After selling all or part of a mutual fund @ Fido, is there any restriction prohibiting purchasing that same fund again a day later?
I can think of 2 scenarios:
1) You’ve just sold a Fido fund (after holding it 31 days) …than buy it or add to it soon thereafter.
2) You’ve just sold a NTF fund you bought at Fido and held for 61 days … than buy it or add to it soon thereafter.
ISTM the answer to both is that you may do so without penalty. Since I served 90 days in their “penalty box” upon arrival, I’m not interested in testing any of this out.
(Sorry if this has already been addressed)

Also FWIW, and it may be worth plenty to anyone considering or actually BUYing FDRV...
FDRV is a brand new relatively, lightly traded ETF. It is (mysteriously?) UP 4.92% pre-market on a coupla hundred shares traded.
Just a WAG here, but looks like a single BUYer may have entered a Market order and got taken to the cleaners/woodshed. As an owner of FDRV, hoping it's something other than that, but...
Moral: HIGHLY suggest using ONLY Limit orders on FDRV given its daily trading volume.
EDIT_1: FDRV opened UP ~1%. Looks like some poor (pun intended) got burned on their pre-mrkt BUY.
EDIT_2: Article on EVs:
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/10/26/americans-are-buying-teslas-not-evs-heres-why-thats-about-to-change.html
EDIT_3: Yeah, RE E_1...looks like FDRV BUYers are getting burned/today with their market orders, as it whiphaws between UP ~0.50% to ~3.0% during markets hours. Having owned it from near its inception date earlier this month, have not seen anything like this on any previous trading day so far. Noted that volume is heavy on it today, 38K shares traded by 11:30 AM with avg daily volume 40K.
Be careful out there!

DraftKings Walks From Potential $22.4 Billion Offer for Entain
DFKG is up nearly 8% in pre-market trading this morning. The buyout bid has really hammered their stock the past 1-2 months. Still, with football season in high gear, I was surprised how far it slid.
Cathie Wood is a major holder through her ARK funds. Before buying a small sliver, I looked at its largest shareholders, with VG and TRP near the top - though TRP sold some shares off earlier this year.
As far as using their app - I haven’t accessed it since last March, as basketball is the only aspect that interests me.
Link to Story
Edit : DKNG finished up 4% for the day.

We've seen this before:

There was once a king in India who was a big chess enthusiast and had the habit of challenging wise visitors to a game of chess. One day a traveling sage was challenged by the king. The sage having played this game all his life all the time with people all over the world gladly accepted the Kings challenge. To motivate his opponent the king offered any reward that the sage could name. The sage modestly asked just for a few grains of rice in the following manner: the king was to put a single grain of rice on the first chess square and double it on every consequent one. The king accepted the sage’s request.

https://purposefocuscommitment.medium.com/the-rice-and-the-chess-board-story-the-power-of-exponential-growth-b1f7bd70aaca
Reduce the number of squares on the chess board from 64 to 25 to represent the 25 years.
Reduce the multiplier from 2x to the inflation rate (e.g. 1.025 for 2.5%)
Instead of starting with 1 grain of rice, start with $40K scrip
Standard mathematical technique for solving problems - transform them to something already solved.
Even if inflation averages 2.5%/year, there's always sequence of "return" risk. You might have all the inflation in year one, in which case you'd need 25 years x $40K per year x (1.025)^25, or all the inflation could be just as Joe reaches the end of his estimated lifetime. Which brings us to longevity risk.

Simple calc for many of you, I am sure.
Panicked by high equity valuations and weak bond prospects, Joe decides to put his $1M retirement egg under the mattress, for keeps. He has 25y to live, he figures. He needs to take out $40k a year to live happily. (No heirs or charities, spend to zero.)
So he reckons he's all set if there were no inflation. But he knows that's not gonna happen.
So ... how much extra does he need to put under the mattress and leave there in order to draw $40k annually if inflation is 2.5% a year for 25y? How about if 3% ?

https://fortune.com/2021/10/25/tesla-stock-hertz-100000-electric-vehicles/
Maybe too late to buy fir cheap after the uptrends
Tesla may reach >1k next yr

+1

“Stock investors may be feeling a tad jealous of their crypto cousins. Bitcoin, the largest crypto-currency, blew past its record high this past week, reaching new heights around $67,000, up 50% since Sept. 30. Bulls now see a path to $100,000.”
“After years of false starts, a Bitcoin-futures-based ETF, the ProShares Bitcoin Strategy (ticker: BITO), debuted on Tuesday on the New York Stock Exchange. It racked up a record $1.1 billion in assets in two days, but it already has company. Another futures ETF, the Valkyrie Bitcoin Strategy (BTF), launched on the Nasdaq on Friday. Other futures ETFs that could win approval soon include funds from VanEck, AdvisorShares, and ARK 21Shares. The flurry of futures ETFs may be a turning point.”
Barron’s October 25, 2021

From the NY Times "Your Money" section:
How the Supply Chain Broke, and Why It Won’t Be Fixed Anytime Soon

+1 hank PRIHX only has 73 million AUM. Fidelity could take this fund and probably run 500 million or a billion in assets. Still don't know why Fido doesn't have its own high-yield muni fund. HYD is an etf in this space that I've invested in for some time .

welcome; I wish doing so helped my understanding more, although for me it does always prove useful to research and write things down, while rereading smarties here.
I have trouble ripping off Barron's, but last spring Forsyth seemed not a fan of rent equivalencies, although I find him hard to follow in general sometimes and pin down (probably my bad); from 6mos ago:
https://www.barrons.com/articles/why-inflation-is-running-hotter-than-it-looks-51620855700
and he does get to tap his drum by invoking Carlson.
(One commenter says Barron's is a liberal cover or something. Maybe I should pay up.)
We have not even mentioned / argued about regional CPIs. I know the 'experience' qualification is important; Old Joe would concur. I sense that elders Yellen and Powell are savvy about that, but obvs they have to deal in the world of macro policy.
You yourself have got to do a blog or draft paper on education and inflation calc.
I am fascinated at your PT calc report. You probably even know what cadastral means:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Property_tax

Your post helps tremendously in understanding what you're thinking about. Much appreciated.
My head is full of loosely connected thoughts that would take too long to organize coherently now, so I'll just toss out a few for the moment.
I like BLS's idea of separating out expenses from investments. Just as we don't include stock prices in inflation, OER is designed to exclude the cost of a home as an appreciating asset. At the same time, it attempts to count the costs (including operating costs) of the shelter aspect of one's home. While we can debate how well it accomplishes this, it is a reasonable approach.
Side note: my property taxes are based not on the selling price of comps, but on the theoretical value of my home as rental property. Take market rental rates, and use current interest rates to work backward to compute the "correct" assessment, regardless of what my home would currently fetch. This has got its own set of problems, but serves to show that using OER is not limited to CPI calculations.
Side note: the fact that homes can be viewed as a potentially appreciating asset is something that differentiates homes from vehicles. Except for antique vehicles, which BLS explicitly excludes from the CPI. They're viewed as pure investments, not transportation.
Similar to homes, education has attributes of daily expenses and attributes of an investment. (Perhaps I've been listening too much to Build Back Better's expression of education as an investment in human "capital.") Thinking about this it seems that the two categories of expenses could be treated similarly.
Amortizing the expenses over several years, as a homeowner does with monthly PITI payments could be a reasonable way to incorporate home prices directly and smooth some of the price volatility. Just as students wind up carrying college debt for many years.
Not only do different people experience inflation differently, but inflation on the national level can be different from the way individuals experience inflation. For example, last year the cost (premium) of Medicare insurance went up $3.90, but it should have gone up roughly four times that to cover projected expenses.
From a national perspective medical costs rose by some given amount; it didn't matter who was paying the increase. However, as a result of the subsidy, individuals experienced a lower rate of inflation in 2021. Of course now that this subsidy has expired, Medicare recipients feel like there's a higher rate of inflation. This, despite medical costs having stabilized from a national perspective.
Regarding Forsyth, I haven't really read him. But I did read the cited Carson blog that has much of the same flavor. I tend to tune out things like that because people are good at complaining about perceived wrongs, but tend to be silent when the same measures work out in their favor.
For example, the Senior Citizens League is very good at banging the drum for using CPI-E as opposed to CPI-W for COLAs. But we haven't heard a peep from them this year, not since CPI-W came out a percent higher than CPI-E. What will Fosyth say the next time housing prices fall?

I keep getting money building up in my bank account.

That’s quite common. The experts say we’re still flush with cash. A lot of spending was curtailed during the worst of Covid. Folks travelled little. And with less travel - plus working from home - new wardrobes weren’t necessary. Fuel was cheap.(Crude went below 0). People drove much less. I put off some interior maintenance for almost a year - not wanting workers in the house before being vaccinated.
That cash is beginning to flood back into the economy. I’d like to say I invested mine like @Anna did - but, instead, it went into some important home upgrades this summer (an investment of sorts I guess). While the costs were high, I suspect they were much lower than they will be in 3, 5 or 10 years time.

It’s a real quandary today. No advice. Cash allows you breathing room to see what develops.
For my really “safe” money I’ve moved to GNMA funds. Expect to lose a bit, but it’s a comfort having a degree of federal backing for GNMA paper. A good manager might be able to grab off an extra percent or two above cash or TIPs over longer periods. (Both of mine are 1-2% underwater YTD.) Checking duration at Yahoo (under “holdings”) one fund is less than 3 years out and the other between 4 and 5 years. I wouldn’t go over 5 years on duration.
Balanced funds in general? I’ve stuck with mine. Worst case: managers will go very short term with the bond portion - costing some return potential, but also mitigating the fund’s volatility - a big reason for owning balanced funds.
The only muni I have is PRIHX. Price calls it “intermediate”, but it behaves more like a short-term bond fund. That might be why it doesn’t score well at M* and the rest. FYI - a bet on munis - especially longer term - is a bet on the economy. Under recessionary pressures, including high unemployment, state and local (tax) revenue declines while expenses may actually increase due to unemployment benefits. This can lead to downgrades of the bonds they’ve issued.

Interesting Forbes Commentary Article:

The supply lines of February 2020 were impossibly complicated structures that no politician could ever hope to design. Think billions of individuals around the world pursuing their narrow work specialization on the way to enormous global plenty. Put another way, the shelves in economically free countries were heaving with all manner of products based on economic cooperation that was staggering in scope. Brilliant as some experts claim to be, and brilliant as some politicians think they are as they look in the mirror, they could never construct the web of trillions of economic relationships that prevailed before the lockdowns. But they could destroy the web. And they did; that, or they severely impaired it.

theres-no-supply-chain-shortage-or-inflation-theres-just-central-planning

Since 10 year rules, inherited accounts and 401(k)s have been mentioned, I'll throw in another technical detail:
A lump sum distribution from an employer sponsored plan inherited from a participant born before 1936 can apply 10 year income averaging. In effect, one gets the money up front but is taxed as though one drew it out over ten years.
https://www.irahelp.com/slottreport/what-you-need-know-about-special-10-year-income-averaging
I actually have run into this situation. Though I wasn't the beneficiary.

I’ve been looking at this issue myself and there’s one important wrinkle to keep in mind. While you can take your total RMDs from any or all of your affected accounts, the accounts must all be of the same type. For example, if you have both IRAs and 401ks, you can’t take the IRA RMD from the 401k and vice versa.

RMDs from each 401K must be taken separately. They cannot be aggregated even though they are of the same type. Aggregation is possible with 403(b)s.
https://www.irahelp.com/system/files/ira-focus/25060/june-elite-analysis-rmd-aggregation-rules.pdf
RMDs for inherited IRAs must generally be taken separately from each IRA. An exception is if they IRAs are of the same type and they are inherited from the same person.

since they started 'adjusting' them in the 80s.
CPI figures have been adjusted since day one (1919). In 1921 the government cobbled together a national figure from an unweighted average of 32 city figures.
https://www.bls.gov/cpi/additional-resources/historical-changes.htm
Would it be preferable to keep counting buggy whips, or whatever was in those 1919 averages rather than 'adjust' the inflation components over time?
Ever hear of Hedonic adjustments? That's when a product is 'new and improved' they can charge more and the increase is no included.
Sure, I've heard of hedonic quality adjustments. They can go up or down, based on the product change and the value of that change.
https://www.bls.gov/cpi/quality-adjustment/questions-and-answers.htm
Certainly $300 buys more computer today (Best Buy's sub-$300 computers) than it did with the Commodore VIC-20 in 1981. Should we 'adjust' the CPI for this increase in value (i.e. recognize that computers are cheaper today)? Or do we stand firm and insist on making no adjustments based on product quality?
We could actually continue to include the Commodore and its ilk in the CPI. It looks like they're still available at around 2/3 the original selling price.

Somewhat related to the Paul Krugman article....China appears to be managing a necessary slow down in it's long term growth rate by attempting to transition towards a more balanced sharing of a less rapidly growing economic pie. Here is an update on how China is portraying it's current situation:
China Seeks to Allay Growth Slowdown Fears in Xinhua Report

That is correct @Observant1. The managers got caught with their pants very far down. An unexpected chain of events left them very exposed.