I agree with @hank, and would go even further. What @sma3 did was put up a subject for discussion - trading policies and product offerings of brokerages. While it was obviously motivated by Vanguard's new policy, it's a different subject. Linking to the Vanguard policy provides context, as opposed being the topic itself.
In that spirit, I link to a NYTimes article discussing how inverse funds are specifically designed for short term trading.
https://mutualfundobserver.com/discuss/discussion/46922/some-funds-win-when-others-lose-but-when-the-others-win#latest

[I]nverse E.T.F.s are designed to function as a very short-term trading strategy ...
"These funds are built for short-term speculation. They’re designed to be outliers." ...
“This is trading, not investing,”

While the article is exclusively about inverse funds, the comments apply as well to what Vanguard is calling leveraged funds as well.
The reason why I say "what Vanguard is calling" is that Vanguard is not ending sales of funds that use leverage. It sells a variety of funds that use leverage as a fundamental portion of their investing strategy. (Just check for "leveraging risk" in many funds' prospectuses.) It's not leveraging per se that Vanguard is balking at, but the fact that these funds are inherently short term investments.
Other brokerages also limit short term trading. Perhaps not as severely, but if the test is whether they impose any limits, most do. For example, Fidelity will shut down a customer's Fidelity fund trading if the customer trades too often:
http://personal.fidelity.com/products/trading/Trading_Platforms_Tools/excessive_trading_policies.shtml
Fidelity also puts up a barrier to trading funds it considers risky, such as VMNFX. You my need to attest that you are a sophisticated investor. Apparently, money alone doesn't talk loudly enough.
http://personal.fidelity.com/accounts/pdf/dia.pdf
Another form of barrier or limit is cost. For example, TDA used to sell Vanguard ETFs at no charge. They changed their policy to limit the amount of services they were giving away "for free". In contrast, Vanguard imposes no such economic barrier on the ETFs it sells.
Barron's, The Latest Casualty in the ETF Fee War—Objective Advice
https://www.barrons.com/articles/the-latest-casualty-in-the-etf-fee-warobjective-advice-1518840543
(Did Ted link to this one also? Who knows? I'm citing it, not using it to start a thread.)

Although TD promoted the new NTF platform’s increase from 100 to “250+” ETFs as an increase in consumer choice, the move marked the defeat of truly open architecture for ETFs.

To whatever extent the "nanny" complaint has merit, it could have been raised when Vanguard first went NTF on most ETFs:

We exclude them for a good reason. Leveraged and inverse ETFs are intentionally designed to be bought and sold within a single trading day, making them extremely speculative in nature. We—and the vast majority of the Vanguard community—prefer to think long-term. It's as simple as that!
You can still buy and sell leveraged and inverse ETFs in your Vanguard Brokerage Account. You'll simply pay the same commissions as you would to trade individual stocks.

https://personal.vanguard.com/web/cf/multivariate/experiments/etf/index.html
(Click on "Which ETFs are and aren't commission-free" - this link will surely vanish when Vanguard stops selling leveraged ETFs altogether.)
Isn't that the free market at its best? Brokerages differentiating themselves to appeal to different market segments.

Thank you! As it stands, this fund is currently at 80/20 mix. We use American Funds for our 529, and was considering using one of their funds for this account, such as AMECX or one of the others they offer, but their performance really doesn't seem much better, esp considering the costs. Any input on AF, or an alternative strategy would be appreciated.

“Half of all 401(k) accounts now hold 100 percent of savings in a target date fund. Just over 30 percent of overall 401(k) assets are in target date funds ...” (2018).
https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnwasik/2018/11/12/what-it-takes-to-be-a-401k-millionaire/
@Starchild - It certainly appears a good many Americans are using target date funds. But you probably won’t find very many here who have used the funds to any degree. The apparent contradiction is largely explained by the fact that those who actively read / post on a mutual fund investing board probably are the type of investors who prefer to manage their investments directly. In addition, they possess a higher degree of investment knowledge and a higher investment comfort level than the average American.
That 50% participation rate cited in the Forbes article is due in some measure to many plan sponsors using target date funds as the default option in their plans. I’d say that for many who have very busy lives working and raising families these funds are certainly superior to not investing at all or letting their investments sit in a money market fund. That, I think, is the primary rationale behind their existence (along with an additional way for fund companies to garner assets).
Eager to hear to what extent MFO participants use / have used these vehicles. More likely, I think, MFO members may know family members, neighbors, etc. who use them). On a few rare occasions I’ve put money into one or more of Price’s target date funds for shorter periods because the particular holdings were useful at that time and the ER looked attractive. That’s not what they were designed for, of course.
@Ted’s link to Bogle is interesting. I’d certainly agree that bonds no longer offer the degree of protection (against equity sell-offs) they did a couple decades ago when many of these these funds were devised - because of still historically low rates. The recent late 2018 market carnage tended to bear that out. For one, I’m not prepared to write bonds off entirely, thinking there are a lot of hybrid or diversified offerings in bondland which are still worth holding for diversification purposes. (Possibly fodder for another thread?)
-
Re: @Starchild’s holding: A glance shows VTTHX (Vanguard Target 2035) invested exclusively in Vanguard’s index funds, with roughly 75% in equities (domestic & international) and 25% in fixed income. It has a remarkably low 0.14% ER. No doubt, the glide slope will soften its (somewhat high) risk profile over the years.

Nicely written article. One of the things that he did not mention that I usually have done in past market declines since I hold more cash than most folks do is to buy more of my best investment ideas. Most of the time stock market rebounds come fast with some good fury associated with them. So, to play the rebound I use special investment positions (spiffs) which I will then trim as the market recovers. A mutual fund that I own that does this actomatically is CTFAX. Most of the time it is about 90% fixed income and reduces its bond allocation and increase its equity allocation during stock market declines. As the markets recover it then reduces its equity positions (booking profit) and increases it fixed income allocation. Below is a link that explains how CTFAX works in more detail.
https://www.columbiathreadneedleus.com/investment-products/mutual-funds/Columbia-Thermostat-Fund/Class-A/details/?cusip=197199755
To see how the funds has changed its positioning during the recent market decline click on the asset allocation update box.
Since, I was in the process of changing my asset allocation by reducing my equity allocation by about 10% and rasing my fixed income and cash allocations by 5% each during the last stock market decline I did not engage any spiff (special investment) positions.
Currently, my (all weather) asset allocation is 20% to 30% cash, 35% to 40% fixed income and 35% to 40% equity. A safe harbor asset allocation, for me, would be 30% to 40% cash, 30% to 35% fixed income and 30% to 35% equity.

Hello: For what it is worth. I've been looking at the table and did an analysis of the top three asset class leaders for the past 20 years, 10 years and 5 year lookback periods. For the twenty year lookback period real estate appeared 10 times, emerging markets 9 times and US fixed income 8 times along with non US equity. For the ten year lookback period US large caps appeared 5 times and real estate, emerging markets, US fixed income along with high yield all appeared four times. For the five year lookback period US large caps appeared 4 times, US fixed income 3 times and high yield and cash appeared 2 times. These were the top three leaders over the respective time periods according to the table.
With the above in mind this is one of the reasons I feel I am better off with a well diversified portfolio not knowing which asset class will be the annual top three leaders thus I feel it is better for me to own and position some of each. Now, I might hold more of some over others based upon my perception of what might be working (or going to work) the best in the near term.
So, for me, the table does provide investment value and demostrates why diverification works.

there's a 5% load; why pay that?

First Eagle Overseas Fund Class A (SGOVX)
This fund is now available NTF (No Transaction Fee) and offered load-waived through Fidelity.

there's a 5% load; why pay that?

I had been thinking of this before, but it had been closed. Is this a good one for long term? for me is 10 to 15 years

According to a recent (year end) broker provided portfolio analysis Old_Skeet has a domestic/foreign asset allocation ratio of about 75% domestic and 25% foreign. The broker recommended foreign exposure for my risk tolerance ranges form a low of 15% to a high of 30%. With this, I fall a little above the middle of what they recommend. In review of my year end Morningstar Xray analysis reflects much the same domestic/foreign allocation. I am happy with my current level of foreign exposure so I plan to make no changes.

This is not John Bogle's Vanguard:
"I say you don't need to have non-U.S., but if you do, limit it to 20%. A lot of portfolios now have 25%, 35%, 45% in non-U.S. securities, and I think that's just too much."
Morningstar, Oct 16, 2018, Why Jack Bogle Doesn't Own Non-U.S. Stocks
https://www.morningstar.com/videos/885739/why-jack-bogle-doesnt-own-nonus-stocks.html
FWIW, I disagree with Bogle and maintain a healthy exposure to foreign markets.

"The last three weeks have exposed the lack of empathy of a billionaire President who shrugs off the struggles of federal workers who work paycheck to paycheck. Trump is clearly more concerned about a pet political project than his constitutional role of providing governance to all Americans. The House and Senate this week voted overwhelmingly to provide back pay to about 800,000 federal workers who are going without paychecks because of the partial government shutdown. But seven lawmakers — all House Republicans — opposed the measure. Those "no" votes came from Reps. Justin Amash (Mich.), Andy Biggs (Ariz.), Paul Gosar (Ariz.), Glen Grothman (Wis.), Thomas Massie (Ky.), Chip Roy (Texas) and Ted Yoho (Fla.). Another GOP Rep. Scott Perry (R-Pa.) said a government shutdown would not truly impact employees and scoffed at the idea that a federal worker would need their next paycheck to make ends meet. The GOP and Trump have lost touch with everyday people! Nearly 80 percent of American workers (78 percent) say they're living paycheck to paycheck." - Alt National Park Service
And this:
The government shutdown spotlights a bigger issue: 78% of US workers live paycheck to paycheck.
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/01/09/shutdown-highlights-that-4-in-5-us-workers-live-paycheck-to-paycheck.html
They should all move.

FYI: This could be the year of the worrywarts. The recent ugliness in the market suggests that investors are becoming more sensitive to the risks building in the economy—including rising interest rates, slowing global growth, and political turmoil.
Fund managers who invest with an eye toward risk could look better than they have in years. Their funds have not necessarily sparkled during the nine-year bull market, when investors rushed headlong into riskier parts of the market and distinguishing between stocks didn’t pay off much—one reason passive funds have done so well.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.barrons.com/articles/the-best-stock-funds-for-risky-markets-51547156975?mod=djem_b_Weekly Feed for Barrons Magazine

FYI: Investors should put about 40% of their portfolios in non-U.S. stocks and bonds to diversify their holdings, according to top executives at Vanguard Group, the fund giant that manages $4.9 trillion.
Global stock markets are likely to outperform the U.S., which the firm expects to return roughly 4% to 6% annually over the coming decade, CEO Tim Buckley and chief investment officer Greg Davis said Thursday during a webcast.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.google.com/search?q=Vanguard+recommends+investors+increase+non-U.S.+holdings+to+40%&tbm=nws&source=univ&tbo=u&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiboPHco-jfAhUB4IMKHVdmDnQQt8YBKAF6BAgAEAo&biw=1200&bih=552

What are you so worried about? Here's a real life example: one person with a big utility bill that's going unpaid due to the shutdown, and the utility company is just letting it slide.
$5M water bill, at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave, Washington, DC.
https://wamu.org/story/19/01/08/the-feds-didnt-pay-their-5-million-water-bill-can-d-c-shut-off-water-to-the-white-house/

Updated
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1286087/000089706919000021/cmw34.htm
497 1 cmw34.htm
Filed Pursuant to Rule 497(e)
1933 Act File No. 333-114371
1940 Act File No. 811-21556
Perritt Funds, Inc.
Perritt MicroCap Opportunities Fund (PRCGX)
Perritt Low Priced Stock Fund (PLOWX)
January 11, 2019
Supplement dated January 11, 2019 to the
Statutory Prospectus dated February 28, 2018, as Supplemented
Fund Reorganization
We are pleased to announce that on January 4, 2019, the Board of Directors (the "Board") of Perritt Funds, Inc. (the "Company") approved: (1) a plan of reorganization pursuant to which the Perritt Low Priced Stock Fund (the "Low Priced Stock Fund") will be reorganized into the Perritt MicroCap Opportunities Fund (the "MicroCap Opportunities Fund") (each, a "Fund," and together, the "Funds"); and (2) the subsequent liquidation and dissolution of the Low Priced Stock Fund, effective on or about February 22, 2019. The reorganization, which is expected to be tax free to the shareholders of the Low Priced Stock Fund and is subject to customary closing conditions, will be effected by transferring of all of the assets and liabilities of the Low Priced Stock Fund to the MicroCap Opportunities Fund in exchange for shares of the MicroCap Opportunities Fund, with the shares being distributed pro rata by the Low Priced Stock Fund to its shareholders. The Low Priced Stock Fund will then be liquidated and dissolved. The reorganization is expected to occur on or about February 22, 2019. In accordance with applicable regulatory requirements, shareholder approval is not required for the reorganization, and shareholders are not being asked to approve the reorganization.
The Low Priced Stock Fund's portfolio manager will continue to manage the Low Priced Stock Fund in the ordinary course.
Existing shareholders may redeem or exchange shares of the Low Priced Stock Fund in the ordinary course until the close of business on February 22, 2019. The Low Priced Stock Fund will be closed to new purchases, whether into current accounts or new accounts, as of the close of business on Thursday, February 14, 2019.
The Funds have filed an information statement and prospectus as part of a Registration Statement on Form N-14 with the Securities and Exchange Commission in connection with the reorganization. The information statement and prospectus will be sent to shareholders of the Low Priced Stock Fund. Shareholders are urged to read the definitive information statement and prospectus because it will contain important information about the reorganization, including the Board's reasons for approving the reorganization. The information statement and prospectus may be obtained free of charge from the SEC's website at www.sec.gov or by calling 1-800-332-3133 (toll free).
***
Please retain this Supplement for future reference.

@davidrmoran, just curious as to what you are thinking. Why an ultra short bond fund when you can get about 50% higher yield with a 1 year CD, with less risk?

Bought Fbnd recently for mama portfolio.. She is getting ready retire can't take big risks...
I bought Verizon bond few days ago yield 7.5 Ytm7. 5%. many funds etf hold this bond.... 852060at9 cusip although junk rating... Watch it very closely

U.S. equity category returns range from +3.7 through +7.4% based on Jan. 10 data.
Just some data here. One may choose their own overview of where money is traveling and why.
>>>This chart contains the "golden cross" indicator. I'm not concerned about the names, only the LINES. So who is buying, eh???
IEF ETF (7-10 year T-notes) 6 month chart
>>>This chart would fall into the "death cross" mode, if this was price based. Keep in mind when viewing, this graphic represents YIELD. The 50 day continues to fall below the 100 and 200 day yield averages.
U.S. 10 year yield, 3 month view
Folks are buy'in U.S. corporate bonds, too.
LQD, 6 month chart
And now back to higher volume with Pink Floyd playing in the background.
Hey, have a good remainder.
Catch

Zweig ( working with Ned Davis ) was an early pioneer of quantitative analysis. Yet, most analysis since the 1980's has been weak as the main thrust and profit center of finance has been the acquisition of assets under management with associated fees garnered ( ie incentive towards quant analysis with an eye towards generating alpha is way down on the agenda ).
An important premise to keep in mind is to hold equity based assets for longest optimal periods. Once in a great while, a switch to duration assets for a short period may occur ( 20% of the time) . https://tinyurl.com/yadh6tsq
Returns after larg(est) quarterly market losses ( of which 4th quarter 2018 was one), accompanied by a cross of the S&P 500 above its long period moving average ( pending ), has had a stellar track record with above average returns produced over future 1, 2, and 5 year cum returns periods: https://imgur.com/a/Eoj26AS
Zwieg signal may or may not have accompanied these post quarterly loss events.

Thanks for the data you presented. I have always been a fan of Ned Davis too. And remember Lowry? As I posted on the other forum I wish I had never even brought up this topic. It somehow degenerated into a discussion on indicators. For Zweig’ latest signals to prove valid and get a 10% return in the next six months would require an S@P in the 2784 to 2842 range. I doubt few here, including me, expect that scenario to unfold. I am rooting for Zweig though if only to validate his observations on the power of out of the ordinary momentum.

FYI: How many multiple points on the S&P 500 are at risk if the populace gets to a place where they no longer believe we are a country of laws – laws that apply to everyone, including the politicians who happen to be in control at a given a moment?
I don’t know the answer, but I guarantee you it’s not zero. It’s a number for sure.
Regards,
Ted
https://thereformedbroker.com/2019/01/11/stock-markets-and-the-rule-of-law-2/