On Fidelity Women's Leadership: the idea of favoring teams with more diversity senior leadership teams actually makes financial sense. "There's substantial evidence that gender diversity at the management level enhances a company's performance" (CNBC, 2018). The three gender-screened funds that I know of (Pax, Glenmede and a SPDR) all have above-average returns.
The problem is pinning down exactly why that's the case since knowing how gender diversity contributes to the bottom line helps understand what sorts of things to screen for. So my skepticism is more aimed at "any one woman in 'senior leadership' is good enough for us" as a screening criterion.
David

Hi, hmgodwin.
The Lipper database. Following your question, I checked Morningstar and found an odd report (cash= 37% long - 24% short, net 13% currently) and the normal fund material doesn't disclose it. I've written to Mike Roos at Artisan to see if he can help.
More soon,
David

The enthusiasm of many people for individual bonds, especially regarding safety, continues to fascinate.
Ted "want[s] a reasonable risk free portfolio." Yet the individual bond portion of his portfolio contains one solitary bond. a junk bond (Moody's B3) at that.
There's no question that one can hold junk in a lower risk portfolio, if one adequately diversifies. What I've read suggests that to diversify a collection of taxable bonds one should start with at least $100K (see, e.g. this Money column or this Balance piece advising six-figure portfolios). That's so that you can hold more than a small smattering of bonds.
In contrast to Ted's single bond, johnN diversifies his bond portfolio:"I am 45 yo but have about 20 or 25 % of portfolios in private corp bonds." Still his apparent support for Ted's particular bond is puzzling: "Ted gave a great example hzt Corp grading is bad but the cusip has many etf and funds holding the Corp bond."
John's comfort zone is primarily investment grade. "I usually buy bbb- bonds or higher (sometimes bb+ too)". Ted's bond, rated b- (B3) is not only below investment grade, it is significantly below John's bb+ threshold for junk bond dabbling. This is supposed to be mitigated by setting email alerts on "hertz bankruptcy", thus enabling him to deal with "anything fishy".
But this hope is undercut by his observation that most of these HTZ bonds are owned by etfs and funds. Those funds are run by professionals who have faster access than email to information, better tools, and whose sole job it is to monitor securities. An individual investor is not going to outrace them should the bond value collapse.
Often when a bond defaults, bondholders get back a good chunk of their investment. But with HTZ, even a small amount of diligent research reveals something different. Should the company go into bankruptcy or be unable to meet its obligations, bond holders here may not recover a dime.
From the latest (FY 2018) 10K: "Substantially all of our consolidated assets secure certain of our outstanding indebtedness, which could materially adversely affect our debt and equity holders and our business."
If you're just starting out investing in individual bonds, here's a worthwhile column
entitled The Harsh Realities of Individual Bond Investing
http://rpgplanner.com/individual-bonds/
The author's recommended starting portfolio size is seven figures. That is probably much higher than necessary for diversification, but he's also addressing spread. I've done okay investing in individual munis, but I never sell because the spread. I'm not categorically against investing in individual bonds. You just need to really understand what you're getting into.

They're two different share classes of the same fund. That means they both represent ownership of the same underlying portfolio (fund). It's just that they're sold to different types of investors and they have different annual expenses (expense ratios).
VBMFX costs 0.15%/year (expense ratio, or ER), while VBTIX's expense ratio is 0.04%. Neither share class is open to retail investors.
You could buy VBTLX shares, with a $3K minimum investment and a 0.05% expense ratio. You could also buy the same fund through a brokerage by purchasing BND (an ETF share class of the same fund) with an expense ratio scheduled to drop to 0.035% (according to Barron's).

Hi @MikeM:
Thanks for making comment.
It all boils down to managing risk. The type of fund you reference was not around back in the 80's when I began to invest family money via the sleeve system. With this, I've kept my system in place. And, yes I enjoy it. Plus, I beleive that it puts more coins in my pocket over a more simple strategy. And, agreed ... it is probally not suited for the average retail investor. However, in my system if a fund falters there are others within the sleeve that can continue to propel the sleeve. Thus it diversifies manager, strategy and fund risk and spreads it over many.
My high school buddy who by profession was a successful engineer today uses one bond fund and one equity fund and rebalances between a 40%/60% allocation based upon his read of the markets. At times, his performance leads mine and at time mine leads his. He has to sell securites to meet his withdrawal distribution needs while I do not as my portfolio generates the necessary income to meet distribution needs plus leaving some for future investment purposes. Both portfolio's are about the same size and distributions needs are about the same. His portfolio has a yield of about 2.1% while mine is about 3.2% plus both portfolios produce fund capital gain distributions which I take in cash and which he reinvest all fund distributions. I have suggested, to him, that he take all fund distributions in cash and stop the automatic reinvestment process since he is now in the distribution phase of investing.
It all boils down to what works best for each of us as being the best route for each one of us to travel.
I wish you continued "Good Investing" in the years to come.
Skeet

“The consolidated master portfolio is comprised of two taxable investment accounts, two self directed retirement accounts, a health savings account plus two bank savings accounts.”
- That’s a lot of accounts. Since you view them as a “consolidated master portfolio”, what you share with the board about allocations pertains to the overall big picture I would assume. Provided you’re comfortable with your health savings account having the same market risk as your retirement accounts, etc. that looks workable.
- I suspect there may be limitations within some of those different accounts as to which funds you may own. That would tend to increase your total number of funds.
- Since these accounts comprise a consolidated portfolio, it would seem impossible to maintain each of those separate accounts with the same proportion of assets at all times. The only way to do that would be to sell / buy equal percentages for each of the different accounts every time your allocation changes.
- Bank accounts should not increase the number of funds held. With my insured bank or credit union accounts I simply combine them all together under one category as “cash”. While they affect the allocation, they don’t contribute to the number of funds owned.
Thanks for the response and additional insights Ol’Skeet.
My own portfolio: 4 converted Roths, 1 Traditional IRA, and non-sheltered cash holdings. For simplicity I treat the various accounts as one “ball of wax”. I might try to position the Roths a bit differently - but generally don’t bother to keep them separate for allocation purposes. In a couple instances I hold the same fund in both a Traditional and Roth.

"The tax reform law of 2017 eliminated many deductions, including those for charitable contributions."
No, and that's the point. Charitable contributions are still deductible, though because of a higher standard deduction you're less likely to benefit from itemizing them. Hence an increased value in using DAFs. As the article later explains: "A donor-advised fund allows benefactors to group donations into one contribution that would make it worthwhile to itemize one year versus taking the standard deduction."
Rather than eliminate charitable deductions, the tax law actually expanded them. You're now allowed to deduct up to 60% of AGI for cash contributions; previously you were limited to 50%.
BTW, for those over 70.5, QCDs (qualified charitable deductions) are another way to get around the "problem" of higher standard deductions.
"Unlike a private foundation, gifts from a donor-advised fund are anonymous."
Anonymity is merely permitted, not required. As the article goes on to say: "But in a statement, Schwab Charitable said approximately 97% of grants from its accounts include donor names."
The only potential regulation explicitly mentioned in the article is to close a tax loophole. When you donate directly to a charity, you get a deduction only to the extent that you did not receive something of value. When you contribute to a DAF, you get a 100% deduction. So you shouldn't receive anything of value when the DAF passes that money on to your designated charity. How can this be enforced?
Not mentioned as a target for additional regulation is the discretion that DAFs exercise in deciding what organizations can receive money from them. Some DAFs may give money to any organization that the IRS recognizes as a 501(c)(3) nonprofit. Others may prohibit money from going to what they consider dubious organizations; if so those DAFs should make this clear up front.
This is what connects the dots back to anonymous contributions mentioned in the article.
https://www.phillymag.com/news/2019/02/25/vanguard-charitable-splc-hate-groups/

My thinking is that if you can't manage what you have then you've got to many funds. Being a prior corporate credit manager for a regional distribution company I had to have a receivable system in place to manage a fairly large customer base. This skill set lead to my development of my sleeve management system to better manage my family's investments. Through the years it has worked fairly well. You can read more about this below.
Sleeve Management System ... Last Revised on 03/01/2019
Now being in retirement here is a brief description of my sleeve management system which I organized to better manage the investments held within mine and my wife's portfolios. The consolidated master portfolio is comprised of two taxable investment accounts, two self directed retirement accounts, a health savings account plus two bank savings accounts. With this, I came up with four investment areas. They are a cash area which consist of two sleeves ... an investment cash sleeve and a demand cash sleeve. The next area is the income area which consist of two sleeves ... a fixed income sleeve and a hybrid income sleeve. Then there is the growth & income area which has more risk associated with it than the income area and it consist of four sleeves ... a global equity sleeve, a global hybrid sleeve, a domestic equity sleeve and a domestic hybrid sleeve. And, then there is the growth area where the most risk in the portfolio is found and it consist of five sleeves ... a global growth sleeve, a large/mid cap sleeve, a small/mid cap sleeve, a specialty/theme sleeve plus a special investment (spiff) sleeve. Each sleeve (in most cases) consist of three to nine funds with the size and weight of each sleeve can easily be adjusted, from time-to-time, by adjusting the number of funds held along with their amounts. By using the sleeve system I can get a better picture of my overall investment landscape. I have found it beneficial to Xray each fund, each sleeve, each investment area, and the portfolio as a whole quarterly for analysis. My positions and sleeves can be adjusted from time-to-time as to how I might be reading the markets through using my market barometer and equity weighting matrix system. The matrix system is driven by the barometer. All my funds with the exception of those in my health savings account pay their distributions to the cash area of the portfolio. This automatically builds cash in the cash area to meet the portfolio's disbursements (when necessary) with the residual being left for new investment opportunity. Generally, in any one year, I take no more than a sum equal to one half of my portfolio's five year average return. In this way principal builds over time. In addition, most buy/sell transactions settle from, or to, the cash area with some net asset exchanges between funds taking place. In addition, my rebalance threshold is + (or -) 2% from my target allocation for both my income, growth & income and growth areas while I generally let cash float.
Consolidated Master Portfolio
Here is how I have my asset allocation broken out in percent ranges, by area. My neutral allocation weightings follow. They are cash area 15%, income area 35%, growth & income area 35% and growth & other asset area 15%. I do an Instant Xray analysis of the portfolio quarterly and make asset weighting adjustments as I feel warranted based upon my assessment of the market, my risk tolerance, cash needs, etc. I have the portfolio set up in Morningstar's portfolio manager by sleeve, by area and the portfolio as a whole for easy monitoring plus I use brokerage account statements, Morningstar fund reports, fund fact sheets along with their annual reports to follow my investments. I also maintain a list of positions to add (A) to, to buy (B), to reduce (R) or to sell (S). Generally, funds are assigned to a sleeve based upon a best fit basis.
Currently, my INVESTMENT FOCUS is to increase my portfolio's income stream through positioning new money into income generating assets while letting equities run on the high side to their upper threshold limit.
Target Asset Allocation (Balanced Towards Income): Cash 20%, Income 40%, G&I 30% & Growth 10%
Consolidated Master Portfolio Asset Allocation: Cash 16%, Income 39%, G&I 32% & Growth 13%
Rebalance Action Needed: Decrease Growth Area 1% and Increase Income Area 1%
CASH AREA: (Weighting Range 10% to 20%)
Demand Cash Sleeve ... Cash Distribution Accrual & Future Investment Accrual
Investment Cash Sleeve ... Money Market Funds: AMAXX, GBAXX, DTGXX, PCOXX, CD Ladder(A) &
Cash Savings(A)
INCOME AREA: (Weighting Range 30% to 40%)
Fixed Income Sleeve: CTFAX(A), GIFAX, LBNDX(A), NEFZX, PONAX(A) & TSIAX
Hybrid Income Sleeve: APIUX, AZNAX, BAICX, DIFAX(A), FISCX(A), FKINX, ISFAX(A), JNBAX, PGBAX & PMAIX
GROWTH & INCOME AREA: (Weighting Range 30% to 40%)
Global Equity Sleeve: CWGIX, DEQAX, DWGAX & EADIX(A)
Global Hybrid Sleeve: CAIBX, TEQIX & TIBAX
Domestic Equity Sleeve: ANCFX, FDSAX, INUTX(A) & SVAAX
Domestic Hybrid Sleeve: ABALX, AMECX, FBLAX, FRINX(A), HWIAX & LABFX
GROWTH & OTHER ASSET AREA: (Weighting Range 10% to 20%)
Large/Mid Cap Sleeve: AGTHX, AMCPX & SPECX
Small/Mid Cap Sleeve: AOFAX, NDVAX & PMDAX
Global Growth Sleeve: ANWPX, NEWFX & SMCWX
Miscellaneous, Specialty & Theme Sleeve: LPEFX, PCLAX & PGUAX
Ballast & Spiff Sleeve: No position held at this time.
A credit manager's belief is that there are safety in numbers so spread the risk and limit how much any one account class can have on open credit. And, for those with a bad debt write off history ... it's CIA (cash in advance).

https://www.google.com/search?q=corporate+bond+default+rates+historical&oq=corporate+bonds+rates+defau&aqs=heirloom-srp.1.0l5
Www.moodys.com - sign up and acct registration free to look at muni bonds previous history
Also call Vanguard bond desk ask sale rep for history of bond cusip before buying ask them. About red flags about missed payments and any potential issues before buying

@shipwreckandalone
https://www.google.com/search?q=Google+book+invest+bond&oq=Google+book+invest+bond&gs_l=mobile-heirloom-serp.12...4360.13206.0.14009.24.19.0.5.5.0.183.2441.1j18.19.0....0...1c.1.34.mobile-heirloom-serp..9.15.1486.jbvUOXro7Kk
Hi sir/mam
Not Ted but investing in private corp/muni bonds for quite while
I usually buy bbb- bonds or higher (sometimes bb+ too) do diligence resreach s on cusip before buying. Check company data sheets and devaluation ovtime if companies high risks for default. Google the cusip and if several etf or funds hold the bond you know that bond maybe good to buy
If you do it for a few years you will get 'hangs of things'
Read at least 3 or 4 books about bonds before buying... At least this is what I did
Best thing about buying private Corp or muni bonds you don't have pay annual fees and you can sell Anytime.
Ted gave a great example hzt Corp grading is bad but the cusip has many etf and funds holding the Corp bond. I also set up a junk Gmail account and place google.com/alerts w 'hertz bankruptcy' title search engine to that Gmail acct. You will get tone junk emails and you will know quickly if you need sell bond or not if any fishy comes up.
I buy Corp or munis bonds from Vanguard Merrill edge or schwab. Schwab has Corp very safe all bbb- or higher and Vanguard has many bonds include high risks defaults bonds (I tend to stay away from those)
You can do diligence research w/company evaluations w schwab research (probably one of best research engines in market stick research) before buying bonds...
You may consider buying just few bonds and see how they do at first.
Most bonds take at least 1k to 5k to 10k to buy (plus 10 or 20dollars commissions one time fees) . Some good corp bond you think may never bankrup (one time I found) has at least 250k to buy - I could never touch this bond not enough $$ lol. Great bout bonds u never worry about additional fees., good hedge to put in Corp bonds instead of cash, and if u choose safe Corp bonds you maybe sleeping better at night not too much worrying.
One question I always ask myself is 'is it better to buy 10k of Att Corp bond which yield for 6%over 10or 20+ years or buy Sp500 etf which you will never know yields but risks higher... So the simple answer maybe owing both and owe both vehicles.. You know ATT CORP will never bankrup do its like having cash
I am 45 yo but have about 20 or 25 %of portfolios in private corp bonds
Worst thing about corporate individuals bonds are you have to pay capital income taxation to irs and every year you will have to Pay because if Sp500 went down by 20% you do always make 6% from att coupons rate yield
I had total 3 or 4 defaults bonds and loose all $$capital on the bonds in 2009 and 2010 - I did not know much back then and was too greedy bought b graded bond (which is very badly graded was yield 20%annually)... These bonds belly up over next few yrs and loose all $$... Credit crisis years so lots small companies went out business
I never buy private reasury bonds Yields so low plus I have 401k at work and part of my portfolio has Treasury automatic placed in it already
Good luck

FYI: An increasingly popular way to make charitable donations while maintaining the tax benefits of philanthropy could face greater regulatory scrutiny.
The tax reform law of 2017 eliminated many deductions, including those for charitable contributions, while increasing the standard deduction to $24,000 for couples. In response, so-called donor-advised funds have become a hit.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.google.com/search?source=hp&ei=6KR7XOvtPKC6jwTt-5moAg&q=As+donor-advised+funds+grow+in+popularity,+they+may+draw+more+scrutiny&btnK=Google+Search&oq=As+donor-advised+funds+grow+in+popularity,+they+may+draw+more+scrutiny&gs_l=psy-ab.3...3017.3017..4082...0.0..0.79.152.2......0....2j1..gws-wiz.....0.dyZBZxFgkjw

Hi guys: As @hank noted ... Here is how Old_Skeet rolls and manages a consolidated portfolio of 49 funds. My thinking is that if you can't manage what you have then you've got to many funds. Being a prior corporate credit manager for a regional distribution company I had to have a receivable system in place to manage a fairly large customer base. Thus, I developed my sleeve management system to help manage my family's investments. Through the years it has worked fairly well. You can read more about this below.
Sleeve Management System ... Last Revised on 03/01/2019
Now being in retirement here is a brief description of my sleeve management system which I organized to better manage the investments held within mine and my wife's portfolios. The consolidated master portfolio is comprised of two taxable investment accounts, two self directed retirement accounts, a health savings account plus two bank savings accounts. With this, I came up with four investment areas. They are a cash area which consist of two sleeves ... an investment cash sleeve and a demand cash sleeve. The next area is the income area which consist of two sleeves ... a fixed income sleeve and a hybrid income sleeve. Then there is the growth & income area which has more risk associated with it than the income area and it consist of four sleeves ... a global equity sleeve, a global hybrid sleeve, a domestic equity sleeve and a domestic hybrid sleeve. And, then there is the growth area where the most risk in the portfolio is found and it consist of five sleeves ... a global growth sleeve, a large/mid cap sleeve, a small/mid cap sleeve, a specialty/theme sleeve plus a special investment (spiff) sleeve. Each sleeve (in most cases) consist of three to twelve funds with the size and weight of each sleeve can easily be adjusted, from time-to-time, by adjusting the number of funds held along with their amounts. By using the sleeve system I can get a better picture of my overall investment landscape. I have found it beneficial to Xray each fund, each sleeve, each investment area, and the portfolio as a whole quarterly for analysis. My positions and sleeves can be adjusted from time-to-time as to how I might be reading the markets through using my market barometer and equity weighting matrix system. The matrix system is driven by the barometer. All my funds with the exception of those in my health savings account pay their distributions to the cash area of the portfolio. This automatically builds cash in the cash area to meet the portfolio's disbursements (when necessary) with the residual being left for new investment opportunity. Generally, in any one year, I take no more than a sum equal to one half of my portfolio's five year average return. In this way principal builds over time. In addition, most buy/sell transactions settle from, or to, the cash area with some net asset exchanges between funds taking place. In addition, my rebalance threshold is + (or -) 2% from my target allocation for both my income, growth & income and growth areas while I generally let cash float.
Consolidated Master Portfolio
Here is how I have my asset allocation broken out in percent ranges, by area. My neutral allocation weightings follow. They are cash area 15%, income area 35%, growth & income area 35% and growth & other asset area 15%. I do an Instant Xray analysis of the portfolio quarterly and make asset weighting adjustments as I feel warranted based upon my assessment of the market, my risk tolerance, cash needs, etc. I have the portfolio set up in Morningstar's portfolio manager by sleeve, by area and the portfolio as a whole for easy monitoring plus I use brokerage account statements, Morningstar fund reports, fund fact sheets along with their annual reports to follow my investments. I also maintain a list of positions to add (A) to, to buy (B), to reduce (R) or to sell (S). Generally, funds are assigned to a sleeve based upon a best fit basis.
Currently, my INVESTMENT FOCUS is to increase my portfolio's income stream through positioning new money into income generating assets while letting equities run on the high side to their upper threshold limit.
Target Asset Allocation (Balanced Towards Income): Cash 20%, Income 40%, G&I 30% & Growth 10%
Consolidated Master Portfolio Asset Allocation: Cash 16%, Income 39%, G&I 32% & Growth 13%
Rebalance Action Needed: Decrease Growth Area 1% and Increase Income Area 1%
CASH AREA: (Weighting Range 10% to 20%)
Demand Cash Sleeve ... Cash Distribution Accrual & Future Investment Accrual
Investment Cash Sleeve ... Money Market Funds: AMAXX, GBAXX, DTGXX, PCOXX, CD Ladder(A) &
Cash Savings(A)
INCOME AREA: (Weighting Range 30% to 40%)
Fixed Income Sleeve: CTFAX(A), GIFAX, LBNDX(A), NEFZX, PONAX(A) & TSIAX
Hybrid Income Sleeve: APIUX, AZNAX, BAICX, DIFAX(A), FISCX(A), FKINX, ISFAX(A), JNBAX, PGBAX & PMAIX
GROWTH & INCOME AREA: (Weighting Range 30% to 40%)
Global Equity Sleeve: CWGIX, DEQAX, DWGAX & EADIX(A)
Global Hybrid Sleeve: CAIBX, TEQIX & TIBAX
Domestic Equity Sleeve: ANCFX, FDSAX, INUTX(A) & SVAAX
Domestic Hybrid Sleeve: ABALX, AMECX, FBLAX, FRINX(A), HWIAX & LABFX
GROWTH & OTHER ASSET AREA: (Weighting Range 10% to 20%)
Large/Mid Cap Sleeve: AGTHX, AMCPX & SPECX
Small/Mid Cap Sleeve: AOFAX, NDVAX & PMDAX
Global Growth Sleeve: ANWPX, NEWFX & SMCWX
Miscellaneous, Specialty & Theme Sleeve: LPEFX, PCLAX & PGUAX
Ballast & Spiff Sleeve: No position held at this time.

"Around this time last year ... the Republican agenda was intact."
@Ted - you put this in play
The article continues ... "All that changed in the last three months of the year.   ...[Elaine Stokes] says 'We went from a Republican-led agenda to a mixed Congress with stalemate situations '"
What was that agenda that became stalemated only after September? Serious question. I get nervous when managers let their politics drive their investing.
According to National Review (Jan 2018),

At the White House, infrastructure is the big idea. ...
Speaker of the House Paul Ryan keeps talking up welfare reform: ... He also says that reform of Medicare and Social Security is on his wish list, although he does not see it happening this year.
Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell, meanwhile, says action on welfare is unlikely but suggests that bipartisan legislation on immigration and financial regulation might be possible.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/01/worthwhile-republican-agenda-2018/
That was January. In April, CNBC's headline was: Trump keeps calling for major legislation, but Congress isn't listening – especially with midterms coming.
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/04/03/trump-congress-dont-expect-big-legislation-in-2018.html
It's one thing to have hopes (of whatever political persuasion), it's another for a fund manager to look at a 2018 Congress that was dysfunctional and believe that only now has it become stalemated.
Especially since much of the major 2018 legislation was bipartisan, e.g. sanctioning of Russia, criminal justice reform, opioid crisis response act. Not to mention the farm bill that passed with wide support once a provision to restrict food stamps was pulled out.
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/01/25/a-productivity-scorecard-for-115th-congress/

I have 5 regular funds and 6 ETFs, and a very conservative AA at 35/65.
I am spread across the global equity market and the domestic bond market (no long term and no junk) with maybe 10% in foreign bonds. I could dump 3-4-5 of the funds and still be as diversified, and still maintain my AA.
But everything is working so I'll just leave it alone.

FYI: A reader recently raised an important question: Does an investor really need to own a lot of funds, or, can one still expect to obtain good results with a much more limited number of funds, or perhaps, even with as few as one? More specifically, it seems, he was indirectly questioning the need in my last Model Portfolios (Oct. '18) for so many funds (15 stock funds and 11 bond funds to be exact). Even my new "Recommended" stock and bond fund listings (see below), which now replace my Model Portfolios, now show 20 funds altogether.
Great question! Let's be honest - it would be highly difficult, and most likely unneccesary, for most investors to acquire each and every one of my recommended funds. (Even I don't own all 26 of the Oct. '18 funds, although I do own all of the 20 funds listed below. By way of explanation, I have been at this for more than 2 decades and once I find a fund I am satisfied with, I rarely close it out, thus leading to perhaps too many funds - yes, I admit it.)
Regards,
Ted
http://funds-newsletter.com/mar19-newsletter/mar19_new.htm

@ted https://bucknerbusinessdaily.com/hertz-global-holdings-inc-htz-mf-rank-tolls-higher-to-3602/366134/

FYI: I'm very happy being out of the market, although I must admit its hard not to be trading !
Regards,
Ted
74.82%: 4 CD (3-6-9-12 Months)
18.41%: Funds (PONCX 12.37% - MVRXX 6.04%
6.74%: 50 Hertz 7.375% 1/15/21 Bonds
03%: Cash ( Morgan Stanley Bank Account)

“Fidelity Women’s Leadership Fund will seek long-term growth of capital. The plan is to “invest primarily in equity securities of companies that prioritize and advance women’s leadership and development.” One woman on the senior management team qualifies a stock for inclusion, as does having one-third of the board be women or, more generally, having policies designed to attract, retain and promote women. ... The fund will be managed by Nicole Connolly.” (from David’s commentary.)
Are we at the point in society where it matters which gender your CEO or fund manager is? There are of course many other dubious “leadership” categories based on individual traits like race, nationality, political affiliation, age, religion or athleticism that might become the basis for a new fund. Some investors, for instance, might like a “Big 10” fund (invests only in companies headed by guys who’ve sustained brain injury on the gridiron).

I have a question as to how/where David got his numbers for the cash holdings for funds in 15/15 funds update piece? In my research, the Artisan Thematic fund doesn't have 30% in cash but instead less than 10% and the FMI International doesn't have 59% in cash.

Translation: "If you're annoyed by these fees, just buy OUR funds!"
What a lame non-response response by Fido.

From Fidelity Monitor & Insight:
"As we went to press, The Wall St. Journal is reporting that an“obscure fee” charged by Fidelity to third-party fund companies for the right to distribute their offerings on Fidelity’s Funds Network platform, has caught the attention of federal regulators. Of central concern is whether a purported fee of 0.15% is being absorbed by the
fund companies themselves, or if it’s being passed to fund shareholders in the form of higher, undisclosed fees. Note: This matter does not affect Fidelity funds. "