Just completed BUYs on 1/2 of intended holding of FDRV, Fidelity Electric Vehicles & Future Transportation ETF, one of four new ETFs launched in October 2021.
https://screener.fidelity.com/ftgw/etf/goto/snapshot/snapshot.jhtml?symbols=FDRV&type=o-NavBar
https://www.marketwatch.com/investing/fund/fdrv

Oct 23rd Episode:

For clarity: I mentioned the $5 automatic investment feature for transaction fee funds because some people are familiar with the tool in that context.
When used to purchase Fidelity funds (which have no TF) it exempts the purchase from the round trip restriction. My understanding is that the sequence of trades you described would be counted as one round trip (manual buy on Feb 1, sale on Feb 15). The sale of shares purchased on Feb 4 would not count as part of a round trip because they were purchased "automatically".
One round trip within a 90 day period is okay with Fidelity. Thus I believe you would not run afoul of Fidelity's excessive trading rules this way.

@msf,
"[Y]ou can use the same automatic investment mechanism that people use to buy TF funds for a $5 fee. If you use this to buy a Fidelity fund, then regardless of the amount, the transaction doesn't count as part of a round trip."
Since Fidelity funds are NTF, does Fidelity charge the $5 fees to buy using the auto invest feature? I am assuming NO, but thought I should ask.
"Orders placed via Fidelity Automatic Investments or Automatic Withdrawals features are exempt from roundtrip violations." - from Fidelity website.
Does the following sell order result in a roundtrip violation?
I buy $1,000 of FXAIX on Feb 1. On Feb 2, I place an auto invest request to buy on Feb 4 of $100K of FXAIX (assume quarterly auto invest). On Feb 15, I learn that a pandemic is imminent and I want to reduce my equity exposure and sell all the FXAIX shares bought on Feb 4.
Thanks.

The following excerpts are from a current column by Paul Krugman, in The New York Times: "Is China in Big Trouble?"
(That link will only work for NYT subscribers.)

China’s economic growth has been gradually slowing. Here’s a five-year moving average of the country’s growth rate:

Basically, China has masked underlying imbalances by creating an immense housing bubble. And it’s hard to see how this ends well.

Now that’s a housing bubble. Kenneth Rogoff and Yuanchen Yang

Rogoff and Yang also show both that housing prices in China are extremely high relative to incomes and that the real estate sector has become an incredibly large share of China’s economy.
None of this looks sustainable, which is why many observers worry that the debt problems of the giant property developer Evergrande are just the leading edge of a broader economic crisis.
China, which maintains controls on the flow of capital into and out of the country, isn’t deeply integrated with world financial markets. So the fall of Evergrande isn’t likely to provoke a global financial crisis in the same way that the fall of Lehman Brothers did in 2008. A Chinese slowdown would have some economic spillover via reduced Chinese demand, especially for raw materials. But in purely economic terms, the global economic risks from China’s problems don’t look all that large.

What measurement, metric, guide or guru (if any) do you observe?
I don’t have any particular monitor - except I follow trends by looking at charts and can’t help thinking about the half-dozen or so serious corrections I’ve witnessed in my lifetime. I try and listen to all the educated pundits. But they appear largely largely clueless. Opinions are all over the place. There’s long time bear Shiller, of course. And Howard Marks sounds concerned. Ray Dalio was big into gold (defensively) a year ago. It’s finally starting to move. Even David Giroux has voiced concerns.
Here’s an October article on the Buffett Indicator
Following the media is, of course, counter-productive. In a downward markets the general tenor becomes bearish and the bearish prognosticators get rolled out. But in an up market, reasons abound why the bull will continue. I do feel Barrons comes closest to providing an accurate perspective - though both bulls and bears appear there.
Biggest concern? All the sharp downturns I’ve lived through began with higher prevailing interest rates. This did two things: (1) It buffered the downside for investors who held some bonds and (2) It allowed for the monetary authorities (ie “Fed”) to stimulate by lowering rates. With rates as low as they are now, the game has changed.
A second concern is all the “hot” money that has entered in recent years thru forums like Robinhood. Could make things interesting in a 20-30% selloff. Could exacerbate the problem.
One thought that occurs to me is that ultra low bond yields have pushed everybody and his neighbor into riskier assets. (TINA). One possible “out” here. The dollar could depreciate sharply thereby making those “nominal” paper gains worth less in real purchasing power. - in a sense justifying the higher prices. In that case, investors would be well served hanging tight.

Yes-and you can sell amounts of Fidelity funds under 10k within 60 days without incurring early redemption transaction fees.

Which brokerage are you referring for the above. At Fidelity, it’s own funds have a 30 day holding requirement, a violation of which is taken seriously by Fidelity but never a redemption fees. At other brokerages I am aware of Fidelity funds are TF funds. Any insight?

Howdy folks,
@Observant1 Not really. I've been investing with Matthews for almost 25 years. Managers come and go. feh.
good luck,
rono

From GP's 3/rd qter newsletter.
Grandeur Peak Global Advisors
136 South Main Street
Suite 720
Salt Lake City, UT 84101
Exhibit 3: Cumulative Monthly Returns – ACWI IMI
Source: MSCI; data from 10/17/2011 – 10/18/2021
Past performance does not guarantee future results
The trick to truly active management is to take advantage of the periods when the market is
moving from below trend to above trend, (i.e. capture those above-trend returns) and then protect
on the downside when the market moves into drawdown.
Seems they buy the dips-diplets

@rabockma1
FWIW: TCELX gained 59.0% in 2020.

“Under the rules announced Thursday, Fed officials — including the regional presidents — will be limited to owning diversified investments such as mutual funds.”
Maybe they’ll participate here? I’d like their thoughts on “Buying the Dip”.
https://www.usnews.com/news/business/articles/2021-10-21/fed-imposes-sweeping-new-limits-on-policymakers-investments

Howdy all,
@BenWP I bought back in April at $231. It was the only way at the time to get some exposure to Bitcoin. Now we have the ETF . . . feh. Why? I'm still not seeing the value but know that COIN is making money on transactions.
take care,
rono

Howdy folks,
Responded earlier on my phone but the throttle monsters ate my postie.
Sorry about the typo. Indeed, my point is that Defined Contribution pensions can get pretty close to Defined Benefit pensions, IFF, there is a company match, there are investment choices, folks are educated on investing and they have sufficient time to accrue. Even when you're converting the old DB to a new DC pension, you can do it humanely and don't have to be assholes. When Michigan converted their state employees some 20-25 years ago, they forced everyone under 5 years. Above that you had a choice. They had a sliding scale but it was biased towards the retirement ages (i.e. 50, 55, 60, etc.). That said, the DC replacement started with 4% from the state and they will match your 3% up to 10% total. The best option I've seen for health insurance coverage is full for active duty employees and an medical savings account for retirement (with a match and investment choices). Damnit, it can work.
As for protocols to @Ben and @BenWP, sorry. This old geezer is trying but these newfangled computers . . . '-)
and so it goes,
peace and wear the damn mask,
rono

I am so glad this is happening. The bosses and human resources people has thrown out so much BS in 10-50 yrs that left many lives and families destroyed. Firing employees with 10+ yrs experience favoring the younger who they can get cheaper. The reorganizations due to mismanagement and blaming the front line worker.Sadly to say I am very disappointed with the way the job scene went. I can go on and on but limited in time. I spent so much time pounding the pavement, interviewing, sending out resumes, talking with agencies only to get turned down. I think I had above average qualifications and was not asking a high salary. IMHO I would be an individual contractor and screw the Corporate world or move to a Country that treats employees more fairly

I have owned VTMFX for several years and am generally pleased as a core holding.
It depends really on what you want to accomplish Growth? Income? and with what risk.
Almost 10% is in FAANG ( Nvidia not Netflix) so it will take a big hit when that party is over. The Bond duration is 4.2 indicating that the bonds here will drop with a rise in interest rates.
While VTMFX lost 20% during the Covid crash vs 30% SP500 in may get hit hard in a stagnation scenario, as the 10% FAANG will also be sensitive to rising rates.
The yield is nothing to write home about if you are interested in income.

Cathie Wood is fleeing. It it’s too hot for her I wouldn’t touch it.

I pay "some" attention to what Cathie Woods thinks. But, she is just one perspective among many.

BlackRock Inc. and UBS Group AG have turned positive on China’s beaten-down equities, citing investors’ growing comfort with Beijing’s crackdown and an improving earnings outlook.

Wall Street Giants Turning Into China Stock Bulls

Thanks for that link, @johnN. Hard to believe there are 12 ETFs for this “space” and harder to believe that I was able to read a Kiplinger article from beginning to end without getting lost as one does at IKEA.

It seems this thread is started to be dominated by FR/BL funds. It was not my intent to hijack this thread from the OPs original intent. MSF gave a more detailed analysis of MWFLX, according to M*. The OP is a Fido investor, and I am a Schwab investor, so we may not view funds quite the same as far as availability between these 2 brokerages. I have done some due diligence analysis of funds in this category, and I maintain a M* Portfolio Watchlist of funds that I am most interested in monitoring, but as I said above, the OP has to apply his own personal due diligence criteria, IF he has any interest in this category.
For full disclosure, I have invested in this category off and on for the last several years--SPFYX and SAMBX are 2 funds I have held in the past, before 2021. In 2021 I have owned several BL/FR funds including the following: AFRAX, EIFAX, MWFLX, FFRHX, and PRFRX, but currently I only own 1 fund from this category. At Schwab, their 2 BL/FR funds they recommend are FRFZX and SAMBX. The "hottest" and highest performing BL/FR fund YTD is OOSAX, likely a favorite for bond traders, but it has a somewhat checkered past and the fund investing strategy was changed significantly in 2020.
Because investors differ so much from each other in their investing style and due diligence approach, I am very reluctant to do much more than "suggest" this might be a category the OP "might" want to consider, and if interested he can do his own extensive due diligence. Good luck!

RE: VTMFX
Here's Zack's 09/07/21 standard type of reply for the masses to that question:
https://www.entrepreneur.com/article/384014
Then there's also the current market conditions, and more importantly, YOUR SPECFIC investment strategy and risk tolerance to consider.

M* does not seem to think as highly of this fund [MWFRX/MWFLX], based on its fund analysis commentary.
That would be M*'s artificial "intelligence" program. The one that doesn't like MWFLX because while its "view" of the fund's process is above average, and its "view" of the fund's management (people) is above average, it "regards" the fund family (MetWest/TCW as just average). Who here would look less favorably on a bond fund because it's part of the MetWest family?
We can go into a bit more depth on the process "analysis". The computer "opines" that the fund is overweight in corporate bonds. That's true. Bank loan funds are typically comprised entirely of corporates and cash. This fund happens to be more fully invested (less cash) than the typical bank loan fund. Nothing more significant than that.
It "observes" that the fund overweights BBB rated bonds relative to peers. A more complete observation would have been that it has 10% fewer B bonds, 3% more BBs, 6% more BBBs (so it has upgraded B bonds primarily to BBBs), and 6% more AAA(!) bonds in lieu of below B and unrated bonds. Curious how it missed the 6% overweight (relative) in AAAs.
It then claims that this upward shift in credit quality is not rewarded, because the portfolio is still scored B by M*. The M* computer has easy access to the actual numeric credit score that M* calculated. For all we know, the fund scored at the very top of M*'s B band and the typical bank loan fund scored near the bottom of the B band.
This part of the analysis is unstable because it uses broad credit quality bands rather than numeric scores. A small shift in portfolio could change a fund's average rating, and thus the computer's "view" from "not rewarded" to "richly rewarded".
M* does rate it as a "Low Risk"
Not just low risk, but volatility so low that it has higher 3 and 5 year Sharpe and Sortino ratios than FFRHX, PRFRX, and SAMBX. For those who feel one can eat risk adjusted returns :-).
http://performance.morningstar.com/fund/ratings-risk.action?t=MWFRX
(add the funds you want to compare to see them all side by side on a single page)