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 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

Thanks folks.
Today (Saturday) is the first time in 10 days I’ve logged in to my Fido account when the news wasn’t worse. Actually improved overnight. Possibly, the discussions with 3 different reps yesterday helped. Notably, the earlier mentioned restrictions now apply only to my Traditional IRA. On the Roth & non-retirement accounts they’ve disappeared.
@msf questioned the “bounced check” restriction. While not posted to my account, it was related to me by a rep at Fido’s trading desk after being transferred to him with some fund specific questions. I do believe it’s on file there - but is likely such an infrequent (and serious) infraction that it’s not mentioned elsewhere. The “free ride” likely refers to the small position I’d opened in a favorite stock (mostly for fun) that was sold by Fido only 1-2 days later.
Fido mailed me copies of TRP’s 3 bounced checks. They were written on an account at Mellon Bank of Delaware. They are stamped: “Return to Maker - Reason S”.
Here’s a copy & paste I pulled from my Traditional IRA at Fido this morning:
Free Ride Violations – 1 Violation in last 12 months
Good Faith Violations – None in last 12 months
Liquidation Violations – 1 Violation in last 12 months
Hoping to buy back into those mutual funds and the ETF next week. The stock was temporarily depressed when I bought it. It’s bounced back to the point now that I likely won’t buy it again.
FWIW (unrelated): I’m sharing a link to a 2020 informational piece at Fidelity regarding their dollar “threshold” as to when a round trip in one of their funds is likely to get you into trouble. That’s an area I’ve been trying to nail down as I do tend to increase / decrease exposure to certain positions fairly often. If the (monitored) threshold really is $10,000 (as their memo suggests) that’s good news for a lot of us.
https://www.fidelity.com/bin-public/060_www_fidelity_com/documents/mutual-funds/2020-08-31-Excessive-Trading-Policy-Web-Post.pdf
PS - Try to be kind when talking to the reps at TRP. It’s not their fault things are so off the rails there. I actually apologized Thursday to a young lady after raising my voice in frustration. Her kind response assured me I was being tame compared to some of the interactions.

Schwab seems to have the clearest description of violations and how they can/must be treated by the broker ("creditor" in the regs). The rules come from Regulation T, and in particular §220.8 covering cash accounts.
https://www.schwab.com/resource-center/insights/content/stock-settlement-why-you-need-to-understand-t2-timeline
I found this part interesting:

Extensions
At Schwab, if you fail to make payment on a purchase of stock or deliver shares for a sale of stock within the designated time frame, you will receive a notification asking that you take action.
If you fail to act upon notification, industry regulations require that Schwab either request an extension, or buy back or sell out the position, as well as mark your account with a freeriding violation. Your account may also be placed on a 90-day settled-cash restriction, or incur more severe penalties, including account closure or removal of electronic access. Again, Schwab clients can request a one-time exception (i.e., once in the life of the account) to remove the restriction.
Schwab doesn't grant extensions for trades in retirement accounts (IRA's, SEP's Keogh's, etc.), or accounts with existing trading restrictions.

I suspect that Schwab doesn't grant extensions in IRAs because of the stringent law against borrowing in IRAs. But that wouldn't seem to preclude waiving the 90 day restriction imposed.
Reg T itself says:

(d)(1) Unless the creditor's examining authority believes that the creditor is not acting in good faith or that the creditor has not sufficiently determined that exceptional circumstances warrant such action, it may upon application by the creditor:
...
        (iii) Grant a waiver from the 90 day freeze.

Certainly there are exceptional circumstances here. If the freeze is important to you, it's worth poking Fidelity about their applying for a waiver.
All of this is bringing back memories of a vaguely similar experience I had with Fidelity. In an IRA I set up an auto purchase of a TF fund. I set the amount to be the available cash in the account. The system permitted this order to go through even though there was a $5 TF added. (Fidelity says that "If the cash needed to fund your automatic investment is not available in your core position, your scheduled transfer will be skipped", so this should have been caught.)
"Fortunately", the purchase was for one of the few OEFs with T+2 settlement. I worked with Fidelity and they agreed that if I were to sell $5 of another holding the next day, a fund with T+1 settlement, that would cover the shortfall. Both trades would settle on the same day.
According to Schwab, that still constituted a liquidation violation:

If an option or mutual fund is sold the day after a stock is purchased, a liquidation violation will be charged even if the proceeds settle on or before the purchase settlement date.

https://help.streetsmart.schwab.com/edge/1.22/Content/Unsettled Funds.htm
Fidelity never informed me that I had committed a liquidation violation.

The average employee has trouble often understanding how a 401k works in many cases let alone cryptocurrency. I find the "personal responsibility" argument to be a hackneyed one I often hear emerging from libertarians. One response I have to that--as you can make a similar argument for almost any dangerous product--what is the personal responsibility of the drug dealer to the drug taker? Why is it always the consumer of the product that is blamed with that personal responsibility mantra? If you offer a faulty dangerous product and sell it to consumers, you should be blamed. And yes, offering crypto will be a magnet for lawsuits. 401ks are a common target for lawsuits as they work well in class action suits and the laws about what are suitable investments for retirement plans are strict.

I’ve avoided sharing my frustrations over the past few weeks. But perhaps the experienced investors at mfo will indulge my venting or possibly offer some advice. In May I began the process of transferring all my accounts from TRP to Fidelity. This out of frustration with TRP’s front office / client relations. Held at TRP were Traditional and Roth IRAs, in roughly equal amounts, plus a non-retirement account. Completed the applications online, but needed to sign, date and mail some papers to Fido.
For the largest holdings I specified “transfer in-kind”. For 3 short-term bond funds having relatively low balances, I elected the “liquidation” option. The transfer-in-kind went through as intended and much faster than the cash transfers, Later, 3 separate checks from the liquidated accounts arrived at Fido, appearing there as “cash available to trade”. I invested the cash in 3 mutual funds, 1 ETF and 1 stock.
Three days later my account turned “delinquent”. Fido without consultation began force-selling those assets. After I called, Fido’s team informed me that all 3 checks from TRP has “bounced” - meaning they’d been returned to Fido unpaid by TRP’s bank. I and Fido’s reps nearly immediately contacted TRP. Their answer was that there’d been a “systems error” resulting in an unspecified number of similar cases and they were “investigating”. A week passed. Untold hours on the phone with both. At TRP the average wait is about 30 minutes (followed by additional delays while they “check”). Yesterday, TRP informed me the checks had been resent and should arrive at Fido next week.
At Fido things went from bad to worse. I suffered a modest market loss when the 4 investments were sold out under me after only a few days. Than, they hit me with 3 commissions or early redemption fees totaling $233 (later reversed). The real issue now is that all of my Fido accounts are saddled with a multitude of “restrictions”. The Roth, which hadn’t even been funded when the issue arose in the Traditional, is also restricted. And, so is my cash management account, though the impact would seem slight. Fido says I’ll still be allowed to trade, but only with “settled” cash - a minor nuisance.
Here’s the restrictions placed on all my accounts as I understand them. There may be more I’m not aware of.
- 3 separate “bounced check” violations which won’t clear for one year
- 1 “free ride” violation in effect for 90 days
- 1 “liquidity violation” in effect for 90 days
As I said, none should prevent me from trading with settled cash - but any additional could cause me to be banned from trading. Since I’m still waiting for 4 more checks to arrive (3 for the Traditional and 1 for the Roth), I’m on “pins and needles” here. Fido’s says their refusal to remove the restrictions is because they are from violations of SEC regulations. I’ve searched for similar reported problems online - but found only one (from a semi-literate poster) that went up last week. I’ll share FWIW.
https://www.reddit.com/user/DistrictFinal5222/

@JoJo26 who said "People need to take some personal responsibility these days rather than just say everything wrong is someone else's problem."
While I strongly agree with that statement that's hardly the way it's ever been e.g McDonalds having to tell people that the coffee they ordered is hot etc., etc., etc.. I don't expect that to change anytime soon. If you want to own cryptocurrency do it outside your retirement plan(s).

My daughter recently had a hard time getting a couple of modest 401-k accounts rolled over fo Fidelity. Her employer was bought out, the retirement plan changed hands twice and wound up in the hands of Transamerica. I believe part of the delay was caused by people working at home without the ability to call in a superior or a colleague to solve a problem quickly. The several times she called back it was a different rep and on and on. Finally Fidelity returned to my daughter the physical check sent to them by Transam with the notation that it could not be deposited for no understandable reason. Weeks later it turned out Fidelity had flagged her account because my daughter worked overseas for many months in 2020-21 and the flag had to be lowered. PITA.

AVDE, the Aventis international etf holds 3600 stocks, and AVUV almost 1100, so for me, at least, they are close to being index funds. Another SCV I hold, CALF, has only 100 stocks, selected according to proprietary rules.
@msf is right about the recent success of value. It may not last. I may have had an option to choose a DFA fund in my retirement account, but I never pulled the trigger.

Interesting conclusion:

The decision to convert or not to convert may be influenced by external factors beyond maximizing disposable income. It would seem desirable to convert when asset prices are depressed because there is less tax paid and the state of the market is amenable to a recovery. Following the same logic, converting when asset prices are inflated would seem imprudent.

https://i-orp.com/modeldescription/Vol15Issue1.pdf#page=49
I found this tidbit as a referenced link within the Optimal Retirement Planner which @davidmoran has referenced often. I am finding lots of useful links and information embedded in this planner. If you are approaching retirement or even in retirement this seems like a worthy tool to use.
Linked here:
https://i-orp.com/Plans/index.html

I have several accounts which I treat each separately but with an eye on overall allocation. My primary accounts withover 50% of my assets is an IRA Rollover with 14 Funds focusing on low correlation, distinct style boxes, asset allocation etc. I rarely update this portfolio and have allocations to both Growth and Value in Domestic Large, Mid and Small. Also, I like to invest in Int'l Gorwth and Value where most investors pick one Int'l Fund. I also own EM and Int'l SMid, Fixed Inc Core Plus, Multi-Sector Fixed.
I have a Roth @ Vanguard with 3-4 Index Funds. My current 401k is my tactical portfolio with another 10-12 funds & ETF's.
I will consolidate over the next10-15 years as I get closer to retirement.

Great article: https://nybooks.com/articles/2021/07/01/broken-promise-of-retirement/

I try to structure my portfolio into three buckets.
Bucket 1 - Cash / Bond Funds (for Income)
I hold a cash or bond positions with each account I have. Presently this bucket has 17% of my portfolio and represents 3-5 years of income (I may need to spend in retirement).
Bucket 2 - Asset Allocation Funds (for Capital Preservation)
I hold 3 AA funds and they make up 35% of my portfolio. These funds attempt to outpace inflation, reduce downside market risk, and achieve moderate growth.
Bucket 3 - Sector / Category Funds (for Growth)
I hold 10 funds here. These tend to be buy and hold positions and represent 48% of my portfolio. My plan is to periodically sell shares to replenish/enhance bucket 1 (Cash / Bonds) especially when these "Bucket 3 funds" capture above normal gains. I am more actively evaluating these funds for consistent performance, manager risk/reward, and trend momentum.

@msf : Thanks for the comeback. I'll check out more when time allows.
A quick google turned this up from Vanguard.
"The fund targets an allocation of 30% stocks and 70% bonds, according to Vanguard. This is also the allocation that all (Target Retirement Funds) are expected to assume within seven years after their designated retirement dates."
Stay Kool, Derf

Could some Fido fan tell me why Fido has 2005 &2010 retirement funds ? I would have thought the glide -path for these two would have them rolled, glided, into Retirement income by this time.

From Fidelity: Allocating assets among underlying Fidelity funds according to a "neutral" asset allocation strategy that adjusts over time until it reaches an allocation similar to that of the Freedom Income Fund approximately 10 to 19 years after the target year. Ultimately, the fund will merge with the Freedom Income Fund."
https://fundresearch.fidelity.com/mutual-funds/summary/315792689
If you're asking why the runway is that long, that may be answered in this T. Rowe Price presentation of "to" vs. "through" glidepaths.
Slide 16 presents longevity risk - the odds of at least one member of a 65 year old couple living thirty more years or longer ranges from 1/4 to 1/3. A 20/80 portfolio in a period of 2% bond yields isn't going to cut it for 30 years.
Fidelity's glide path settles into this mix around age 85. See graph here:
https://www.fidelity.com/bin-public/060_www_fidelity_com/documents/mutual-funds/how-fidelity-freedom-funds-work.pdf

@JD_co : Thanks for the link. Could some Fido fan tell me why Fido has 2005 &2010 retirement funds ? I would have thought the glide -path for these two would have them rolled, glided, into Retirement income by this time.
Stay Kool, Derf

The Comment section is worthwhile to see the new proposal in different situations. For example,

professor Kelly, "But Munnell objects to increasing the age for RMDs to 75. Employees are permitted to save pretax dollars so they can have a decent retirement, she says. Postponing RMDs to 75 would permit wealthy people to build up
big cash piles that they don’t need to touch, she says."
I consider this to be a bit of a tax trap. With the new rules for heir requiring a 10-year withdrawal window, it's quite possible that heirs will be forced to withdraw a lifetime's accumulated savings in just a few years, throwing them into punitive tax brackets, depending upon the number of children heirs involved. For the non-super-rich, Roth conversions in retirement are becoming more and more important.
Reply
20
KENNETH MORALES
Professor Kelly
15 minutes ago
You hit on the rational objectively. These new laws would benefit the "under saved" more than the "over saved". The over saved crowd can't take it with them and the Secure Act, "secured" taxes will be paid by their heirs. If Biden gets his way, he would sign legislation that would shut down the step up in basis on those inherited assets, there by increasing thd tax load.

The increase in starting RMD age would apply to all tax-sheltered plans, including 457 plans and regular IRAs (as contrasted with individual retirement annuities). The article lists only 401(k)s, 403(b)s and individual retirement annuities, leaving one to wonder about the rest.
Many (not all) people working more years already have a mechanism to defer RMDs until they retire.
As for everyone else, the ability to put off RMD for more years would benefit primarily those better off, those who don't need the additional tax break.

[T]his is only an issue for about 20% of people because most people already take out the required minimum amount or more annually... That’s “because they need the money to live on” — or they don’t even have a retirement account to begin with.

Here's What's Wrong With Raising RMD Age to 75, According to Retirement Experts
https://www.thinkadvisor.com/2021/04/16/heres-whats-wrong-with-raising-rmd-age-to-75-according-to-retirement-experts/

Hey catch, thanks for your suggestions.
Yes, in the past I paired up some equity funds with bond funds for a desired allocation mix. Beginning in 2006 mainly switched to moderate allocation funds, primarily PRWCX, but also a few others. One reason then as now and going into the future was for simplification. My wife is not interested in investing, so I needed a plan that could largely run itself if something happened to me. We are 57 & 54 and have largely saved what we will probably need for retirement and are pretty much just looking for moderate growth for the next 5-7 years.
I'm guessing Giroux is around 10 years younger than I which may mean another 13-18 years at PRWCX before his retirement, fingers crossed. After which I would still be looking for a one stop fund of some sort. From my minimal research, current allocation ETFs (AOR for example) are pretty lousy compared to PRWCX.

For those, as myself; who can not access Barron's, the below link.
Retirement proposals