Better than Bitcoin ….. From this week’s Barron’s (11/1)
“Bitcoin investors are probably thrilled with the coin's 50% gains over the past few weeks. But that's nothing compared with the Squid Game token that popped up this past week. Pegged to an online game inspired by the hit Netflix series, the “play to earn” coin rocketed nearly 5,000% over three days, going from 12 cents to $6. It's now worth $475 million, according to CoinMarketCap.”

We did an IRA transfer from Fidelity to Vanguard a year ago that went via ACAT, just as Observant1 described. When I spoke with Vanguard I was told that the medallion guarantee requirement originates with the sending brokerage. If they don't require the guarantee everything can be done electronically. Vanguard specifically commented that they have a good working relationship with Fidelity.
Regarding the hoops Level5 jumped through, the rules are different for employer-sponsored plans. With those plans, the withdrawal must be initiated on the 401k/403(b)/457 side. The assets usually have to be converted to cash. The only exception I have seen, and this is with multiple financial institutions, is that if you're transferring assets between an employer plan and an IRA run by the same institution, e.g. TRP, Fidelity, etc., then the transfer can be in-kind.
Many if not most of these plans today still send the cash only via paper check. The only way I've found around this problem is to use the exception above: transfer assets electronically from plan to a temporary IRA managed by the same institution if possible. Then have your target IRA do a customary electronic pull from the temporary IRA.

Full Episode Oct 30, 2021:

My TDA accounts are grandfathered for a commission rate of just $15 to purchase non-NTF mutual funds such as Dodge and Cox or Vanguard. I'm waiting to see if Schwab honors that rate. (I suspect that I would lose that benefit if I transferred my TDA accounts to Schwab before the integration.)

To move funds from a NY State Deferred Compensation 457 account to an IRA at Vanguard, I had to have the 457 account mail me a check first. Then to expedite the process, I scanned the check and submitted it online to Vanguard. It was then entered into a money market account where I was able to allocate it. A bit clunky from both entities, but it eventually worked out. Still, you would think that the entire process could’ve been done online.

From the article:
"The tables show the stock market as a whole did best when rates were steady, as contrasted with what you might expect, with an average annualized return of 26.73% during four such periods. Surprisingly, it did the worst when rates were falling with an average annualized return of -3.72, and with an average annualized return of 10.89 when rates were rising!"
Equal's - by the time the Fed reacts, raising or lowering, the results have already been generally cooked in.
Implications for Investors
"Right now, even though the Fed is highly likely to quite soon begin phasing out its bond purchases, called quantitative easing, that is not the same as actually raising rates. Since the Fed Chairman has repeatedly stated the Fed is not expected to raise rates until those purchases have ended sometime later next year, we can assume that rates will remain stable until then, as they have been since the last series of cuts ended on March 15, 2020. Given this data and the fact that the overall market has shown to perform best when rates are stable, it appears likely that stocks can do considerably well until then."

reserving the right to reject orders exceeding ...
You were given imprecise information. Fidelity, like most fund sponsors, puts in boilerplate allowing them to reject any purchase, including a purchase via an exchange if they feel it would disrupt the fund. But not sell orders. If they did, the funds would no longer be classified as OEFs.

An open-end fund is required by law to redeem its securities on demand

https://www.sec.gov/rules/proposed/2015/33-9922.pdf
Based on the purchase dollar limit you were given for FCNTX, and the limit that I actually hit on a very new and very small Fidelity fund, it looks like Fidelity sets its fund limits at 0.1% of AUM. (M* shows FCNTX as having $139.5B, or roughly 1,000x the purchase limit.)
Regarding redemption in-kind, Fidelity (or any fund company) would distribute securities owned by the fund. Obviously if the fund were to sell some securities just to purchase other ones to hand you, it might as well hand you the cash since that would be no more disruptive.
As it constitutes 10.65% of the fund's portfolio, I'd expect you to get a ton of FB.
According to the latest semiannual statement, Fidelity Contra redeemed 293,065 FCNKX shares in kind, worth $5,071.454. It does happen.

It remains interesting. Turns out the prospectus, like most, has, or is officially reported to have, vague language about reserving the right to reject orders exceeding yada yada ...
without any figure given, said the rep.
He added that the current limit for FCNTX is $138M or something. (Coincidence that you mentioned it.)
This from the 'back desk', he said.
I was attempting 1/276 of that.
Minor irony is that on yet another day of a rising market, if I had put in my FMSDX order for a dollar under the half-mil, it would have gone through fine even as the actual sale amount would turn out to have been nontrivially >$0.5M.
Now, I am willing to believe that if you were an FAIRX or CGMFX (cheapshot examples) shareholder and sold several millions it might well take some time to settle to you.
I love the line about in-kind --- Fido are going to put a ton of VGIT or BSV into your account in lieu of cash ?
The rep did suggest next time (go, bull, next week!) to call them directly or use chat.fidelity.com ....

I don't believe that funds can outright reject redemption orders (though they can postpone orders as was done in Sept 2001 when the markets were shut down). However, funds can place restrictions that might trigger on large orders. It is easy to imagine that such atypical transactions could not be processed online.
From the prospectus of FCNTX:

payment of redemption proceeds may take longer than the time a fund typically expects and may take up to seven days from the date of receipt of the redemption order as permitted by applicable law.
...
a fund reserves the right to pay part or all of your redemption proceeds in readily marketable securities instead of cash (redemption in-kind). Redemption in-kind proceeds will typically be made by delivering the selected securities to the redeeming shareholder within seven days after the receipt of the redemption order in proper form by a fund.

It would be interesting to know what the stumbling block was.

No deductions. None. And I assume the tax applies to all income. For all taxpayers including businesses, which is the subject of this thread.
So we eliminate the deduction that mutual funds get for passing through their earnings to investors. Make no mistake, that's a deduction that they get now. See IRC 26 USC § 852, that talks about "the deduction for dividends paid", including "capital gain dividends". Mutual funds will be taxed on their earnings.
And we eliminate the IRA deduction. That's an "above the line" deduction rather than an itemized deduction, but a deduction is a deduction. We want to keep things simple. Obviously HSA, FSA, 401k deductions, and so forth also get tossed.
And income is income, no special cases there either. In the above cited 26 USC § 852 is §852(b)(6). That excludes certain sales of appreciated property from being counted as income. Of course that special treatment has to go in pursuit of simplicity and fairness. That's the exclusion that enables ETFs to spin off capital gains without them being taxed. So now we tax the ETF in-kind transactions like all other income.
Regarding the suggested tax regimen generally, Milton Friedman was more considerate of the poor. In 1962 he proposed what he called a negative income tax. The amount paid on zero income would be negative, and taxes increased (at a flat rate) as one's income increased.
https://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/23/business/23scene.html
https://mitsloan.mit.edu/ideas-made-to-matter/negative-income-tax-explained

15% on all forms for income (wages, cap gains, rents, interest, etc.) with zero deductions. None. Give every person (including corporations) a $25,000 personal exemption. This would mean a family of four wouldn't start paying taxes until they hit $100,000. Very easy - just pay at the window.
rono

Nice. I would add a deduction (childcare credit for working parents) or stay at home credit for parents with kids under 5 years of age. If you choose to stay home, a credit. SS and Medicare deductions worked into that credit to recognize that staying at home raising kids is a job. Stay at home requirement - both the child and the parent participant in Pre-K /Adult Training offered in the same facility.
Corporations and small businesses offer a paid / government supported entry level work program for graduating parents. This offers offers full-time pay of $50K / year.
Which leads me to the question of how do we get a handle the welfare side of government programs? Can this be simplified as well?

Howdy folks,
Right now, the dems are imploding in DC proving the adage, that the democrats are stupid and the republicans are mean. Being a 3rd term elected republican, I take it further to state that most republicans are dirty old white men who are racist sexist religinazi creeps that should even be allowed in public off leash and without a handler.
As for taxes, rono rolls out his solution. 15% on all forms for income (wages, cap gains, rents, interest, etc.) with zero deductions. None. Give every person (including corporations) a $25,000 personal exemption. This would mean a family of four wouldn't start paying taxes until they hit $100,000. Very easy - just pay at the window.
and so it goes,
peace and keep wearing the damn mask,
rono

According to M*, HSGFX has $365.7 Mil in assets.
I wonder why investors have stuck with this dog?
This reminds me of the Steadman Fund family.
Pundits have labeled several Steadman funds as the worst of all time.
"You might wonder why anyone would even consider investing in funds operated in such a manner and with such draconian performance. The answer is that they didn’t. From 1988 until 1998 the fund did not acquire any new investors. But many current investors simply failed to sell, which enabled Steadman and his family to continue to milk the funds as a source of income for themselves. While some investors presumably stopped paying attention, a large number actually died while holding the fund. The L.A. Times stated that by 1998 fully 40% of the accounts had been legally abandoned. One can only speculate as to whether or not the funds’ performance had any hand in their demise."
Link

Fido must be monitoring this board because when I went to buy BGHAX there, I noticed the 3.5% load. BGHAX is ntf at Vanguard with a 1,000 minimum so I bought it there before Vanguard changes their mind too !

LMZIX is (pardon the redundancy) BrandywineGlobal Global High Yield, as opposed to BGHSX, BrandwineGlobal High Yield without the global in the fund name. Two different funds.
Fidelity charges nothing to sell TF funds. However, as Crash noted, BGHIX has got a $1M min at Fidelity and everywhere else I've looked. If you can spring for a $1M investment, I don't think you'll blink at a $49.95 TF when buying.
BGHAX is NTF with a low minimum at several brokerages, but not at Fidelity.
On a test trade: "A sales charge of up to 3.50% may apply."
https://fundresearch.fidelity.com/mutual-funds/summary/52472T734

BGHAX available ntf at Fido, $2500 minimum.

This 21 year old fund’s a former board favorite. John Hussman’s writings were often displayed and discussed. Real looser of a fund however. You’d have made less than a half-percent annually had you bought the fund when it opened 21 years ago.
I owned the fund for a year or so and sold it probably 15 years ago. But can’t stop from tracking it and hoping this seemingly gifted financial analyst and writer could somehow turn his floundering fund around. HSGFX got off to a good start this year and everything looked promising. But the fund’s been in a nose-dive now for several weeks. Today’s negative 0.49% return puts the fund into negative territory YTD.
I can sympathize with him if he thinks the markets are overvalued and has pulled back./ gotten defensive. I happen to agree with that prognosis. But, managing a fund like this is “big league” stuff. More is expected.
HSGFX
ER 1.23%
Early Redemption Fee 1.50%
Lipper Link
Chart

OSTIX, Osterweis Strategic Income (TF at most brokerage houses)…..or ZEOIX, Zeo Short Duration Income (also TF). Also RiverPark has RSIVX…somewhat longer duration than RPHYX, but performing relatively well this year it seems.
Honestly, if you’re ok with courting risk, IOFIX is as steady as they come (the once-in-a-decade, plus, COVID crash notwithstanding….). 4-5% yield and it generally goes up or stays flat most days. I know it’s not high yield! Don’t kill me for suggesting it haha.