https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2021/06/30/stock-markets-today-june-2021/
*Wall Street powers through the first half of 2021 with U.S. stocks at record highs
The Dow, S&P 500 and Nasdaq are up by double digits this year, as investors pushed past inflation and rate hike fears*
We are hoping for 2nd best half

I had no idea.
The Washington Post
Personal Finance
Your retirement with Michelle Singletary.
A reality TV couple wanted to ‘bless’ Black people suffering financially. The FTC says it was a pyramid scheme.
A Texas couple once featured on an OWN network reality show “Family or Fiance,” promised people they could get a financial blessing of 800 percent in as little as a week.
It turns out they were running a pyramid scheme that targeted and then bilked Black people affected by the pandemic, according to two lawsuits filed against the Black couple.
In a joint complaint filed on June 16, the Federal Trade Commission and the state of Arkansas accused Marlon and LaShonda Moore of operating a pyramid scheme program called “Blessings In No Time,” or BINT. The Texas attorney general also has filed a lawsuit against the couple for scamming needy Black families.
For an upfront fee of $1,400 or $1,425, participants were told they could receive a return of $11,200 or $11,400 respectively — eight times their contribution to a “blessing loom.”
“In general, these schemes falsely promise a big return — or as BINT termed it, being ‘blessed out’ — following a modest initial payment,” the FTC and Arkansas complaint said. “In reality, however, very few consumers make any money. And the few consumers that do make money sometimes lose their profits by reinvesting in the scheme.”
Marlon Moore is known as DJ ASAP, which he says in marketing materials stands for “Always Serve A Purpose.” Participants said in interviews that the couple often chastised people for not recruiting enough. And in one call, they tried to discredit my reporting and warnings about pyramids schemes, one participant said.
Attempts to contact the Moores were unsuccessful.
Coretta Vanterpool of Florida said she lost close to $13,000. In total, Vanterpool said she and the family members she recruited were out $30,000. Others paid as much as $62,700 to participate in BINT, according to the FTC.
Vanterpool said she was told that an initial contribution of $1,425 would net her a “blessing” of $11,400 in seven to 10 days. To make even more money, she paid for multiple places on the blessing loom board. She was going to use the money to help pay down some of her $50,000 in student loans.
“They just made it sound so real, so nice,” said Vanterpool, whose nephew recruited her. “Since he received his first payment, he thought it was legit. A lot of people came in because they had been furloughed or they had lost their jobs. Their companies had closed. A couple of ladies were about to lose their homes. I met one lady through the group who was trying to get the money so she could pay for chemotherapy.”
The type of fraudulent schemes alleged in the complaint go by various names — sou-sou, gifting circle, money board, or blessing loom. The illegal operations borrow the principles of legitimate sou-sous, informal savings clubs that have cultural roots in West Africa, the Caribbean and other immigrant communities.
In the real-deal saving circles, groups are small. People pool their money, taking turns receiving a payout. But they don’t get back more money than they put into the pot. It’s more like a forced savings program with accountability partners.
The hallmark of an unlawful pyramid scheme hinges on two key elements: You are asked to pay an upfront entry fee with the expectation of a significant payout, and you have to recruit others to do the same.
Typically, people are relentlessly pushed to recruit. There are steps or levels of the circle or octagon that lead to a center, which is when you are supposed to get your payout. The core of the con is that you’ll get a substantial “gift” relative to what you put up from people joining after you. The whole enterprise eventually collapses, and the last folks coming in — the wide base of the pyramid — lose their money.
Here’s why these scams work. Some participants get the promised payout. They in turn share testimonies of their substantial gains. But after several rounds of this fraudulent scheme, the money dries up because not enough new people are recruited who are willing to make upfront payments.
I’ve been reporting the rise of illegal pyramid schemes since last summer as desperate folks started looking for quick ways to make money. Promoters often target certain communities in which they share an affinity. Black promoters, for example, have been exploiting the disenfranchisement that many African Americans are feeling, especially those who have lost jobs because of the coronavirus. The operators get recruits to drag in family and friends, fellow church members and co-workers.
The message of building Black wealth that the Moores espoused resonated with people, the lawsuits said.
“People were really vulnerable, just ready for any kind of hope,” one California woman who was involved in BINT said in an interview. “They were talking about building a Black community and building generational wealth. Those are the catchphrases now. They were just kind of selling people a dream.”
I asked Vanterpool how she felt recruiting family members who lost money.
“It hurts because I brought someone else into a situation that they didn’t have to be in when they were already suffering,” she said. “I’ve put in money that I really don’t have that I should have just used for what it was for and that was for my loans. Now I’m starting back at square one and hoping and praying that I’ll get this money back.”
Reader Question of the Week
If you have a personal finance or retirement question, send it to [email protected]. In the subject line put “Question of the Week.” Please note that questions may be edited for clarity.
Q: As a federal civil service employee, I heard that when I retire, I can’t specify which Thrift Savings Plan fund (e.g., C fund or G fund) I can withdraw from. It sounds like any amount I withdraw will be from all funds that I have invested in. Is this true?
A: For those not familiar with the federal government’s workplace retirement plan it’s called the Thrift Savings Plan or TSP, which is available to federal employees and members of the uniformed services, including the Ready Reserve.
TSP generally offers the same types of savings and tax benefits that many private corporations offer their employees under their 401(k) or similar plans.
If you have a TSP and will be tapping the funds, you should read “Withdrawing from Your TSP Account.”
You can leave your entire account balance in the TSP after you leave federal government service if the balance is $200 or more.
The options in the TSP include the following:
G Fund – Government Securities Investment Fund
F Fund - Fixed Income Index Investment Fund
C Fund - Common Stock Index Investment Fund
S Fund - Small cap stock Index investment fund
I Fund - International Stock Index Investment Fund
L (Lifecycle) Funds - A diversified mix of the five core funds (G, F, C, S, and I)
So, as to the question, can you withdraw from specific TSP funds? The answer is no. Distributions are taken proportionately from each fund.
When participants retire, they can specify whether they want to withdraw solely from their traditional (pre-tax) balance or from their Roth money. But, “the withdrawal will come from all of the funds,” said Kim Weaver, director of external affairs at the Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board. “A participant cannot specify which fund she or he wants to withdraw from.”
Weaver said participants can rebalance their accounts with an interfund transfer if they want to, pre or post-withdrawal.
Two years ago, there were major changes to withdrawal options for TSP account holders. Here’s a Washington Post article that explained the changes:
Federal employees have more withdrawal choices for their retirement savings

Summary prospectus for the fund issued today:
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/906352/000093041321001268/c101942_497k.htm
registration statement:
https://www.sec.gov/ix?doc=/Archives/edgar/data/906352/000093041321001267/c101612_485apos-ixbrl.htm

Let's say you have a money manager with a $100 million fund that goes up, say, 200% in one year. Say, $10 billion of new money pours into the fund as a result. The hedge fund manager charges a 2% expense ratio. The next year the fund is down 50%. By the end of the year say he has $3 billion as some investors have redeemed their shares. He still made well over $6 million in fees that year. The thing about funds is they're essentially toll roads and managers get paid whether they do well or poorly. Why am I posting this here? Because today's investment "genius," may be tomorrow's fool, yet he'll still be a billionaire at the end of the day. The genius is getting people to believe in his toll road, not in the accuracy of his predictions. The problem is some extremely wealthy managers start to believe their own hype. Worse, they think their narrow expertise extends beyond securities markets to other realms such as politics.

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.