If they can't do their finances, can they write grammatically correct headlines?
Marketwatch is the source of this thread's subject line (fewer than 25% of grads); other sites like ZeroHedge served up a different article with a headline reading "less than 25%" of grads.

FYI: The marketing and sales tactics Fidelity Investments uses with retirement savers were called out in a lawsuit involving alleged retirement-plan mismanagement by Vanderbilt University, bringing into focus the ongoing and seemingly increasing tension felt between plan sponsors, participants and their service providers, many of which are seeking out additional revenue in the face of fee compression.
Monday, Vanderbilt University reached a $14.5 million settlement with the plaintiffs, represented by attorney Jerome Schlichter — the largest settlement to date by a university.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.google.com/search?source=hp&ei=omy_XN2dB4G15gLg8J6wCg&q=Fidelity+sales+tactics+called+out+in+settlement+of+retirement+plan+lawsuit&btnK=Google+Search&oq=Fidelity+sales+tactics+called+out+in+settlement+of+retirement+plan+lawsuit&gs_l=psy-ab.3...2962.2962..4346...0.0..0.131.236.0j2......0....2j1..gws-wiz.....0.sM35IAlScVg

FYI: This will peak your interest.
Consumer banking firm Sallie Mae released its new “Majoring in Money” study of hundreds of current and recently graduated college students up to age 29 — and one big red flag sticks out: Even college graduates don’t know much about basic financial concepts like interest.
Indeed, Sallie Mae asked them four questions related to credit and interest, and fewer than one in four got all four of these correct. Here are the questions (the correct answers are below):
Regards,
Ted
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/fewer-than-1-in-4-college-grads-can-answer-these-4-simple-money-questions-correctly-2019-04-15/print

At least they're being honest! Though given their utter reluctance to adjust their holdings as the GFC was confiming itself didn't sit well with me ... they were too stubborn at the time and the fund suffered more than it probably needed to.
The Dodge & Cox International Stock Fund will reopen to new investors on May 1, 2019.
The Dodge & Cox International Stock Fund will reopen to new investors on May 1, 2019. The Fund was closed in 2015 to proactively "tap the brakes" on the Fund's growth, but remained open to existing shareholders.
Since then, we have continued to deepen our global research and shareholder services capabilities. Volatile global equity markets have also created what we believe to be many attractive long-term investment opportunities outside the United States. This volatility, industry trends, and the Fund’s recent relative results have contributed to outflows, creating ample investment capacity to accommodate reasonable growth into the foreseeable future.
All of these factors led us to conclude that this is the right time to open the Fund to new investors. Our primary objective at Dodge & Cox is to serve our existing clients and shareholders well, and we believe reopening the International Stock Fund supports this objective.

Nice 3 year run.
https://www.marketwatch.com/press-release/tcw-new-america-premier-equities-fund-marks-3-year-anniversary-with-5-star-overall-morningstar-ratingtm-2019-02-07
It will be interesting to see if it continues this out-performance. Never heard of the fund before, thanks for sharing.

”I am lookin for a growth fund that is not heavily weighted on Tech, not above 50 % at least.”

Your question suggests that such a fund would be an

exception to the rule or an aberration from norm. Frankly, I’m not aware of any diversified growth funds that would ever exceed 50% in technology under normal circumstances. With growth funds I think the most important thing is to buy-in for the long haul. Each will have its day - but their performances diverge sharply over shorter periods as various sectors wax and wane. Trying to always own the best performing one might be the equivalent of the proverbial elephant chasing his tail.
Lots of fine growth funds out there. Just a couple that come to mind:
TRBCX - 28% technology - per Lipper http://www.funds.reuters.wallst.com/US/funds/holdings.asp?YYY622_FomFGKRzy/Zlxw7oh/nFxhuZTH3KwZb8EX/lL+8rQLf+NFFYgOPjGud+qERLyR7v
DODGX - 15% technology - per Lipper http://www.funds.reuters.wallst.com/US/funds/holdings.asp?YYY622_ku+B2TlKptBi+tpivKaWyBuZTH3KwZb8EX/lL+8rQLf8SJRq1qRCsCbi0+hJj/WI
Different rating services and observers may define “technology” companies differently. One might include a company like Amazon under consumer retail and another might consider it a technology company. Telecommunications is sometimes listed as a separate category and at other times considered part of the broader technology area. Some of that is just games people play. But sometimes it’s because there’s considerable “gray area” when deciding where a particular company best fits.
That said, Lord help anyone who ends up in a “diversified” fund that has committed over 50% to the technology sector. It’s one of the most volatile areas in which to invest.

@hank, Dodge & Cox is most definitely not a Growth shop....

@MFO Members: The linked article was poorly written by not explaining the criteria for AI ETFs.
Artificial Intelligence ETFs are funds that meet at least one of the following three criteria:
They are funds that specifically invest in companies involved in the development of new products or services, technological improvements in scientific research related to artificial intelligence, or
They are funds that have at least 25% of portfolio exposure to companies that spend large amounts on artificial intelligence research and development (R&D) expenses. Examples of such companies are Amazon, Tesla Motors, Apple and Alphabet, or
They are funds that use artificial intelligence methodologies to select individual securities for inclusion into the fund.
Regards,
Ted

@msf - Re: SEC - “Truth in labeling”? That’s new to me. That would suggest HSGFX should have omitted the word “growth” from its name. Maybe HS#FX. :)
From your source “The rule requires a fund with a name suggesting that the fund focuses on a particular type of investment (e.g., "stocks" or "bonds") to invest at least 80% of its assets accordingly. Under Commission staff positions, these funds previously were subject to a 65% investment requirement.”
Not what I had in mind, but very interesting. PRMTX must than be legally obligated to have 80% in those 2 sectors? (Fortunately, it’s a spectacular fund).
What I had in mind was the rule referenced in a Zack’s article (cited below). The article’s so skimpy I was reluctant to post it. (And I’d previously assumed - incorrectly - that by law “diversified” funds could not concentrate heavily in one sector.)
(From Zacks) “Diversified funds cast a wide net for assets, catching bonds, cash, and stocks from many companies. Under federal law, a fund cannot tie more than 5 percent of its value in a single company's stock.” https://finance.zacks.com/difference-between-diversified-nondiversified-mutual-fund-5139.html

”I am lookin for a growth fund that is not heavily weighted on Tech, not above 50 % at least.”

Your question suggests that such a fund would be an exception to the rule or an aberration from norm. Frankly, I’m not aware of any diversified growth funds that would ever exceed 50% in technology under normal circumstances. With growth funds I think the most important thing is to buy-in for the long haul. Each will have its day - but their performances diverge sharply over shorter periods as various sectors wax and wane. Trying to always own the best performing one might be the equivalent of the proverbial elephant chasing his tail.
Lots of fine growth funds out there. Just a couple that come to mind:
TRBCX - 28% technology - per Lipper http://www.funds.reuters.wallst.com/US/funds/holdings.asp?YYY622_FomFGKRzy/Zlxw7oh/nFxhuZTH3KwZb8EX/lL+8rQLf+NFFYgOPjGud+qERLyR7v
DODGX - 15% technology - per Lipper http://www.funds.reuters.wallst.com/US/funds/holdings.asp?YYY622_ku+B2TlKptBi+tpivKaWyBuZTH3KwZb8EX/lL+8rQLf8SJRq1qRCsCbi0+hJj/WI
Different rating services and observers may define “technology” companies differently. One might include a company like Amazon under consumer retail and another might consider it a technology company. Telecommunications is sometimes listed as a separate category and at other times considered part of the broader technology area. Some of that is just games people play. But sometimes it’s because there’s considerable “gray area” when deciding where a particular company best fits.
That said, Lord help anyone who ends up in a “diversified” fund that has committed over 50% to the technology sector. It’s one of the most volatile areas in which to invest.

I am lookin for a growth fund that is not heavily weighted on Tech, not above 50 % at least. I saw a TCW fund, TCW New America Premier Equities Fund (TGUNX). What is your take on it ? Any other options ?

@msf Thanks. Quite clear. "These bonds completely disconnect the use of the proceeds from source of revenue to pay for them..." Reminds me of our city trash collection fee. It went up from $45 to $90 in one swoop. What's the new, additional $45 for? The LIBRARIES. For better service? To be able to cease keeping some branches closed and some branches open, from day to day, on a rotating basis? No. If the fee-hike allows for the buying of new material to read, listen to or watch, that would be a good thing, anyhow. These days, libraries are so... DIFFERENT. Noisy. With "pyjama parties" with stories being read to the youngest ones. Because we've all given up the idea that mom and dad might take the time to read to their kids? Cripes. High school-age Board Members, too.

These bonds completely disconnect the use of the proceeds from source of revenue to pay for them.
These are revenue bonds, backed and paid for exclusively from, as you speculated, riverboat gambling. Okay, not exactly something that colorful, but pretty close. However, the money goes to something more productive - infrastructure.
I'm guessing these are the bonds the fund is invested in:

In October 2015, the State issued $200,000,000 in Gaming Tax Revenue Bonds (Series 2015E). The proceeds from this sale will be used for the Mississippi Department of Transportation (MDOT) to construct an over-the-railroad bridge in Vicksburg, the Local System Bridge Program within State Aid Road Fund, and for deficient bridges on state highways. The debt service revenues are derived solely from gaming tax revenue collections from casinos located along the Mississippi River and the Gulf Coast.

https://www.treasurerlynnfitch.ms.gov/Programs/Documents/Bonds/Debt Affordability Study 2017.pdf

First of all, who can TRANSLATE this? I know it's SOMEHOW connected to Gambling, now commonly euphemized as "gaming." In Mississippi. A State agency is floating a 5% bond to do... what, exactly, for the sake of casinos? Or...? It's just 0.45% of the full PTIAX portfolio, the 24th-largest holding.
"Mississippi State Gaming Tax Revenue."
To encourage people to gamble? At taxpayers' expense? To rebuild casinos after one of the hurricanes? I can't come up with an honest, ethical reason for that particular State agency to be floating its own bonds. What is this about?

Folks, this is a well written article that provides some good thoughts as to how the average retail investor can become a better one. Perhaps Carl (the subject in the article) along with a good number of my friends should start reading the MFO board as they tend to buy high and sell low as Carl has done. I have found through the years the best avenue, for me, was to follow my asset allocation and when one area got heavy (or light) then rebalance. Plus, I like to play around the edges from time to time with some spiff money.
In order for me to better follow the movement of the stock market I came up with my market barometer which scores the S&P 500 Index based upon three main data feeds. They are an earnings feed, breadth feed, and a technical score feed. Generally, when the barometer indicates that the markets are oversold I will do a little buying; and, when it reflects that the markets are overbought I'll trim my equity positions if warranted based on where I bubble within my asset allocation.
Most on the board know of my monthly (and sometimes weekly) postings of my barometer report.
If you are not familiar with it I have provided a link below to the my April report. Perhaps, in reading Old_Skeet's Barometer Report will instill some ideas that you might carry forward in developing a system of your own to become a more skilled retail investor.
https://mutualfundobserver.com/discuss/discussion/48963/old-skeet-s-market-barometer-report-thinking-for-april-2019-april-18th-update#latest
Wishing all ... "Good Investing."
Old_Skeet

FYI: Carl is a 75-year-old retiree from Mercer Island, splitting time between charity efforts, yard work, family and trying to make sure his money will last for the rest of his life.
In September 2018, Carl’s portfolio — 100% invested in index and specialty exchange-traded funds (ETFs) — was up more than 15% on the year. By the middle of December, he was in the red and “just could not afford to lose any more,” so liquidated nearly his entire portfolio.
As a result, he finished 2018 with a loss of about 10%.
By mid-January, Carl was convinced that the bull market was back on, so he invested again, just in time to catch the end of the rally.
As a result, Carl didn’t endure the very worst of the “buy high, sell low” cycle that investors experienced in the last six months.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.seattletimes.com/business/the-signal-for-avoiding-markets-next-painful-downturn-comes-from-within/

Part of this CEF distribution in 2017 was return of one's own capital invested.
Being curious....., the below 3 healthcare related were chosen, for about 5.5 years of compare.
GRX FSPHX FHLC FSMEX compare chart starting Oct. 2013
GRX has performed well during the past 3 week healthcare whack. It appears they are able to use a percent of the money for derivatives functions; and have it right at this particular time frame.
However, we remain a total return investor; not for the yield/distribution function.

FYI: A 5% yield is difficult to come by these days, even if income is your only objective. But the Gabelli Healthcare and Wellness Trust has a distribution yield above 5% and also pursues long-term growth.
Jeff Jonas, who co-manages the fund, described his investment strategy and spoke about several representative stocks in an interview.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/you-can-capture-a-dividend-above-5-and-still-enjoy-stock-market-growth-2019-04-17/print
M* Snapshot GRX:
https://www.morningstar.com/cefs/xnys/grx/quote.html

FYI: Dave Ramsey is the almighty slayer of debt. Not just in Brentwood, Tenn., where he broadcasts his radio program for three straight hours every Monday through Friday. Or in the slices of the heartland where his billboards dot highways and his live events pack churches the size of minor league baseball stadiums. But in the entire country, y’all.
A proud evangelical Christian, Ramsey rules the airwaves with a tone that rests in a measured Southern twang and then rockets, without warning, to a full-volume shout. Like when someone dials his call-in hotline, and he’s forced to tell them just how stupid they sound.
Regards,
Ted
http://money.com/money/longform/dave-ramsey-money-debt-free/
Dave Ramsey Show: 4/19/19:
https://www.daveramsey.com/show?gclid=Cj0KCQjwhuvlBRCeARIsAM720HoBgNpsa5kOsPy1AKj19Td5vAfWfUxNXm1_L575YTukx4WSDqGvcrEaAgljEALw_wcB

Here is an update for Old_Skeet's market barometer (which follows the S&P 500 Index) for the week ending April 18, 2019 along with my thinking. It was a short week, in the markets, due to Good Friday Holiday along with 1Q19 earning season has now begun.
Old_Skeet being a retail investor provides this information for information purposes only. It simply reflects what I am seeing in the markets, my thinking, along with what has worked best within the Index and within my portfolio for the past week. My thinking, my positioning, or my comments, should not to be taken as investment advice.
For the week Old_Skeet's market barometer closed with an overbought reading of 138 which is up from last week's extremely overbought reading of 128. Generally, a higher barometer reading indicates that there is more investment value in the Index over a lower reading. Short interest in the Index remained at 1.8 days to cover. The yield on the US10YrT moved from 2.57% to 2.56% while the yield for the Index (SPY) remained at 1.85%. The 500 Index moved downward from 2907 to 2905 for a slight loss. Trading volumes are below their averages as investors ponder stocks. There will be close to 100 companies reporting earnings this coming week, within the Index, so it will be interesting to see how the coming week progresses. The three best performing sectors, for this past week, were Industrials +1.59%, Technology +1.44% and Consumer Staples +0.96%. For Old_Skeet, I'm not presently putting new money to work in either my stock or bond funds while I await a higher barometer reading indicating a better investing climate for stocks; and, I'm also awaiting better yields from bonds. Clearly, by the metrics of the barometer, stocks are overbought.
For the week my three best performing funds (all having a global perspective) were LPEFX +1.59% ... TIBAX +1.44% ... and, DEQAX +1.44%.
In addition, I'm pondering another portfolio rebalance as I had a couple of large cash draws coming from my portfolio's cash area the past week to pay Federal & State Income Taxes owed plus I made a contribution to my church's capital fund drive campaign. This has now left my portfolio's asset allocation skewed and cash light. Since, I am equity heavy I'll be trimming equities and raising cash by a like amount in the near term. My late father had a saying, back in his day, "When the yields get thin, it's time to trim." Within the past six months, or so, the yield on the US10YrT has moved from 3.23% down to 2.56% while the yield for S&P 500 Index has moved from about 2.1% down to 1.85%. I'm thinking, the yields are now thin; and, also based upon historical seasonality trends (that he also followed), it is indeed time, for me, to trim equities.
From my perspective, investing is not an exact science and relies a lot on skill centering around the art of making a call. It's the many different investment perspectives of investors that make the markets. This is why I feel it so important to be well diversified and follow modern portfolio theory. And, furthermore, investing is really quite simple. In order to get the average return of the market you have to invest at its average price. Want above average returns? Then put new money to work at below the market's average price. This is where my market barometer helps me find good value and the better times, for me, to put new money to work. This is why buying the dips have become a popular investment strategy. Thus a phrase was coined ... "Buy the Dips and Sell the Rips." Coming off the Christmas Eve and December low the Index is up about 25%. Seems, this qualifies as a "Rip." And, for me, it's time for another rebalance.
Thanks for stopping by and reading.
I wish all ... "Good Investing."
Old_Skeet

Hi Guys,
I just returned home from a lecture that was purportedly given by an equity investment expert. He made some interesting and valid market observations, but also claimed an investment selection accuracy that I believe compromised his credibility. He claimed and showed a few charts that documented a positive selection accuracy in excess of 80%. If that is an accurate scorecard, he is exceptional and has powers that exceed a host of famous market experts.
Here is a Link that summarizes the performance of a huge number of famous gurus:
https://www.cxoadvisory.com/gurus/
Even the best of these gurus failed to have a 70% accuracy score. The average success ratio for this elite group failed to reach a 50% score. Investing is a challenging task. Success over a reasonably large number of decisions escapes the experts and likely escapes most of us. We do need to be somewhat lucky. Good luck to all of us. We need it.
Best Regards