comes with checks, atm card,etc
  • TD Ameritrade new OEF pricing
    I am in no way affiliated with Firstrade so I can report without hesitation after 1 year now, that I have been, for the most part ,happy with this account that allows every, yes every of the 11,000 funds on the platform NTF. Fees occur if a transaction occurs within 120 days if I remember correctly. I do not sell any positions less than 120 days anyhow. There have been a few hiccups ,but if anyone has issues with TF's this may be a solution. Customer service is not on the same level as with my other brokerages, Fidelity being one. But for no fees ,I am willing to put up with this issue .Many institutional and Vanguard Admiral funds have low entry amounts ,many at $500.
  • TD Ameritrade new OEF pricing
    So TDA still charges a $49.95 tf for non ntf funds and still maintains a 180 day holding period to avoid STR fees? For me, yawn... a big nothingburger. Make it a 9.99 tf and reduce the holding period to 30 days, and I'll reopen my TDA account in a heartbeat !
  • TD Ameritrade new OEF pricing
    Rforno, what is the effective date of the revised fees structure you mentioned? Every place on the TDA site I looked it still shows the old pricing. I also checked Standard Retail Pricing: Commissions and Fees document revised 08/21 - TDA 4075 F 08/21. BTW, the $49.95, when effective, is consistent with Schwab pricing. I am more interested in the no fees on sales of TF funds.
    Changes are effective 1 Oct.
  • TD Ameritrade new OEF pricing
    Rforno, what is the effective date of the revised fees structure you mentioned? Every place on the TDA site I looked it still shows the old pricing. I also checked Standard Retail Pricing: Commissions and Fees document revised 08/21 - TDA 4075 F 08/21. BTW, the $49.95, when effective, is consistent with Schwab pricing. I am more interested in the no fees on sales of TF funds.
    The email from TDA says the effective date is October 1.
  • TD Ameritrade new OEF pricing
    Rforno, what is the effective date of the revised fees structure you mentioned? Every place on the TDA site I looked it still shows the old pricing. I also checked Standard Retail Pricing: Commissions and Fees document revised 08/21 - TDA 4075 F 08/21. BTW, the $49.95, when effective, is consistent with Schwab pricing. I am more interested in the no fees on sales of TF funds.
  • TD Ameritrade new OEF pricing
    WOW I am sure Schwab will apply $75 fee across the board
  • TD Ameritrade new OEF pricing

    Just received from TDA...
    We are eliminating the sell-side Mutual Fund transaction fee. This means when you sell a mutual fund, there is no transaction fee.
    We are reducing the standard buy-side Mutual Fund transaction fee to $49.95
    However, the transaction fee for your purchases of funds from certain fund families that do not pay TD Ameritrade for record keeping, shareholder, and other administrative services on the shares purchased will increase to $74.95.
  • CWood and conviction
    ER @0.5% on $80B AUM is $400 million not $4 million in annual fees. A 75% drop in AUM still fetches $100 million in annual fees.
  • CWood and conviction
    Ask these meme lovers why GME went up +27.5% today (8/24), and they answer "Fundamentals". LOL. But pressed further, they have no idea how to answer. The new generation of uninformed traders thinks its the quickest road to riches. Seems a lot more like musical chairs to me. Is either GME or AMC worth more than $8/share?
    Its a market gone mad, and this paves the way for a Cathie Wood type figure to get her 15 minutes of fame. Ride the wave.
    Eventually, the wave crashes, and Cathie gets dumped into the dustbin of history. Fads come and go, and so do bubbles.
  • Battery pioneer Akira Yoshino on Tesla, Apple and the electric future
    Lithium-ion batteries have provided the first serious competition in a century to fossil fuels and combustion engines for transportation. Now an honorary fellow at Asahi Kasei, the Japanese chemical firm where he has worked for nearly 50 years, Yoshino sees more disruption ahead as transportation and digital technology become one industry, sharing lithium battery technology.
    And,
    Right now, the auto industry is thinking about how to invest in the future of mobility. At the same time, the IT industry is also thinking about the future of mobility. Somewhere, sometime, with the auto industry and the IT industry, there is going to be some kind of convergence for the future of mobility.
    Tesla has their own independent strategy. The one to look out for is Apple. What will they do? I think they may announce something soon. And what kind of car would they announce? What kind of battery? They probably want to get in around 2025. If they do that, I think they have to announce something by the end of this year. That's just my own personal hypothesis.
    battery-pioneer-akira-yoshino-tesla-apple-electric-future
  • What's on your FUND (or ETF) wishlist?
    @MikeW @AZRph
    Interesting that TROW (T Rowe Price) is not in the top 25 holdings of IAI...it would have help.
    image
  • CWood and conviction
    Is not most investing connected to "other peoples money" in one fashion or another? Over many years we have profited from "OPM" whether it be from the FED., large fund and pension houses and numerous individual investors, both foreign and domestic. I/we have to calculate the risk/reward based upon numerous factors. The potential of any given investment sector is one of the critical decisions that must be considered. The who, why and where of cash flows.
    With negative interest rates on government issues in several large global economies; there remain those who wonder how could our Treasury and economy continue with a 1.5% yield on a 10 year note or 1.9% on a 30 year bond. These yields look nice, many times, in the eyes of foreign monies.
    TIS OPM, somewhere; every minute of the business day, globally speaking.
    Good Evening,
    Catch
  • CWood and conviction
    I don't doubt she invests in her own funds. I've checked the ETFs' SAI and she definitely has money invested in them, but I would be surprised if she has her entire net worth in them. Interestingly, she does not have an equal amount per ETF:https://etfs.ark-funds.com/hubfs/1_Download_Files_ETF_Website/Performance-and-Other/ARK_Active_Funds_SAI.pdf Perhaps less holy faith in Israeli tech in the ARK Israel Innovative Technology ETF--under $1 million--than U.S. tech in ARK Innovation--over $1 million. (Invites Raiders of the Lost Ark jokes I guess.) Also, even if she does have her entire net worth, collecting fees off the entirety of assets acts as a shield for downturns. She'll collect millions of dollars off the ETFs in fees no matter what happens, a few million less if they fall. And imagine even if the entirety of one's net worth is invested but that net worth is say $100 million, well a 50% decline hurts, but not nearly as much as the poor sap who bought into the ETFs with say $50,000 to her/his name. It is still other people's money that is the cash cow.
  • CWood and conviction
    @LB, I bet a nickel you are mistaken about her own personal portfolio. Someone with these sorts of convictions --- you have heard her speak? --- is a true believer through and through.
    From 5mos ago:
    https://www.barrons.com/articles/arks-cathie-wood-disrupted-investment-management-shes-not-done-yet-51614992508
  • CWood and conviction
    Yeah, no argument with you here on that, but I think having an unwavering religious conviction about the ostensibly scripturally-ordained outcomes for other people's money in a manager's portfolio invites an agency problem of biblical proportions. Let's say someone manages $80 billion at a fee of 0.50% of assets. Even if the manager invests her entire net worth in the funds under her purview, she is still collecting $400 million a year in fees off that money. Now let's say the funds fall 50%--still $200 million a year in fees and a massive net worth already invested in the fund cut in half is probably still massive. Meanwhile, ordinary investors can suffer a lot along the way. And I expect in this case and most money managers' cases their entire net worth isn't in their funds. Taking these massive risks with other people's money seems a lot easier than doing it with one's own.